I’m not sure if you’re aware or if they stopped inviting you to the awards ceremonies because of the absolutely embarrassing scene you made at the Golden Globes when Paul Giamatti had to have you removed by security, but the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has announced their 2024 GreenerCars Ratings, and this year the highest-rated car isn’t a battery-electric car. Nope. It’s got a combustion motor in there – though also a battery, because it’s a plug-in hybrid! It was the Toyota Prius Prime! Holy crap!
So, what exactly does it mean for a car to be ranked highly on this list? What is it measuring, exactly? Well, this ranking attempts to be a full womb-to-tomb assessment of how much environmental impact a given car has over its life, including impacts from manufacturing, tailpipe emissions (if any), and probably how much you fart while driving it. Here’s how the ACEEE describes it:
GreenerCars is an annual assessment of every new model in the U.S. light-duty vehicle market. It is based on a lifecycle assessment of the greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions from the production, use, and disposal of each vehicle. Unlike other evaluations of the health and environmental impact of vehicles that rely solely on fuel-efficiency, GreenerCars scores every vehicle on its entire impact and is the most effective way to compare gasoline-powered vehicles to electric vehicles. In addition to assessing the emissions from fuel burned in a vehicle’s engine, we assess the upstream emissions generated by electricity used by a vehicle, emissions produced when mining and processing minerals for batteries, and emissions from manufacturing vehicles and vehicle components. Green scores are generated for each model and can be used to assess how green a vehicle is.
Okay, that’s pretty comprehensive. Based on these assessments, the top 12 ranked vehicles consist of just over half (seven) battery EVs, two plug-in hybrids, and two gas-electric hybrids. Here’s their top 12 rankings:
“Where’s Tesla,” you ask? Though not among the greenest of the green cited above, you will find Tesla in the complete ratings with the Tesla Model Y Long Range receiving a Green Score of 57, sandwiched between the Toyota RAV4 Hybrid and Volvo C40 Recharge Twin.
Fully half of the cars on the Greenest list are also under $35,000, which, for a list of mostly EVs and hybrids, feels pretty significant. Also, the annual fuel cost for the Prius Prime is really quite low, $529, but I’m not certain how they determine the ratio of how often it gets plugged in versus how often it’s using the Atkinson-cycle gasoline engine.
One thing I appreciate about the ACEEE’s lists and ranking is that they have a category for non-battery EV cars that still scored well, but are for people who wanted something greener but don’t live in a place with a decent EV charging infrastructure, which is still a significant number of places:
Look at that, we even have some pickup trucks on the list here; the Hybrid Ford Maverick scores pretty well, at number 6, and I’m happy to see the cheapest car on these lists, the $17,955 Mitsubishi Mirage, also shows up.
Now, want to see what did the worst? Of course you do!
Unsurprisingly, almost all of the least green cars were expensive, premium models, save for more specialized off-road machines like the Jeep Wrangler, Ford Raptor R, or RAM 1500 TRX. The lowest green score was for the Mercedes-Benz AMC G63, with a score of 20 (the winning Prius Prime got 71 and the average was 43). I’m pretty sure this has to do with the fact – and, this may very well be a rumor – every AMG G63 rolls off the assembly line and immediately is driven over multiple nests of endangered Northern Striped Owls, then the car is backed up and driven through a few beaver dams, just to really drive the point home.
Again, I have no supporting evidence, but I just thought you should be aware of the talk in the forests.
Also, this worst list includes an EV for the first time, the GMC Hummer EV, perhaps because that thing weighs as much as a small moon and has a battery the size of the county I was born in.
So, what’s the takeaway here? I think it’s that plug-in hybrids, like the now sleek-looking Prius Prime, are really excellent options, with their twin drivetrains leveraging one another’s strengths and compensating for weaknesses in a way that makes a lot of sense.
So, if a car’s overall lifespan-long impact on the environment – a place we all live in, it’s worth remembering – is important to you, then save your money and get a new Prius instead of going into centuries-long debt to buy that Mercedes-Benz G63 AMG.
I simply have to get one of these soon. I’m lucky to have the house design and ability to install my own L2 charger which saves so much money these days. I wonder if the markups are over. Time to check.
We’ll be picking up our new Rav4 Prime this weekend! Turning in our Rav4 regular hybrid lease and buying the new one. This will go with our 2020 Prius AWD. Unfortunately there is no AWD Prime Prius, or I would be tempted. AWD is needed where we live.
“I’m not certain how they determine the ratio of how often it gets plugged in versus how often it’s using the Atkinson-cycle gasoline engine.”
They went with 50%. This is such a low assumption, and it is approaching the point where it would be better financially to just get the regular hybrid.
A lot of those EV’s are disposable, questionable support later in life, but Toyota makes the best cars, and they last a long long time with no problems 🙂
My ’09 Matrix that ate another coil pack this morning and left me waiting for a tow for two plus hours might beg to differ. About a year ago I had two go out at the same time and had them replaced (would have done all four but two is what was available). I had the other two replaced at the next oil change. Since then I had #2 go again, tow, replaced under warranty. #4 go again, tow and replaced under warrant. This morning was #1, tow, replaced under warranty.
I have tow coverage through my insurance so it didn’t cost anything for all of the warranty jobs except for my time, probably 16 hours of waiting. Goodyear, where I had the work done says that they only use OEM parts has no explanation as to why this is happening but have at least honored the warranty.
Are the boots in good shape, and are they using dielectric grease? I assume they would have alerted you if oil was getting in the well from a bad valve cover gasket. Those are the most common causes that come to mind. I always carried spare coils in my VW that acted up.
So I started looking into the methodology of ACEEE’s reports, because their results disagree with IEA, ICCT, ANL, UCS, and MIT. Not the part about the Prius Prime being good — that’s pretty uncontroversial — but the part where the Lexus RZ 450e (107 mpge, 4564 lbs, 71.4 kWh) gets a higher Green Score than the Hyundai Kona LR (116 mpge, 3891 lbs, 68.5 kWh) and the RZ 300e gets the same score as a Mini Cooper SE.
Guys, this is some weird shit.
So yeah. TL;DR: None of their numbers line up, even the ones I agree with. I’m not saying its entirely made up, but they’re using so many fudge factors and strange assumptions that you can’t even make sense of their apples-to-apples comparisons of EVs.
That one has been updated to 200k in one of the annual updates. I don’t remember which one I saw it in, but they did update it. Really, the use of 2016 methodology with individual updates for each year makes it too difficult to sort all of the assumptions they are making.
But, yeah, I think the assumptions and calculations make some of these rankings go a little weird. If you’re looking at a couple vehicles within a few points, I would not assume the better rated one is actually better. Still nice to have these ratings as a rough comparison.
Some data is better than none, but these days we’re spoiled for choice.
I recommend carboncounter, which is a visualization of MIT’s work that’s far more transparent on its assumptions.
Good to know, thank you!
Almost forgot one!
This is good information. I was wondering how the terrible Lexus RZ was somehow the ‘greenest’ EV and thought maybe some part of its production process is more eco-friendly, but I guess it’s just BS.
How dare you analyze their methodology and question their conclusions! Doing that would get in the way of a posting a great headline!
Even greener: A car that has already been built.
Even greener than that. A car that’s been already built and has been converted into an EV.
Like a few other commenters, I’m very conflicted about this. There are a lot of caveats I suspect.
First, I can believe a PHEV is the right choice right now for a lot of people. So from a “what will people buy” perspective, that makes some sense. I also realize that a Tesla Plaid or a Hummer EV is not the best use of BEV tech from a green perspective. But, that’s on the outer limits of who’s buying these things. Prius buyers are not cross-shopping Plaids. Hummer EV buyers would otherwise be getting a TRX.
But also… it’s hard for me to accept that anything with ICE emissions is a good idea. We know EVs are more efficient in EV mode even if the source of the charging was a fossil fuel grid and increasingly, charging is not coming from that.
We also know that the mining of Lithium and other elements for the batteries is going to improve with economies of scale and there’s already a 2nd gen of new mining and processing tech that’s rolling out to have less environmental impact and better efficiency. Plus we are starting to recycle batteries. And there’s a million little things to factor in with ICE infrastructure that’s got to be included. Not exactly thrilled when a 120 pump Bucee’s opens to a ton of fanfare, but oh they’ve got 10 Tesla chargers out back. I’m waiting for the reverse, thank you very much. And the Prius reinforces the former, not the latter. See the problem?
All this and people discount the advantages of EVs and emphasize the disadvantages. But the advantages are enormous (don’t have to build pipelines, electricity prices are more stable, can put a charger almost anywhere (and we should), every day you can leave your house with a full tank of charge) while the disadvantages are not to be ignored, but most of them are disappearing (charging stations will improve in quality and quantity and speed, heat pumps will reduce range loss in cold weather, prices will come down (and are))
So, you know… we’ll see.
“See the problem?”
If the goal is to minimize emissions I do not see the problem. If the goal is to eliminate oil companies because of political reasons even if emissions are higher, than yes I see the “problem”.
EVs emit 8-16tons of CO2 to build, more than an ICE car, but then it flips. Plus BEVs build efficiency is continuously improving. Lifecycle shows EVs come out on top in multiple studies.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/electric-vehicles-contribute-fewer-emissions-than-gasoline-powered-cars-over-their-lifetimes/
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/electric-cars-have-much-lower-life-cycle-emissions-new-study-confirms/
Even when being charged on a grid powered by almost all coal, EVs are always better than gas, though may be beaten by hybrids, except for the fact that very little of the US power grid at this point is so coal intensive.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars
https://evtool.ucsusa.org/
Says that a Bolt EV with my zip code gets 59 mpge while the EUV gets 56 mpge. The regular prius gets 57 mpg and will never have higher lifecycle emissions. Please go fuck yourself for using averages to spread lies. Way to base your identity on trying to control other people even if it will make emissions go up.
I don’t know what you are trying to say here. You sound like you are telling me to fuck off for proving the same argument you just made back at me. Go figure.
The only advantage of an EV vs ICE is less routine maintenance, LT maintenance; battery, motor, etc is worse. Otherwise there is no other advantage of EV vs ICE right now, sorry that’s the truth, and I have had an EV for 6yrs.
I just want to know where you can get a Raptor R for $79,975.
That is the MSRP of the Raptor V6; the V8 adds something like $30,000 to the base price.
“I’m not sure if you’re aware or if they stopped inviting you to the awards ceremonies because of the absolutely embarrassing scene you made at the Golden Globes when Paul Giamatti had to have you removed by security…”
I got thrown out of an awards ceremony. I showed up in an inexpensive suit with hands that were simultaneously greasy AND reeking of Fireball.
I thought it would be way harder to get tossed from the AVN Awards, but there you go.
The worst part was being forced to sit in her Lexus in the parking lot for 3 hours. Waiting.
And being forced into thinking about “what I had done.”
Oh well, time to get back to work on the Holy Grail Jeep…
While I question some of the assumptions they make, this is a good list to have available. Even if you figure some of these vehicles should move up or down a little, you can look at it very generally and choose something you like that is relatively efficient.
I hope companies see the Hummer EV on the bad list and recognize that they need to make efficient EVs. And I hope consumers see it and realize they can’t help the environment by going EV if they pick a massive waste of resources.
Congratulations to Toyota for doing what the Chevy Volt started doing in 2011.
GM is the poster child for fumbling its PHEV and BEV rollouts.
Perhaps GM will announce a reVolting development.
GM, squandering good ideas for over 100 years.
From what I’ve read, the 1st Generation Volt got 35ish mpg once the plug-in range was exhausted. The Prius Prime will get 50+ mpg even on an exhausted plug-in battery.
So no, they’re doing better than just imitating what Chevy did a decade ago.
Chevy Volt “started”. Started being the key word here.
There was no plug-in Prius when the 1st gen Volt was out. Obviously a car 15 years newer will be more efficient.
As I said, more efficient than the 1st gen volt. Yep, 15 years newer than the 1st gen volt too.
Which is why it’s not just hitting the same mark as the 1st gen volt. It’s improved upon the formula.
That’s not true. The Gen 3 Prius had a plug-in version with deliveries in the US beginning in Feb 2012, only 14 months after the Gen 1 Volt (mid-Dec 2010). That Prius got 50mpg and had an EV range of 11 miles.
True, but a year late and barely a PHEV (11 miles!?) is nothing to write home about. It’s basically just a regular Prius with a bigger battery.
Unfortunately, in some ways they still haven’t. The gas/hybrid mode MPG is better, which is good, but it’s still a boosted-gas car rather than range-extended electric. If you hit the accelerator hard, the gas engine on the Prius PHEV will still kick in even with a full battery.
According to Gaia theory Earth is a self regulating entity and humans have already set in motion a sixth mass extinction.
If we all drive a G63 AMG that will help speed up the process of getting rid of us, which will be better for the earth in the long run.
So… that list should be reversed in terms of environmental friendliness.
A Prius is just prolonging the inevitable.
James Lovelock, one of the “inventors” of the Gaia theory, purportedly drove a fin-tailed 1950’s Cadillac for that very reason.
WTH is a Niro FE? I bought a SX HEV last year (love it) there is no trim level FE, and the powertrains are HEV/BEV/PHEV.
Looks like the hybrid version: 2023 Kia Niro FE (fueleconomy.gov)
They have at times in the past labeled some Kia trims as FE, usually base models with the smallest wheels & thus highest fuel economy. I don’t think they have done so for a few years now (and for the Niro their own press site suggests 2019 was the last time they did so), but it seems they’ve registered or certified those with the 16″ wheels/max economy as FE models with the EPA similar to what Jdoubledub said, and the Touring ones with 18″ wheels are just unlabeled (previously they were labeled separately). Not sure why they still do it this way other than perhaps they still are keeping “FE” in their back pocket for the future.
this makes sense, ours is a SX with the 16″ wheels, gets amazing mileage, 55mpg!
The trim structure now with an EX/SX with Touring/non-Touring versions is better than how they used to have it, where it was tougher to find ones with options but without the big wheels. My dad has a ’17 Touring Launch edition, which split between an EX and Touring at the time (before they had an SX) and has the 18″ wheels. That wasn’t preferred, it was just almost impossible to find one used with the smaller wheels and with a power driver’s seat. In practice though, it has pleasantly surprised by matching the EPA rating of the smaller 16″ wheels at least in highway use where it saw more of its time.
very nice! we love our Niro, perfect for here in the city, and surprisingly comfortable, replaced my Veloster, it’s so much more refined lol
I suspect one variable that wasn’t considered is the lifespan/reliability of the vehicle. Whether it goes to the crusher after 100K miles (Mini Cooper) or 300K miles (RAV4) makes a big difference in environmental impact.
And your assessment is revealing and correct. That’s the thing about all the measures of environmental impact, there are way too many variables in the equation. And that is what really makes the projections just a crap shoot. And confusing to a lot of us.
From this metric, a well-designed EV has the potential to be the greenest car ever built.
Start with an efficient, low-drag platform. CdA value under 0.3 m^2, curb weight under 3,000 lbs, to keep energy consumption low. If the battery is placed in an accessible location, and the motor/controller/battery/BMS/charger are all designed to be modular plug-and-play components with user-selectable parameters, the electronics/software everywhere else in the car is kept to a minimum, and the car is designed to be repairable with basic tools with no proprietary crap, there exists potential to have a car that can be run 1 million miles over 50+ years, and then still be used as a daily driver reliable enough to cross the US on a whim. You might have to replace 2-3 battery packs along the way if LiFePO4 are the chemistry of choice, more if LiIon, but the overall missions per mile of such a vehicle would be extremely low.
Consider the operating cost of such a vehicle over its lifetime. It would save the operator a crapload of money.
That is assuming that LiFePO4 or LiIon are the chemistries in wide use over those 50+ years. It’s a safe-ish bet that at some moment in that time, battery chemistries, energy density, pack weight and price per kWh will have evolved far beyond those two options.
Correct. What is a travesty is that many EVs use chargers specific to a specific make/model/configuration of battery, and are locked out of modification/repair with proprietary software.
In contrast, I have a Grin Cycle Satiator charger as one of my chargers for my electric bikes, and it is user-programmable with regard to charge profiles. It can be tailored for batteries that don’t even exist yet. THAT is how things should be. There’s no bullshit plan to nickle and dime the vehicle owner very step of the way, and the device itself is fairly future-proofed, if say, 20 years from now, a new solid state battery comes along. Cost all of $300. The BRUSA NLG in my Triumph GT6 EV conversion is similarly configurable, but does require a Windows XP machine(this charger is ANCIENT).
EVs should be designed to where the battery pack, charger, control system, motor, BMS, are all modular and user configurable, in easily accessed locations, so as to facilitate easy and inexpensive/free repair.
Modern EVs are for the most part the opposite of this, and are designed to fill up landfills in a decade or so after production after when even something small breaks they cannot be economically repaired, wasting all of the resources that went into producing them and forcing the buyer to replace the car outright, repeating the cycle, and eventually denying the used market of trustworthy/reliable vehicles.
Math is hard
the top 12 ranked vehicles consist of just over half (seven) battery EVs, two plug-in hybrids, and THREE
twogas-electric hybrids.I was expecting to see more than 4 crappy Stellantis products on the bottom, at least the Charger Devil Jailbait Fiery Pinkeye Hemi Extra Limited should of been there. Glad John Lovitz said they are planning on not being the worst planet killer and going to stop buyig credits from Tesla….. some day.
E85 must be pretty green if the Demon 170 isn’t on the list.
I assume these are 2024 models and that car was discontinued after 2023.
I am not surprised the Prius Prime tops the list. PHEVs are the best solution at the moment for maximizing fuel economy, and the Prius Prime is the most economical PHEV.
I could save a lot of gas by selling my co-daily drivers (a Tesla and a pickup that averages 21 mpg) and buying a Prius. I drive each vehicle around 10,000 miles per year. I drive the Tesla locally (usually less than 40 miles per day) and use the truck for long distance drives and occasional truck things (I drive the truck on average twice per week). As a result, the effective fuel economy of my driving is around 42 mpg. But if I could do the first 40 miles of my longer drives using electricity, my effective MPG would be around 70. That would be great, although if I do the same math using a Prius Prime my effective MPG would be closer to 200 mpg, even considering the gas I would use when I rented a truck to do truck things.
The only problem is that I don’t want to drive a Prius Prime. I think they are hideous. I know that a lot of people think they look nice, but I disagree. I can’t make myself like that car. I honestly think the love for Prius styling is a joke I’m not in on. But if a midsize or larger PHEV pickup with a 40 mile EV range became available, I would absolutely buy one. The upcoming Ram PHEV sounds very interesting.
Ok but none of these cars are green. They’re blue or silver or black or gray.
the new Prius would look good in a nice neon green
You can get it in a screaming yellow, at least.
Problem is I don’t fit and my friends don’t either so I can’t buy one.
Not true, my Mini Cooper SE is green, with a white roof and stripes!
There should be more green cars, I agree. No one cares anymore.
I’m a bit confused by the list & the methodology – for example how could the Ioniq 5 have the same rating as the Ioniq 6, which is virtually the same vehicle but in a much more efficient form?
Or say the Toyota family EVs having better scores than more efficient EVs?
A PHEV with a 15kwh battery vs an EV with a 100kwh battery…I can see an argument. A mild hybrid over an efficient EV…struggling to understand that.
I assume (but don’t know for certain at all) that it is a measure of efficiency for its class, as in the Ioniq 5 uses the same amount of materials (mostly) to be a very nearly as efficient vehicle, but has more room for people and stuff, ie earning it an equal overall emissions and materials impact. Definitely somewhat confusing, and I’d like some clarification as well
The fact that the #2 is a Lexus EV that is listed as lower fuel cost/more efficient than #3 and #4 small EVs is a complete red flag. Not sure how a Leaf or Mini that is smaller, lighter, with a smaller battery, and more efficient gets a lower score than the RZ 300e without some serious issues with their methodology. Makes me wonder if Toyota paid for the study, as I’ve been seeing some very questionable stuff from them at technical conferences in the past few years.
Because they are looking at the total picture including the manufacturing process, materials used in that process, how often parts get shipped back and forth etc.
It does not appear that they take into account parts shipping by make/model, though they do take into account the materials when available, or a default composition when they are not available. I wonder if the default composition vs known actual composition skews things a bit.
I read through their methodology and…I’m still not sure how they come up with some of their numbers. I think I’d need to study it for some time and spend some time with a lot of data, but it seems like they do a lot of strange corrections. They talk about vehicles not meeting the expected emissions, which they previously corrected for, but assume that this has gotten substantially better. They also assume a 200,000 mile life across the board (while mentioning that trucks are on the road a bit longer than cars, on average), a higher impact from nuclear power than I would expect, and they seem to add the battery weight and vehicle weight together, which seems like it could skew things:
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but that seems like double-counting some weight.
Yeah, I can definitely see a long term view of Toyota vs Hyundai – and the expectation that the Toyota is going to last a lot longer being a factor.
It would be nice if they explained it better…it would actually be pretty fascinating to see an explanation of a hybrid Camry over an EV. As-is, it’s just a bit hard to buy.
Except that they do not account for that at all. 200k miles across the board. The whole thing seems weird and a number of the assumptions they use are perhaps questionable. I don’t have the time/energy to do a deep enough dive to see which models would assume default materials and which ones have known composition. I think Toyota might do better because they have a listed material composition. The methodology mentions that most models use the default.
I find the whole thing a little questionable, but there are a LOT of assumptions to question, so there are plenty of opportunities to massage the data one way or another.
maybe someone who works at a automobile enthusiast website could do some investigation!
It’s honestly probably not worth it. I’m guessing that brands with their actual materials listed do better than the ones that just use the default composition. Probably gonna be hard-pressed to get companies to give that info up. I guess you could make some educated guesses based on what’s known, but it wouldn’t be precise.
My edit showed the correct calculations, but now it’s a whole lot of question marks again. And now I can’t edit. Sigh.
I thought you were trolling us ????
I mean, that’s almost what the equation looks like when you don’t want to go digging for the meaning of each variable. But it does have vehicle weight+battery weight as part of the calculation. which seems like it might throw things off. I can’t find any reference to finding the weight of the vehicle sans battery. I’m hoping they’ve done that math and assumed people would recognize it, but most of the methodology is very explicit. If we are calculating impact of the construction of the battery plus the construction of the whole vehicle (using default materials or the known composition of the vehicle), it could amplify the effect of materials used outside the battery, which could be part of why some vehicles expected to be less efficient show up as more efficient.
You called them shit-witted winkle ticklers, didn’t you…
I’m no Adrian–I am not nearly creative enough to toss out fun insults. Not even if he came up with them.
Also, I honestly respect that they are trying. Even with some flaws, it’s important work. I think it’s important to look at any list like this more broadly, comparing vehicles within a range, instead of picking the one that’s a couple points better just because of the score (which I hope no one is doing, but who knows).
It IS important. If we measure it, we can understand things and perhaps ward off unintended consequences.
This gets to something that occurred to me in looking at Volvo’s carbon footprint study from a couple of years ago. That study found the C40 Recharge (EV) produced more greenhouse gas emissions during the production phase than the XC40 (ICE) but produced fewer emissions during the use phase once it have been driven enough miles. It occurred to me if you compared the EV to a hybrid (HEV) that got, say, 30% better fuel economy than the XC40, the HEV would produce fewer emissions over its life cycle than the EV and with a battery pack roughly 1/50th the size of a typical EV batter pack. Eventually a PHEV would too but its battery pack is roughly 10x larger than that of an HEV.
“but the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has announced their 2024 GreenerCars Ratings, and this year the highest-rated car isn’t a battery-electric car.”
Having already looked at how they rated vehicles, I concluded that their rating system is has a lot of nonsense in it and can be safely ignored.
Any specific complaints?
PSA: The greenest solution is to drive old cars, longer. Cuba is probably the most eco friendly car culture around. People get hung up on reducing emissions, but REUSING and RECYCLING is even more important, but our capitalistic society needs us to constantly build new things to keep the stock holders happy.
Yes and no. There’s certainly a threshold to this statement. Like replacing a ’71 Travelall that gets 12 mpg when you drive 20k per year, with a Prius (any of them) probably has a pretty short period before the Prius justifies itself and the energy that went into building it. But going from a ’19 Suburban to a ’24 Suburban probably is a huge waste.
I mean, if we are being really pedantic, the greenest solution is public transport, especially light rail. I’m 100% for that. I would prefer to not have to drive for my work commute at all.
Not in areas of low population density. You’re ignoring the amount of effort to install the rails, dividing natural areas, noise, etc. Rail ONLY makes sense in dense areas. Most of america is not densely populated. I love rail, my grandparents were part of the milwaukee road, but too many people are ignorant about rail and America. Look at the density maps:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/global-population-density-spikes-3d-mapped-1200px.png
Except that those maps don’t show that more of the US has the density of Spain (which if you look, is the case), yet Spain has significantly more passenger and light rail.
That makes maps like this misleading, because they don’t zoom in enough to show the places were rail makes sense.
Plus America is an outlier–few industrialized nations subsidize gas the way we do, and build roads as prodigiously as we do, while NOT investing in rail. Few nations rely on short haul flights the way we do. In some ways, we are ideal for high speed rail because our population centers are spread out, but in many cases close enough to not justify the emissions of a commuter jet, but very much can justify high speed trains.
Building rail now would start to curb this crazed desire to push further and further building into car isolated exurbs.
I wish modern vehicle designs, especially EVs, facilitated this ethos. I suspect by 2050, there will be cumulatively a lot more vehicles operable in the U.S. from the 1980s/1990s than from 2016-2035.
I really appreciate a full lifecycle analysis of vehicle emissions, and it’s something that I feel gets overlooked in the EV discussion. I’ve said since I was in middle school (like, 2006) that PHEVs should be the bridge between ICE and EVs. Of course we’ve seen automakers start rushing out EVs, only to realize that, for a whole host of reasons, they aren’t everyone yet. I’m so glad that we are finally seeing more PHEV options out there and I hope to see those expand in the future, hopefully driving down some of the costs. For example, my mom likes the Volvo XC60 Recharge, but it’s a $10k price difference over the standard ICE model. You’ve gotta do a lot of driving for that to make financial sense.
I know people say that it’s wasteful to haul around a whole ICE engine when you don’t need it most of the time, but one could say the same thing about hauling around hundreds of pounds of resource-intensive batteries that aren’t needed for say, 80-90% of your driving. Some folks can make an EV work for 100% of their driving needs and that’s great! But for those who can’t, PHEVs allow people to make an EV work for a majority of them, while using a smaller battery, that’s great too! We need good options for both, since everyone’s needs are different.
In before the EV stans throw a tantrum about the methodology or how this is “propaganda” or something….
Anyway, PHEVs are the best solution for right now. I’ve been saying it for years and I will keep saying it. I also think the “hybrids are a half measure that are holding us back” takes are really dumb too. Lots of regular ole hybrids are represented here.
Let’s not ignore the good to focus on the perfect. If you can make an EV work, rad. Do it. If you can’t due to a lack of charging infrastructure/long distance driving then a traditional hybrid is great and will still reduce emissions significantly. If you’re someone in a city or the burbs who does a lot of short distance driving but has to do long trips periodically then PHEV it up, brotherrrrrrr!
I think many of us have been espousing PHEV’s as well. There must be dozens of us!
There are DOZENS of us! DOZENS!!!
Heck even a regular Hybrid does WONDERS for reducing emissions over a pure ICE setup, and a CO2 reduction per kWh of battery pack cannot be beat by even PHEVs, granted I’d agree and still argue PHEVs are a better solution that regular Hybrids for most cases as there is way more flexibility afforded by a 20-50 mile EV only range.
I’ve been trying to hunt down a dirt cheap Nissan Leaf just for funsies and to see practically what I could expect to see from a modern PHEV in terms of range and livability, and as a a cheap and cheerful first EV that I can get away with charging off a basic wall outlets and public chargers.
This is the root of it. A lot of the people that stan EVs, autonomous vehicles, and future-tech like that are so focused on the theoretically optimal development that they bristle at any mid-term solution. Call it starry eyed techno-utopianism or Silicon Valley perpetual growth scam culture. Either way, they can’t see anything other than what they’ve ID’ed as the goal as being good enough.
Well, *someone* on this site a few weeks back made the argument for a battery-first PHEV… where the ICE part is just basically a range extender and the wheels are driven by electric drive. IMO, I think that’s the best solution for PHEVs, for most people.
In that scenario you have a BEV 80 – 90% of the time except for the long road trip or heavy hauling scenarios when the ICE kicks in. You get the fast 800v charging. You get the power of a BEV, and the efficiency, and you lose the range anxiety. The ICE only needs to be large enough to maintain the charge under load and no bigger.
All I learned is that if you’re sick and tired of killing the environment in your Hummer EV, buy A Z06 instead! Not only will you practically cleaning the air as you drive, but you’ll have a great soundtrack to listen to the in process!
Glad to see that embarrassment of a vehicle on the bad list.
Say what you will about it, but there’s enough battery in it to keep your home running in a hurricane. Which is hilarious.
Oh yeah, enough battery to last out the hurricane and power all of the renovations & repairs to fix the damage!
I wonder how low prices will get on these used – could be enough to pair with a solar setup and pretty easily go off grid lol
It’s not easy being green.