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 fact the BBC refers to CO2 as “pollution” tells you all you need to know about the unscientific bias at the BBC when it comes to the environment.
Does anyone actually take any notice of what the BBC says or does these days?
The obvious question is this: Do the BBC know that every time one of them opens his/her/its mouth to speak, they’re emitting CO2, and contributing to air pollution (as they define it) themselves????
Have a nice weekend.
If BBC employees never went to school, they aught to read for example this:
How Much CO2 Does a Human Exhale? – Reference
It sums up to 3×10^12 gram or 3Gtons per year for just one of millions of species on the land surface alone.
And still it is a cool sunny day here where I sit.
I have an update on the western fire emissions: for the first time in over a week, the sky is a clear blue (there are some cumulo-cirrus clouds, too) and I will be able to see Jupiter and Saturn, and possibly Mars, tonight, after sunset.
What’s wrong with SUV’s?
Funny how none of these arguments over big heavy cars reach back to the 1950’s when cars were land cruising gas guzzlers that could fumigate a city. And isn’t 1950 the cut off for when man took over the Earth’s climate?
“a ploy by car manufacturers to go on producing SUVs and petrol and diesel engines.” No “ploy” is needed, customers want petrol and diesel powered vvehicles so that is what they will continue to make. Oh, and sell.
Since it makes no difference to the climate, if you like electric cars go ahead and buy one, I’ll buy what I like.
The problem is that the current plan is to ban hybrids as well leaving only battery cars. All the tv adverts for cars now are pushing hybrids – probably because they are less insane than battery cars but not by much. Carry an engine that could drive the vehicle but doesn’t and also have a heavy battery to wear your tyres and brakes more.
I certainly don’t care to defend pure plug-in electric vehicles. IF they make economic sense, and if people want to buy them, then have at it. But I am 100% opposed to stacking the deck to give them favored treatment in how people would otherwise freely arrive at a decision to buy one. It is absolutely abhorrent to me to think that taxpayer dollars from a person of limited means goes to subsidize a wealthier family’s purchase of an expensive EV, for any reason. That should and must never happen. Any government equations on how much is being “saved’ because EVs emit less while being driven, must also factor in the base load electricity requirements needed to charge these things both at home and on the highways, in numbers thousands of times greater than at present, and also the cost of the extra emissions required to manufacture and maintain their batteries over their life times, as compared to the already accepted ICE automobiles and transport trucks. Finally, CO2 as plant food is a tremendous Good for the environment, for all animals who eat food. That really should be fairly factored into any equation that claims we must suspend or reduce CO2 emissions. I believe that if that were happening now, we should be adding fossil fuel based CO2 emissions as a net positive in our equations, and the entire debate about EVs would collapse to the question of, is it cool, is it fun, like owning a muscle car or a specialty car.
Meh, unnecessary complexity. As an engineer, KISS. Either have an ICE vehicle, or an EV. Any “savings” associated w/hybrids is minimal.
I drive a hybrid van, Pacifica. Love it. Great mileage. I got 38 mpg on one trip of several hundred miles, but usually about 33 -36 mpg (Depends on how fast you drive and whether there are hills or slow downs, etc.) Around town, on the battery alone, about 70 mpg electric.
Driving around the rocky, hilly coast of Maine last month, I got 60% of my mileage from the hybrid stuff with about 26 -28 mpg overall. (Not sure how that is possible, but you drive up and down hills all the time and that is what the hybrid is best at.)
Not good in cold weather. Forget about the battery being inefficient in the cold. Not a big factor in the midatlantic. The heater for the passenger cabin is an energy hog, consuming 3x as much energy as the AC. The AC, btw, makes virtually no difference in mileage, using only one 1Kw.
It saves gasoline, there is not doubt. Does it save money? That depends on how you use it and the costs of gasoline and electricity. The $10,000 in federal and state rebates help out.
The ICE is insane in urban area. You burn gasoline to make heat, use the heat to drive the car, then to stop you convert your inertia to heat while wearing out your brakes, and spew out fumes into the urban air. Repeat at every stop light and stop sign, all day long. That is madness when an alternative technology is available.
“The ICE is insane in urban area.” Use horses, maybe? Stop spewing out fumes, by all means – there are technologies available and widely used.
joel says:
The ICE is insane in urban area.
ICE has been & still is practically all there is in urban areas. So “insane” is a bit over-the-top, don’t ya think?
Maybe hybrids are “more efficient”? A bit (but then they have more costly initial & maintenance costs) — so let subsidy-free economics decide. Cities used to have widespread electric-trolleys serving urban areas, but the public decided they didn’t want that. That’s free-marketing.
In most urban areas, the exhaust from an ICE vehicle is cleaner than the air that goes in carburetor.
Your electric car also produces heat as a by-product of driving and breaking. What is insane is worrying about the tiny amount of heat being generated by cars.
I resent the taxes I pay being used to subsidise purchase of EV’s and hybreds bought by virtue signalling greenies. On top of that, they boast of how cheap their ‘fuel’ is because there is no road tax on domestic power used to charge their vehicles.
Joel,
While the Pacifica, technically, is a hybrid, its 30 mile range on battery power is laughable. Of course, the 30 mile range assumes no headlights, heating, or a/c are used. Unless you drive almost exclusively within a <10-12mile radius of your home, I question the actual benefit of owning this vehicle. I routinely achieve similar mileage results as reported by you while driving a 305 HP ICE powered Dodge Challenger.
The list price for the hybrid version is about $8k greater than the ICE Pacifica, would you have paid an extra $8k for the paltry 30 mile range on batteries if it was not for the $10k in tax credits that go along with the vehicle purchase?
Unless you drive almost exclusively within a <10-12mile radius of your home
In Urban and some suburban environments, many commuters *do* live within that range. My first job was a 10 mile radius from home, my current one is a bit further at a 14 mile radius. So such a vehicle would mostly cover my commute on electric power alone.
As I said in another post, it’s all about picking the vehicle that best suits your needs. For many urban/suburban commuters it’s a good fit, for those others, particularly those who routinely drive long distances, not so much. The problem isn’t that such options exist. It’s that such options are being subsidized by our taxes and that some wish to make them the only option. Let the market decide, not the politicians.
“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.”
That’s only true if you electricity comes from a non-fossil fuel source.
which in the UK and EU it increasingly does…
And the UK only got 2% of electricity from coal last year.
Correct, the fossil fuel coal is almost out.
But Griff how many percent does the other fossil fuel gas contribute?
Gas contributed 38% of Britain’s electricity in 2019.
According to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Stategy, fossil fuels, coal (7.9 mtoe, million tonnes of oil equivalent), oil (68.5 mtoe) and gas (875.6 TWh, or 75.3 mtoe) supplied 151.7 mtoe, or 79.6 percent of the primary energy used in the U.K. in 2019, while wind and solar accounted for 3.47 percent of the total primary energy use.
That’s right, we can always use the solar panels to charge your cars at night.
Or during the day when they are parked at work, or at the commuter rail station, or while you visit the supermarket, or at home from the battery in your garage (which will no longer fit any modern make of car in the UK!) charged by your home solar panels.
Who put in all the charging stations where you work? Who put in all the charging stations at the rail station? What do you do when they are all full and you have to get on the train, walk home at night?
Hmmmm, I want to see th solar panel installation on a brownstone in Boston that can charge an EV overnight!
If you are going to wish for trillions of dollars in spending to put in all of those charging stations, why don’t you go ahead and wish for the unicorns needed to provide the electricity.
As California has recently demonstrated, wind and solar can’t provide the power needed to run their economy as it is. And now you want to increase the demand by a factor of 10 in order to also charge all the EVs.
Or during the day when they are parked at work
There’s no charging stations at my workplace, or the majority of workplaces around here for that matter, so not an option.
or at the commuter rail station
If commuter rail was a viable option, I wouldn’t need to worry about charging the car, beside which the only commuter rail station in the area doesn’t have charging stations (and are only now installing solar panels because the government is subsidizing them do to so).
while you visit the supermarket
Only one supermarket in my area has a charging station (that being the local Super Walmart). I’m not going shopping at Walmart every time I need to charge my car, And I don’t think Walmart would be too happy to see my constantly using their charging station and not shopping.
or at home from the battery in your garage
Not every one has a garage. I don’t. And for certain people who live in apartments don’t. (apartment dwellers make up about 20% of the US population)
charged by your home solar panels
don’t have home solar panels. only about 1% of the people in my neighborhood have solar panels at home (which were also government subsidized).
So where is the money going to come from to build and install at these non-existent charging stations and solar panels (and garages for the apartment dwellers)? How much is it going to cost? (and how much pollution and CO2 and fossil fuels will be expended building and installing it?) and how long is it going to take to get them built and installed? Hmmm.
Boasting about shutting down coal is like boasting about shooting yourself in the foot. Only 4% of UK energy last year came from wind/solar/hydro.
But 37% of UK electricity.
I wasn’t aware that coal made a contribution to UK energy needs beyond electricity very much? Unless there are more heritage steam railways that I realised?
Griff, wind/solar/hydro contributed 21% of the UK’s electricity in 2019. It looks as if you are adding in “renewable” energy such as Drax power station burning American forests.
2.5 million homes in the UK still use coal or wet wood (unseasoned wood) for heating. I enjoy using The Guardian as a source because it annoys greens when their favourite newspaper is used aginst them.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/21/coal-wet-wood-how-uk-restrictions-work
I wasn’t aware that coal made a contribution to UK energy needs beyond electricity very much?
Never heard of coal for heating? As Bill points out, still used in the UK.
How about for industry? (the UK still has some industry, doesn’t it? or have the greens succeeded in killing UK industry?) The cement industry, paper and aluminium industry, chemical and pharma industry amongst others all use coal. The steel industry uses coal coke to smelt iron ore into iron to make steel. The high temperatures created by burning coal coke give steel the strength and flexibility needed for bridges, buildings, and automobiles.
What about Gasification and Liquefaction? used in the production of such products as aspirins, solvents, soap, dyes, plastics and fibres which include nylon and rayon.
Specialist products? Coal is also an essential ingredient in the production of specialist products such as activated carbons, carbon fibre and silicon metals.
just to name a few of the non-electric uses of coal.
It could be accomplished by mandating that EV owners install solar panels to recharge Tesla Powerwall backup batteries that are in turn used to recharge EV batteries. Each EV would then require an additional $30-40,000 to power them without grid sourced fossil fuel polluted electricity
“Petrol/diesel exhaust fumes have become a major problem in densely-populated cities,”
That hasn’t been true in decades. The big problems are the millions of non-mobile sources.
absolutely not true.
absolutely
nottrue.Fixed for ya, spiff.
Once again the griff collective demonstrates that their reality is totally unconnected to this world.
I am seeing much opinion here but little data. I own a Prius C hybrid and keep fuel consumption records, so here is some.
The Prius C is identical to the Toyota Yaris except for the drive system, so a direct comparison can be made. The Yaris gets, according to an online database of people reporting several million miles of fuel consumption, an average of 46 mpg (real gallons, I’m in Canada); the Prius C gets 63.5 in the winter, and 65.3 in summer. The hybrid drive system results in a 40% better fuel economy, driving a mix of city/highway in southern British Columbia. That must come close to concluding that the hybrid is 40% more operationally efficient than the pure ICE equivalent.
Note that it takes about 200,000 km or 120,000 miles of driving at present fuel cost before the extra purchase price of the hybrid is paid off by fuel cost savings however–but having the engine shut off each time it is not needed is worth the extra cost by itself, as is the realization that going down every hill is recovering some of the energy that it took to get up there (plus having air-density fuel-mixture compensation, variable valve timing and lift, continuously-variable-ratio planetary transmission, all-electric accessory drive with no belts…
The plug-in hybrid is the same vehicle but with a bigger battery and the ability to charge it from grid; on short drives the ICE need not start. Its efficiency will therefor be a bit higher, and an equally technical friend who has one reports such results.
To a technical person who’s first car was a ’63 Galaxy they are something that one has always dreamed about having. And just so I’m not called a snowflake, ‘my other car’ is a quad-cab, long-box, one-ton Cummins 6.7 diesel pickup. And not pulling one of the tractors around the darn things gets 27 mpg! (The Galaxy could get no more than 23).
You count the saving by being able to turn off the ICE, but ignore the cost of replacing the battery.
Most internal combustion engines will last for several hundred thousand miles, and that’s running all the time.
PS: The vast majority of engine wear occurs during the first few seconds after the engine starts, while the oil pressure is building up. There is very little wear from continuous running. So constantly starting and stopping the ICE would actually increase wear, not decrease it.
Yeah. That could be fixed rather quickly w/a supplemental electric oil-pump that would operate for some seconds before the engine started up.
In retrospect tho, engine failure is rarely the cause for cars sent to the junkyard, much more often it’s auxiliary equipment (including transmission) failure & plain old corrosion.
I would love to see the water pump be replaced with an electric one that could keep the water circulating for 5 to 10 minutes after the engine turns off in order to equalize the temperatures throughout the block while cooling.
Well Mark, you could be right on all those counts; all I can say is that so far you aren’t, at least not from my experience. My comment was limited to the operating efficiency which is quite clear, and it burns 40% less fuel than the same car doing the same job without the hybrid drive system.
How long it lasts?–we’ll see, but Toyota has a pretty good reputation. While I agree that most wear occurs during the first minute or so after start-up, that is from a cold start; when warm with a good oil film I don’t believe that’s true. It still has only one cold start per trip like any other engine.
So far–zero repairs, but that’s only in about 55,000 km. I keep cars until they’re done, so we’ll see on that count too. Generally, for a technically-minded person it is enjoyable to drive watching all that the technology is doing, and I’m someone with a class 1 through 6 license and experience on everything from a Western Star logging truck through to a Honda 50 motorcycle, engines in all of which I’ve rebuilt at least once. And I fly my own plane, which has also had one engine major.
With that experience–I have respect for both the Prius and the Cummins pickup engines, they have steadily and markedly improved since I started driving in 1964. In contrast, the Continental O-200A is antique. I’m baffled at how an industry that had disc brakes (on just about everything flying, including the Fleet Canuck in which I learned to fly) and anti-lock brakes (on the B-47) in the 1940’s persists today with slightly-improved early 50’s Volkswagen engine technology.
BTW, there are several water pumps on the Prius engine, all electric. One pumps thermos-bottle-stored hot (or warm depending on time) water through the head before a cold start. At times it does keep circulating after a hot shut-down too; it would appear that Toyota has some pretty intelligent engineers working for them.
The battery life in Canada where they don’t get too hot seems to be excellent, my observation so far is that traction battery failure occurs in hot climates, and may be due to failure to maintain the battery cooling fan and filter, plus not repairing a/c when it fails; interior air is used to cool the battery. I see a tendency for failure in hot southern US climates, and with mileages suggesting a possible a/c failure.
If you’re still around when I junk it I’ll let you know–but be warned that I turned in my last Cummins pickup at just over 600,000 km., and all other vehicles in the last 15 years that I repaired and drove to over 300,000 km were driven much farther by other younger family members to whom I passed them on.
You could be absolutely right–but would you take a bet on it? (grin)
Most people owning hybrids or any other car don’t keep them for more than 100,000km.
100,000km = approx. 62,000 miles. Hmmm. don’t know about “most people” but many of the people I know have kept their vehicles past the 100k mile mark, nearly 30k more than your “most people”. The average length of time people keep their cars is 8.4 years (length of ownership varies by make and model). The average American drives 13,474 miles a year. so the miles that an average American puts on a car would be 113,181.6 miles or approx. 182,000 km – well over your 100,000 km claim. Now perhaps you’re talking about most people in Europe, or most people in Japan, or some other specific location (by citing km, I’m assuming you weren’t thinking specifically of the US) but as you didn’t specify, I can’t rightly say how “most people” in those locations compare to how we do things here in the US.
“nearly 30k ” should have been “nearly 40k” where’s that edit button when you need it?
Seriously… tho’ no one in the above comments mentioned it, the REAL reason for hybrids is 3-fold:
[1] To provide a plausible ‘almost electric’ narrative to enthuse green-motivated buyers
[2] To reduce operational costs around-town, at least in areas without über-high e-prices
[3] To keep the ‘we are competitive, see?’ story-line going for car and van makers.
Vehicle makers don’t give one fig’s worth of interest in making carts of ‘this’ or ‘that’ technology, for technology’s sake, or for the environment, for global warming or anything else. They make cars to SELL, and for no other reason. If marketing research turns up evidence that the buying public IS motivated by ‘hybrid’ or ‘plug-in electric’ or ‘gerbil powered’ cars, well … astute makers tend to adopt the ‘new tech’ rather quickly, to see if the marketing findings are fact or fiction. They take a modest investment-bet, and see how it goes.
IF the public bellies up to the buyers’ bar, and buys the new whirligigs, well … the design departments are beefed up, and a broader selection is made next year. And so on. This is MARKETING 101, actually.
If, like Toyota’s (or was it Nissan?) entry into the hydrogen-fueled market be as lackluster as pancakes on a Miami beach at 4 in the afternoon, well … they quietly kill off the tech, and fund other schemes. Gerbils included.
The plug-rechargeable, semi-electric (I like that) is a fine idea, as long as it has … pep, cost-of-ownership efficiency, bells-and-whistles, and a solid safety-and-durability record. After that its all about colors, tires, and flashy upgrades.
⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅
“Their real value lies in cutting city pollution.” And the problem is they won’t come out and say that.
Instead the bureaucrats and politicians, with the major assist from the Propaganda Ministry that laughingly refer to themselves as the News Media and the Non Science (lets refer to them as Nonsense) of the federally funded universities with their politically controlled peer review process, have created this Hobgoblin we have come to know as “Man Made Global Warm…ahhh we really meant Climate Change all along” for the very real purpose of justifying the forceful implementation of Central Authoritarian Control over the lives of those pesky p***ants they call citizens and look down upon as the great unwashed masses.
The reason why nobody touts this feature is because it simply isn’t true.
IIRC, VW had a proven hybrid design ready in the mid-’80s. introduction of hybrids to the global market was delayed 10 years because of the insistence by radicals on the board of the South Coast AQMD (the air quality governing board for the Los Angeles Basin) on all-electric vehicles, using similar arguments. It made no sense to tool up for hybrid production without access to the California market. By the time that decision was reversed, Toyota had developed their hybrid system and VW had buried theirs.
which in the UK and EU it increasingly does…
And the UK only got 2% of electricity from coal last year.
So Griff, do you support the PHEV or want it crushed? I can’t figure out your real intent, cause you still thinking renewables and coal, and unicorns. The PHEV is a sensible solution for a colder climate, and for those of us who would suffer range anxiety. The majority of all car trips are less than 40-50 km a day, and a PHEV would be in pure battery mode for the entire trip. Yay or Nay?
griff is just here because it is WUWT, and he has to oppose any posts.
I have my reservations about banning it along with the ICEs. I’d also support limited bio diesel (from waste cooking oil) in rural areas.
Yes, I’d thought of getting one as next car, due to occasional 200 mile trips… Most UK trips are under 29 miles, if I recall correctly , though and longer ones are usually on the motorway network where chargers are being continuously rolled out.
So: I am not against PHEVs… the report does seem to show they aren’t used effectively. Not mentioned is the tendency for UK fleets to buy them due to tax advantages: their corporate drivers then just use ICE option. Daft.
Oil and gas are still fossil fuels.
Excluding of course the Coal Power being pumped into the U.K. – EU inter-tie that feeds power into the U.K. as needed
Seriously Bryan? That HVDC input is about 4% of demand this morning, mostly from French nuclear…
https://gridwatch.co.uk/
and I see we are actually getting some back from Irish wind… !
Hybrids are the perfect compromise, so naturally the Greens want to do away with them.
A hybrid allows one to operate in the same way they have always operated. They go to the gas station and fill the gas tank. They don’t have to worry about finding a charging station, but the combination of a small gasoline engine and and electric motor reduces fuel consumption and CO2 production. Just what the Greens ought to want but apparently not.
I see where Ford is getting ready to sell their new all-electric F150 pickup truck. I’m tempted to buy one since it can serve as a powersupply even being able to power your house during a power outage, although for how long, I don’t know.
If Ford had a hybrid model of the pickup that could do the same thing (power my house during a power outage) I would go down and buy one tomorrow.
The advantage of the hybrid over the all-electric model with regard to powering a house would be that you could drive the hydrid down to the gas station to fill it back up when it got low, whereas the all-electric would not have any place to replenish its charge during a power outage. If the power outage lasts too long, the all-electric will be out of juice.
What would be the economics of a F150 pick up truck. Initial cost, for how long would the battery last and battery replacement costs, etc.
A letter authored by Natural History Museum Head of Earth Sciences Prof Richard Herrington and fellow experts has today been delivered to the Committee on Climate Change. The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 (with no hybrids) we would need to produce:
– just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production,
– nearly the entire world production of neodymium,
– three quarters the world’s lithium production
– at least half of the world’s copper production.
Good luck with that, chaps!
What could possibly go wrong???
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html
Our destination: peasantry tied to the land, no travel.
This is true is it not, Griff?
That’s where all this is headed?
I see an expansion of mining of resources required by batteries across the globe: as demand increases, so it becomes necessary and cost effective to recover resources in new places and technology develops.
Which is exactly what has happened to oil over the last 50 years… we now pump oil in Siberia and from under the N Sea and fracc it when we didn’t to that extent in 1970.
(I’m flattered you asked me: but really you could have googled it. Perhaps we need a ‘hey Griff’ option to replace your Alexa? My agent in Beijing will be happy to review proposals…)
“‘hey Griff’
I bet we could have some fun with that. 🙂
Hey, Griff, you seem to be in a better mood than in the past. Just saying. I don’t know why that would be since you are still losing the argument, but maybe you think you are winning. I suppose that’s possible.
A different member of the collective is handling griff duties lately.
My agent in Beijing
Well at least you admit to being a Chinese operative. Explains a lot actually. LOL
I always thought self-charging hybrids are the best way forward for reasons that should be so obvious even politicians can understand why. Apparently not.
Carl Sagan sells Jeep Wranglers!
Jeep® Wrangler 4xe. The first-ever electric Wrangler. To explore & cherish the only home we’ve ever known.
Inquiring minds want to know: Can Carl sell Billions and Billions of Jeeps?
***”If you never charge the battery and drive very aggressively then they can have significantly higher emissions than the equivalent petrol or diesel model,” he continues.***
Another moron who compares driving a hybrid aggressively to driving the equivalent ICE model conservatively.
“Never charge the battery?” What is the reason people are spending a ton of extra money on a plug-in hybrid version and then not using the plug-in aspect? Seems nonsensical…not buying it.
So what happens when you have unexpected long delays in route?
Being from Canada – this happens in winters from time to time up here; major hwy’s closed or clogged for up to 6 hrs to a day. Or if you loose power for a very long time ( ice storm of 98) : if all your transportation is electricity based.. then you lose two essential services at the same time.
Or if you loose power for a very long time
Indeed. That’s one of the reasons why I wouldn’t want a pure EV.
Try fitting a couple of dogs into the back of one of these vehicles. Severely compromised on space in order to accommodate the battery and electrical systems. I’ll keep my diesel estate thank you.
Suspicious of their own scheme, whats that word, paranoid of self.
Why should they decide anyway, isn’t it the public’s decision what car or truck they want to buy.
“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.”
EXACTLY!!! And city centre noise….
The vast majority of noise from cars, isn’t coming from the engine.
And if it coming from your car’s engine, It’s time to take it into the shop as there’s something wrong with your car.