[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.