Toyota Details Six New electric cars Models Launching for 2020–2025

[HappyJoy]

OMG, it's literally just theater now.

 

[imawhosure]

Yeah, they take a little bit of time, but so much cheaper and they are coming out with faster chargers all the time.

Car companies can say anything they want. What they actually do, or produce in 2025 will still be mostly internal combustion cars. Of course they will virtue signal to those that think EV's are "Green" and crow about producing whatever, but they know gasoline, and diesel are what powers motor vehicles, and fossil fuels powers the world, and will power the world for a long time in the future.

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Lol
You bleeding hearts want to force your shit on everybody, when are you going to realize what you’re selling is not what normal people are buying.

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Lol
You bleeding hearts want to force your shit on everybody, when are you going to realize what you’re selling is not what normal people are buying.

I literally just walked away from a pointless debate and now I'm forcing shit on everybody? OK. You're a whack job.

P.S. And oh by the way----------->of course Toyamayoty is going to develop electric vehicles, smart on them.

Why?

Because Japan has no oil, they live on little bitty-teenie-weeny little islands, and can sell their CAPTIVE consumers these vehicles, no problem...….which will subsidize their development for export.

I am sure the TOYAMAYOTY people are thinking------>hey, maybe the dumb Leftists will WIN, and America will be forced to buy our Japanese Jalopys, that nobody wants with an electric engine-)

Sounds like a good corporate plan to me. Either way, they win, they just win more if Leftists get in power!

 

[HappyJoy]

Pretty sure Toyota and other car makers are interested in making cars people will actually want to buy. But that's just the crazy non-conspiracist in me.

 

[Rustic]

Pretty sure Toyota and other car makers are interested in making cars people will actually want to buy. But that's just the crazy non-conspiracist in me.

That’s why an “all of the above” energy policy is best, fossil fuels, renewables. Let people choose what they want…

 

[HappyJoy]

Pretty sure Toyota and other car makers are interested in making cars people will actually want to buy. But that's just the crazy non-conspiracist in me.

That’s why an “all of the above” energy policy is best, fossil fuels, renewables. Let people choose what they want…

Like wood burning and nuclear, sounds great.

 

[Rustic]

Pretty sure Toyota and other car makers are interested in making cars people will actually want to buy. But that's just the crazy non-conspiracist in me.

That’s why an “all of the above” energy policy is best, fossil fuels, renewables. Let people choose what they want…

Like wood burning and nuclear, sounds great.

Yes, There is no reason to limit energy to one source

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You better put those stations at bars because you’re going to be there for a long time. Changing batteries will kill all future improvements to them so that isn’t an option.

Yeah, they take a little bit of time, but so much cheaper and they are coming out with faster chargers all the time.

Car companies can say anything they want. What they actually do, or produce in 2025 will still be mostly internal combustion cars. Of course they will virtue signal to those that think EV's are "Green" and crow about producing whatever, but they know gasoline, and diesel are what powers motor vehicles, and fossil fuels powers the world, and will power the world for a long time in the future.

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Things like anything more than two genders? That kind?

 

[HappyJoy]

Pretty sure Toyota and other car makers are interested in making cars people will actually want to buy. But that's just the crazy non-conspiracist in me.

That’s why an “all of the above” energy policy is best, fossil fuels, renewables. Let people choose what they want…

Like wood burning and nuclear, sounds great.

Yes, There is no reason to limit energy to one source

Ok, well have fun with that.

 

[Rustic]

Pretty sure Toyota and other car makers are interested in making cars people will actually want to buy. But that's just the crazy non-conspiracist in me.

That’s why an “all of the above” energy policy is best, fossil fuels, renewables. Let people choose what they want…

Like wood burning and nuclear, sounds great.

Yes, There is no reason to limit energy to one source

Ok, well have fun with that.

Lol

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, they take a little bit of time, but so much cheaper and they are coming out with faster chargers all the time.

Car companies can say anything they want. What they actually do, or produce in 2025 will still be mostly internal combustion cars. Of course they will virtue signal to those that think EV's are "Green" and crow about producing whatever, but they know gasoline, and diesel are what powers motor vehicles, and fossil fuels powers the world, and will power the world for a long time in the future.

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Things like anything more than two genders? That kind?

Considering gender is a social construct not based necessarily on anatomy. I'm sure it bothers you greatly and I enjoy that.

 

[Rustic]

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Things like anything more than two genders? That kind?

Considering gender is a social construct not based necessarily on anatomy. I'm sure it bothers you greatly and I enjoy that.

Lol
Only a fucking retard would believe there is any more than two genders, Science denier....

 

[BluesLegend]

Source: BBC News

Study by: Norwegian University of Science and Technology

1. Electric car factories also emitted more toxic waste than conventional car factories
2. The production phase of electric vehicles proved substantially more environmentally intensive
3. The global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles."
4. Producing batteries and electric motors requires a lot of toxic minerals
5. Analysis including potential for effects related to acid rain, airborne particulate matter, smog, human toxicity, ecosystem toxicity and depletion of fossil fuel and mineral resources, electric vehicles consistently perform worse or on par with modern internal combustion engine vehicles. Despite virtually zero direct emissions during operation these cars have already polluted a great deal by the time they hit the road

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Things like anything more than two genders? That kind?

Considering gender is a social construct not based necessarily on anatomy. I'm sure it bothers you greatly and I enjoy that.

Lol
Only a fucking retard would believe there is any more than two genders, Science denier

You're thinking of sex, not gender. You're welcome.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Actually, it means more coal-burning power plants and gas-operated generators...

Or more wind turbines (which take more energy to make than they will ever produce)...

After all, you have to get the electricity to recharge them from somewhere!!!

faster the better....then build new better Nuclear power plants to support the increase in juice

There will be no nuclear power plants. Three reasons why.

3 mile Island
Fukushima
Chernobyl

No one wants to be next.

 

[percysunshine]

does it mean that is the end of states gas - stations (Muscovy, KSA, Gulf states, etc.) in 2025 ?

"Toyota's ambitious plans to roll out a family of new electric vehicles by 2025, which it initially announced two years ago, are being moved up. Accelerating global demand for EVs have pushed the automaker toward putting the first of these electric vehicles on sale in 2020. At an event highlighting Toyota's newly adjusted long-term electric-vehicle plans, the automaker promised it is working on six new EVs, as well as a plan for further popularizing battery-electric cars ahead of their rollout."

Toyota Details Six New EV Models Launching for 2020–2025

If the Japanese understood oil and gasoline, they would own every oil company on the planet.

 

[Pilot1]

Oh, and by the way Happy, you know that 97% of Scientists agree statement you like to tout?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, you should look up the study, lol...……..if that is what YOU are banking on, and why YOU believe the nonsense-) I could also add, you would be sooooooo SURPRISED to see who is funding your heroes, but that is for a different thread.

So you like the 97% agree deal, huh? I know you do! Well, there is a whole bunch of sites, that tell you EXACTLY how that conclusion was drawn, and you can look up the zillions besides the one I will post for you.

But, I just want to let YOU know personally------------->you are being led down the primrose path by people who will make a whole lotta money if your side wins, and they don't live in our country, and that is why they fund your stupid groups. It is also why we proclaim that GREEN is the new RED! And if you can't figure that out, then you need a new hobby-)

Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Things like anything more than two genders? That kind?

Considering gender is a social construct not based necessarily on anatomy. I'm sure it bothers you greatly and I enjoy that.

So mental illness is also a social contract not necessarily based on insanity?

 

[Rustic]

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Things like anything more than two genders? That kind?

Considering gender is a social construct not based necessarily on anatomy. I'm sure it bothers you greatly and I enjoy that.

Lol
Only a fucking retard would believe there is any more than two genders, Science denier

You're thinking of sex, not gender. You're welcome.

Lol
Same difference, Emotions play no part in science.

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to include the local weatherman or other unqualified people as scientists who actually study the topic.

I didn't ask you too, lol. When you look, you notice that the 97% was based on something like 34 people...……...but I have a feeling you already knew that, since you came back so fast with the answer.

See, even you knew the study was phony-e-baloney. Now, what does that say about the people who come on here and claim the 97%-)

That's neat. I have no idea what you're talking about, I tend to ignore people who can't see the obvious and there is a ton of dubious claims from the anti-science crowd that it is too aggravating to debate the topic.

You'll figure it out, it's probably already too late.

Things like anything more than two genders? That kind?

Considering gender is a social construct not based necessarily on anatomy. I'm sure it bothers you greatly and I enjoy that.

So mental illness is also a social contract not necessarily based on insanity?

Emphatically, no.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Actually, it means more coal-burning power plants and gas-operated generators...

Or more wind turbines (which take more energy to make than they will ever produce)...

After all, you have to get the electricity to recharge them from somewhere!!!

We have a Chevy Bolt, and we have panels on our roof. We've not paid a penny for electricity for over two years, nor have we used any electricity produced by coal.

As for wind power, see the history.

History of Wind Power - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy - Energy Information Administration

And, don't forget hydroelectric and geothermal.

 

[Pilot1]

Actually, it means more coal-burning power plants and gas-operated generators...

Or more wind turbines (which take more energy to make than they will ever produce)...

After all, you have to get the electricity to recharge them from somewhere!!!

We have a Chevy Bolt, and we have panels on our roof. We've not paid a penny for electricity for over two years, nor have we used any electricity produced by coal.

As for wind power, see the history.

History of Wind Power - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy - Energy Information Administration

And, don't forget hydroelectric and geothermal.

But even with all the GOVERNMENT subsidies on those roof panels you still have a ten to fifteen year payback even for the crazy rates you pat to PG&E.