WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
"Mass market" can't happen today, or this week, or this year. There simply isn't enough production capacity.
Which is why I favor PHEVs for now, for price, number that can be produced given the limited battery supply, and all-around capability given the currently immature/inadequate charging infrastructure.
Nice simple statement. Wrong, but nice and simple. Oh, probably true for you, but not for most.
BEVs are the car of the future.
PHEVs are useful, if you fit the profile. The problem is the profile is fairly narrow. If you don't drive long trips a smaller battery BEV would be a better choice. If you don't drive enough short trips, a HEV would be a better choice. For the PHEV to make sense to the driver/owner, the mix of trips needs to be just right. Then add in the driver experience, where BEVs are just better than both ICE and PHEVs.
The profile is narrow??? Pre-pandemic, 76.4% of American commuters did so solo by car. The average round-trip commute is 41 miles. How is that a narrow profile for PHEVs? Even if you're limited to L1 at one end, 4-6 hours of L1 at 3-5 miles/kWh gives people enough range to do the commute one-way, maybe more in the most congested stop and go commutes with low speeds and lots of regen, which is also where the pollution is greatest and a reduction most necessary. 8-12 hours of L1 at one end and you can do the round trip. L1 at both ends or L2 at either and you can also do the whole commute on battery.
Even with L1 charging at only one end of the trip and ignoring opportunity L2 charging away from home or work, that's still at least 100 mi./week electrically, or 5,200 mi./year; at least 7,280 if you can also L1 charge both days of the weekend. That's a huge reduction in emissions, over half the annual miles driven by the average U.S driver. And far more people have access to L1 now than L2, and they don't need to spend money to upgrade to L2 to have a major impact on their emissions (and given current gas prices, also their fuel expenses).
While we have one or maybe two more generations of PHEVs, we of course continue full speed ahead building the charging/fueling infrastructure (as well as the manufacturing and resource extraction infrastructure) that will allow the transition to full ZEVs. Only super/mega-commuters need a BEV for commuting.
As for smaller battery BEVs, while they may make sense in theory for some who have multiple cars or who simply don't drive anywhere other than locally, in reality U.S. customers won't buy them in more than small numbers, which is why bar the holdover 40kWh LEAF all current BEVs sold here have 200+ miles of range, with 300+ desired. Small battery BEVs rather than PHEVs are the cars with a narrow profile here. See posts a few years up-topic, where I posted the results of several consumer surveys re range demanded by U.S. consumers.
WetEV said:
For you, I'd recommend a HEV for years to come. Cheaper to buy, easier to drive to odd corners of California. Someone has to, there are not enough BEVs.
OT: We're not talking about me, we know my usage is atypical. That being said, even
I could charge L1 at home, with some inconvenience. And while a PHEV may not make the best economic sense for me, it would still be worthwhile for me to have one if I needed to buy a new car now, as it would allow me to eliminate emissions in critical areas e.g. my neighborhood, natural areas, etc. As I don't have such a need at the moment, financially given current interest/lease rates the best course for me isn't an HEV now, it's to keep my ICE until I can get a ZEV of whatever tech meets my needs, renting whichever ZEVs interest me in the meantime whenever the charging infrastructure for a proposed trip allows it. Which is what I've been doing.
Back on topic:
WetEV said:
PHEVs need the same home/work L1/L2 charging infrastructure as BEVs... unless mostly driven as an ICE. Which is what happens a lot with subsidized PHEVs. Unlike BEVs, PHEVs will likely always need subsidies and mandates. BEVs are just nicer cars, and a decade from now will also be cheaper.
As noted above, PHEVs don't
need anything more than L1 at one end to have a major effect.
Currently, a gallon or regular at my closest gas station is
only $5.10, down from $6.50 about 6 weeks ago. While California has the most expensive gas in the country, everyone's paying a lot more for gas than was the case since 2014, with prices having been and likely staying elevated for some time to come. Do you think most people who would pay extra for a PHEV vice HEV
now would opt not to use electricity and just buy gas, given the option?
The main reasons
some PHEVs weren't charged was due to bad incentives and perks. In the case of some PiPs, people bought them in California just for the SO HOV stickers, which I've never been in favor of as you get the greatest emissions reduction vs. an ICE when running on the battery in stop and go traffic, not when cruising at higher speeds. If we were to add a ZEV-only lane
in addition to the HOV lane that might be acceptable, but you'd have to have a transponder for PHEVs to show that they were in fact running on the battery.
The fact that you really had to baby the PiP's accelerator to keep the ICE from turning on was another factor that led to people not bothering to charge it, along with its very limited AER, but modern PHEVs have much more robust electric capability. We can ban any that don't, which California has effectively done as far as range (by not subsidizing those with AER under 35 miles EPA City, increasing to 50 miles EPA by 2035, although as you know I'm against all direct to consumer car price subsidies), and could do the same in relation to accel and top speed if needed.
The other PHEVs that often weren't charged were company cars, where the owners were reimbursed for buying gasoline but not for electricity, so of course they ran on the ICE. That's easily fixable, preferably by not reimbursing them for gas - alternatively, by figuring out a way to reimburse them for electricity.
WetEV said:
PHEVs need no L3 charging, of course. So PHEVs are the car of the present for some people. Not for everyone.
The problem with BEVs is, while they are the car of the future, that they are not the car of the present for everyone.
EVs can't be the car of the present for everyone, there just are not enough EVs made. There can't be enough EVs made today.
There just are not enough batteries made. There can't be enough batteries made today..
There just isn't enough Lithium mined. While there can be enough Lithium mined, it will be years before that happens. And so on.
Uh huh, now follow that to the logical conclusion. A 2023 Niro PHEV has an 11.1 kWh battery and an EPA Combined range of 33 miles, most or all of which will get used on a daily basis. A 2023 Niro (B)EV has a 64.8 kWh battery and an EPA range of 253 miles, most of which goes unused most of the time. 64.8 / 11.1 = 5.8+ Niro PHEV battery packs for every Niro BEV pack you don't build.
WetEV said:
Sure, the Sodium ion battery might fix the last problem, but it will still be years, perhaps a decade before BEVs are most/all of the cars produced. And lots of things will change over that time, including cell chemistry. Change takes time, and this is a lot of change.
A specific cell chemistry is essentially irrelevant to the problem of production/resource shortage, whether in the near or mid-term; smaller packs will always allow more cars to be built.
WetEV said:
Consider the side effects of forcing everyone into PHEVs. For one, public DCQCs become uneconomic not just for years but for decades. Great if you want fossil fueled vehicles to survive, not so great otherwise. To be economic, charging networks need traffic. No more new BEVs, declining traffic. I'd rather see the gas stations with that problem.
Who said anything about forcing anyone into PHEVs? Not me. I've said that we should stop subsidizing PEVs and FCEVs, so that people make rational financial choices rather than basing their decision on a government-distorted artificial price. A 2023 Niro PHEV has a base MSRP of $33,740. The base MSRP of a 2023 Niro EV is $39,450, a $5,710 difference. How many years will it take the average buyer to make up the difference? How many of them can even afford the more expensive car if it isn't subsidized? After all, the rule of thumb is that a $5k reduction in price doubles the size of the potential market. I suspect the Prius Prime on the 5th Gen Prius platform will come in around $30k but we'll see, apparently with at least 37 miles of range. Plus it looks good, and Toyota has finally realized that they need to give people something beyond just efficiency, and provide better performance, handling, ride, NVH etc.