Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
While I'd prefer not to, if we can burn coal while capturing all the CO2 and other harmful emissions, okay by me. As we're stuck using coal in large quantities for decades yet, as at best we're at the dem-val or early commercialization stages of non-fossil fuel production of steel and cement and we can't do without those, we'd better do as much development and deployment as we can of CCUS.

What's dumber is choosing to burn coal for electricity without CCUS while simultaneously shutting down nukes, which Germany did due to panicking over Chernobyl, despite the fact that the annual early deaths due to coal-fired emissions in just China exceed the total number of extra deaths due to Chernobyl worldwide for the entire lifetimes of all those exposed to radiation and fallout from that, by at least one and quite possibly two orders of magnitude, if not more.
 
GRA said:
While I'd prefer not to, if we can burn coal while capturing all the CO2 and other harmful emissions, okay by me. As we're stuck using coal in large quantities for decades yet, as at best we're at the dem-val or early commercialization stages of non-fossil fuel production of steel and cement and we can't do without those, we'd better do as much development and deployment as we can of CCUS.

Hydrogen is mostly worse than coal. Excluding the very tiny and very expensive green hydrogen, of course.

Only a fraction of the CO2 is "captured" in a CCUS system. All isn't realistic. Especially over the entire fuel cycle, not just combustion.

Attempting to capture CO2 and produce "blue hydrogen" releases more net CO2 than just burning the natural gas.

Considering both the uncaptured carbon dioxide and the large emissions of unburned, so-called “fugitive” methane emissions inherent in using natural gas, the carbon footprint to create blue hydrogen is more than 20% greater than burning either natural gas or coal directly for heat, or about 60% greater than using diesel oil for heat, according to the new paper.

Emissions of blue hydrogen are less than for gray hydrogen, but not greatly so: perhaps surprisingly, only by about 9% to 12%.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
While I'd prefer not to, if we can burn coal while capturing all the CO2 and other harmful emissions, okay by me. As we're stuck using coal in large quantities for decades yet, as at best we're at the dem-val or early commercialization stages of non-fossil fuel production of steel and cement and we can't do without those, we'd better do as much development and deployment as we can of CCUS.

Hydrogen is mostly worse than coal. Excluding the very tiny and very expensive green hydrogen, of course.


Green H2 production is now growing rapidly, with costs coming down thanks to cheap RE.



WetEV said:
Only a fraction of the CO2 is "captured" in a CCUS system. All isn't realistic. Especially over the entire fuel cycle, not just combustion.

Attempting to capture CO2 and produce "blue hydrogen" releases more net CO2 than just burning the natural gas.

Considering both the uncaptured carbon dioxide and the large emissions of unburned, so-called “fugitive” methane emissions inherent in using natural gas, the carbon footprint to create blue hydrogen is more than 20% greater than burning either natural gas or coal directly for heat, or about 60% greater than using diesel oil for heat, according to the new paper.

Emissions of blue hydrogen are less than for gray hydrogen, but not greatly so: perhaps surprisingly, only by about 9% to 12%.


We need to improve CCUS processes to the extent possible. Even so, we're probably going to wind up having to do atmospheric CO2 capture at even greater cost, so capturing as much as possible before it gets there can only help.
 
Mercedes ends PHEV development to focus on EVs
The tech won't be phased out overnight, though.
https://uk.motor1.com/news/532399/mercedes-ends-phev-development/

“No further new developments are planned,” Markus Schäfer, Daimler board member responsible for research and development, told Germany’s Handelsblatt newspaper in Munich. “The investments have been made, to that extent, we are using them.”
 
GCR:
Future Toyota Prime plug-in hybrids: How much range and performance?

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...a-prime-plug-in-hybrids-range-and-performance


There will be future Prime plug-in hybrids from Toyota. Just don’t necessarily expect them to raise the bar for the genre quite like the RAV4 Prime.

That’s among the takeaways from a recent check-in on Toyota’s electrification strategy with Cooper Ericksen, Toyota Motor North America VP for product planning and strategy.

But first off, it’s worth considering what Toyota is doing differently with plug-in hybrids. It brought new life—and excitement—to a formula GM led and then abandoned with the Volt, and those who question the place for plug-in hybrids in today’s market need not look further than the RAV4 Prime. As we’ve pointed out in various tests, ranging from a first drive to off-roading, the Prime helps make all-electric daily driving accessible—resulting in a vehicle that doesn’t feel hobbled by extra weight. . . .

Not all of Toyota's plug-in hybrids deliver that level of range and performance though. The Prius Prime offers 25 all-electric miles and gets 54 mpg combined as a hybrid. But it takes about 10.2 seconds to get to 60 mph.

Will we see much more than the RAV4 Prime's range, or even quicker acceleration, from future Prime models? And will future Prime models represent the best performance of any given model line?

Not necessarily. Ericksen explained that firstly, the RAV4 Prime was a special case; and secondly, it’s really not in the interest of efficiency to carry more battery than you need for a daily driving commute.

“Our research indicates the average customer commutes in that 20-to-30-miles-per-day range,” Ericksen explained. “The key to a plug-in is to have the right range to do your daily tasks on EV only, plugging in, in your garage—and then you have the hybrid portion for long trips, so it's one car that in today's world can really do the job of multiple cars.”

Sweet spot: Just enough to cover the commute, year round

“So frankly, from a consumer standpoint, 40 miles is pretty much where it needs to be,” Ericksen continued, perhaps to cover needs like weather. “You start going above that, you have weight, you have cost.”

That aligns closely with the logic behind a cutoff we’ve applied for years to plug-in hybrid contenders for Green Car Reports’ Best Car To Buy—that any qualifying vehicle needs at least the distance of the average daily commute. While in recent years that’s been about 32 miles, according to a semi-annual AAA survey, this year’s Covid patterns dropped that number to 30 miles.

Ericksen added that Toyota wants to continue to improve the plug-in range of future Prime models without adding battery weight.

There is one exception to that, based on the California Advanced Clean Cars II regulation that proposes a 50-mile electric range from plug-in hybrids. Ericksen explained: “Is that something we could achieve to get the credit value? Probably is; we're pretty close right now. Is it something that the customer is demanding? I don't think so.”

Next, Toyota is expected to take the Prime formula up a size, to the Highlander. Although Ericksen wouldn’t confirm that, he hinted that applying it to bigger, heavier vehicles won’t yield the same range.

“The smaller and lighter weight and more aerodynamic a vehicle is, the easier it is to produce range. Yet one of the biggest needs, one of the biggest impacts on the environment, is the ability to address three-row SUVs, trucks—and so we think there's a use case for plug-ins, on larger vehicles. But frankly, the 50 miles would be very difficult on a large vehicle like that.

“So we think there should be a sliding scale of...what from an engineering standpoint is feasible at an affordable price point,” Ericksen explained. For a big SUV that might mean 25 to 30 miles fully electric, while on a car or a RAV4 Prime, 50 miles could make sense. . . .

'Electrified’ means full hybrid or better

In the U.S., Toyota is looking for 70% of its sales to be electrified by 2030, of which the majority will be hybrids but “a significant portion” will be PHEVs. Battery electrics and fuel-cell models, combined, will make up 15% of U.S. sales by then by Toyota's estimate.

That electrified portion won’t include baby steps like mild-hybrid technology; they’ll be full hybrids at the least, Ericksen asserted. This past year, Toyota introduced two models, the Sienna minivan and Venza crossover, that are only offered as hybrids, and Toyota just added hybrid tech to the Tundra pickup.


I agree with the PHEV range rationale as stated, although many people can get away with less i.e. the Prius Prime's 25 mile AER, and it looks like we can expect one and maybe two more generations of PHEVs from Toyota. I (obviously) also agree with the comment re GM, as they could have owned the RAV4 Prime's market several years in advance, and I would have bought one, assuming it met my other requirements.

I have a friend who, after sequentially leasing a couple of Fusion Energis (19 and 22 miles AER?) for 3 years each has been leasing an X5 xDrive45e for the past 18 months. Like the Energis it's 31 mile AER handles all his routine local needs. He only has L1 charging now (owns his home so can upgrade when needed) and the X5's battery pack is a bit big for that if he's deeply discharged and needs to fully replenish overnight, but he lives over 700 feet up a hill so gets the benefit of that at the start of every drive, as everywhere he needs to go requires first descending to the bottom of the hill. Otherwise he just doesn't worry about it if he occasionally burns a little more gas. Besides, his business requires that he flies a lot, and the energy and emissions from that far outweighs his driving.

He's hoping that a BEV and the necessary infrastructure that meets his needs will be available when the X5's lease is up, but he's been quite happy with his PHEVs. He owns his own business and can write off something like 85% of the lease costs, so economic considerations like TCO haven't really been a factor, but he's the ideal customer for a PHEV.
 
JMO but anything less than 30 miles EV range is just too low, it's one of the reasons we decided to order the RAV4 Prime instead of going with another Prius, the Prime. One of the big reasons other than increased summer range is we live in a cold climate and I know even 40 miles EV range in the summer could possibly drop as low as 20 in the winter with heat use, even with the Prime's efficient heat pump heater, in single digits or sub-zero temps the heat pump doesn't make much of a difference and that's when you really need the extra range. The original PIP Prius was a total joke IMO, not nearly much range even in the best of times and probably next to nothing in the winter, did the PIP even have an electric heater?
My daughter's Hyundai Ionic PHEV is another story, close to 30 miles in the summer but basically 0 in the winter, well if you want any heat as it doesn't have an electric heater, you turn on the heat and the ICE always fires up. I guess with it's tiny(8kw ish) battery if it did have electric heat the range would probably drop to the low teens. That would work for my daughter's 2-mile commute and most of her running around but my guess is Hyundai decided to save the money associated with electric heat and instead just rely on the ICE. I personally would have not bought it, I would have instead bought a Prime but she really didn't want a Prius, after all it's what her parents drive and not nearly sporty enough for her :D
 
jjeff said:
My daughter's Hyundai Ionic PHEV is another story, close to 30 miles in the summer but basically 0 in the winter, well if you want any heat as it doesn't have an electric heater, you turn on the heat and the ICE always fires up. I guess with it's tiny(8kw ish) battery if it did have electric heat the range would probably drop to the low teens.
I'm skeptical that the car does not have a PTC. She might be able to heat up the ICE at home with an engine block heater and then drive EV to work if she keeps the cabin heating/defrost load down.
 
SageBrush said:
jjeff said:
My daughter's Hyundai Ionic PHEV is another story, close to 30 miles in the summer but basically 0 in the winter, well if you want any heat as it doesn't have an electric heater, you turn on the heat and the ICE always fires up. I guess with it's tiny(8kw ish) battery if it did have electric heat the range would probably drop to the low teens.
I'm skeptical that the car does not have a PTC. She might be able to heat up the ICE at home with an engine block heater and then drive EV to work if she keeps the cabin heating/defrost load down.

No definitely no heat in EV mode, crazy but true :( Along with no EV heat it also doesn't have one of the handiest features of EVs IMO, no morning warmup using wall power, the ONLY source of heat is the ICE and of course, if the car is parked in a garage you can't really preheat the vehicle.
 
It hasn't gotten cold enough since I bough my R4P to know how the heat works in the very cold but it does have a heat pump and a PTC heater.

Here in CO, I've driven the car into the 20's without using the ICE and it does fine. My commute is short, the car has heated seats and a heated steering wheel and I'm used to driving an Leaf S so the cabin may not be toasty but so far, the ICE hasn't come on by itself for heat.

The user manual states that the ICE will come on 'when it is needed'. From what I've heard on the forums, turning on the defrost will cause the ICE to start regardless of temperature. I'm not sure how accurate that is or what the reasoning is for that but that's the consensus on those forums. The next time I'm going somewhere I need to use the ICE maybe I'll test it out to see how it works.
 
Back
Top