[R0flcopt3r]

Hybrids almost never emit carbon though. Because they're almost always running from the battery that you charged up from the wall before leaving home for your daily commute. And the daily commute is less, or maybe a little over the battery range. If it isn't then you have bought the wrong car, if you goal is carbon neutrality.

You can use a smaller battery, which means using less rare materials that are very expensive. There are a lot of indirect emissions with electric vehicles, and it's important to look at the big picture.

[leoedin]

That's only true of plug-in hybrids. "Hybrid" just means a car with an electric and ICE drive train. Most hybrids aren't plug-in hybrids. They have no ability to charge their battery except from the engine.

[adgjlsfhk1]

right but that's easy to change.

[XorNot]

I could not be more bored by people who go off on the indirect emissions tangent. Because it always mysteriously winds up at "so anyway, buy a vehicle/house/plane/whatever which directly burns fuel and will thus never be green".

It's an argument pushed by fossil fuel company's because it pretends the world is static and unchanging, as though the energy mix of the electrical grid can't vary, or that changes in fuel source and process for mining operations to be cleaner wouldn't drastically effect downstream users overall emissions profile.

[richiebful1]

It's always been my hope that my state (Kentucky) would get on board with EV's. A really smart marketer could court the powerful coal interests in the state and start selling EV's on the premise that they are powered by coal here. Eventually the power mix would change to be more sustainable