As the world is moving towards EVs there is an opinion — and I’m not sure how common it is — that hybrids are the worst of both worlds. But it’s not as bad as it sounds.
Lewin wrote an excellent explainer on why hybrids can be heavier than their straight gasoline counterparts, generate electricity from gasoline, and still get huge improvements in fuel economy. It’s a great read, but I love how Thatmiataguy distills it into a short comment:
This article should be mandatory reading for the couple of guys on here that insist hybrids are stupid because they “generate electricity using gas” so thus they somehow have no redeeming qualities.
The point of a regular, hybrid car is to take a gas engine and make it more efficient. That’s it. It’s not supposed to drive a long time on electricity, it’s not meant to be plugged in, none of that; all of that adds a lot of weight and cost. It takes the weaknesses of a gasoline engine and tries to make up for those as best as it can with a small battery and small electric motor. Those who say a hybrid is pointless or stupid because “it has pathetic EV range” or because “that electricity was generated by burning gas” seriously have no idea what the actual point of a hybrid is.
And can someone please do an article explaining a Prius battery? It weighs less than 100 lbs and is smaller in volume than 3 average-sized 12 volt lead-acid batteries. The people who whine about hybrids destroying the environment because of their earth-destroying, unrecycleable batteries and accompanying grotesque weight gain seriously need to do some research. We’ve been recycling lead-acid batteries for decades; nobody is going to just bury a Prius battery in a landfill.
It’s no secret that the Autopian is a believer in hybrids. The way I see it, if you’re going to keep a gasoline engine around, you might as well find ways to make it more efficient.
Jason wrote a Cold Start detailing a bizarre way to prevent theft: Just inflate a rubber dude in your driver seat! Apparently, the Bosco Collapsable Rubber Driver is supposed to be so lifelike and terrifying that nobody will steal your car. Surely, a thief would eventually realize you’re not sitting in your car at 3 in the morning, right?
Anyway, Canopysaurus delivers a great one-liner:
I guess folks didn’t have to worry about inflation in those days.
This morning, Matt wrote about how the same culture that led to the Volkswagen Phaeton, TDI “Clean Diesel,” and the Bugatti Veyron may one day lead to VAG’s demise. James Carson held back no punches:
I hope this is a wakeup for VW and by association, Audi, BMW and Mercedes. I have always found all of their products to be overengineered, and fragile. They missed the obvious requirement of a supporting EV infrastructure to support sales of EVs outside of the command economy of China. They also tied their success to growth in China which was going to be snatched away once the local manufacturers became self sustaining. VW and by association Germany IMO ignored the experience of Japan, Korea and history.
Harsh, but something should probably change at VAG. Have a great evening, everyone!
why hybrids are heavier than their straight gasoline counterparts
counterpoint: I have a Ford Sport Trac 2004 truck and just bought a Maverick hybrid 2024.
The specs:
Sport Trac
Curb Weight 4,120 lb
Wheelbase 125.9 in
Length 205.9 in
Width 71.8 in
Height 70.1 in
Maverick
Curb weight: 3,563 lbs.
Wheelbase 121.1
Length 199.7
Height – Maximum 68.7
Width – Mirrors Folded 77.9
Almost identical in size, the hybrid weighs 600lb less..
I mean… A sport trak is built on a ladder frame truck chassis, but I think your point is still valid!
Whatever you do, don’t google “live terrifying rubber inflation man” at work.
or “history of VAG problems”
Hybrid cars are a bridge to nowhere. Pass.
Back in the college (around 2000,) one of my speeches was about how hybrids weren’t a great idea. I now own a hybrid. They are a great idea. They solve more problems than you realize. Not only do they save gas, they don’t have range anxiety problems and they save so much on maintenance it’s astounding. 270k miles on my C-Max. I have never changed the brakes or rotors. Don’t have belts, a starter or an alternator.
I had to replace the pads and rotors on my Fusion Hybrid for the first time at 80k because they were rusty.
Did brakes on my Insight at 135k, still waiting to do it again when I get to 260k.
They were a bridge 15 years ago, when mine was sold. Still going strong with 235,000 miles with absolutely no engine or electric motor system issues. It doesn’t get quite the mileage it once did, but I’m still averaging above 40mpg this summer.
The trouble is that those companies that went all in on hybrids 15 years ago, thought they had more time to go full EV, and the companies that skipped hybrids now think they can jump on board when they really should be making afforable EVs with 300+ mile ranges.
I agree with the first comment, but I also don’t consider range extended BEVs as hybrids. Their ICE engine can run at the optimal revs for efficiency no matter what the speed of the BEV it is charging is going, and said engine tends to be smaller and more fuel efficient because of it.
Hybrids do work at reducing carbon emissions, it’s true. That said, unless e-fuels get scaled up massively, carbon neutral energy for transportation is today most easily achieved with BEV. It may be worthwhile to put in direct air capture for carbon dioxide and then expend otherwise unusable renewable energy to refine it for motor fuel.
This is extremely dependent on the size, mass, and speed of the thing you are moving. For personal automobiles, maybe. For airliners flying more than like 10 people more than about 200 miles? Not a chance. For container ships? Also not a chance (wind power though, is ironically a big potential future mover). Semi-trucks? Possibly, though there is also a good case for hydrogen as well.
“It may be worthwhile to put in direct air capture for carbon dioxide and then expend otherwise unusable renewable energy to refine it for motor fuel.”
That might work for Iceland with abundant geothermal energy and no connection to markets that need it but for any renewable energy connected to a grid there are going to be customers for that power.
Besides Iceland could do much better emissions wise using that surplus power to make hydrogen from water, thus reducing the demand for steam reformed industrial hydrogen made elsewhere.
The problem with the Prius and really any Hybrid is still the concern for longevity of the battery. A Prius reman battery is still a grand before install. and of course considering the chances of death should they do it wrong, most of the shade trees cannot and will not do it. for the more modern vehicles they are requiring diagnostic programmers for even basic dumbass 12V batteries when swapping one out, which is unnecessarily often on the FORD AGM’s, so that plays into the fears as well since Stealerships have a base minimum charge of 500 bucks per visit it seems like lately.
Huh? That hasn’t been a concern in decades.
My next door neighbor has been buying Priuses with dead batteries and replacing/rebuilding them. There are plenty of videos on YouTube. It looks easier than changing the ¿$@&! headlights actually.
The thing that makes even a battery replacement not nearly as scary is all the money you save on other maintenance – that was a part of hybrid ownership I didn’t really consider, I just thought of the gas savings. So when my transmission blew (ring rear broke in half) earlier this year, I did the math and realized that even the almost 3k it took to replace it (myself, at my house, and a remarkably easy job) would pay off in about a year. My C-Max has 270k on it, btw. My battery is still fine.
I’d be willing to bet more people are killed by cars falling off jack stands while they work on their engine than replacing a hybrid battery (which generally doesn’t require lifting the car at all).
Woof, first COTD, and it’s me being grumpier than usual.
Hybrids are fine but I, personally, would never own a vehicle of any sort with a cvt. That pretty much rules out hybrids.
Not every CVT is a belt-driven Nissan/Subaru design.
Toyota’s hybrid CVT is apparently very robust.
It’s not a reliability issue. I’ve driven many, including some of the Toyotas you mentioned, and I just don’t like them. I like to drive so I’m not looking for a transportation appliance. That being said I wouldn’t say no to a hybrid van if I found myself needing such a thing.
I don’t understand why anyone doesn’t like the eCVT/CVT experience (the venerable Jatco Xtronic CVT aside). Isn’t being right in the power band what we’re all after? No hesitation, just smoothness.
I often need to pull off to the side of a highway for a nap, and when getting back to speed, while I’ll certainly concede the engine note isn’t something musical, at least the acceleration is smooth. No gear changes, just pure efficiency.
The first CVT I drove, a Mini Cooper, I didn’t like the CVT experience at all. The next one, in a Jeep Compass, I liked a lot better. Now I have a C-Max and love the eCVT. Unfortunately I broke a ring gear earlier this, but I partially disassembled the transmission to see what went wrong inside and was shocked how simple they are inside.
It’s the ‘rubber-band effect’ that people don’t like. That perceived lag between pedal and movement as the CVT adjusts. It’s been a minute since I drove a car with a CVT but the fleet Nissan Rogue was pretty dang bad.
There’s no rubber band feeling in an eCVT. In fact, after driving a Prius I find that any car without electric assist off the line feels sluggish, regardless of transmission.
Me, I love how (in Eco mode) it’s so easy to be tender with the gas if I want to be.
Meanwhile, if I had my dad’s 2014 Sienna, I’d seriously look into some kind of pedal remapping gadget to install, because it feels like 75% WOT is achieved in a half-inch of pedal travel.
the Maverick uses the same design of eCVT as the Toyotas, very basic mechanics – 2 electric motors and a planetary gear set.
This is completely different from the Nissan/Honda etc CVTs.
There is no lag when accelerating, in fact it’s kinda delightful just sailing smoothly down the road. The Maverick is much faster off the line than any of my full gas cars.
I didn’t even think about the CVT in my Insight until I drove a conventional automatic as a rental (previous to my hybrid all my cars were manuals.) The shifting was so harsh and loud it scared me.
My Insight also has paddle “shifters” which allow me to “shift” up and down depending on whether I’m speeding up or slowing down. Makes it feel sporty.
Toyota’s hybrid CVT is much more durable than an automatic transmission using a torque converter and brake bands. It is actually about the simplest transmission design you can imagine, really more like a fancy differential.
Really, Toyota could’ve marketed the Prius as having a really breakthrough transmission that user electric motors to allow it to have a very modest engine with reasonable performance. The drive slowly a few blocks as an EV is sort of a party trick that caught on as a major feature. I honestly think that Toyota wasn’t really expecting that to catch on the way it did.
There are lots of Hybrids that use multi speed transmissions, in fact I’d bet at this point there are more models with those to choose from than ones with an e-CVT that are basically only used by Toyota and Ford for most but not all their hybrids.
I think most of those are mild hybrids, like the Corvette, but I haven’t exactly done an exhaustive search to find out for sure.
Nope lots of “full” or “strong” hybrids out there with multi speed transmissions. H/K has a number of them with very impressive MPG numbers.
E-CVT is essentially a single speed planetary automatic transmission that clutches in the ICE and electric motors, in varying ratios to more efficiently operate both.
However if you’re insistent on a multi speed transmission behind the hybrid system there are numerous Hyundai/Kia models as well as the rwd based Explorer and even Toyota has one or more with the i-force max turbo hybrid variants including the tundra and grand highlander max hybrid variants etc.
So there’s plenty of options with and without the e-cvt to save fuel with a hybrid system.
I know. I should have used mostly instead of pretty much. Most of those are mild hybrids, though, which I’m not saying is a bad thing.
Most of these are full hybrids in the USA and Canada, not mild hybrids, there are almost no mild hybrids on sale as hybrids as the integrated starter generator and engine stop start have become mainstream but with the standard 12V systems, all of the current hybrids in the country utilize a high voltage battery and at least one additional electric motor and typically at least a 1 kWH battery pack above 200V.
Mhev is a 12-48V system
https://images.app.goo.gl/8XssYKE9bNJ1eEQ17
They can generally all run for a period of time on the battery alone.
I’ve had two of the Hyundai/Kia FHEV/PHEVs and the HEV alone would run almost 1 mile on some portion of the 1.49 kWh high voltage battery with a normal 6 speed automatic transmission, and the plug in Tucson got 42 miles before switching to hybrid mode on a 33 mile rated all electric range, but they will run at 70 mph on electricity alone under the right circumstances for the FHEV Sportage, and the PHEV could run until running out of electric range at highway speeds and then still run on the turbocharged engine and gas, lol
I would love to see more cars like the Insight on the road, perfect commuter car <3
I can commute 60 miles total per day, for 10 business days with one tank (10 gallons).
I love my little insight for that exact reason. its a wonderful little thing, and I get to enjoy a manual while doing that
I also love that we both have beetle profile pictures (and I assume have beetles) and insights 🙂
That’s why I bought mine in 2013 for $3500. It has paid for itself multiple times. I want to drive it until it dies or I crash it, because at this point it’s better than a free car, it’s actively saving me money.
I don’t know how that quasi-strawman argument qualified for COTD, but I STILL think it’s fundamentally inefficient to make one motor carry another-even if race cars are doing it.
You can “think” that all you want, but the data clearly shows otherwise. MPG 31/40 vs 53/46(hybrid) (and similar for all other hybrids)
I mean, how do you argue with that?
Maybe it’s inefficient in some abstract ideal design sense. Wouldn’t it be great if we had an engine with the energy density and range of ICE, with the low speed efficiency of EV, in only one engine? Sure, but that doesn’t exist.
In the real world, hybrids are more efficient than ICE alone. That’s a fact.
It is efficient because as stated in the article by using some gas to charge a battery which powers an electric motor, the two types of motor can overcome the weaknesses of each other by a margin that outweighs the energy lost by burning fuel to charge the battery. This is reflected in the fact that a hybrid vehicle can travel more miles on one gallon of gasoline than a gas motor counterpart.
You know what’s really inefficient? Brakes. You just throw that energy away.
Having an engine that produces more power than you need for cruising speed is pretty inefficient too.
You could have two cars with two identical internal combustion engines. One with the hybrid system added and the other with dead weight added. On a level windless road as long as you were willing to accept a 0 to 60 acceleration of around a minute or so the internal combustion only engine would get better mileage for longer distances. Under all other more realistic conditions the hybrid would beat it and be more fun to drive.
No they wouldn’t the Hybrid will still get better MPG due to the automatic “pulse and glide” that allows the engine to operate more efficiently, store up that extra energy and then travel on that stored energy with the engine off, or at least use it to operate the engine in a different but still more efficient point.
This is such a tired and ignorant take. Let’s settle this once and for all.
Straight from Toyota’s website:
The gas-powered Corolla shown in the infographic in the article weighs: 2955 lbs
The hybrid Corolla shown in the infographic in the article (same trim) weighs: 3080 lbs
There! It’s a weight gain of 125 lbs, or a small adult! Why are some people getting so up in arms about the weight gain of carrying around TWO WHOLE DRIVETRAINS when the weight gain is less than a single average American!
For everyone out there that insists by instead of gaining hybrid weight, we can instead lose the same weight and accomplish the same goals, please give me an example of a car that lost 125 lbs and managed to gain 22 mpg in the city and 6 on the highway (like the hybridized Corolla in the article does).
For gosh sakes, think of the Miata. It weighs 2341 lbs, and yet it gets only 26 mpg city and 34 mpg on the highway, which is less than even a gas-powered Corolla! Think about that, a Miata weighs 614 lbs less than a gas-powered Corolla and still gets worse fuel economy! Let that sink in.
Everything else being equal, you can’t easily weight-loss a car to good fuel economy! To do so to a low-margin vehicle would add significant cost while only achieving a small difference in mpg which is why basically nobody is doing it! Louder for the people in the back!
All the self-important shade tree engineers that think Toyota is stupid for building hybrids need to take a moment to actually look at the gosh darn data.
People drive around all week with their golf clubs in the car for the Sunday round. Depending on model, carry around 2-6 more seats than are regularly used (if at all), and so on. Something that actually does some work seems to be a better idea than the pointless oversized hoarding trucks that the market has gravitated to.
No, it is just plain stupid.
It is a move in the right direction but using a method that will never get us to the end goal.
I am aware that we may define “the end goal” differently, which again leads me to the last word in my first sentence.
I am just a fascinated by steam engines and the successors to it, as you are, but the time has come and gone.
It will move us to that goal by fixing issues from both types of powertrains. If you think being hyper-efficient, less polluting, and cheaper than most EVs is stupid? You’re wrong.
Yeah, it’s still just a stepping stone but it was and still is a great alternative to an expensive EV with limited range and an inefficient and highly polluting petrol car. I’m sorry if you still think you’re right and everyone’s an idiot, but that’s on you.
PS: Steam engines have nothing to do with hybrid drivetrains. Steam engines died (in cars at least) for good reasons, hybrids don’t have those issues.
Thank you for a great analogy.
Imagine that you have to cross a wide river using stepping stones.
One path has the stones right next to each other, but only leads 15% of the way across and then stops.
Path two has a greater distance between the stones, but leads all the way to the other side.
Note 1. Steam engines are very closely related to ICE. Steam engines are just ECE.
Note 2. “ If you think being hyper-efficient, less polluting, and cheaper than most EVs is stupid? You’re wrong.”
No, that is not stupid, but is also not a correct desciption of a Hybrid drivetrain since it is not less poluting or more efficient than en EV, even though it may be cheaper to purchase.
People who only look at the initial cost when buying a car are however also the ones who will use path one to cross the stream :-).
As mentioned, I think we may disagree on the end goal.
How is a vehicle that burns less fuel not more efficient-even if only in that one metric? Is it due to the battery manufacturing process?
For all of those except the “cheaper” comment, I was talking about ICE drivetrains.
“I was thinking about ICE drive trains”
There, fixed it for you, you did not write that.
Yeah I noticed.
This is a bad analogy, but to butcher it further…
Right now, the BEV path doesn’t even lead all the way across, it just optimistically might at some point. Given only that path, most people will stay with ICE. And, in this race (reducing greenhouse pollution) every step possible, as soon as possible, is valuable progress. So, would I rather have people move 15% of the way NOW, or move 0%, with some optimistic hope that some day there will be a BEV all the way across?
Well, 15% now is actually pretty good!
Your definition of “most” is kind of wrong. The majority of cars in Norway are now pure electric. Not the majority of sales, but the majority of running cars on the road. Other european countries are close behind. You are not THAT different. (assuming you are in the US)
Objectively false, it’s 24.3%, though with EVs being the vast majority of sales, that will change eventually (though not by 2025 as the article seems to think, their own sales math says otherwise). However, as that article notes, this is because of massive, massive government subsides and tax incentives to BEVs. When a Honda Civic is $120k, yeah, you’re going to buy the model 3 that you don’t even have to pay taxes on.
I am always amazed at how little euros truly “get” US society, geography, and culture. I live the the slice of the US that could be said to be closest to Norway (including having more people of Norwegian descent than any city other than Oslo), and no, it’s really not at all similar.
You are absolutly correct, I missread a news flash stating more EV than gasoline (still most diesels though) in Norway.
Norway where the current price of household electricity is about $0.12/kWh and gasoline runs about $7.18/gallon. There is a very clear economic advantage to buying an EV as far as running costs go.
“You are not THAT different. (assuming you are in the US)”
Oh yes we are!
Here in the SFBA with PG&E that math is very different. We pay much more ($0.31-$0.62/kWh EV rates) and much less for gas which is currently about $4.30/gal for regular. Last I checked the average rate for charging stations was about $0.43/kWh which is much more expensive than gasoline. As such there is no economic benefit to purchasing an EV for anyone who doesn’t have dirt cheap electricity. Here a hybrid is much cheaper to buy and to operate.
Then there’s the purchasing cost, how do Norway’s subsidies compare to ours? How about public transit; how easy is it to leave the car behind when it’s not the practical option?
In addition to other solid replies, you can’t just make stuff up and compare apples to oranges.
Only 20-24% of vehicles in Norway have an electric power train as of 2022. (1)
Further, there are 305 million cars in the US, and only 3.4 million in Norway. Almost 90x less. There are 900 cars per 1000 people in the US, and only 638 in Norway. (2)
Americans drive, on average, 16,000 miles per person per year. (3)
In Norway, each vehicle drives about 7,400 miles (12k km) per year. (4) Due to the differences in car ownership, converting Norway from per car to a per capita, would reduce that to about 4,780 miles (7.7k km) per person.
So American’s drive over 3x more. This is a huge factor when discussing EV vs ICE power-trains.
Last, the US already has over 4.8 million plug-in EVs on the road. Norway only has about 900k. (5)
I’m comfortable with my use of the word “most”.
(1) https://www.statista.com/topics/7176/e-mobility-in-norway/#topicOverview
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_motor_vehicles_per_capita
(3) https://frontiergroup.org/resources/fact-file-americans-drive-most/
(4) https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-reiseliv/landtransport/statistikk/kjorelengder
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country
You are absolutly correct, I missread a news flash stating more EV than gasoline (still most diesels though) in Norway.
Apples and oranges.
Americans drive 16k miles per year per person, owning 305 million cars, of which, 4.8M are already plug-in EV.
Norwegians drive about 5k miles per year per person, owning only 3.4 million cars, of which about 900k (24-25%) are currently plug-in EV.
As far as Europeans being close behind, except for Iceland, most European citizens drive 8k miles or less per year, and fuel is much much more expensive.
https://frontiergroup.org/resources/fact-file-americans-drive-most/
I had a longer post with citations backing up my data, but that was flagged for review, and then removed! WTF.
“Note 1. Steam engines are very closely related to ICE. Steam engines are just ECE”
Who cares if it works? ICE is still around after 100+ years because it works, in fact its working better than ever. A good ICE engine is as efficient as anything at turning the chemical energy of fuel into work.
“Imagine that you have to cross a wide river using stepping stones.
One path has the stones right next to each other, but only leads 15% of the way across and then stops.
Path two has a greater distance between the stones, but leads all the way to the other side.”
Path two can leave you just as stranded as path one if that distance is greater than your ability to leap. And I dunno, those stones on path two look pretty shaky *cough* hydrogen *cough*. That stone is going to give way and whoever jumps on it is having a nasty bath.
And why do you say hybrid path isn’t getting you across? As batteries get better, lighter and give better range there is less need for the ICE:
ICE to hybrid
Hybrid to PHEV,
PHEV to REXEV
REXEV to full on EV
The ICE gets smaller and smaller till it disappears altogether or a fully sustainable fuel is developed.
That is the point. Current BEV infrastructure just isn’t where it needs to be for too much of the country. Hybrid tech moves us toward the end goal while reaping some benefits until the BEV tech and infrastructure has a chance to catch-up.
I want the same thing as you, I’m just not allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good…
The “Only BEV” people are just as bad as the “Only ICE” people. The world isn’t black and white, it’s gray.
Right now, and for the foreseeable future, owning a BEV, for many people, is a pain in the ass. I drive too much and my time is too valuable for me to take long breaks charging. I understand that many people only commute locally, and should consider BEVs.
But for the sake of the environment, when I’m in the market for a newer car anyway, would you rather that I keep going ICE-only, max polluting, for the foreseeable future, or that I use a more efficient hybrid? BEV is not an option for me.
Oh, and as an aside, I’m not going to buy from a fascist, no matter what.
“Oh, and as an aside, I’m not going to buy from a fascist, no matter what”
Ever bought a Ford?
https://allthatsinteresting.com/henry-ford-nazi
Or a Volkswagen or a Porsche?
https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/history-of-war/porsche-the-nazis-how-the-supercar-king-became-fascisms-favourite-engineer/
Last I checked, Henry Ford does not own Ford anymore, because he’s dead.
Same with Ferdinand Porsche.
Mind you, I have my personal issues with any modern CEOs in a capitalistic society, but I see no issues with boycotting the world’s richest and most powerful non-head-of-state who could do so much good, yet chooses not to.
Beat me to the Henry Ford thing by 25 seconds!
The Ford family is still very much in charge of Ford though so the legacy lives on.
“but I see no issues with boycotting the world’s richest and most powerful non-head-of-state who could do so much good, yet chooses not to.”
By that reasoning your employer should let you go because you didn’t tithe a chunk of your paycheck to the causes of their choice.
I work for the state government and I’m unionized. Pretty sure they’d have my back if I was let go for that kind of reason.
Henry Ford’s family have completely divested themselves of the Fascist parts of Henry Ford’s legacy; they are NOT responsible for the actions of their long-dead relatives.
By your logic if someone’s great grandfather was a Nazi nobody should ever do business with them even if they strongly disagreed with it and had no say over it.
I get your point entirely and agree with everything else you’ve said here, but incidentally, Henry Ford has been dead for a while. Just saying.
Musk is still very much alive and in control (if you can call it that) of Tesla.
This is a stupid false equivalence.
Ford is dead. So are the Nazis that Volkswagen was born from.
BEV is ideal for a 2-car household. Sadly mine isn’t one of them and the tradeoffs must be considered.
My car use pattern is almost a study of extremes–putzing around shuttling kids locally (30-40 miles a week), plus 4-5 road trips averaging 1000-2000 miles each. I can probably charge once a month (or less) for the former, but the latter will require careful planning. This is largely because some of my stargazing trips take me to the middle of nowhere where charging infrastructure can be lacking. That said my in-law in Canada has an early Tesla X and despite the “low” 220 mile range, they drive it all around Canada with some careful planning.
My current mild-hybrid lease is up soon and the only new car that marginally interests me is the Polestar 3. I’m going to buy out the lease and wait a bit.
“The end goal” should simply be reducing carbon emissions by whatever means as quickly as possible without disrupting the economy.
You seem to be convinced that 100% BEV is the end goal, which it may be, but that is not feasible now or in any realistic short-term future. And it’s very possible that heavy vehicles, long road trips, ships, planes, and other use cases will never be workable with batteries.
Claiming you know what the end goal *should* be, and denigrating anything that might interfere with what you conceive that goal to be is not a productive path to reducing emissions.
I don’t think there is any way to avoid disrupting the economy significantly, given the sheer number of people who derive their income all or in part from the consumption of fossil fuels. I think we need to accept that a big disruption is going to happen and do our best to ensure good outcomes for everybody.
Last I checked, “ensure good outcomes for everybody”
is fundamentally incompatible with “disrupting the economy significantly.”
Job loss with any economic transition is inevitable and sometimes even necessary, that I understand. Lots of people lost their jobs when we transitioned from horses to cars for example, but that was because people actually wanted cars, not because governments mandated that people buy cars instead of horses. The transition from horses to cars was people reacting to economic forces as opposed to the economy reacting to government mandates.
To correlate “good outcomes for everybody” with government-mandated “significant economic disruption” is disingenuous.
When I said “do our best to ensure good outcomes for everybody” I was acknowledging that not everyone would have a good outcome. Has that ever happened with any disruption ever? If you believe there’s a government mandate to purchase an EV, I don’t think there’s anything I can say to change your mind on that. However, what I was referring to was the shift to renewable energy, which is being driven primarily by cost these days. Wind and solar power generation with battery storage is cheaper to build than equivalent fossil fuel power plants. We are moving away from fossil fuels because fossil fuels are more expensive, not because anyone is forcing us to.
You don’t have to change my mind; there is no government mandate to purchase an EV in the US. The way EPA CAFE rules are written though, it results in what amounts to automakers being mandated to SELL a certain number of electric cars.
I think that when I stated that governments did NOT force people to buy cars instead of horses, you assumed that the contrast I was drawing meant that I believed governments ARE mandating people to buy electric cars today. That is not what I meant. I was simply stating that upheaval born out of structural economic change (people making different choices than they used to) is far more tolerable than upheaval resulting from government action, whatever that might be.
And as far as moving away from fossil fuels because they are cheaper is concerned, I think that’s only partly true. A lot of it is governments wanting to reduce emissions. Whether it’s cheaper or not depends on your use case. Electricity rates vary significantly from state to state in the US for example. I see myself buying an electric car in ten years or so when I own a house with rooftop solar, but right now, I live in a rented apartment with nowhere to charge and I refuse to wait in the ridiculously long lines I have seen locally at public charging stations. So for now I’ll stick with my Camry hybrid.
If individual people (or corporations) could be relied upon to voluntary pollute less because that’s what’s best for society, that would be fantastic. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be how humans behave. So, we’re stuck with making pollution so costly that reducing pollution is cheaper than continuing to pollute. Yes, that’s going to be painful for a great many of us, particularly in the near term. I personally think it’s worth it for the long term benefits we, and especially our progeny, will accrue.
Ok…and?
I drive a hybrid, I want to buy an electric car, and I will do so once it fits my lifestyle. I’m already making choices that reduce pollution in my life.
What do you want from me?
I think you’re doing everything you realistically can right now. Until we build out our infrastructure to support EV charging for everybody who cannot home charge, EVs won’t be practical for many people.
And it’s very possible that heavy vehicles, long road trips, ships, planes, and other use cases will never be workable with batteries.
Considering the batteries needed to power a container ship across an ocean would alone weigh enough to sink that ship I’m inclined to agree with you.
Pretty sure battery powered trans oceanic flight is also grounded for the foreseeable future as well.