Hybrid vs electric

I think you're exaggerating the amount in question. Replacing federal gas tax with an annual fee, based on the distance the average American drives per year, would be only ~$200 per year.

I definitely agree that any road use tax or fee should be based on miles driven per year (and for heavy trucks, also on the weight of the vehicle... as is already the case for such fees). Those who use the roads more should pay more for their use. As far as being a "regressive" tax: Well, if that pushes the working poor toward carpooling or using mass transportation, then that's a good thing for everyone!

 

Trying to justify it based on cost is ends justifying the means. The means are that in sky high areas that abound in CA, which this is a tax in, it is very often going to be the case that it disproportionately hits the lower income workers. Head south on 101 out of San Jose starting at 5am and you will see the kinds of gridlock that exist for the people trying to go in for work that cannot afford to live there.

 

Ugh. I think Amory Lovins is all wrong about powering down to save the planet. What we really need is to power up to save humanity. Of course, we have to do that without putting waste carbon dioxide into the air. But, aside from the recently released information that Tesla is probably using rare earth magnets in the Model 3, I can't say he's wrong here.

There appears to be enough lithium for cars, but if we go wild for batteries we may decide to use something cheaper, like sodium, for stationary use. Cobalt is a bigger problem, though Petersen going on about a "cobalt cliff" is over the top. Producing enough cobalt to keep up with demand may be hard enough that we switch to something else. I'm not too worried.

 

There's got to be something more cost-effective than lithium-ion batteries to use for large-scale energy storage. Everyone should watch the full episode of "Nova: Search for the Super Battery". The guy talking about using cheap common elements to build batteries out of is, I think, on the right track. Sure, the energy density will be way lower than li-ion batteries, but for stationary grid storage, cost per kWh is far more important that size or weight.



Aside from that, I still hold out some hope for flow batteries, but it seems like there's not much R&D going on in that field, either.

In a sense it's unfortunate that the R&D for better batteries is focused on portable consumer electronics. That is thankfully leading to better EV batteries, but I hope we will also see some R&D into grid storage. If the electric companies are not gonna fund that, then that would be a place for the government to step in and fund research. Unfortunately, with the right wing of the GOP in charge of Congress, the chances of significant government funding for "green tech" research are slim and none, and as they say: Slim just left town!

 

FYI, here is our long distance trip experience after we got the cars home:

• orange - BMW i3-REx trips, dotted circle round trip range, and CCS chargers.
  • 700 mile trip to Stillwater OK, refueled every 70 miles to preserved SOC.
  • 124 mile trip to Nashville TN, REX came on about 20 miles from destination.
  • 200 mile trip to Spring City TN, eclipse trip and verified the coded tank capacity.
• blue - Prius Prime trip to Knoxville without refueling. Prime does not have a fast DC charging option.

I appreciate the longer range EVs but am acutely aware of the CCS recharging options. Sure, a CHAdeMO or Supercharger EV might work over the same routes but that is not what we have. Our requirements mean we may have to travel to or through sparse charging areas. Worse, detours or charger-based routes would significantly increase the trip distance and time.

Bob Wilson

 

was speaking about this with my parents who live in naples florida.
their power was off for 10 days after the last hurricane. their friends with tesla's were all coming over to their house to get rides to the store etc.
another reason for a hybrid.....

and before you jump to conclusions....the gas stations about 20 miles away had power to pump.
but these folks had just run out of juice and could not get out there to charge....

 

I think if you're buying a car for hurricane protection you should probably just get an approved gas storage tank. If it's that important to you.

 

dont be daft. all i am saying with this example is that there are rational reasons to own a hybrid over a full ev, and this is just one more.

 

My first Prius modification in 2005: http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/priups.html

We used it at least once, every year to 'camp out at home.' In 2011 tornadoes wiped out the transmission lines in Alabama and we used it four days and six hours.

Bob Wilson

 

that is pretty cool !
so a hybrid can do more than just power the car when there is no more electricity to be had !
brilliant!

 

I agree that Chevy is being incredibly short-sighted with regards to charging infrastructure, and that their lack of commitment on that end is pathetic. My dad and brother each have a Bolt, but they live in CA and NY, so it's not something they have to worry about.

 

Well said!

I find it very strange to see a lot of argument over whether or not a gasmobile or an EV is better just before or in the couple of weeks right after a major hurricane. Who in their right mind would choose to buy a car on the basis of what probably won't happen more than once or twice in their entire life?

And aside from that, both power outages and gasoline shortages follow in the wake of a major hurricane. Whether anyone as an individual is inconvenienced more by one or the other is completely a matter of luck. So yeah, if that's what your major concern is, then you should buy a PHEV, so you can have the option of using either gasoline or electricity to keep your car running. For everybody else, more sensible solutions exist.

For a BEV owner, those solutions include:

1. Installing home solar plus battery storage, a system which is capable of functioning independently from the grid.

2. Installing an emergency diesel generator -- or better yet, a natural gas generator.

3. Keeping an old gasmobile around as a backup.

4. Evacuating before the event and staying away until power is restored to the neighborhood.

And something else to keep in mind: Some people have found that a BEV is much easier to "refill" in the wake of a major hurricane than a gasmobile. Again, it's just a matter of luck.

From Electrek: "After Hurricane Harvey, long gas lines throughout Texas show one way EVs are better prepared for disasters"

From Green Car Reports: "Assessing Sandy: Are Electric Cars A Better Bet In Emergencies?"

 

to each his own.
given that the places my family live have had power outages and other disasters about 6 times in the last 15 years, they are more frequent than once in a lifetime.

besides that, you guys take a lot of this far too seriously.
your life does not depend on mass ev conversion across the usa.

tastes great !
less filling!

 

I take nothing about cars seriously, for what it's worth.

 

My life, personally? Well, you're right there; I was lucky enough to "choose the right parents"; Caucasian Americans. Those who were not so lucky in "choosing the right parents", not so much. The lives of billions of people living in third-world countries, both now and in future generations, certainly will depend on how quickly or slowly first-world countries reduce their pollution emissions and their CO2 emissions, and how quickly first-world countries stop depleting resources in regions outside their own borders.

Global warming is causing or contributing to drought, fresh water shortages, and spikes in food prices in the Mideast and in Central/Eastern Africa. Those shortages are already causing or greatly exacerbating tribal conflicts, genocide, and civil unrest. In the current generation millions of lives in those areas are being lost in areas of drought and conflict, and that will only get worse in the future as global warming and resource shortages become more severe.

The primary underlying cause isn't pollution, it's overpopulation. If we didn't have massive human overpopulation, then we wouldn't have significant resource depletion, and the Earth would be able to handle the amount of pollution and CO2 emissions that a reasonable global population could emit. But even if reducing pollution and CO2 emissions is just treating one of the symptoms, it's a symptom that needs treating now. We can't wait until overpopulation disappears from the "natural" causes of famine, epidemic disease, and war. Fortunately we are making some headway with spreading the use of birth control even in third-world countries, but not nearly fast enough to prevent the global population from continuing to grow at an alarming rate.

Unfortunately, things are going to get a lot worse before they start geting better, and it will be at least some decades before it stops getting worse.

* * * * *

Personally, I can't do much about global overpopulation or global resource depletion. But I certainly can be a dedicated advocate for switching from gasmobiles -- and, eventually, diesel trucks -- to plug-in EVs.

“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.” -- Helen Keller​

-

 

total bs

 

100%. The issue is too many people. But we of course cannot go cull the herds. If you look at birth rates they are enormous in places where there is little economic growth, which may seem backwards because how do you support these kids, but they are needed to do family work often like farming. Or it is simply cultural.

But in places where economic growth occurs birth rates plummet. Brazil is a classic case. Birth rate went from 6 to less than the US due to new economic opportunities. https://www.npr.org/2012/01/15/145133220/brazils-falling-birth-rate-a-new-way-of-thinking

 

Domenick, I've noticed that you've already created new threads where the discussion drifted far off-topic. I appreciate you doing that, and I encourage you to continue to do so where and when you think it's appropriate. I think that adds value to this forum.

If the discussion of climate change and/or overpopulation continues, then I certainly hope you will move the discussion to a new thread.

 

I don't think it's so much cultural as pragmatic; or rather, there's a pragmatic reason underlying the social trend towards larger families in third-world countries. In poor countries there is no social "safety net" to support senior citizens; no social security or medicare as we have in the USA. In poor countries, having multiple children survive to adulthood is the best way for the previous generation to ensure they will be cared for in old age. Now, I'm not saying that parents in poor families consciously decide, in a cold and calculated way, to have more children to make sure that some of their kids will be around to support them in their declining years. I'm saying that there's a pretty strong subconscious motivation for that, and that it's tied into the survival instinct.

That's not the only reason; lack of birth control and, as you say, the need for farming families to have lots of kids to do farm work, are both significant contributing factors to growing overpopulation in poor countries.