17 Sep 2020
Guest post by Mike Jonas,
There is an article today from the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)
Plug-in hybrids are a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’
that attacks plug-in hybrid vehicles because
“Carbon dioxide emissions from plug-in hybrid cars are as much as two-and-a-half times higher than official tests suggest, according to new research.“
The greens (Transport and Environment and Greenpeace) are now attacking plug-in hybrids, and calling for them to be banned, saying “false claims of lower emissions are a ploy by car manufacturers to go on producing SUVs and petrol and diesel engines.“.
I feel that it is worth noting the following:
1. False claims of lower emissions by plug-in hybrids cannot be a ploy by car manufacturers to go on producing SUVs and petrol and diesel engines, because they give plug-in hybrids better green credentials than SUVs and petrol and diesel engines, not worse.
2.Even the data that Transport and Environment and Greenpeace are using shows that plug-in hybrids emit less CO2 than petrol or diesel cars.
3. Those emissions can be reduced anyway – if that is really what is needed – simply by getting users to charge more at home instead of always using the petrol/diesel engine to charge the batteries.
4. The major problem that plug-in hybrids solve was never CO2 emissions. Their real value lies in cutting city pollution.
Petrol/diesel exhaust fumes have become a major problem in densely-populated cities, and plug-in hybrids are a promising way of reducing the problem. By using the battery when in a city, the city’s air is kept clean. By using the petrol/diesel when outside the city, the plug-in hybrid does not have the range limitation of a battery-only vehicle. Also, on a very cold day, when a battery is less effective, the petrol/diesel keeps the plug-in hybrid going.
There is an argument, of course, that charging at home uses grid electricity, a lot of which is coal-fired, and therefore the plug-in hybrid (or any electric vehicle) is not cutting CO2 emissions anyway. That argument may well be valid, but the big advantage of the electric vehicle is that it moves the exhaust fumes away from the city. Once you understand that CO2 emissions are of no importance at all compared to city pollution, the use of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids in cities starts to make a lot of sense.
Footnote: This whole thing looks like the greens eating their own young. After all, it was the greens who pressed for things like plug-in hybrids in the first place. But what I think is really going on is that this particular variety of greenism – or maybe even all of greenism – is fundamentally opposed to anything that can work to make people’s lives more independent, more prosperous and more comfortable. If they get their way on banning plug-in hybrids, it won’t be long before they attack the next thing that works.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The plans, tabled by Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN), would allow distributors to contact consumers directly to ask for permission to temporarily turn off appliances with high usage, including heat pumps and electric vehicle chargers.
There are fears that mass uptake of these green technologies will put pressure on the energy network.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/17/smart-meters-could-used-turn-heating-vehicle-chargers-plans/
Today voluntary, tomorrow compulsory.
We actually used to have a system like that here in Bergen, Norway.
The local utility could trip the main heater in the building when required (because of high load or for whatever reason). We got a lower electricity rate for the so called second-priority power. However, this was apparently a pure grid balancing scheme, the central heating switched to oil automatically when they cut us off !(which happened once every second year or thereabout).
After many years they installed a district heating system and the cheap power offer was taken away (hook up to the district heating or else…). Anyway, the heating tariff follows the electricity price but since the the electricity has been record cheep for a year the utility have now run into the somewhat peculiar problem that they cannot pay for the investment in the district heating because of low electricity price. They now plan to increase the grid fee for electricity to compensate. So the end of the story is, the electricity users pay for a (failed) investment in district heating while we who use it pay proportionally less since we use less electricity. You just have to love New Public Management!
Thirty years ago our 54246 electric utility needed additional load to properly idle the DG’s through the night. We were offered cheap electric heat and older houses still enjoy the subsidy.
Smart-meters have just arrived.
‘False claims of lower emissions by plug-in hybrids cannot be a ploy by car manufacturers to go on producing SUVs and petrol and diesel engines’
why not? You do know the EU now requires car makers to achieve a low level of CO2 emission across the entire range of cars they produce? So to keep selling SUVs, they have to up the proportion of EV and PHEVs they sell in total…?
We aren’t in the EU now, griff.
Are you having trouble accepting that fact?
Why aren’t you cheering Boris Johnson who aims to ban petrol and diesel cars in 2030; a good ten years ahead of the EU?
I’ll leave you to do the mental gymnastics.
Ireland is still in.
Still applies across the EU… and would include vehicles built there for sale in the UK, I believe.
Take a step back, the CO2 numbers are calculated using an international standard, Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure. This allows a vehicle to vehicle comparison but doesn’t reflect real life, no wind resistance involved, power to weight and other variables ignored as well.
For electric vehicles, which are tested to the same standard, I don’t think power generation source mix for the grid and losses are included.
The US Environmental Protection Agency still has the biggest gas mileage scheme going. Through government fiat it established that the chemical energy in a gallon of fuel is equated to Watts(no gibe meant Anthony) of electricity for electric cars- no losses, so waste, no reality. MPGe means absolutely nothing in comparison to MPG.
Electric cars do not produce electricity. They use electricity generated by a mix of mainly fossil fuels with natural gas(38%), coal(23%).nuclear(20%), and 17% mixed so-called”green” sources- wind, hyrdroeclectric*~14%, and less than 4% from solar, biomass, and geothermal.
Tell me how wonderfully GREEN that is. It is a scam. The damage done by using these wasteful schemes doesn’t even count when compared to the damage caused by producing and replacing windmills and solar power.
I really want to see you driving a curricle with a horse pulling it, griff. That’s the only way anyone can exponentially reduce carbon emissions (not counting the horse passing gas, of course).
Have a nice weekend.
But wait Sara, Griff doesn’t plan on getting about utilizing 19th century horse power. He simply wants you and I and the rest of the unwashed to have to do so. More fossil fuel for him you see.
Bill, you’re far too kind. Griff has to learn the lessons of 17th/18th century living. I don’t think he can survive on anything that is not canned, boxed, or frozen, and will howl in fright at the idea of cooking over an open fire.
Me? You? We’ll have the whole feral hog roasting slowly over the coals while Griff turns the spit, and bread bakes in the Dutch oven near the fire.
I also cook, you know.
Sara,
I would recommend throwing the hog in a deep hole filled 4-6” of coals. If you don’t have access to banana leaves you can always wrap it in soaked burlap before burying it for the day! Polynesian or Texas style, either way the pork comes out tender and falls off the bone!
Unfortunately, I don’t think the Griff is capable of learning lessons. It is much more concerned with maintaining good standing in the High Church of Climastrology and does not dare speak heresies against the dogma it recites by rote. Poverty, both material and energy, is for the peons and serfs in it’s dark vision of the future!
Any green worth their snuff would never be caught dead driving a hybrid. They still use fossil fuels.
The only problem with this statement is that it is in itself fairly false.
In that:
So long as hybrids that utilize fossil fuels as an alternative fuel are produced, fossil fuels will also be refined as their alternate fuel source. AND as long as fossil fuels are refined as the alternate fuel, other vehicles using that fuel can also be produced.
Unless, of course, there aren’t really that many people who believe it’s a problem.
BUT…
Griff, if you want fossil fuels to vanish from the available energy source mix, all you and the 95% of the populace that agrees with you need to do is stop using fossil fuels as an energy source…period.
And stop using any and all of the more than 6000 products dependant on Oil, Coal and Petrochemicals.
Oh and by the by, Solar Panels require the mining of Coal to produce the Silicon they need
Mining of silicon is not the worst result of large scale solar deployment.
Massive transfer of currency to the largest manufacturer of panels is the worst consequence. (China if you have to ask).
And that is you want crappy panels that catch fire after 5 years use
The US Environmental Protection Agency still has the biggest gas mileage scheme going. Through government fiat it established that the chemical energy in a gallon of fuel is equated to Watts(no gibe meant Anthony) of electricity for electric cars- no losses, so waste, no reality. MPGe means absolutely nothing in comparison to MPG in the US.
Electric cars do not produce electricity. They use electricity generated by a mix of mainly fossil fuels with natural gas(38%), coal(23%).nuclear(20%), and 17% mixed so-called”green” sources- wind, hyrdroeclectric*~14%, and less than 4% from solar, biomass, and geothermal.
Tell me how wonderfully GREEN that is. It is a scam. The damage done by using these wasteful schemes doesn’t even count when compared to the damage caused by producing and replacing windmills and solar power.
well, these are the same people who claim to want to drastically reduce CO2 but who oppose nuclear power.
You are spot on. It has nothing to do, at all, with improving the human condition. It is the psychotic pursuit of creating some sort of “unspoiled paradise” for a “deserving few”.
I don’t care at all about the CO2 aspects of a well designed PHEV. Depending how you drive it, may never need the ICE engine a lot, but if you need to drive 1000 Km, you can do so as well, as long as you have gas. It does seem to be the best alternative for the best of ICE tech and EV. The 2021 Toyota Rav4 Prime has a smallish 2.5L gas engine and a smallish 18.1 kW/h battery with a combined 302 Hp that goes like snot with a range of 42 miles on battery alone. It is the ideal Plug In Hybrid that has finally arrived and demand is so hot, you can’t buy one. Takes 6-7 hours to charge up on a 110V 15 Amp plug. I have a $1000 deposit on one, and supposedly will get delivery this Christmas. The Rav4 Prime Tech package even has a 1500 watt inverter, so will be great for off grid. You know it is a winner when Big Green is out to destroy it now.
Looks like a decent option. Just don’t make me buy one.
Nor should it be subsidized. Unfortunately, the subsidies distort the true economics. It is so bad that in Canada, Quebec offers a provincial subsidy to about 3-4 times other provinces offer for EV’s and PHEV’s. On top of a national subsidy. And then they hose Alberta for the Transfer payments to pay for it all. (while they block the Energy East pipeline) And then their cheap hydroelectric rates that doesn’t get calculated into Equalization payments, which is another story on how natural resources are calculated. And Quebec is going to get nearly 80% of these Rav4 Prime PHEV’s for 2021 in all of Canada, because they have a law that says to be a dealer in Quebec, you have to offer such and such EV and PHEV models and sell this many, which distorts the true market. I would be willing to pay fair market value (with no subsidies) for one as long as everyone else did too. The auto companies inflate the price a bit on EV’s, because they know the consumer is getting a kick back to buy one.
2 other points: the study showed that the ICE engines were switching on even in low emissions zones – things like cruise control or heaters cause them to come on.
Also, there is very little coal power in the UK grid -just 2% of electricity in 2019 and 2 months this year with no coal contribution at all.
Yet more reasons for banning hybrid vehicles griff.
Yes I agree griff, so while we’re both here, lets campaign for the reinstatement of diesel or gasoline powered ICE to be the only option because mandating what people can and can’t drive it is a sure sign of freedom eh, griff.
And we’re both for more freedoms aren’t we griff?
What to free-up next? Coal, gas and oil?
Apart from the Dutch interconnector with the coal-fired power station at the other end. Won’t hear about that on the BBC or read it in the Guardian.
And just 4% energy total in 2019 from wind/solar/hydro; another great victory.
the study showed that the ICE engines were switching on even in low emissions zones – things like cruise control or heaters cause them to come on.
Yeah, So? It’s more energy efficient to turn on the ICE to generate heat. Surely energy efficiency is a good thing.
Greenies are so clueless. About everything. Hybrids were invented to reduce fuel consumption, not emissions – carbon emissions were not even on the radar when hybrids first appeared. And they certainly have reduced fuel consumption and thereby emissions. And they are affordable by the masses, which EVs at this stage are not.
And EVs produce their share of emissions and always will until the grid becomes carbon free. It would be enlightening to compare the emission reductions of hybrids versus that small amount provided by wind turbines, which reportedly do not reduce carbon emissions during their lifespan to equal those produced in building and erecting these monsters.
Being clueless doesn’t make them any less dangerous, alas.
“And they are affordable by the masses, which EVs at this stage are not.”
Hybrids are affordable (kind of). Plug-in hybrids, which are what the article is about, are almost as expensive as pure electrics.
Government figures prove that air pollution in cities , [ in the UK ] , has reduced by 75% in the last 50 years .
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-1970-to-2018-summary
During the lockdown when traffic was down by about 80% , the level of air pollution in cities did not change . A German transport minister did a online TV news interview saying that , ” This proved that transport was not a major cause of air pollution , & they were no longer considering a ban on diesel vehicles ” .
This report did not go down well with the Greens , and was made to disappear within 1 day .
So the whole Green thing about vehicles is just more of their lies .
I remember a report from back in the 80’s that the Los Angeles air quality board was going after bakeries because of emissions from the baking process. They wanted them to start installing catalytic converters on their ovens.
Here is a link to the history of air emissions standards in the US. This EPA data shows that NOx has been reduced 98% from 1975 levels. I don’t have the 1970 data which was the year they introduced early emissions reductions standards, mostly for VOC reduction (gasoline vapors).
I don’t buy the statement that air pollution is getting worse in cities. If so, only by marginal amounts. In 2002 I attended a conference (DEER 2002) where a presenter showed the history of ozone emissions and standards. In LA in 1970, there were 180 days of ozone non-attainment. Catalysts were introduced in 1975 and Fuel Injection in the 1980’s. By 2002, ozone non-attainment was down to 11 day/year. During that time, population doubled and vehicle miles traveled quadrupled while the ozone standard was cut in half. So the simple early devices for emissions controls did their job.
Nowadays, vehicles are cleaner than the air itself. There was an article by Gary Yowell, formerly of the California Energy Commission, which stated that during the fires, driving diesel trucks removed PM from the atmosphere as the diesel PM traps are that effective. Now this isn’t a solution, but trucks are not the problem either. And since cars and trucks meet the same standards in most cases, there really isn’t much “pollution” from vehicles anymore
So relating asthma to emissions is a false narrative as the long term correlation is negative.
More on US Emissions Reductions and energy production:
The biggest increase in non-attainment days came because the standards have been tightened several times.
Nowadays, vehicles are cleaner than the air itself.
Hah! Good try. No way.
Disbelieve all you want, but in regards to certain pollutants, it’s true. The cars exhaust systems are designed to filter out certain pollutants (IE not emit them) that already exist in city air from other sources – the result being that the exhaust coming out of the car has less of those pollutants than can be found in the city air (IE “cleaner than the air”)
“During the lockdown when traffic was down by about 80% , the level of air pollution in cities did not change”
Maybe there was some city or some region in the UK in which what you describe actually happened. Colder weather and lack of rain can provoke that due to the heating of buildings, which also generates its share of pollution. But I can tell you that it was not the norm. In Spain pollution dropped quite noticeably in most cities. It is also true that our lockdwn was way heavier than UK’s.
“During the lockdown when traffic was down by about 80% , the level of air pollution in cities did not change”
Interesting. Do you have a link for that? I did a quick scan, and some reports contradicted that. eg.
https://www.timesnownews.com/mirror-now/in-focus/article/delhi-s-air-cleanest-in-5-years-how-the-environmental-gains-of-lockdown-can-be-extended-beyond-covid/646196
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2020/03/27/coronavirus-lockdowns-cause-dramatic-drop-in-air-pollution/#6d222cb42cb2
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/30/clean-air-in-europe-during-lockdown-leads-to-11000-fewer-deaths
“greenism – is fundamentally opposed to anything that can work to make people’s lives more independent, more prosperous and more comfortable.”
Unhappy people try to promote unhappiness. It makes them feel better.
The only thing that could make 2020 weirder would be for the green NPCs to show some common sense.
Amazing how CO2 fixation/taxation/obsession/hating/etc. results in ignoring real issues.
In big badly ventilated cities, there often is issues with air pollution and some people are even wearing masks to protect themselves. They are not wearing the masks due to CO2, as the masks tend to increase their CO2 levels, they wear them due to particulate matter that often stinks and damage health in the long run.
Yes I know people in some countries are wearing masks due to C-19, which is another matter all together.
Good example of Progressives’ success in conflating and confusing definitions in language.
Once they got a “legal” (but not scientific) judgement that CO2 is “pollution” they were able support a wide range of misinformation in everything from their propaganda to the mis-education of elementary school children.
As an example I would wager that most people in the US under the age of 25 would not understand the distinction you made in your first paragraph.
The Greens and Climate Alarmists are fundamentally opposed to anything that actually works, whether it reduces CO2 emissions or not. Their aim is really to exercise absolute control over people’s lives, make them subservient to authority and make their lives less independent, less prosperous and much less comfortable
Exactly right. Hobbling and encumbering Capitalist progress is the Marxist way.
Marxism doesn’t work, so the only way to make it look practical is to destroy all other systems.
As Sir Winston Churchill once remarked “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried.” The corollary to that would be “marxism is the best form of government, except for all those others that have been tried.”
There’s a reason the list of failed Marxist states is long and the list of successful Marxist states non-existent. They won’t “get it right” next time anymore than it was gotten right all those previous times, because there is no getting it right, it’s a flawed premise from first principles.
Greens who are really Reds who are really a Cancer to modern civilization. The only good Communist is a dead Communist.
The only good socialist is a dead socialist, as communism and fascism are merely different shades of the same sickly green.
Read and understand Karl Popper’s *The Open Society and Its Enemies* that put the lie to the dialectic in 1945. Men have free will to avoid the synthetic argument.
The last thing you need on a scorching hot day is an all electric car. The A/C drains the battery and in a bushfire
the power fails and you cannot charge it.
This was the problem for those trapped in the South Coast of NSW during the last fires.
At least with petrol you can carry fuel or fill the tank before entering the danger zone.
Hybrids at least solve some of this problem. The big problem comes when the battery needs to be replaced and the value drops.
Heat also reduces the efficiency of the battery.
Plug-in electric vehicles for use in polluted city centers, with the electricity (see Mike Wenlock above) produced by nuclear power would be a logical advance. However, no greenie can agree to nuclear power, no matter how modern, well-located, and safe-guarded the reactor is, so this is a non-starter. Electric vehicles don’t work in many places (try crossing the Andes Mountains in South America, for instance) so one-car families are going conventional petrol-power. Long haul truckers? Go ask one, maybe from a safe distance.
Wouldn’t like to charge a car with that cable shown in the photo. An electric razor, maybe.
My issue with plug in hybrids is weight. The batteries add 800 lbs to a regular hybrid. If you mostly commute urban – suburban within the small battery range, great. But if you regularly commute beyond battery range or travel long distances you carry a lot of parasitic weight and waste fuel.
On a motorway journey at steady speed hybrids make you less fuel efficient due to weight increasing the rolling friction. Recovery of energy during braking only works….when you are braking, so has little or no impact on motorway journeys.
I drive quiet rural roads to work. I can emulate energy recovery systems by simply mimising braking. This means knowing the road well and judging when to lift off power so as to arrive at a junction or bend with only minimal or no braking required. The challenge is then to break my mpg record to work or back.
Depends on the road. On the Jersey Turnpike, which is flat and usually has no slow downs, that is true. But on I84 in CT and NY, with all those hills and slow downs, and on the NY state parkways with hills and slowdown, the hybrid stuff really saves gas.
Battery powered vehicles with regenerative braking make perfect sense for urban environments.
The batteries add 800 lbs to a regular hybrid.
No way. Plug-in hybrids tend to carry batteries of around 8-10kWh capacity. By current standards, such a battery will weight around 80kg which is around 180lbs, not 800lbs. The plug-in hybrid of course also carries several other electrical components, especially the engine is not very light… but even putting all of that together it is not going to come anywhere close to 800lbs.
It’s called buying the vehicle that best suits your needs. As you point out, for mostly urban/suburban commuting, a hybrid, a plug-in hybrid, or in some cases even an All electric vehicle can work great, possibly even better than an ICE depending on one’s commute. Long distance travel or heavy hauling or extreme temperature environments (far northern climes, for example), not so much.
With my suburban commute, a plug-in Hybrid would actually be a good choice. My commute is short enough to be within the battery range (so would be running on electric the majority of the time), but long enough that if I forgot to charge it up before heading out the ICE would be there to make sure I got to my destination without running out of power. Winters are cold enough that the ICE would ensure cabin warmth but not so cold as to make the batteries entirely useless. When it comes time to replace my current ICE (its 12 years old and still has plenty of life left in it), a plug-in hybrid is certainly an option I’ll consider.
The batteries add 800 lbs to a regular hybrid
No, they do not. Plug-in hybrid batteries typical weigh somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 to 250 pounds, depending on make and model (models with longer ranges have heavier batteries, obviously). You might be thinking of the lower-end for EV batteries.
This whole thing looks like the greens eating their own young. After all, it was the greens who pressed for things like plug-in hybrids in the first place.
In my opinion, most leftists are defined by what they are against rather than what they are in favor of. They latched onto lithium storage not because it is practicable and economic, which it isn’t, but simply because they were against petrol and diesel. Now that they are finally having to acknowledge that lithium has too many problems and limitations, they are casting around for something – anything – else to run with and, going by the shifting narrative, it seems that it will be hydrogen. And when that is shown to be impracticable, they’ll move onto something else. Why the obsessive hatred of fossil fuels? I believe it has its origins in the 70s when the Soviets were funding leftist agitators in the West to campaign against America’s interests. At that time, US industrial corporations pretty much dominated the world, none more so than the energy industries. They came in for special attention, firstly, to disrupt America’s supply of natural resources and, secondly, because they were easy targets in the foreign markets in which they operated. All the gray-bearded leftists have carried this animosity through with them to the present day, infecting new generations with it as time went by.
“And when that is shown to be impracticable, they’ll move onto something else. ”
Abandoning a preferred solution merely because it doesn’t work? That will be a first for them.
I love the way they so predictably reject a viable technology that would move the world towards their desired state. If they cant have their own way 100% they stamp their feet and whine like petulant children. Nuclear power, plug in hybrids, retaining gas generators to avoid blackouts. They live in a fantasy world.
The whole point is to get us out of our personal cars and on to bicycles and public transportation.
Experience with coronavirus teaches us that density (touted by greenies) is dangerous to public health. We’re probably better off living in small cities and using cars to get around. As for the environment, my landscaped (ie. not just grass) back yard has biodiversity that probably exceeds the nearby forest. Fuel consumption isn’t the only issue that should guide how we live.
One of our friends has a delivery business and saves a bundle by driving a Prius. It gets much better mileage than an even smaller non-hybrid Smart car.
Given the above, you’d think hybrid delivery vans would be an obvious money saver. Maybe not. Anyway, the big delivery companies are voting with their bucks. Only one of the companies operating in my area has hybrid vans.
Private companies have to be concerned about the total cost of ownership, not just the operating costs. The higher purchase price of hybrids is a big problem. Beyond that are concerns about the life expectancy of the battery and it’s replacement cost.
“The higher purchase price of hybrids is a big problem. ” Not for private companies. They lease capital equipment instead of buying, so they can immediately deduct the expenditure as an “expense.”
Suppose that I spent $10k and it resulted in me paying $5k less tax. That sort of means I got whatever for half price, but I didn’t get it for free.
Suppose that I leased the equipment and it resulted in me paying $5k less tax due to the deduction from revenue for the cost of the lease. That sort of means I got to use whatever for a deduction from revenue.
… and you have $5k less in your pocket.
The lease cost is based on both the purchase price and the expected value of the returned vehicle. So you still have to worry about purchase price. Expensing something as a deduction reduces your net profits and since no company is taxed at 100% they still have to care about purchase price.
The leasing company has to worry about the purchase price, and the cost of money. You are ignorant of how to run a business there Mr. MarkW. You cannot “expense” the purchase price of a vehicle, so not only does the bottom line suffer from the capital outlay, you get no tax advantage from doing so. Which is why businesses lease rather than buy.
If you think that the lease price isn’t determined by the purchase price, then you are the one who doesn’t know how business works.
As to your claim that you get no tax benefits from purchases, you are the one spouting BS. Have you never heard of depreciation?
Mr. MarkW, the capital outlay you make to purchase the vehicle is cash that would serve better purposes in your business. In any business it is always advantageous to use other people’s money namely the lease provider. Apparently you don’t know how to run a business.
Do you always change the subject when you find yourself behind?
You made the claim that when companies lease things, the cost of the thing being leased stops being relevant. You have yet to defend that claim.
All you have managed to do is change the claim twice and then make the absurd statement that anyone who doesn’t agree with you knows nothing about how businesses are run.
Further more, how is a lease different from using a loan to make the purchase?
PS Mr. MarkW, the life expectancy of the battery and it’s replacement cost become the problem of the leasing company, not the end user.
If you don’t think that the leasing company doesn’t price this “problem” into the cost of the lease, then you know nothing about how business operates.
You cannot “expense” the purchase price of a vehicle
Never heard of depreciation? and you have the nerve to claim others don’t understand how businesses are run!
the life expectancy of the battery and it’s replacement cost become the problem of the leasing company, not the end user.
And you don’t think the leasing company bases the lease price on “their problems”? They need to make a profit too. They’re not going to lease at a loss, they wouldn’t stay in business very long if they did. If it costs them more, you can bet the lease price will be more in order to make up for those increased costs. Ultimately it is the end user that pays more the same as happens when any other factor increases costs (increased labor costs, taxes, etc) it get passed on to the end user. If you don’t understand that, then you are in no position to be making claims about other peoples supposed lack of knowledge regarding how businesses are run considering your demonstrated lack of knowledge in that regard.
CO2, CO2, CO2…
It seems that half of the people are dedicated to making the other half as miserable as they are.
The power company I work for would love, love, love to sell vast amounts of energy to a giant fleet of battery powered cars. We’d love to have great big batteries supplying the grid when a power plant trips offline. But battery technology simply isn’t up to the job.
The word breakthrough is certainly overworked. But that’s what is needed in terms of battery physics — a breakthrough.
Most people don’t understand that tiny technical detail. Unlike incremental improvements, breakthroughs don’t respond to normal management processes. A lot of the time, trying for a breakthrough pretty much guarantees that it won’t happen.
We’ve been working hard on storage technology for a long time. All the low hanging fruit has been picked. I wouldn’t bet on a breakthrough any time soon.
CB,
I don’t think a chemistry-based cell is going to be the answer. What reversible reactions using combinations of metals have yet to be tried? Some people are pushing fuel cell tech, but the breakthrough is not there either. Super capacitors have similar limits tied to fundamental physics.
Truth is, the energy density and versatility of gasoline, diesel, and even propane are just so much better than the very best battery ever made that they are just in different leagues entirely.
As a power plant engineer, I’m hoping some mega-genius will come up with an answer. It would be everlasting job security for me. I just don’t see it happening — or even something close.
Agreed, the energy density is the key here.
One kg of petrol contains the same amount of real energy as 53 kg of lithium ion battery.
What I have never seen is a calculation which compares a pure Electric version v ICE version v plug in hybrid v self charging hybrid. To include the CO2 consumed in each variants manufacture, calculated over a 15 year life, with perhaps a battery change
My feeling is that carting an ICE and a battery in the hybrid variants will have a detrimental effect on CO2 emissions, but without data a rational decision is tricky.
Just compare the hybrid versus non-hybrid version of anything from Toyota or Honda. Forget CO2. A “cost to own” comparison for identically equipped cars is enlightening. I did this several years ago for Honda Civics hybrid versus the conventional internal combustion version. The hybrid would be junk long before you could break even, unless the government decided to carbon-tax motor fuel out the wazoo. With a low mileage car around town, the hybrid never breaks even. Toyota fools us by creating the Prius, that ugly duckling car that is not available as a pure gas-powered vehicle, so no direct comparison is possible. Buyers never realize that the premium paid for the car may never be recouped by fuel savings. I know, someone out there is a Prius owner and will beg to differ. How about a Chevy Tahoe hybrid (20 mpg city / 23 mpg highway) versus non-hybrid (15 mpg city/ 22 mpg highway)? Of course, this is all a moving target as technologies change, models change, and driving needs vary, making it difficult to make sweeping generalizations.
In Europe, the governments already tax the heck out of motor fuel. In essence, they have already been taxing carbon for decades; they just didn’t give it that “green patina.” Here in Texas, we are paying $1.67/gallon ($0.44/liter) right now, including state ($0.20/gal) and federal taxes ($0.184/gal). The majority of our motor fuels tax revenue is used for transportation projects, which should be the main purpose of a fuel tax (road construction and maintenance). We can only imagine where a carbon tax would be squandered.
The COGS (constantly offended green socialists) are never satisfied, they need to be constantly offended and are determined to be so.
Hybrid vehicles are the sensible option for flexibility and for reduction of city pollution i.e. Sox, Nox and particulate.
What this latest BBC push demonstrates, is the lack of desire to allow personal transport to exist within the woke mindset.
That is becoming increasingly clear.
The greens (Transport and Environment and Greenpeace) are now attacking plug-in hybrids, and calling for them to be banned, saying “false claims of lower emissions are a ploy by car manufacturers to go on producing SUVs and petrol and diesel engines.“. – article
Personally, I’d be perfectly happy going back to the horse and buggy days. Less heavy traffic, no screeching brakes and rollovers, using a woodburning stove instead of gas or electric powered, reading by the light of an oil-burning table lamp, keeping the living room warm with a parlor stove. I’ve been buying up those 18th and 19th century reproduction cookbooks just in case someone decides we shouldn’t have electricity any more.
I can handle it. Those phony-baloney greenbeaners can’t. They need to be careful what they wish for. might get it and they really, really won’t like it.
When I look at the morning sky, it’s still awash in soot particles from the western fires, but that’s all doing Mother Nature a favor. We’ll do fine. It’s the greenbeaners and ecohippies that will find themselves at sea.
You all have a nice weekend.
“Petrol/diesel exhaust fumes have become a major problem in densely-populated cities, and plug-in hybrids are a promising way of reducing the problem.”
Err, “The significant reduction in vehicle journeys during the COVID-19 lockdown did not reduce the level of toxic fine particles in Scotland’s air, according to experts at the University of Stirling.”
https://www.stir.ac.uk/news/2020/09/lockdown-did-not-reduce-most-harmful-type-of-air-pollution-in-scotland/
Interesting – thanks for the link
Hybrids also don’t require the massive number of EV charging stations to be placed in cities.
The costs (currently hidden in utility bills?) of adding charging stations in cities is likely to be very high.
Every component of a complex network style system that serves most cities will need to be upgraded–much of which is underground– the most expensive part of any system to modify. Additionally, opening streets, to increase demand (MW), current (thermal), and fault protection capabilities of conductors, transformers, switching, and controls/communications causes dramatic traffic and business disruption.
The costs should be added to the “green” suppliers, and included in any cost/benefit analyses. Fairly sure that is not done now.
By the way, the author is right. The original concept of hybrids was mileage increase. Plug-in hybrids offer the benefit of reducing “old” pollutants, not CO2.
I still struggle with the concept of two energy sources and two engines being a good thing. I’m not convinced fully electric is a great idea either.
An average European ICE weighs about 500kg with 60 litres of fuel a 24kWh battery and engine weigh about 350kg.
That’s equivalent to carrying 5 to 8 people before leaving home.
Earlier this year, in Cornwall, at an in-town display of Toyota self-charging hybrids, I idly asked the salesman “what is the point of running the engine to charge the battery “. “Oh no, the engine doesn’t charge the battery, that’s done by the wheels going round”.
Wonder what the training video is like.
ROFL!