GRA wrote:As a commenter noted at GCC, PHEVs are the clear way to go for now. Given battery prices, I believe smallish batteries (20-35 mile AER) that can seriously reduce emissions (especially in urban areas) in the short-term are the best value.
Day after day, GRA comes to this BEV-specific forum to tell us that EVERY OTHER vehicle type is preferable to BEVs as the replacement for ICEVs.
He knows this, even though he has no personal experience with any vehicles except for ICEVs and pedal-powered vehicles.
Reg, I'm in favor of all ZEVs, and PHEVs during the transition. I've also test driven quite a few BEVs and spent a week living with one, as you should know as I've told you all this before (and my sig alludes to it), so I have no idea why you blatantly choose to misrepresent my experience.
RegGuheert wrote:And, no, it does not follow that PHEVs with smallish batteries are the way to go because of the statistic that he quoted. In other words, that is a non sequitur argument that does not consider the more important issues involved:
- Many of those 12-to-24-mile round-trip outings are done in cold weather when battery capacity is reduced and heat is needed, so the ICEV in a PHEV would run to provide the needed range and heat.
In which case, you get a slightly larger battery, or else don't worry about it and just burn some dino juice, if your choice is between being able to afford that less expensive PHEV or not being able to afford a more expensive one or a BEV. There are currently two PEVs with base MSRPs below $25k available in the U.S.: the 5 seat Ionic PHEV (29 mile AER, 650 mile total range) or the 2 seat Smart ED BEV (58 mile range). Which do you think has a larger potential market? And when you are burning fossil fuels, you are at least doing so in an efficient HEV.
RegGuheert wrote:- Building a PHEV means continuing to manufacture ICEVs when they often are not needed at all. It means burning fossil fuel instead of foregoing fossil fuels.
We'll be building ICEs for at least a couple of decades yet, anywhere they aren't banned.
RegGuheert wrote:- Building a BEV which has the same energy and material content as GRA's recommended PHEVs will meet virtually all of most family's needs without the need for burning fossil fuels.
Just as soon as most of those families can afford such a car, I will agree that it's time to switch. Until then, a PHEV they can afford and use freely will eliminate a very large fraction of their fossil fuel use, including during almost all of their local travel in the worst-polluted areas.
RegGuheert wrote:- Larger batteries in BEVs enable a vast array of benefits including eliminating the need for most public charging stations.
For people who can charge at home, sure.
RegGuheert wrote:- Larger batteries can benefit the utility grid in myriad ways, not the least of which is allowing for charging to be held off as needed to benefit the grid. Eventually they can directly augment the grid as needed.
Sure can, once they are affordable for the average person, and the costs work out to offset the extra degradation.
RegGuheert wrote:No, building more ICEVs is a bad idea. It is not as bad an idea as building H2 FCVs, but it is still a bad idea.
When the choice is building more conventional ICEs, or building PHEVs instead while we wait for the price of long-range BEV batteries to come down to mass market level, I know which one is a better idea to me, but YMMV and apparently does.