• zurohki@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s not vaporware, it’s anti-EV FUD.

    Don’t buy one of those EVs, we’re going to have much better EVs really soon now and you’ll be stuck with something inferior. Same with their talk about hydrogen: EVs are just a fad, hydrogen is the future! … and it’ll be viable real soon now, so stick with gasoline until then!

    Toyota is constantly in the news about battery advancements or hydrogen because it’s defensive FUD to protect their fossil fuel vehicle sales.

    • Acters@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah this type of news makes people think current EVs are not enough and need to stick with gas. The realistic approach would be to be relying on consistent charging network that people can plug into for long periods of time and there needs to be more than two chargers per location. Yet right now people don’t realize the necessary infrastructure upgrades to make our live more green and viable.

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Current EVs are not enough. Charging the car for long periods of time each day is out of the question for most of the people in my city.

        Also, bullshit on the “more green and viable”. Getting rid of cars altogether does that. Not switching to EVs. It’s a badaid solution.

    • shottymcb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They’re also funding a liquid anhydrous ammonia powered car, as if hydrogen wasn’t a terrible enough idea, let’s power a car with an incredibly toxic chemical that has to be stored cryogenically or under pressure. What could go wrong?

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let’s power a car with a battery that burns so hot and so persistently, that piercing said battery caused firefighters not to bother with extinguishing the car at all.

        Let’s power a car with a fuel refined from oil extracted at the cost to the environment. Burning it will also cause excessive emissions. Also it will be extremely volatile so the infrastructure to move the fuel and refuel the vehicle will need to be monitored at every point, and it requires fuel to be cooled down to very low temps when it’s hot outside.

        Let’s power a car with natural gas. It’s an incredibly toxic chemical that needs to be stored under pressure. It also makes it so you can’t park in underground parking since it malfunctioning can lead to people suffocating, or an entire building exploding.

        You can always make something sound bad.

          • thanksforallthefish
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Easy.

            Inherently unstable vehicles that can crash on minor surface imperfections or naturally occurring phenomena (leaves, ice) causing injury or death. There is no comprehensive licencing regimes or safety inspections so any child can be on one of these deathtraps risking injury or death at any moment.