Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not so sure auto buying trends are the best metric for judging things...How many Americans happily bought Pet Rocks thirty years ago and didn't live to regret it?
CA is the least credible place by which to judge things-- with artificially high gas prices and more than it's fair share of The Woke Crowd, and new car sales during the last year or two of poor economic conditions (only the more well to do able to afford a new car), sales are biased away from ICEs out there.
I think many of the posters on this thread did not view the reference lecture cited in the OP -- a lecture given by a leading research engineer in the field suggesting the optimum solution to personal transportation will ultimately be the hybrid.
CA is the least credible place by which to judge things-- with artificially high gas prices and more than it's fair share of The Woke Crowd, and new car sales during the last year or two of poor economic conditions (only the more well to do able to afford a new car), sales are biased away from ICEs out there.
2019 BEV Sales are greater than 2019 PHEV Sales in every state except Michigan,
2019 BEV Sales are greater than 2019 PHEV Sales in every state except Michigan,
Pickup trucks sell more than both so….
2019 Chevrolet was last year of the Volt. Probably the best PHEV made. Made very few models that year. The hardcore green think of PHEV as stopgap vehicles. The reality is they are an easier bridge to sell to the average buyer whose fear is range anxiety.
I have an EV, but also a few ICE cars. So I drive what’s needed for the job at hand. Though I’d love to drive my EV every day. It’s not possible. Drive a good bit sometimes in a day. Especially in winter my range falls off a good bit.
The hardcore green think of PHEV as stopgap vehicles. The reality is they are an easier bridge to sell to the average buyer whose fear is range anxiety.
I am of the belief that 100% BEV is not a functional goal. Even CARB goal includes 20% PHEV, but they wan them to have a 50 mile range which is not currently available in an affordable vehicle. A Polestar 1 is a PHEV with electric range of 52 miles and it starts at $156,500.
Personally, I am impressed with the Prius Prime that gives you a range of 25 miles, is chargeable in 5.5 hours on 110V outlet, and does so at a reasonable price differential.
My neighbor in PA has an Audi and a Mazda CX-5. He wants his next vehicle to be a Mazda CX-9 PHEV when they sell one. He is a good example of someone outside of CA that suffers fom range anxiety.
But I don' see the future as PHEVs. I think they will remain a fairly niche vehicle.
EVs of any type will remain niche vehicles until carbon based fuels become unavailable...and at that point synthetic fuels will become economically preferable.....The engineer's point in the lecture was that ICEs require a limited resource for fuel and that co2, we'll assume, is some sort of an environmental problem, and that BEVs also require not only a limited resource, but an energy intensive manufacturing process and an environmentally undesirable disposal problem...The hybrid is an optimal compromise, using less fuel than an ICE and smaller, less toxic batteries than the BEV.
In WWII, in particular, Paris taxis ran on wood gas-- let wood smolder under hypoxic conditions to partially oxidize to ch4 & h2, pipe that to the engine, and then finish the oxidation process as fuel in the engine. Crude DIY technology & engineering, but it got the job done...Modern engineering using computer tech could do it much more efficiently on an industrial scale. The fuel gases could easily be piped/trucked to filling stations and used to fuel cars....
...based on the empirical experience of those who have built & used wood gas vehicles, and on data about the availability of forests for lumber in the US (Lumbering only uses the trunks of trees. The slash -branches and twigs- are not structurally sound enough to be used for construction have 2-3 x as much burnable wood as the trunks) would provide enough fuel for the uS automotive purpose for 100 years, not counting replacement (and ignoring increasing usage over time.)...If we count the slash and all the other yard waste and trash plastic, we have an essentially endless, re-cyclable source of automotive fuel...
..and for you Warmists and other Liberals-- it's carbon neutral.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
