WetEV said:
GRA said:
Uh huh, except that PHEVs can offer significant GHG reductions with much smaller packs, e g. Niro/Kona/Prius Prime. FTM, plenty of people could have significantly reduced their GHGs from the PiP's 11 mile AER, if it was easier to keep the ICE from kicking in; my 1-way commute is 4.2 miles, so if I were to drive it like most people instead of riding my bike, the PiP's AER would be alI I'd need.
Only problem is that in reality, most people with PHEVs drive them like they were HEVs. Almost never plugged in. So far less real GHG reduction.
Can you provide a cite that 'most' PHEVs are never plugged in? I've seen studies that indicates that's often the case for company cars owing to the lack of incentives for driving EV, plus I've seen a fair amount of anecdotal remarks that some PiPs were bought by people in California solely for the HOV stickers, but I've seen nothing to indicate that 'most' PHEVs with greater and more robust AERs are so used. As one piece of anecdotal evidence, A friend has had two Fusion Energis, and he told me he can and does do all his routine driving on the battery. California has now raised the minimum range so his car would no longer qualify for a state subsidy/HOV sticker.
WetEV said:
Don't get me wrong, a HEV is generally less polluting than an ICE. And yes, some are actually driven as PHEVs. But with battery prices below $100/kWh, a PHEV is a more expensive solution than a BEV. As is an ICE, unless gasoline prices are really low, or the driving/charging pattern isn't reasonable.
Maybe a different tax or subsidy scheme might change this, but such behavior seems fairly consistent even with high gasoline prices in Europe. I'd guess, and GRA is going to ignore this point, the underwhelming driving experience of most PHEVs on pure EV might be a large part of the issue.
Again, depends where you're driving it,
relative prices of fossil fuel and electricity, andd what your incentives are to drive it electrically. And while some PHEVs have had anemic pure EV performance, many don't - it's not inherent to the tech. The PiP was underwhelming, the Volt wasn't, etc.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Meanwhile, BEVs need much larger packs to be considered useful by customers, which raises their price to where people with incomes able to claim the full tax exemption are, i.e. above mass-market prices.
If we're going to have subsidies here, I'm glad that we cap the fed. subsidy at 18kWh although it would be far better to end it altogether, or at least change it to range-based as California has done with ours. But without a price cap as well, it doesn't send the right signal to customers or companies, instead subsidizing those who need it least, and causing companies to emphasize developing more rather than less expensive options (see Mach-E vs. Escape below).
The point to subsidies, mandates and/or pollution taxes is to drive adoption of the new and clean technology, and to match the cost of the dirty technology that isn't accounted for directly. Not social justice. Not optimal economic efficiency today. Long term economic efficiency.
Any such subsidies, mandates etc. should be designed to achieve the desired end as quickly, efficiently and at the lowest cost both financially and environmentally as possible. The current ones here fail to do that.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
I just recall for how long you insisted that EVs were less than 1% of sales after the time EVs were more than 1% of sales. Doesn't fit your schema, eh?
Provide a cite showing I "insisted" any such thing, as I was monitoring and quoting the IEVS monthly sales totals until they stopped doing that.
OK, you repeated the statement multiple times after correction. Wrong word, "insist".
Again, since you say I did so multiple times, you should have no trouble provide a cite showing that I incorrectly stated the % of PEVs and BEVs sold here, any correction of same followed by my repeating the same mis-statement. I am unaware of any such interchange between us, but will happily concede I'm wrong given evidence. I expect you to concede the same should you be unable to do so. I have repeatedly cited the most current data I could find, from IEVS and other sources.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Yes, the last two years are below the exponential trend. The last two years have been interesting, to say the least. China cut subsidies for EVs in 2019 and the pandemic in 2020.
IIRR, China's subsidy 'reduction' involved raising the minimum AER for a vehicle to qualify for it.
So? A reduction of subsidy should cause a temporary reduction, especially as the reduction might also be temporary. Might even change the exponent of the exponential trend. Rather than about 2.5 years, might be 3 years. But doesn't change the exponential nature of adoption, which is common with new technologies.
It will cause a reduction if there isn't strong incentive to change. China's mandates for NEVs and their restricting licenses for ICEs, plus the fact that their economy was growing rather than shrinking all played their parts. I note you edited out those factors, which I cited, in your reply. Care to address them, and what effect YOU think they would have on sales?
As I noted above, California has now raised the minimum AER just as China did, eliminating some entirely practical and relatively affordable PHEVs from qualifying for incentives, while continuing to provide incentives for more expensive cars. Which is exactly what I said was happening, but you questioned.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Do note that subsidies and mandates for non-ICE cars reduce air pollution. To counter the subsidy that an ICE gets for dumping toxic chemicals into people's lungs, EVs should be subsidized.
As others have noted, higher fuel/carbon taxes can do the same job as subsidies, directly penalizing the vehicles doing the most damage. That's one of the main reasons (along with generally higher subsidies, stronger mandates, and/or shorter driving distances) that PEVs have higher take rates in Europe.
PHEVs?
Subsidies are far more efficient when the clean technology is a small fraction of the market. Revisit this in a decade or less, after EVs are close to a majority of the market.
We're already a decade in to mass-produced PEVs, and most of our subsidies have been going to people who need them the least or not at all. California still has a $60k price cap on our state rebate, and an even more idiotically high income cap - why? I forget if the feds finally imposed either. Washington state, at least, got that right years back, when they put IIRR a $35k price cap on their rebate.
Nobody felt that subsidizing the wealthy to buy personal computers, cell phones, HDTVs or similar high tech in their expensive early days made sense, so why should EVs be different? By all means subsidize R&D, Dem/Val and maybe even some factory tooling, but not consumer deployment.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
The subsidies and mandates almost
surely started the EV explosion faster, and do move the sales around, but the explosion was likely to happen in any case.
An EV as a daily driver is just better.
Did you catch that Worldwide EV sales have been growing exponentially?
See above, which merely confirms my claim that PEV and esp. BEV sales remain dependent on subsidies and mandates rather than natural demand. Remove the subsidies and add taxes, and people will buy the HEV/PHEV/BEV that best matches their requirements.
Again, taxes are less efficient than subsidies, and BEV sales are not dependent on subsidies and mandates OR taxes at the high end.
At the high end they aren't necessary, so why are any of them used? We agree there's neither a need or justification for them AT THE HiGH END.
WetEV said:
Technology adaptions are often exponential for a list of reasons. Notice that worldwide EV sales have been growing exponentially.
Exponential growth often is not understood. EV adoption is so slow, GRA can't wait. Doubling every ~2.5 years will look slow, until it looks explosive.
Oh please, I don't need you to tell me how exponential growth proceeds. I was involved in PV/battery systems 30 years ago, and I'm well aware of what that adoption curve looked like. The difference is that I consider the need for a more rapid early change to be far more critical in this case.