8 ms·

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.

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.

harles 5y ago
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.
ajmurmann 5y ago
Why mandate how emissions are cut, instead of heavily taxing carbon emissions and having the market find the best solution?
- jeromegv 5y ago
  Voilà.
- eloff 5y ago
  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.
  - seph-reed 5y ago
    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.
    - chii 5y ago
      > 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!
      - seph-reed 5y ago
        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.
        eloff 5y ago
        > 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.
- WhompingWindows 5y ago
  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).
- KineticLensman 5y ago
  > 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests
  - throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      > 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.)
  - 5y ago
BoorishBears 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    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
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      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
fiftyfifty 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 $2000 gasoline car? These are all open questions, but I think they will have to be answered sooner than later if we are to realistically imagine a future without gas cars. It's just not going to come by everyone in America buying or leasing one new from a dealership, even with the government subsidies in place it only knocks EV prices down to brand new entry level gasoline car price, nowhere close to used car prices. 1. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/25percent-of-cars-in-us-are-at-least-sixteen-years-old----record-high.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/25percent-of-cars-in-us-are-...
hokkos 5y ago
The latest ICCT report shows that in the european market fossil car are around 250gCO2eq/km in life cycle analysis, hybrid at 180 and EV at 80, so I don't agree at all that more hydrid are better than less EV, and even it seems quite a wrong reasoning, more EV will bring more money to lithium mining just look at Rio Tinto entering the lithium carbonate market with a 2.4B$ investing. https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021 https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-cars-j...
- srg0 5y ago
  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.

harles 5y ago

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.

ajmurmann 5y ago

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

jeromegv 5y ago
Voilà.
eloff 5y ago
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.
- seph-reed 5y ago
  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.
  - chii 5y ago
    > 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!
    - seph-reed 5y ago
      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.
      - eloff 5y ago
        > 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.
WhompingWindows 5y ago
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).
KineticLensman 5y ago
> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests
- throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    > 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.)
- 5y ago

BoorishBears 5y ago

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 5y ago
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.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  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
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    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

fiftyfifty 5y ago

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 5y ago
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-at-least-sixteen-years-old----record-high.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/25percent-of-cars-in-us-are-...

hokkos 5y ago

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-jul2021 https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-cars-j...

srg0 5y ago
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.