This list includes frankenstein hybrids like the Mercedes GLE 450 Hybrid [1], there's nothing environmentally friendly about that vehicle.
[1] https://www.motortrend.com/cars/mercedes-benz/gle-class/2020...
[1] https://www.motortrend.com/cars/mercedes-benz/gle-class/2020...
However I do agree with you that many of the cars - essentially the entire milid-hybrid (MHEV) segment, IMO - is there just to get the numbers (electric motor kicks in just enough to lower the max CO2 in special cases). Locally (Croatia, HR), virtually all new cars have at least a MHEV option and some have no non-e option at all. They're really pushing it hard.
Even though MHEV could be considered "lipstick on a pig", it still has two useful effects:
- If it does lower CO2 emission in worst cases (start, overtake, etc), it still means it lowers the overall CO2 at least somewhat - every little bit helps.
- It normalizes electric vehicles. There are a people here who have extremely negative (subjective) opinions on them, and I'm talking general public, not petrolheads. Once you get a Slav to understand his (it's always his) beloved Golf running on batteries is not an abomination, the floodgates are open
Due to high gas prices, main impediment to switching to fully electric cars is not cost but infrastructure. In Croatia there's very little of it and it's often vandalized or gas-powered cars are parked in charging spots, etc. Thus a pleasant road-trip to the country or the coast turns into a logistical nightmare.
Similarly, for plug-hybrids, a lot of people that would have the means to buy such a car usually live in apartment buildings, often without dedicated parking spots so you have to hunt for a space around the block and you can't just plug in your car overnight.
Fuel duties help to offset the negative externalities to society of driving, namely CO2 emissions, pollution and congestion. With EVs tou don’t have emissions and pollutions and the health problems they bring so there’s no negatives to offset (ie fuel duty revenue will go down, but so will spending on health and environmental related issues)
There’s still the congestion any vehicle can cause and I think we’ll move to a much different form of vehicle taxation over the next 20 years, perhaps with more toll roads or even surge pricing style taxation for usage of roads.
...and yet from today's headlines:
British coal plants fired up to meet temporary electricity shortfall. Remaining UK coal plants, including Drax, supply 6% of grid’s electricity to cover power supply drop and colder weather
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/26/british-coa...
Also note:
"renewable electricity was in relatively short supply in western Europe too, meaning the UK would need to keep running its coal plants while exporting power to France and to the Netherlands via cable interconnectors"
Also, I'll take the emissions from tires and brake pads over those from an engine for sure.
https://www.motorbiscuit.com/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the...
Spoiler alert: EV pollutes less than ICE
I'm not wholly informed here, but just by using common sense, I can only imagine we're talking fractions of a percent for brake pad and tyre pollution, so I wouldn't pick that hill to die on personally.
Tire emissions are NOT a factor we need to be concerned with however :-) Tire manufacture, sure. From waste - most definitely. But emissions from driving are not something to worry about even with the billions of miles driven annually on tires.
https://www.bts.gov/content/estimated-national-average-vehic...
[1] Was a lot harder to find it again because someones running an SEO agitprop campaign to blame PM2.5 on tires instead of diesel exhaust. I had wade through GIS pages of trash websites to find it again.
The nice thing about EVs is those exhaust emissions are moved away from the tailpipe in populated areas to power generation facilities.
The efficiency of electric vehicles is almost 3x that of the gasoline cycle of drilling, transporting, distilling, transporting again, combusting then achieving almost 30% motion from the chemical energy of gas.
So because of this efficiency there’s just less emissions overall even though the emissions are away from population centres.
Then lastly, the emissions are consolidated in one place so capture and cleaning becomes viable.
EVs are not perfect but they are so much better than gasoline powered vehicles that if you can at all accomodate the switch, then it would be great to consider it.
Taxing will have to change and evolve either way.
Today it makes sense to incentivize the move to EVs. But this says nothing about what will happen when everyone is there and people no longer have the option of buying or using an ICE. Some years from now taxing EVs with some form of "road tax" (today included in the price of fuel) will be the low hanging fruit and the technological means may already be there. Your car will likely be able or even required to log and report the distance driven for taxing purposes.
If truly autonomous vehicles do catch on and incentivize moving away from private ownership, it will also have a huge impact on the way cars are taxed or how the taxes are passed on to the user.
It would work as "You've done 10,000 miles since your last MOT, you have to pay your £1k tax bill". Travel abroad and you could register the mileage when you leave and when you get back easily enough. Final bill on scrapping or on SORN.
That wouldn't allow the differential road pricing that tracking fans want, and wouldn't work in Ireland, but would work in GB right now.
You don't have them at the tailpipe, which I guess is really the key thing because it means a reduction in asthma and deaths due to PM in habited areas.
You do still have emissions, they're just emitted away from where humans live. It's a great improvement but not a complete solution.
If anything we need to tax the hell out of fossil fuel to break even with its actual costs.
1. https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subs...
2. https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-10-21/oil-com...
Shifting non-essential travel to an hour earlier or later in the day will have a hugely beneficial impact in unclogging many cities.
I personally blame it to Toyota’s horrible packaging. The thorough objective horrendousness of Prius is inexcusable, especially the latest ones. But that shouldn’t decide on the technology!
The Koeingsegg One:1 is exciting. The BMW i3 is exciting. The Jaguar I-Pace is exciting. Heck, the Tesla is exciting. The BMW 3-series hybrid is $15,000 more for not a whole lot.
(Full disclosure: two working parents, three young kids, not a lot of spare time and even less spare money...)
We own two (ICE) cars, a seven-seater that's diesel-powered and a four-seater that's petrol. Neither of them are even remotely "exciting" (both have the smallest, most economical engines that the manufacturer offers for that model). We would not be looking for "exciting" in a replacement for either of them, either.
What I am looking for is a like-for-like replacement that isn't hugely more expensive.
With electric, I'm struggling.
We [very briefly] sat in the battery version of the four-seater in the showroom when we bought the petrol, it cost more than twice as much, range was dire, and the sales guy pointed out that it wouldn't hold its purchase value as battery technology is changing so rapidly. So that was that :(
I would love to switch to electric, but right now we don't have the spare cash to throw around.
"Exciting" might be great for persuading petrolheads and/or the wealthy and/or the virtue-signallers to switch, but for everyone else, what can pure-electric offer?
I feel the same, I sold my car 8 years ago and never bought a new one since, I'm planning to get a new one (hopefully kids, old parents, I'm gonna need it sooner or later) but I am struggling too.
I usually use the Renault Zoe as an example, the EV model costs 40% more (~26,000 euros VS ~37,000 euros) for no - obvious - added benefit, it's the same exact car.
I've been researching and thanks to state bonuses I could buy a Renault Twingo EV for ~17,000 euros, it's a very good deal but it's a smaller car, not that it's a problem now, I still mainly drive inside the city, but it makes me think of the economy of the operation: I need it for a future larger family, I should settle down on a smaller car.
I'm probably getting it anyway and I am also excited about it, but really it shouldn't be about excitement, it should be about being a better deal overall.
Like, Fisker Karma was basically as fast and quick as a Tesla. Lots of hybrid hypercars are faster than petrol counterparts. It’s Toyota Prius that’s smearing hybrids.
Classifying a car as a mild hybrid electric vehicle on the basis of nothing but a glorified starter motor doesn't sound entirely unlike something Volkswagen Group might try to get away with, but this doesn't seem like a fair assessment. Doesn't conventional coasting mean that the ICE still is driving the wheels — at idle RPM? So if instead the clutch decouples, the electric motor has to make up the difference, right? That's not nothing when you consider that diesels (such as your Audi) output significantly more power at idle RPM (and also use more fuel, I'd guess?) than petrol engines (relative to max power).
Also by coasting I mean condition where the car has enough momentum and either goes downhill or there is a slower speed limit ahead (this is detected automatically from map data) and the car knows that it can just decouple the engine. This is evaluated by the car based on some conditions, it's not controlled by the driver.
"The 48-volt-based MHEV technology is particularly more comfortable and efficient. If the driver takes his foot off the accelerator at a speed between 55 and 160 km/h (34.2 to 99.4 mph), the car can coast for up to 40 seconds with the engine off completely. During slow coasting, the start-stop phase already begins at 22 km/h (13.7 mph).
Once the driver accelerates again – whether from a stop or while driving – the vehicle restarts quickly and very comfortably: the BAS revs up the internal combustion engine to the target speed, then injection occurs again and, in the case of a gasoline engine, ignition. While the conventional pinion starter remains on board, it practically comes into play only at the initial starting, if the engine oil is still cold and viscous. In such a situation, the belt of the BAS could slip through. "
The faster you accelerate the more you’re going to braking to slow back down again (unless you’re accelerating onto open roads)
Performance cars are more likely to be driven by people who don’t care about the environment and drive as such.
Tires wear out faster
...
I think the success of Tesla says otherwise. There are lots of us who enjoy performance cars who care about emissions. Even someone who drives an Audi v8 car is doing less damage than the single person cruising in a huge truck/suv.
EVs are a different category to ICE cars so comparing across them is strange
Does your theory still hold if I drive only 2000km/year in an older car versus a Tesla X or e-Hummer? I don't pretend to have the answer to that question, but there is an environmental cost to producing a car too...
One person wants a practical crossover because that's what is most practical for the situation. The other wants a fun convertible. They buy a 4dr Wrangler because it's both. Everyone goes home happy.
Same thing happens with Tesla.
One person wants to buy a fuel sipping subcompact because that's what makes practical sense for the situation. The other wants a high performance sedan. Tesla checks both boxes so that's what they get. Everyone goes home happy.
Edit: I know you all are recoiling in horror at the thought of having to run your car purchasing decisions by the other decision maker in your household but if you're gonna click the WrongThink(TM) button why don't you at least humor me and tell me why I'm so wrong.
Living in Germany it is quite ridiculous that we don’t have speed limits on certain parts of the Autobahn, nobody needs to drive 200 km/h. You won’t get faster from A to B, it’s dangerous, it’s stressful, you need more energy. If you want to race, go on a race track. I assume it even costs us more to maintain roads so that you are able to drive more than 140 km/h.
If I travel in Spain, the speed limit is 120km/h. Now they have removed the 20 kms/h extra you could do for overtaking other cars. It is ludicrous.
Everybody goes over the limit, and hence everybody goes against the law, and everybody could be fined with 300 euros, like my father 1 month ago.
In cities, they are putting limits under 30km/h.
Politicians love the fines because it is an extra tax of an extra billion euros nobody controls.
Do you object to seatbelt laws under the premise of "Freedom"? What about car safety standards? Isn't it more "Free" if we can make whatever car I want and sell it to whomever wants to buy it, even if it kills millions every year?
The truth is that we need to look at improving society holistically, which means implementing and designing society in a way that benefits humankind over the long term. Civilization isn't very "Free" but it's a trade off we make to live in a fair and progressive society, and allows us to combat things like covid, natural disasters, growing populations and other challenges that face the human race.
While we’re at it, let’s get rid of heating past 60 F. You can always wear a sweater or a thicker blanket. It’s not like it’ll be a great inconvenience like not having any heating would be, you’ll still be able to do all the necessary tasks.
Your argument is “people don’t deserve to enjoy anything.”
Basically, your morality is all wrong. The point of life (for humans, at least) isn't to do what we need - that's only the lowest, most basic level of Maslow's pyramid. It's self-actualization, which essentially means fulfilling autonomously chosen goals. You might see no reason to drive 200km/h, but others might - why limit them? The only potential reason is safety, but hey, people enjoy plenty of extreme(-ly dangerous) sports, so clearly there are reasons to trade off safety as well.
In addition, an appeal to safety doesn't actually make sense in this instance - why would 120km/h be better than 200km/h? I mean, it's slightly safer but still incredibly unsafe! If we prioritized safety over all else, we'd all be driving at most 30km/h! So clearly "safety" isn't a good, objective reason - at best, it's a subjective, arbitrary threshold, but then we ought to recognize that diifferent people will make different tradeoffs regarding safety.
Noone trains for driving at high speeds in driving school. Also a lot of folks do not understand the relationship between velocity and the time you need to come to a stop. So 120km/h is way better than 200km/h. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3D7XYQExt0
This is just so wrong. Have you actually ever done that? For example between Jena and Chemnitz, when traffic is light it is so incredibly safe and relaxing.
Don’t confuse fast driving with reckless driving. No speed limits will stop reckless drivers. Even so, it’s totally possible to drive recklessly at 140 kph. Just go figure around Leverkusen literally every day.
This is like trying to sell people on veganism by arguing that food doesn’t need to taste good.
at the same time i know that the freedom to drive fast does not really impact crash or efficiancy metrics very much and having been to countries with universal speed limits i can confirm that it is an agonizing drive if everybody is going slow (120kph) to the point that i wonder if the resulting boredom is causing a lot more accidents.
Why? Did you ever have to drive 1000 km for work in one day?
Clarkson thought the challenge was dumb and picked a big comfy car with a massive engine. He might not win but at least he’s gonna enjoy himself.
Ended up winning. The massively overpowered engine was chilling at highway speeds so much it barely used any gas.
Another fun comparison was when they took a Prius and a M5. When the M5 was chilling at a slightly fun speed, the Prius was struggling so hard that it had double the fuel consumption of the M5.
Cruising speed matters.
But you're among an online community that thinks the Hilux episode was a scientifically controlled experiment so that's gonna be an uphill battle.
In the second case they where driving the Prius around a race track as fast as they could make it go (ie nothing like cruising on normal roads) while with the M5 following at the same pace. And in those conditions the M5 did use less gas, but I don't recall it being half as much.
An M5 won't have better fuel consumption than a "normal" small car in any situation that you could reasonably see on the road.
Top Gear's challenges were very entertaining, but they were very far from being scientifically meaningful in any way.
I’ve driven both types on their home turf and in the wrong environment and it makes a huge difference.
The only truly bad type of car is an SUV. Bad everywhere.
vs. how often are you driving alone in that monster truck?
That said hybrid systems are basically KERS: they matter when slowing down (charging the battery instead of warming up brakes), and at very low to low speeds (better efficiency of the electric engine compared to a gasoline engine). I would not expect a trip on the highway without traffic to be better at all with a hybrid car than with a gasoline car.
Hybrid systems allow the gas engine to (essentially) always run at its ideal speed if it is running at all, storing extra energy when less is needed and drawing power from the battery when more is needed. On an idealized highway drive, with cruising speed at exactly the pure gas car engine’s ideal speed, with no variations due to turns, hills, traffic, etc., this is no benefit, but real highway driving tends to differ from this ideal enough that hybrid cars have benefits even in freeway driving.
I agree that hybrids are a stupid solution, a full EV is way to go, but, for example, there are only two superchargers for Tesla in whole Berlin, which has almost 4 million population. The infrastructure has to be improved and the batteries needs to get larger or more efficient, because I find stopping every 2hrs to charge your car for 30 minutes stupid.
Hybrids are just a band-aid solution until we have proper (and cheap) EVs.
Q: Would any of us consider "range" as a performance characteristic? If not, why not?
Overall good, even if hybrids are terrible.
I thought hybrid is the only sane approach as you can cover 90% of your trips electric with a small battery. Or is the fuel motor always on in this car?