Mr. Bean Was Right – and So Was Toyota

By Duggan Flanakin

February 13, 2024

When auto (even EV driving) enthusiast Rowan Atkinson – Mr. Bean to his fans – last June wrote in The Guardian that there are “sound environmental reasons” why “keeping your old petrol car may be better than buying an EV,” he was vilified as a eco-traitor.

Atkinson had added, “We’re realizing that a wider range of options need to be explored if we’re going to properly address the very serious environmental problems that our use of the motor car has created.” These include, he said, hydrogen fuel cells and synthetic fuels that would extend the lives of older vehicles long after governments are demanding they be scrapped.

Atkinson, who has a bachelor’s in electrical and electronic engineering and a master’s in control systems, urged Britons to “look at a bigger picture” to include greenhouse gas emissions during the manufacture of electric vehicles and to evaluate the whole life cycle of motor vehicles.

Relying on a dash of common sense, Atkinson noted that pushing so heavily so soon for EVs that have major flaws will result in “millions of overweight electric cars with rapidly obsolescing batteries.” Technologic developments with hydrogen and synthetic fuels, which can power existing internal combustion engines, may prove a better long-term solution. For one reason, the owners of the world’s 1.5 billion ICE vehicles could continue enjoying them.

For sharing his insights, Atkinson was immediately smacked around by snarky reporters and EV “experts.” Simon Evans, deputy editor at Carbon Brief, slammed Atkinson for not adhering to Carbon Brief’s own “evidence” from years back stating that EVs cut “planet-warming emissions” by two-thirds on a life cycle basis and calling EVs “an essential part of tackling the climate emergency.”

How dare he?

Michael Coren, writing in the Washington Post, portrayed Atkinson as an iconoclast clinging to his petrol car, lampooned hydrogen and synthetic fuels as expensive and impractical, and compared ICE vehicles to hobby horses. Coren argued that “making every car burn [hydrogen] is not a good idea,” yet implied that forcing every driver to buy an EV is a very good idea.

Eight months later, though, the detractors who had hoped to make Atkinson an example of a troglodyte were singing a different tune, in the wake of a collapse in the British EV market.

Mr. Bean was condemned in the House of Lords by the Green Alliance as “partly at fault for ‘damaging’ public perceptions” of EVs and as a dangerous enemy of Britain’s drive to Net Zero. The Guardian, which published Atkinson’s tome, was accused indirectly of failing to adhere to “high editorial standards around the Net Zero transition.”

[Translation: ONLY glowing reports on EVs are acceptable public speech.]

It couldn’t have been the exorbitant cost of auto insurance for EVs, their tendency to catch fire and burn for days, or the high cost and long wait times for parts and repairs – or the long waits at charging stations to plug in and wait for enough charge at least to reach the next destination. Nor could it be that people are uncomfortable enriching China as their own auto companies face bankruptcy?  No – it was allowing someone to publicly question the rush to electrification.

Halfway around the world, Toyota, which “lagged behind” its major competitors in ditching their ICE vehicle fleets for all-EV production lines, “is riding a windfall of hybrid vehicle sales on its way to posting projected net profits of more than $30  billion.” While Ford lost $4.7 billion trying to create an EV market, dropping its net profit to just $4.2 billion, Toyota now appears to be in better financial shape than its American and European competitors.

Over a year ago, then-Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda had cautioned that the EV transition would “take longer than the media would like us to believe.” Ford, GM, Stellantis, and many other automakers worldwide played nice with the political and financial giants while Toyota’s management stepped away from the rhetoric, looked at the numbers, and chose a commonsense approach to the evolving world auto marketplace.

The company did sell 15,000 pure EVs in the U.S. in 2023, but they also sold 40,000 plug-in hybrids and more than 600,000 non-rechargeable hybrids out of total U.S. sales of 2,248,477 vehicles, a 6% increase from 2022 levels. Ford fell short of its goal to produce 300,000 EVs a year by 2023 and has revised its earlier forecast of 2 million EVs by 2026. Worse, Ford now expects to lose as much as $5.5 billion on EVs in 2024.

Over in Europe, Volvo just announced it is withdrawing support for its marquee electric vehicle Polestar and hopes to sell its 48% stake, possibly to a Chinese buyer. Just days earlier, Polestar had cut 450 jobs, about 15% of its workforce.

Elsewhere in Europe, EV sales are expected to decline in 2024 in Germany, Europe’s largest auto market, and Renault just scrapped plans to spin off its Ampere EVs, blaming a lack of interest from investors and a slowdown in sales.

EV sales in the United Kingdom also flatlined in 2023, prices for used EVs fell sharply, raising questions about their residual value. Even EV-friendly Switzerland admits it will take at least 20 years to fully electrify its fleet; while EVs and hybrids today comprise about 30% of Swiss new car sales, these vehicles amount to less than 4% of the total national fleet.

Oil and gas companies are getting the message, too. BP, which once billed itself as “Beyond Petroleum,” has been encouraged by an activist investor to reduce its investments in renewables and recommit to oil and gas. A major reason – oil and gas investments in recent years have boomed while investments in renewables have faltered. Bluebell Capital Partners asserted that BP’s commitment to renewable has left its stock price undervalued by 50% compared to ExxonMobil and Chevron.

President Biden’s demand that the U.S. comply with his EV mandates was dealt a major blow last month, when auto rental giant Hertz, heretofore the nation’s largest fleet operator of electric vehicles, announced it was selling all 20,000 of its EVs and not buying any more. The company cited high repair costs and weak demand for EV rentals. Karl Bauer of iSeeCars.com, noting that mainstream consumers were already hesitant to buy and EV, said “the larger impact of the Hertz EV fire sale is the perception hit to the technology.”

The fictional Mr. Bean is known (and revered) for his original and often absurd solutions to problems and his total disregard for others while solving them, and for his pettiness and occasional malevolence. Had the British press mocked Mr. Atkinson for a Bean-like performance, the climate emergency propagandists might have laughed him off successfully.

But they are not able to laugh without derision.

The real Mr. Atkinson, like the decision makers at Toyota, is espousing commonsense wisdom such as “don’t put all of your eggs in one basket.” Extending the lifespan of existing vehicles, even with currently high-cost hydrogen or synthetic fuels, is far better for the environment than junking them for electric vehicles that require diesel fuel to power charging stations.

If, as we are told, EV batteries will soon be smaller, cheaper, and stronger, that day has not yet come. Just as likely, the cost of hydrogen and synthetics will also drop significantly, and those fuels can power existing ICE vehicles. Most of all, if there truly was a “climate emergency,” diplomats would be quicker to end military conflicts and ending the rush by China and India to build more and more coal-fired power plants (needed, of course, to charge EV batteries).

What Mr. Bean and Toyota are truly saying to the world is that mandates – government deciding what can and cannot go to market – and the huge subsidies that go along with them (which would be unnecessary in a true emergency) are at war with the wisdom of the market, which relies on true public opinion as to what is best for the consumer.

Duggan Flanakin is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

4.9 50 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

153 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Edward Katz
February 15, 2024 2:46 pm

The fact that from the outset EVs were overpriced to the point that government subsidies made only a minor dent in the final price was the first factor in turning consumers away from them. Then there was the shortage of public charging stations compounded by lengthy recharge times. Next was the realization that cruising ranges were shortened by either cold or hot weather. Most recent was the revelation that EVs are far more likely to experience reliability problems than ICEs. These factors along with huge costs for battery replacements have all contributed to low resale values. So it’s become obvious that EVs were marketed far too early and will need many more years to iron out their shortcomings, and that may be too long for them to make any sort of comeback.

Reply to  Edward Katz
February 17, 2024 8:03 pm

Their shortcomings will never be “ironed out.” A battery big enough to move an automobile with verve is also heavy enough to be a burden to haul around. And, since the idiots in charge are hell bent on doing all they can to destroy the electric grid, they’ll not have the infrastructure to charge them even if their fatal flaws of short range, long recharge times, propensity to light themselves on fire, inability to charge when the batteries are too cold, etc. have been “ironed out.”

argomeditations
February 15, 2024 2:58 pm

Rowan Atkinson for Prime Minister. New season of Mr. Bean in 10 Downing Street.

Probably more serious than anything going on in there anyway.

Richard Page
Reply to  argomeditations
February 15, 2024 4:23 pm

Wait. You mean that WASN’T Mr. Bean in 10 Downing St. I was watching? It certainly seemed like it.

Ian_e
Reply to  Richard Page
February 16, 2024 1:59 am

Not at all: it was Tony Bliar in disguise.

Writing Observer
February 15, 2024 4:05 pm

Just a question – does the OP, by saying “non-rechargeable hybrids” actually mean “not plug-in hybrids”?

Richard Page
Reply to  Writing Observer
February 15, 2024 4:24 pm

Yes, I think so. They wouldn’t be much use otherwise.

observa
February 16, 2024 1:15 am

If, as we are told, EV batteries will soon be smaller, cheaper, and stronger….

I can sensibly order a new Toyota hybrid replacement with it’s Atkinson Cycle engine and wait for that to happen Greenadders.

observa
Reply to  observa
February 16, 2024 1:21 am
old cocky
Reply to  observa
February 16, 2024 1:52 am

A plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel.

bobpjones
February 16, 2024 3:47 am

“EV batteries will soon be smaller, cheaper, and stronger”

In the long distant past, I recall, my early studies of EE. Of course, there was a session on batteries, and if a recall correctly, that 1.5V, was the fundamental limit, that any cell could produce, regardless of what material it was made from.

Even solid state batteries, have significant limitations. Fundamentally, it’s my perception, that the more KWh you want from a battery, the larger it will have to be. Regardless, of battery type.

Update me, if I’m wrong in my assumptions.

Cheers

Reply to  bobpjones
February 16, 2024 8:56 am

Actually, a lithium-fluorine cell could theoretically generate a potential difference of almost 6V (electrode potential of lithium metal against the standard hydrogen electrode is -3.027V, fluorine +2.87V), but I doubt many people would appreciate having a tank of elemental fluorine in their cars.

bobpjones
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 16, 2024 10:16 am

Interesting, Graeme, thank you.

February 16, 2024 4:19 am

From the article: “The company [Toyota] did sell 15,000 pure EVs in the U.S. in 2023, but they also sold 40,000 plug-in hybrids and more than 600,000 non-rechargeable hybrids”

It looks like most people think a non-plug-in hybrid is preferable. What’s not to like? You don’t have to plug the car into any electrical outlet, you don’t have to install special charging equipment in your place of residence, and you don’t have to worry about running out of electricity while on the road. And you get better gasoline mileage in the process.

Toyota’s boss sees the Big Picture.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 16, 2024 7:50 am

I’m not sure you’d actually get better mpg performance – around average is my guess. In order to get that battery mileage you’d have to charge the battery from the ICE engine, which would lower the performance slightly. It would all average out in the end, more or less, but would be roughly the same as a non-hybrid ICE vehicle.

observa
Reply to  Richard Page
February 16, 2024 4:05 pm

No Richard Toyota simply recognised merging the benefit of Atkinson Cycle ICE with the torque of electric motors. Otherwise the ICE design is a compromise between the torque needed to get the mass of the car off the line regularly vs low load efficiency with constant running. The kicker with that is also grabbing the wasted energy with regenerative braking particularly with stop/start urban driving which is by far the predominant driving mode. Also their clever Synergy drive blending the two modes floors any alternative ICE auto trans for simplicity longevity and efficiency.

If the interest is in saving fuel and emissions then Toyota can easily boast on average 8 hybrid batteries beats one EV battery resource wise and hybrids can easily run NiMh chemistry for safety. Enjoy your virtue signalling incendiaries charging cables and times numpties.

Ray Sanders
February 17, 2024 2:53 pm

Invest in some woodland, build yourself a gassifier and a big sign saying F*ck You” to hang off the back.
https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/01/wood-gas-vehicles-firewood-in-the-fuel-tank/