Comment by resoluteteeth | Hacker News Reader

Comment by resoluteteeth | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Toyota has phevs (plug-in hybrids) that can run fully off of the battery. They have gotten a lot of shit over the past year for arguing that these should be incentivized by the government in addition to full electric vehicles, but I think there is some merit to their position.

Right now a lot of people who buy electric cars are wealthier people who also own other cars. This is not inherently bad and, for example, if a household that is going to own multiple cars either way chooses to make one of those electric it may be a win for the environment, but if people are buying extra cars because they are excited about electric cars but also need a conventional car when they go longer distances, that may not actually be that great.

Until there are sufficient charger networks everywhere, it might actually be better to incentives phevs to build up the infrastructure and ensure that people who can only afford to own one car but need to travel longer distances can still use electricity for shorter trips in the form of phevs rather than continuing to use conventional cars. It's not completely clear if EV adoption will continue to accelerate or if it's going to hit limits when we run out of people who can easily switch. Toyota may have a point in that the current timetable for full adoption of evs may be unrealistic, and if it is, it might be better to compromise slightly more if it makes it easier to build up the infrastructure on a more realistic timetable rather than risk hitting a wall

If we set the goal as 100% of vehicles being EVs in a relatively short amount of time, we're going to run into problems who are currently unable to use EVs because of the lack of a fast charger network. (In reality, battery swapping would probably make sense for longer trips once everyone is using evs, but there is zero infrastructure for that right now.)

That said, another issue with electric cars in general is that for the type of short trip where they make the most sense, it might arguably be better for the environment to focus on electric public transportation when possible anyway (especially non-battery-powered street cars and light rail which aren't affected by supply of some of the elements required for batteries).

Also, if we can't hit the targets for EV adoption we may have difficulty hitting environmental goals in general.

Doomberg has a position that I agree with:

It's better for 6 or 7 plug-in hybrids to be developed using the same amount of batteries materials it would take to make one fully-electric vehicle.

Most people make short-range daily trips each day, and they could probably do 100% on the battery of a hybrid. The gas portion would kick-in when they do an occassional longer trip.

No significant change to infrastructure would be required, and gasoline use would go down dramatically as most people would be using the smaller battery most of the time, and adoption would be way faster than fully-electric.

The Prius Prime (PHEV) maxes out at 25 miles of electric range. And that is under optimal conditions. The average daily commute is longer than that.

I have a Honda Clarity. 48 mile range, though I only charge it to 90%.

I've gone 15,000 miles now on about 30 gallons of gas. I keep trying to get over "500 miles to the gallon" but that's a limit I have a hard time surpassing: occasional long trips or forgetting to charge does me in.

(Not to mention the car will occasionally burn gas on its own just to confirm the engine is in good working order).

It seems like it would be a waste for me to have a 200-300 mile range and no engine. The longest trips would still have been less convenient. And you could build 4-7 cars like mine with the same battery resources.

Ideally one could configure their hybrid car with different battery to gas tank ratios when they buy it, or perhaps even for a fee after purchase.

Gas tanks are small and light compared to batteries and engines. It all comes down to how much battery you want, and whether you want an engine.

In the US*

So then it is better to transition the people with a commute below average first before subsidizing full EV.

Wouldn't it be better to transition those people with the longest commutes first, as they use the most energy and have consistent needs?

No, because stop-and-go gets the most benefit from regeneration. One full EV for one long commuter who also drives around town, or 7 PHEVs for people that commute shorter but also drive around town.

Long haul stuff should probably be transitioned last both with commuting and things like trucking (stop and go things like trash and delivery and bus service makes a lot more sense than targeting cross-country trucking first).

Yup, we've had a Prius C for nearly 10 years, it's been faultless and has consistently used less than half the gas of the other family car. That's a real world difference, not a hypothetical future one.

In Germany we just stopped incentiving them because people just didn't charge them.

They just didn't care.

Maybe now with gas above 2€/liter, we'll see more people charging their PHEVs. However they are also a rich person's toy, since you need to charge them at home to have the battery-powered miles be cheaper than the petrol-powered ones ergo you need a home with a garage.

At public chargers you pay much more than at home per kWh. On top of that, they have been incentivized (0,25 Regelung) for companies as fleet cars (Dienstwagen) and companies give out free petrol so you have no incentive to charge it at home using your own electricity when you can just fill up otherwise with free petrol.

Personally I think economic of scale is happening with EV and just skipping everything in between will just solve those issues.

Better longer cheaper batteries for everyone.

We are on the road to solving solid state batteries.

I don't think we are throwing enough resources against those topics.

This would solve so many issues at once.

Was that for private vehicles that people bought themselves and paid for the fuel and electricity themselves? I remember a few years ago a study out of Europe of plugin hybrids that found the drivers didn’t plug them in. One the details came out we found that those were corporate vehicles assigned to them mainly for business use. They were reimbursed for gasoline purchases but were not reimbursed for electricity. The result was that they chose the option that results in less personal cost to them.

I find it hard to believe that people will elect to spend more money on a plugin hybrid and then not bother plugging it in as long as they have an easy access to a power outlet. Just the extra cost of gasoline in that scenario should overcome the minor effort of developing a habit of plugging in when you get home.

I'm not sure if I'm right, but there was a thing/way in the Netherlands to reduce the initial cost of the vehicle to make it incredible cheap.

They are called "Foutlanders" because of that.

Mainly corporate vehicles, because in the end they were cheaper as you stated. Lobbyists at work, they are genuises. If you see a Mercedes E 300e, you can be certain it‘s a corporate car :). Or when in private hand, it‘s definitely the 2nd owner :).

About not using the plug: when you are driving a corporate car, it‘s often because part of your job is driving around a lot. Driving to customers e.g. In these cases it‘s common in Germany that your employer pays for fuel (you get a specific card for the gas station). They allow you to use the car for anything else as well.

So there is no incentive to use the plug :).

easy solution: expensive gas.

We have 50% tax on gas in EU, it does not work, only pushing up prices for end customers

As mentioned above, these PHEVs that weren't being plugged in were sold to corporate customers as company cars, and the company gave free gas along with the car. No incentive to bother to charge the car when the gas is free. Completely different scenario for private usage.

Ok, then they should sell EV versions of the same cars with half the drive train ripped out for $7000 less, and see how many people buy those instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com