Seems odd to exclude PHEVs.
Most rides are under 50 miles, which means emission-free rides on most occasions. They don't hound chargers and need smaller batteries. Win-win if you ask me.
Most rides are under 50 miles, which means emission-free rides on most occasions. They don't hound chargers and need smaller batteries. Win-win if you ask me.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/features/phev-owners-not...
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/plug-in-hybrids-are-t...
This is a very strong prior, and with a little digging you can find out that these cars are being bought by tax credits, and then used by people who do not have access to chargers. Either because it is a rental or because it is a company car. If it is a company car, the reimbursement process for gas is easier, and why would I go through the hassle if I'm not the one saving money?
The case for PHEVs is very strong, it is a much more economical use of lithium battery capacity, is cheaper to operate, produces less CO2, and can be operated like an ICE vehicle in a pinch.
They strategically dominate EVs. Its absurd to suggest otherwise
It doesn’t matter how strong the case is for PHEVs if the data doesn’t conclusively demonstrate they’re being used appropriately to minimize emissions. That’s just hope, and hope is not a strategy. Frankly, PHEV tax credits should be something like revenue you have to recognize over time, only provided when proven they’re being used in the manner desired (versus at time of purchase, after which you might not ever even plug the vehicle in).
PHEVs are lighter than full EVs, and incentivize the manufacturer to build a smaller car. (EVs are longer because the batteries take up lots of horizontal space). If Mazda's experiments pay off, then a wankel [1] engine PHEV will be space efficient and sustainable. Now not everyone needs to tow, but EVs are horrible at towing. A PHEV is an ideal long-term alternative to petrol for heavy-hauling use cases.
I firmly believe fully emissions-free vehicles will be the future. But the powergrid & charging infrastructure for 100% EV are at least 10-20 years away. Until then, PHEVs should be encouraged as a stopgap, especially for countries without easy ways to generate renewable energy.
Of course this is based on our car usage patterns so its really subjective.
I agree with you on the powergrid and charging infrastructure. A counterpoint i rarely see is if everyone would switch to EVs or PHEVs in 5 years, the electrical infra would collapse. And the electricity price world skyrocket and it would not be this cheap as it is now. So we should keep that in mind when we calculate the savings.
Electricity grids are massively overbuilt and underutilized because they need to deal with a big spike of power usage in the early evenings. So if grids became strained by EVs, it would be relatively easy to fix this: just encourage or mandate time of day tariffs.
The price signal would encourage people to charge outside of peak times. The improved utilization of the grid may even reduce distribution costs per kWh.
If I remember right, then tire-wear [1] is the primary contributor to particulate emissions and a signifcant portion of vehicular pollution comes from the existence of the vehicle itself. (manufacturing, road maintenence)
Through regenerative braking, so you get the benfits of a Hybrid. You can charge your PHEV at home during the week, and avoid the inconvienences of an EV when on a road trip.
If cell manufacturing is the supply constraint, continue to scale up.
It hasn’t been for few years now
Not if this is just in service of an overarching goal of banning cars entirely.