- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://feddit.it/post/6569904
It’s not a typo: plug-in hybrids are used, in real word cases, with ICE much more than anticipated.
In the EU, fuel consumption monitoring devices are required on new cars. They studied over 10% of all cars sold in 2021 and turns out they use way more fuel, and generate way more CO2, than anybody thought.
The gap means that CO2 emissions reduction objectives from transport will be more difficult to reach.
Thruth is, we need less cars, not “better” cars.
You must log in or register to comment.
That doesn’t mean what you think it means:
“For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the real-world CO2 emissions were on average 3.5 times higher than the laboratory values, which confirms that these vehicles are currently not realising their potential, largely because they are not being charged and driven fully electrically as frequently as assumed.”
This is mostly an infrastructure issue. If these cars had readily available charging points, that wouldn’t be the case.
This is mostly an infrastructure issue.
The Netherlands used to have loads of plug in hybrids. There were more than enough charging points. Most of those hybrids were owned by people where the company would pay to fill them up.
People were lazy and preferred filling them up with gas, most never used anything other than gas. That resulted in the government charging the tax benefit for hybrids.
The Netherlands has a huge amount of chargers. In e.g. Rotterdam there’s at least a charging point every 50 meters.
It isn’t an infrastructure issue.
I can’t understand that logic: if I can charge for free at work and can charge at home for less than the cost of gas, why on earth would I ever want to use gas?
It’s the other way around. Companies in the Netherlands lease cars for their employees here in the Netherlands. Usually for people that travel a lot with for their job or just as a bonus perk that comes with the job instead of salary. And the boss pays for all the gas and maintenance as well.
So either take the effort to charge, or even charge at home and get refunded the electricity costs. Or just fill it up with free gas which only takes a minute. Guess which happens the most?
The only time I saw some of those oversized and really popular Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV use a charge cable was if they wanted to take a good parking spot…
Well, that is both parts awful and makes sense.
One thing though that is often mentioned against charging points infrastructure is that today can only be used by upper-middle class families, while everyone else can’t benefit from it.
So adding an additional line of buses and closing car lanes (at rush hour) to dedicate to them can be cheaper (considering impact per person), lower emissions and be accessible to everyone, but it needs to be treated not as welfare but as a competitive service. (IMO)
If I can vote for someone who will actively attempt to improve the working class why would I vote for a party whose only idea in 40 years is culture war?
I’m confused, was this for me?
It means exactly what I think it means. The reported emissions are way off those that are actually achieved in real life.
If we assume your assertion is actually correct (the study says nothing about the availability of charging infrastructure), how much do we need to build? And are we sure that once it is built, people will actually use it? Would it not be better to instead invest in infrastructure for other modes of transport that don’t involve 2 tons of vehicle to transport one person?
Well, my point was that hybrid cars only will “realize their potential if there’s infrastructure to support it”.
Your point is good though: We should use pragmatism and review if it’s cheaper to build charging points or expand public transportation, especially in non-urban scenarios.
What I often see missing in most places that does exist in Eastern Asia, are services from shops to bring you stuff home relatively cheaply and with better quality than just throwing a package in your lawn.
I’m also not seeing public transportation projects trying to compete with traditional options, which does happen in Eastern Asia.
I’ll choose the car unless public transportation is a better option.
In Tokyo, that’s almost never the case, but in EU or the US, I’ve often seen public transportation (except from some selected cities) as an option for people without a car.
Ok, but if charging port infrastructure is the issue, then if you solve that, you don’t need hybrids at all, just electric vehicles. So hyrids are still not the answer and need to be phased out. So it’s still a hybrid issue.
It’s not though. Plug in hybrids address two issues that plague electric vehicles: range anxiety and limited supply of lithium for batteries.
You can make 7 plugin hybrids for 1 fully electric vehicle. Solve for charging infrastructure, and this is still a problem to be solved.
“range anxiety”. You’re literally adding “well Joe schmo might not be able to drive 300+ miles and that makes him nervous” as a reason not to fight emissions lmfao.
The average driver doesn’t need a hybrid. They want one because they are lazy and will mostly still fill them with gas, as this article showed.
When the average car price is greater than $48,000 in the US now, one doesn’t have the luxury of choosing something for eco aspirations. Many US states are huge sprawling affairs, and many people have to drive large distances with frequency for work, life, errands.
Example: I can’t even make it to my state’s border in the longest-range currently-available electric car, and would end up in the middle of nowhere with no services, no charging stations, no infrastructure. In winter, it would be half that distance or less.
I am also probably the perfect demographic for a plug-in hybrid, and could utilize the plug-in aspect for shorter trips frequently. However, there’s no reason to replace a perfectly functional vehicle in good mechanical shape with an expensive fiscal debt as well as the carbon debt that new vehicle would also create.
If one does not understand the scale and size of places, one can’t comprehend how range anxiety (more like range reality) truly fits in.
However, if America was truly forward-thinking, they’d nationalize the railroads and put a focus on rebuilding the old rail infrastructure that existed over a century ago to entirely eliminate the necessity of long-distance personal vehicles.
Bro, I love in the middle of nowhere. My boss drives 2 hours a day to get to our work. So do a handful of other people with all electric vehicles.
It’s an emotional response, not a logical one.
Try figuring out to drive 120 miles vs 700. Try an 8 hour drive-day. Try being in a situation when your family has a problem and you have 1,700 miles to drive. Do you spend almost fifty grand on an electric car and plotting charge points that may or may not exist, or a vehicle that can let you cross multiple states without stopping? I hate gas. I would love a Toyota Mirai. Leaving home to get one US state over is a larger distance than the entire width of Germany. It’s a reality response, not emotional.
No? The main reason I would consider taking a car over bike or bus is if I am going long travel with family or have multiple passengers. Either way if a car can’t be of use when I need it the most then it’s pointless to me. Might change if the tech and infra improves here but for another few years it is not even an option for me.
So you need a gas car for that one time you might drive 300+ miles. The multiple people part is bullshit since we’re comparing hybrids to full EVs, not hybrids to a bicycle.
So, the one time you might need to drive really far, instead of taking a train, you want to own an hybrid 24/7.
Perfectly proving my point that it’s not a logical argument, it’s an emotional one.
Yeah?? Don’t assume things about others. My mom and grandma has serious motion sickness and we have to stop multiple times and take rest when they are with us. If a car that I paid a heavy price for doesn’t satisfy my need then I don’t buy it.
I have a plug in Pacifica I use a tank of gas maybe once a month and drive around 1000 miles a month so more than half my driving is full electric. Only time I’m using gas is for heat on really cold days and long trips. All driving around the city is electric.
If these cars had readily available charging points, that wouldn’t be the case.
If you live low enough you have multiple 230V 16A charging points
Better car:
Completely off-topic - was scrolling past on Kbin and the image for the thumbnail reminded me of this stupid meme from years back
I’m not disputing the results, but I would be really interested in a follow-up study that looks at why. From this data it would seem that only 10% or so of people with plug ins actually use the plug, which seems really odd. You have to pay massively more for it, and at least anicdotaly the dealers will try and steer you away from them allmost as hard as they do EVs. Given plug ins are often more expensive than both traditional hybrids and EVs, it seems really odd to spend a lot of money on somthing and then waste even more money to not use it.
Given the small battery size any wall outlet will charge them fine, which would seem to rule out infrastructure. So why does it seem that almost everyone who goes through the trouble and cost of getting one apparently not using it?
The only thing I can think of would be people believing that european electrical prices are higher than fuel prices, but while european electricity prices are higher so are gas prices.
It could be due to subsidies encouraging people to buy hybrids and people just ignoring the plug in feature. There’s more discussion on this here
So you think the EU study was almost exclusively looking at places where the subsidy actually came close to covering the price difference between Plug In’s and traditional hybrids? And people just ignore the plug because plugging your car into a normal wall outlet is too much bother to save five hundred to a thousand dollars a year?
With a quick google I’ve found that subsidies for plug in hybrids can be around €5,000, and yes I do believe that people would be lazy enough to not plug it in. I’m not sure how many dollars one would save by doing this in Europe anyway.
But also, it’s just a suggestion, I’m not asserting that this is definitely true.
A quick google also shows that for instance the price difference between the Hyundai Ionic hybrid vs plug in was about €6000 so while thouse subsidies would come close to covering the difference you would still be paying more to then pay even more by not plugging it in.
I also really don’t think 90% of people are willing to throw that many hundreds of euros away just to avoid the few seconds it takes to plug something in.
