[MelvinButtsESQ]

Production of batteries is the constraint ... previously, currently, and in foreseeable future (<5-8 years). Simply don't have the capacity to make 100% EVs.

Further, given this capacity, the numbers work out such that we are, on the macro level, DRASTICALLY more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly by putting more hybrids and Plug-in Hybrids (which have fewer batteries) on the road than we are by reserving said batteries for fewer pure EVs.

2.5 Priuses are better than 1 EV.

When battery technology and production capacity are NOT the constraint, then pure EV will make sense.

All cars should be mandated hybrid soon (or all manufactures must meet a minimum hybridization level across their line ... sort of like fuel efficiency standards are measured today). All cars should be mandated Plugin Hybrid at some point after that. Maybe someday, we can mandate Pure EV.

[ajmurmann]

Why mandate how emissions are cut, instead of heavily taxing carbon emissions and having the market find the best solution?

[eloff]

In general I agree with you. Simply taxing things with negative externalities enough to cover the true cost would simply and conclusively fix a lot of things we struggle with, faster and without relying on politicians.

I think it's politically very unpopular, but the economic theory behind it is extremely sound.

[asdff]

If you priced everything according to the negative externalities they cause, you would have poor people unable to afford $10/gal milk and probably pay more than the dairy farmer subsidy in healthcare costs related to poor nutrition for this entire class of people. I think nuance is needed, but the danger is that this nuance is where industries see opportunities for regulatory capture. Sometimes I think the American political system is too brittle with too much of a focus on who has the most money in the room to perform needed change. Everything in recent decades seems to be a half measure that comes too little too late.

[eloff]

I think the problem of poor people not being able to afford adequate nutrition has to be tackled separately. You're right that there will be all kinds of unintended effects. You're also right (in my opinion) that the US political system seems incapable of solving those kinds of hard problems anyway.

[seph-reed]

I really hope liquid democracy can someday become a thing.

The fact that an idea can be both good and unpopular is -- IMO -- the linchpin of almost every other problem we face.

[paholg]

Even worse, some ideas are both good and popular, and politicians still don't get behind them.

[cwkoss]

Yuup. 80% of democrats (and a majority of Americans) support Medicare for All but the DNC rejected it from their 2020 platform. Sadly, lobbyists are running our party system to a much greater extent than the citizenry.

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer...

[chii]

> an idea can be both good and unpopular

communism is a good idea, but it's unpopular, for a reason i say.

The reason for the idea of taxing externalities being unpopular isn't really proven yet - after all, it hasn't been instated, but just spoken about, and the silent majority don't have an opinion!

[stjohnswarts]

Communism is unpopular because it says people on average are unimportant and the "greater good" is more important. Most people aren't going to glom onto that when they realize that's the real result as easily demonstrated in any number of failed communist countries, even China gave it up and moved to a more totalitarian one party system that allows some free market ideas in. apparently they're even moving to a dictatorship steadily rather than communism.

[slashdev]

> communism is a good idea

Is that a troll? See my comment below.

[seph-reed]

I should note, that I don't think massive political shifts should be tested in production.

So whether communism is a good idea or not remains to be seen. We need to run a solid pilot, get the as many kinks out as possible, and then assess.

Similar with taxing damages to Earth.

[slashdev]

> So whether communism is a good idea or not remains to be seen.

You are being too charitable. There is no shortage of data on communism after the last century. The results are so unequivocally bad across the board, you have to be ignorant of history or just ignorant in general to still think it's a good idea. As soon as someone tells me communism is a good thing, I realize I'm taking to someone who is not very intelligent and look for a way out of the conversation.

Edit: You can downvote, but you can't change history. There are levels of being wrong, but thinking communism is a good idea is just an extremely wrong opinion completely contradicted by history in over 40 countries (I counted) over a period of 100 years - with not a single example in favor.

On top of that, the evils perpetuated by communist countries upon their own citizens were not surpassed by any regime of the 20th century, not even the genocidal ones like Rwanda, or Nazi Germany. And yet some clueless class of people, largely located in academic institutions still somehow thinks it's a good idea. They are not only wrong, they are so wrong as to be stupid, and while I don't condone ad-hominen attacks generally, I feel it fits accurately here.

[visarga]

Some of us have had first hand experience with communism, it does not "remain to be seen" for everyone, just those who don't know.

[stjohnswarts]

Mostly because it makes the poors even more poor and when you live in a democracy that's a hard feat to overcome because they're going to vote for candidates who promise to make them not more poor.

[KineticLensman]

> heavily taxing carbon emissions and having the market find the best solution?

Public perception may be one reason. If a carbon emissions tax directly leads to big increases in fuel costs, it can cause problems for drivers / vehicle users for whom fuel cost is a significant concern. The 2018 Gilet Jaune protests [0] in France were partly due to public dissatisfaction with fuel price rises. Regulatory instruments (such as fuel efficiency standards) are more opaque and may obfuscate the connection between between political decisions and the inevitable price rises.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests

[throw_nbvc1234]

If societies answer to climate change is "Don't punish/impact poor people who negatively effect the environment" Then we might as well just pack our bags for Mars now.

Over the next 100-200 years, every (poor) 3rd world country is going to continue to get more and more industrialized and impact the environment more and more. Maybe I'm 100% off here but i'd be surprised if we (rich countries) can lower our emissions enough to offset the increases elsewhere in the world. And limiting the increases of "their" impact will directly effect "their" quality of life improvements unless "we" step in and aid them with more complex (expensive?) solutions. Likely at the expense of any domestic improvements that could be done without added cost of that aid.

[KineticLensman]

> If societies answer to climate change is "Don't punish/impact poor people who negatively effect the environment" Then we might as well just pack our bags for Mars now.

Dealing with climate change will include costs and sacrifices that affect individuals and societies. Politicians unwilling to deal with these costs, for ideological and / or electability reasons, will not in my opinion be likely to advocate for the measures necessary to address climate change.

(Also, I'm assuming that when the billionaires go to Mars they won't make the mistake that is common in Stephen Baxter's Scifi novels, where the colonisers always seem to include a subpopulation of disaffected criminals / lowlifes / etc who inevitably mutiny.)

[jedberg]

There's an easy solution to that though. You redistribute all the money from a carbon tax back to the people, either equally to everyone, or better, based on income.

We already know that wealthy people generate the most carbon. If that activity was taxed and then the money was given to poorer people who can't afford to transition to clean energy, it would still be a net win, because it will reduce emissions while making sure it doesn't unfairly affect the poor.

[bryanlarsen]

That's what they do in Canada. It's awesome but a lot of people hate it because they're being told they should by the usual suspects.

[Clubber]

The US would most likely invest the money, either partially or fully into the war machine.

[jedberg]

People like to rip on the US war machine, but as far as percent of GDP, the US isn't even the biggest spender. Also, the entire world benefits from the US army, which helps protect global trade routes. For example the US patrols for pirates off the coast of Africa, protecting ships that are taking goods from one country to another in which the US has no involvement in any of it.

[Clubber]

>but as far as percent of GDP, the US isn't even the biggest spender

The great thing about statistics is you can maneuver them to support your conclusion. Here's some that support mine: in real numbers, "The United States spends more on national defense than China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia — combined."

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

That's a lot of money to fight pirates.

[WhompingWindows]

That sounds nice in theory, but it'll be years until it could pass through actual legislative channels in the US federal government. Neither side wants it, the GOP hates new taxes and loves fossil fuel companies; the Dems hate anything that looks regressive, which a gas tax would at first before the pay-back checks come (if it's a neutral scheme, who's to say how the carbon tax would be used).

[jeromegv]

Voilà.

[fiftyfifty]

This is true in theory, but in practice I think hybrids are the worst of both worlds. I've had two Toyota Priuses and a Honda Civic Hybrid all of which we drove to around 150,000 miles each. One of our Priuses and the Civic Hybrid needed their hybrid batteries replaced during their lifetime. Not only was this a significant cost but I've got to believe that it negates a lot of the environmental benefits of the vehicle. It's not an uncommon problem either, there are plenty of 3rd parties selling refurbished hybrid battery packs, it's a common enough problem that a whole industry has built up around it. In addition both of our Priuses started burning oil at some point over 100,000 miles. This is a notorious problem with the Prius and there are lots of discussions about the problem in online forums. It certainly ruins any illusion I had about clean emissions from the cars over the course of it's life. I never fail to notice the little puff of grey smoke when behind Priuses at stop lights when the engine starts up again, so much for being the clean air poster child.

We have a Tesla Model 3 now with about 50,000 miles on it, we've only seen about a 2-3% decrease in range so far, if even that. The only maintenance so far has been refilling the washer fluid and we've replaced the tires once. I see no reason why it won't easily go to 150,000+ miles. The difference with the hybrids we have had is night and day, it's not even close. Toyota does not have a winning hand to play here and they know it. They bet on the wrong tech and they are tied down by a dealer network that is dependent on maintenance costs to support them.

[asdff]

I think the elephant in the room is always going to be people who can't afford new cars and have to contend with used cars. 25% of cars on the road today are at least 16 years old (1), and the trend is the average car continues to get older. A working class person might buy a car for $2000, then junk it once it has some catastrophic repair bill they can't afford, and buy another $2000 car afterwards that might be slightly newer and cheaper than the repair on the first one. What will a $2000 used EV look like? Will it have a decent range? Will it need an expensive battery replacement? Will it even be competitive with a $2000 gasoline car? These are all open questions, but I think they will have to be answered sooner than later if we are to realistically imagine a future without gas cars. It's just not going to come by everyone in America buying or leasing one new from a dealership, even with the government subsidies in place it only knocks EV prices down to brand new entry level gasoline car price, nowhere close to used car prices.

1. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/25percent-of-cars-in-us-are-...

[harles]

On the flip side, going all EV puts 2.5x more pressure on the supply chain to remove battery production and capacity as a constraint, which might be optimal long term.

[BoorishBears]

The 2nd Gen Chevy Volt was the Model 3 we deserved, but couldn't appreciate.

40-50 miles EV range meant that most people would have an EV most of the time, and use gas only on one off trips.

And while people 10 years behind on ICE advancements would immediately start yelling about dragging around a dead weight ICE all day, modern ICEs are incredibly light, efficient, and reliable in the type of application the Volt had them in, where they only need to run run at their optimal power band.

It didn't even look bad, and it had the same sensor suite AP1 did (of course GM used Mobileye's sensors as designed, so you weren't tempted to take your hands off to play mobile games, and they didn't end up in the back of firetrucks)

[theluketaylor]

Volt was a great car and 5 years ago it was a great solution. Now that long distance road trip charging is good enough I think the value of a PHEV is greatly diminished. They are an especially poor solution to the largest charging hurdle still remaining of apartment and street parkers since PHEVs must be plugged in nightly for carbon reduction ROI.

The issue isn't so much weight as volume and packaging. Having 2 powertrains really eats a lot of interior space. Pure BEVs can have some impressive packaging with a truly impressive amount of leg room and spaces to shove tons of stuff. My parents love their Volt, but there is no denying it's a very tight squeeze and even with the hatch there is not a lot of space in there not taken up by batteries and engine.

[WorldMaker]

I also agree with this. I bought a Volt in 2011 because it was the best solution for 2011. In 2021, that gas generator that I hardly ever use unless the car tells me I have to because the fuel is getting stale feels like a huge weight and maintenance liability to carry around. The Volt seems a lot less like a great solution for 2021, especially as I've watched the rise in better cross-country charging networks and my friends are starting to buy Teslas after years of me as the early adopter telling them EVs were the present, not just the future. I'm convinced that my next car will be a full BEV and don't see any reason to look at any "hybrid" in today's present. (I'm just not yet sure which one yet, my Volt is doing great as the car I already have, and with the number of models expected to be announced in 2023-2025 am in something of an "I can afford to wait and see what happens next" mood.)

[cycomanic]

That's actually not true, you significantly underestimate the weight and space requirements of batteries necessary for long range EVs. There was just a comparison by heise.de of the Mercedes Eqa and GlA [1] and in comparison of space they write that the more EV the less space, i.e. ICE>PHEV>EV

[Umofomia]

> they write that the more EV the less space

That's because the EQA is built on the same platform that GLA uses, which was designed for ICE vehicles.[1] The newer crop of electric vehicles that are built on dedicated platforms designed for EVs end up providing much more space than ICEs, mostly due to the ability to have the battery in a flat skateboard layout that is not possible with an ICE platform.[2]

PHEVs end up making the same compromises by shoving a larger battery into an ICE platform, which is why, for instance, the RAV4 Prime ends up having less cargo space than the regular RAV4 hybrid.

[1] https://insideevs.com/news/467187/mercedes-benz-eqa-repeats-...

[2] https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36877554/electric-veh...

[chipsa]

There's no particular reason why PHEVs have to be worse than ICE for cargo space. The new Ford Maverick is designed as a hybrid first, for example. I know they don't have a PHEV version yet, but it's expected to come as one in a future model year.

[theluketaylor]

There isn't a PHEV version of Maverick yet, but I'm sure there will be since the platform is shared with Ford Escape which has a PHEV. Notably, the PHEV Escape loses storage space compared to its hybrid and pure combustion siblings. PHEVs need batteries an order of magnitude bigger in size and capacity compared to regular hybrids and they need to go somewhere.

Using skateboard batteries for PHEV would help mitigate the packaging issues for PHEVs, but then you're still stuck hauling around a combustion engine and all the design compromises that entails like long, tall hoods filled with components.

Skateboard batteries mean deep, expensive changes to platforms, the kind automakers only do every decode or so. With the cost of batteries plummeting and emissions rules like EU7 coming, most companies have chosen to focus their development dollars on pure EVs and cheaply retrofit their PHEVs on to existing ICE platforms.

[Umofomia]

The platform that the RAV4 uses (TNGA-K) was also designed with hybrid in mind, yet the compromises still had to be made for the larger battery that the PHEV version requires. The larger battery has to go somewhere, so I suspect the situation for the Ford Maverick won't be so different if they do come out with a PHEV version.

[theluketaylor]

For extreme range the extra weight starts to cost efficiency and you get diminishing returns, but I think my model 3 sr+ is close to the optimal balance. 50 kWh battery gets me 400 km range and weighs right in line with other compact and midsized sedans at 1600 kg. Charging speed is fast enough that long road trips are not a big deal. There isn't a single ICE car in the same footprint with that much storage space or forward visibility.

Tesla happens to be one of the most efficient EV drivetrains out there, but the hyundai/kia twins are right there with them, so it isn't out of reach.

EQA isn't a dedicated EV platform, so of course packaging isn't optimized to take advantage of the space savings available in a BEV.

[cycomanic]

>There isn't a single ICE car in the same footprint with that much storage space or forward visibility.

That is demonstrably false. The size of the Tesla is the about same as a Volvo V60. The V60 has >500 l of storage volume compared to the 385l of the Tesla. Similarly the Seat Octavia has also more than 500l storage volume (even in the sedan version). So yes there are plenty of ICE cars of that size which have the same storage space, in fact most ICEs of that size have more storage space.

Also the model 3 according to the ADAC [1] in the standard version has an efficiency of 19.5 kWh/100km and around 300 km range, in comparison the Hyundai Ioniq has 14.7 kWh/100km so the Tesla is not even close. The VW ID3 has 19.3 kWh/100km so very similar to the Tesla, it is quite a bit smaller and it's storage is also smaller at 315l (however much easier to get to). So it does not seem like the Model 3 is one of the most efficient.

[theluketaylor]

> The size of the Tesla is the about same as a Volvo V60

Of course a model 3 doesn't have as much space inside as an estate/wagon. It makes more sense to compare a model y there. I could only find rear seats folded where it's 1920 L for model y and 1440 L for v60 (That might include the Y's frunk as well; the sources are not clear).

The 3/Y also crush the volvo for aerodynamics at 0.29 vs 0.23

In real world driving at 110-120 km/hr I get well under 150 kWh/100 km in my SR+. I wasn't able to find the ADAC testing, but they either did it at 130 km/hr+ or it was quite cold out.

[BoorishBears]

Yeah people go based on their guts drawing conclusions with this stuff, but the Volt has a 1.5L engine.

Imagine a 2L coke bottle. It's contents would overflow if you could pour it into the engine.

The Voltec system wasn't anywhere near larger than an equivalently practical BEV drivetrain.

Just like BEVs are coming out without frunks, the Volt simply didn't prioritize interior space at the time.

It was still a plenty practical vehicle, and if it had sold well it was going to get the CUV treatment

[theluketaylor]

1.5L engines are still pretty sizeable once you take into account the head, valve cover, oilpan. Then all the external parts needed to support combustion like water pump, radiator, coils and their wires and engine mounts. The total volume is a lot more than the 1.5L cylinders. Add in the fact Volt can directly power the wheels with the engine and now you are forced to put certain components in very specific, highly valuable places.

BMW managed to hide their rex engine really well in i3 since it isn't connected to the wheels. That comes with it's own downsides as well, since you can slowly lose battery charge with the engine running while climbing steep hills in a rex i3.

Don't get me wrong, I think volt is one of the best cars ever made and at the time it came out it was the most cost effective way to cut your transportation carbon footprint while retaining a private car.

PHEVs are the best and worst of both worlds at the same time. The worst now outweighs (in this case literally as well as figuratively) the best. The downsides of pure EV are now at a point where they only truly impact edge case needs (apart from cost that needs to come way down, but PHEVs are very expensive too).

[BoorishBears]

> 1.5L engines are still pretty sizeable once you take into account the head, valve cover, oilpan. Then all the external parts needed to support combustion like water pump, radiator, coils and their wires and engine mounts. The total volume is a lot more than the 1.5L cylinders. Add in the fact Volt can directly power the wheels with the engine and now you are forced to put certain components in very specific, highly valuable places.

This entire paragraph is like saying an electric motor needs batteries and those batteries need cooling systems and those cooling systems need pumps and those pumps need power and...

No one claimed the entire drivetrain is 1.5L, but 1.5L gives you an idea of how relatively small the engine is. All the components you listed scale down in turn. Smaller engine running at a better point in its power band needs less cooling, less oil capacity, fewer oil changes, etc.

> The worst now outweighs (in this case literally as well as figuratively) the best.

I don't believe in this view point if we're being realistic about a low emission future.

We have an extensive gas infrastructure just sitting there today, meanwhile we have grids that can barely handle our current demands.

PHEVs are a chance for innovative solutions to that. Imagine power companies being able to direct people to use gas during (what will be increasingly frequent) extreme weather events then switch back.

And consider that PHEVs don't need to be Voltec-style all-in drivetrains. Conventional car designs can be converted to PHEVs like the old 3 series ActiveHybrid was.

And while people immediately recoil at the less than optimal results of not designing from the ground up around batteries and EV requirements, there's no changing the fact that designing new cars is expensive.

Affordable PHEVs based on current designs could open up EVs to more segments of the market than currently possible.

[ariwilson]

The RAV4 Prime solves the interior issue by being a CUV and also putting the battery pack below the vehicle.

[theluketaylor]

There is a price to be paid in space for the prime still. Rav4 ICE and hybrid have 37.5 cu ft / 1060 L behind the rear seats. Prime has 33.5 cu ft / 950 L.

[nickik]

If you look at actual data you will see that people simply don't charge these cars as often and end up driving lots of miles with inefficient gas engines.

Your analysis basically assumes that people perfectly optimize their consumption, but actual usage data shows that they don't.

Also these cars driving experience simply can't compare to actual EV. Because of the high cost you simple and up with a cheap EV motor and a cheap gas motor.

There is a reason why GM didn't want to sell a million of them.

[tsudounym]

The Nissan e-power series is better - the gas engine only powers the electric motor which gives you a full-EV experience when driving.

Hybrids need to start distancing themselves from the Prius and promote the insane 0-60 times that EVs are capable of now.

[thinkling]

That is what the Voltec drive train does. The gas engine only directly powers the wheels in some narrow range of conditions, and I challenge you to tell when. It feels 99% like a BEV driving experience.

[BoorishBears]

How is that better?

The Volt was able to use the ICE to improve peak output directly, with fewer drivetrain losses.

e-power is a cost saving measure, not an advancement

[chipsa]

A problem with most approaches to having the ICE drive the wheels to is that you don't run the ICE at it's most efficient setting. You gain in the drivetrain, but lose in the actual combustion. Whether you lose more in one than you gain in the other is an issue.

[BoorishBears]

Except Voltec was also able to run the ICE at its most efficient setting by switching to Serial hybrid mode, where it was acting like the e-Power mode.

Voltec was using clutches to let you run like either the e-Power example or the Prius example on the fly, or even somewhere in between with the 2nd generation depending on power demands: https://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/02/secrets-of-the-2016-che...

CS3 is what you're describing when talking about the most efficient ICE operation

[hokkos]

The latest ICCT report shows that in the european market fossil car are around 250gCO2eq/km in life cycle analysis, hybrid at 180 and EV at 80, so I don't agree at all that more hydrid are better than less EV, and even it seems quite a wrong reasoning, more EV will bring more money to lithium mining just look at Rio Tinto entering the lithium carbonate market with a 2.4B$ investing.

https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-cars-j...

[srg0]

So, assuming the same total number of vehicles is sold and used, then the mix of p% full EVs + (100 - p)% ICE vehicles can be better than the entirely hybrid fleet when

80 p + 250 (1 - p) < 180

170 p > 70

p > 7/17 ≈ 41%

So 1 EV and 1.5 ICE are roughly equal to 2.5 hybrids. And anything more is an improvement.