> can withstand a bigger fender bender. That may be 10x more important to customers than some theoretical optimum.

Go actually look at the internal of a PHEV. They have literally every single part of a BEV but also have many, many additional parts.

You actually end up with more parts that are single points of failures and more places where a impact can make the car not able to drive.

A properly integrated structural battery that are now coming to the market already is gone be much safer overall then a PHEV and very likely more robust as well.

> Batteries may not be as long lasting for customers that want their car to last 20 years (current expectations, barring getting run into). Exactly how long lasting on the road are the current batteries? Do we know what service costs they'll have compared to fuel cell service costs?

So far all indications are that battery perform very well. Not 20 years at max capacity, but still very usable after a lot of that time.

If you look at LFP batteries, you can already get 20 years with high retention.

Batteries are also getting better and cheaper with every generation.

The problem is, fuel cells have solved non of these problems. They have more parts to maintain overall. Fuel cells need to be replaced as or more often then batteries.

> Will they survive well in different climates/humidity/dust, etc?

There have been Tesla driving around the polar circle for 10 years now. EV are very popular in Norway.

Dust has and humidity are not an issue, the battery and motor are ceiled of. These things are far more likely to be issues for PHEV as for those you need to take air from the outside and filter it, to then react it in the fuel cell.

> Time to recharge is a lot more important than range.

First of all, most people will either charge at home, or at work. There will be charging in most places where you stop to top up.

If you are forced to go to a fast charging station, they are already filling up 80% of the battery in 20 min and next generation of battery are gone be considerably faster.

> Yes, there is cool new battery tech coming out.

Battery tech doesn't simply get invented and then sold in cars. If something goes into a car program it has gone threw years and years of testing already.

We already have good evidence that for example silicon loading improves the battery.

There are many such changes in the pipeline, and they wouldn't be considered if they were not cheaper and better.

> It makes perfect sense that Toyota is experimenting with lots of alt-drivetrains

There is a large amount of difference between 'experimenting' and having multiple billion $ program over 20+ years while totally neglecting the competing technology. And that is what Toyota has done.

> Ultimately the consumer is going to decide what they want to buy

Yes, and consumers so far have universally rejected PHEV unless massively insentivised to do so.

> And in the end, whatever gives the customer the most convenience, performance, affordability, and durability will win, and Toyota wants to win.

Toyota are the once pushing a technology that consumers are not demanding. Yet they continue to insist that it is 'the future' and their offering in EV are not very compelling as a result.

Every company wants to 'win' but that doesn't mean every company will.

I'm not saying Toyota is going bankrupt but you are simple making excuses. They have spend huge amount of money on the wrong horse and they have failed to invest the same on the right horse.

Not only that they have continually insisted that EV were terrible and hybrids were better. Not only that put publish a lot of misleading 'studies' trying to confuse consumers for their own interest.