Why EVs Might Never Reach "Price Parity" With Conventional Cars

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

perhaps the EU has an agenda to make them look bad

 

EU agenda regarding sustainable investments is based on technological neutrality. In the case of PHEV, they originally envisioned that technology would be "a transition technology towards zero-emission mobility" when the current guidelines were established for PHEV. These guidelines treat PHEV practically the same as true BEV. However, recent research in both EU and elsewhere indicate that PHEV is not a effective transition technology to zero emission mobility.

 

PHEV has a very short lifespan remaining in the EU. Beyond the draft green finance regulations that disallow PHEV from being considered sustainable investments past 2025, policies to ban the sale of new ICE powered cars and light trucks including PHEV between 2030 and 2040 have already been put in place in some EU countries. More countries will follow this approach in the coming years.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

EU agenda regarding sustainable investments is based on technological neutrality. In the case of PHEV, they originally envisioned that technology would be "a transition technology towards zero-emission mobility" when the current guidelines were established for PHEV. These guidelines treat PHEV practically the same as true BEV. However, recent research in both EU and elsewhere indicate that PHEV is not a effective transition technology to zero emission mobility.

 

PHEV has a very short lifespan remaining in the EU. Beyond the draft green finance regulations that disallow PHEV from being considered sustainable investments past 2025, policies to ban the sale of new ICE powered cars and light trucks including PHEV between 2030 and 2040 have already been put in place in some EU countries. More countries will follow this approach in the coming years.

The reason it’s not “effective” is precisely because of the regulations.  

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

The reason it’s not “effective” is precisely because of the regulations.  

 

The underlying reason is actually technological and economic. PHEV by definition uses multiple propulsion sources. For production PHEV today, those sources are battery electric and ICE. Combining the 2 adds cost and complexity. Furthermore, the very nature of the ICE portion prevents PHEV from being a true ZEV.

 

10 years ago when PHEV started to be mass produced, and when the EU regulations that treat PHEV in the same way as BEV were first drafted, it was reasonable to consider PHEV to be a "stopgap" because of limitations with BEV at the time. That is no longer the case today. Beyond meeting Euro 7 emissions requirements in the next 5 years or so, PHEV has become obsolete. One automotive industry executive likened PHEV to "forcing you to carry around extra stuff you don't need".

[FordBuyer]

31 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

The underlying reason is actually technological and economic. PHEV by definition uses multiple propulsion sources. For production PHEV today, those sources are battery electric and ICE. Combining the 2 adds cost and complexity. Furthermore, the very nature of the ICE portion prevents PHEV from being a true ZEV.

 

10 years ago when PHEV started to be mass produced, and when the EU regulations that treat PHEV in the same way as BEV were first drafted, it was reasonable to consider PHEV to be a "stopgap" because of limitations with BEV at the time. That is no longer the case today. Beyond meeting Euro 7 emissions requirements in the next 5 years or so, PHEV has become obsolete. One automotive industry executive likened PHEV to "forcing you to carry around extra stuff you don't need".

 

Yeah, those extra batteries are very heavy, affect handling and cargo room. Meanwhile, hybrid batteries are about the size of a brief case, don't weigh much, and barely affect cargo space. 

[akirby]

We’ve been through this time and again and you refuse to acknowledge the real world drawbacks of BEVs and advantages of PHEVs, so you’re no longer allowed to discuss them until you learn to be a lot more objective.  Which we all know will never happen.

[rmc523]

48 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

The underlying reason is actually technological and economic. PHEV by definition uses multiple propulsion sources. For production PHEV today, those sources are battery electric and ICE. Combining the 2 adds cost and complexity. Furthermore, the very nature of the ICE portion prevents PHEV from being a true ZEV.

 

10 years ago when PHEV started to be mass produced, and when the EU regulations that treat PHEV in the same way as BEV were first drafted, it was reasonable to consider PHEV to be a "stopgap" because of limitations with BEV at the time. That is no longer the case today. Beyond meeting Euro 7 emissions requirements in the next 5 years or so, PHEV has become obsolete. One automotive industry executive likened PHEV to "forcing you to carry around extra stuff you don't need".

 

You're again missing the point.

 

The idea is to reduce emissions, yes?  For the context of this discussion, I'm talking about vehicle specific emissions, regardless of external sources (power plants, etc.).

 

A BEV theoretically has 0 on its own - no motor, no tailpipe, etc.  This is what the EU wants in the cities to reduce emissions there.  Ok, I get it.  But for PHEVs, regulations say BEV mode in cities, charge sustain elsewhere.....which means the engine charging the battery to save for city use.

 

Let's look at the XC90 PHEV.  From what I found, it has CO2 emissions average of 63 g/km.  So let's say 63 in sustain mode and 0 in EV mode.  But let's say Joe Schmoe drives 100 km - 75 in sustain, and 25 in EV.   That's 4,725g (sustain) + 0g (EV).

 

Conversely, let's look at the same figure - 100km - of the vehicle operating like normal, varying ICE/EV power as needed.  As long as battery power exceeds 25% usage in those 100 miles, you're at net lower emissions than the mandated approach (more battery usage, less motor usage).

 

I get I'm vastly oversimplifying it and there are tons of factors involved, but it makes sense.

 

 

Their goal is clearly not "let's take an all of the above approach and reduce emissions while still allowing people options that work for them."  It's "this is what we're doing, good luck, you're banned from this area if you don't agree."

 

 

 

---

 

Which is better for emissions?

 

5 ICE car emitting 100 g/km + 2 BEVs @ 0 g/km = 500 g/km

 

OR

 

5 PHEVs emitting 63 g/km + 1 BEV @ 0 g/km = 315 g/km.....you could even add a ICE at 100 back in and still be below 5 ICE cars + 2 BEVs on its own.

 

 

And I'm not arguing that at the micro-source (the vehicle itself), all BEV isn't better emissions wise - duh, of course it is (ignoring production factors) - 0 is less than 1+ lol.  But why not take low hanging fruit approach right now to greatly reduce emissions right away while not forcing people into products they may not want/be ready for?

Edited May 17, 2021 by rmc523

[akirby]

14 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

You're again missing the point.

 

The idea is to reduce emissions, yes?  For the context of this discussion, I'm talking about vehicle specific emissions, regardless of external sources (power plants, etc.).

 

A BEV theoretically has 0 on its own - no motor, no tailpipe, etc.  This is what the EU wants in the cities to reduce emissions there.  Ok, I get it.  But for PHEVs, regulations say BEV mode in cities, charge sustain elsewhere.....which means the engine charging the battery to save for city use.

 

Let's look at the XC90 PHEV.  From what I found, it has CO2 emissions average of 63 g/km.  So let's say 63 in sustain mode and 0 in EV mode.  But let's say Joe Schmoe drives 100 km - 75 in sustain, and 25 in EV.   That's 4,725g (sustain) + 0g (EV).

 

Conversely, let's look at the same figure - 100km - of the vehicle operating like normal, varying ICE/EV power as needed.  As long as battery power exceeds 25% usage in those 100 miles, you're at net lower emissions than the mandated approach (more battery usage, less motor usage).

 

I get I'm vastly oversimplifying it and there are tons of factors involved, but it makes sense.

 

 

Their goal is clearly not "let's take an all of the above approach and reduce emissions while still allowing people options that work for them."  It's "this is what we're doing, good luck, you're banned from this area if you don't agree."

 

 

 

---

 

Which is better for emissions?

 

5 ICE car emitting 100 g/km + 2 BEVs @ 0 g/km = 500 g/km

 

OR

 

5 PHEVs emitting 63 g/km + 1 BEV @ 0 g/km = 315 g/km.....you could even add a ICE at 100 back in and still be below 5 ICE cars + 2 BEVs on its own.

 

 

And I'm not arguing that at the micro-source (the vehicle itself), all BEV isn't better emissions wise - duh, of course it is (ignoring production factors) - 0 is less than 1+ lol.  But why not take low hanging fruit approach right now to greatly reduce emissions right away while not forcing people into products they may not want/be ready for?

This will be more productive and hurt less.

 

 

 

[rperez817]

22 minutes ago, akirby said:

until you learn to be a lot more objective

 

This, coming from a moderator on this site. ??

[ice-capades]

All too often discussion participants start examining statements under a microscope and disagreements develop. I have neither the time or interest in getting involved, moderator or not, and will just decide to let it go. I think this is a good example of the participants needing to agree to disagree and just let it go. It's not a contest that someone has to win.    

[AGR]

3 hours ago, ice-capades said:

All too often discussion participants start examining statements under a microscope and disagreements develop. I have neither the time or interest in getting involved, moderator or not, and will just decide to let it go. I think this is a good example of the participants needing to agree to disagree and just let it go. It's not a contest that someone has to win.    

 

That's why I've steered clear of this particular discussion. And none of us has a crystal ball...

[silvrsvt]

16 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

This, coming from a moderator on this site. ??

 

Moderators are allowed to have biases and their own thoughts on subjects. Just because you think your way is the path forward doesn't mean that it actually is going happen, no matter how many times you repeat it. Your going to have to defend your position like anyone else. 

 

[jpd80]

18 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

The underlying reason is actually technological and economic. PHEV by definition uses multiple propulsion sources. For production PHEV today, those sources are battery electric and ICE. Combining the 2 adds cost and complexity. Furthermore, the very nature of the ICE portion prevents PHEV from being a true ZEV.

 

10 years ago when PHEV started to be mass produced, and when the EU regulations that treat PHEV in the same way as BEV were first drafted, it was reasonable to consider PHEV to be a "stopgap" because of limitations with BEV at the time. That is no longer the case today. Beyond meeting Euro 7 emissions requirements in the next 5 years or so, PHEV has become obsolete. One automotive industry executive likened PHEV to "forcing you to carry around extra stuff you don't need".

The time frame that Europe and the UK are proposing for mass changeover to full BEVs is just not possible,

watch for walk back on PHEV and extended range EV. Political will and legislation must allow time for tech

to become reality.

[akirby]

17 hours ago, ice-capades said:

All too often discussion participants start examining statements under a microscope and disagreements develop. I have neither the time or interest in getting involved, moderator or not, and will just decide to let it go. I think this is a good example of the participants needing to agree to disagree and just let it go. It's not a contest that someone has to win.    

The problem here is someone who continually posts things that are inaccurate or proven false and who also ignores any facts to the contrary.

 

Therefore going forward we’ll just delete posts and suspend members rather than start or continue arguments.

[paintguy]

Interesting take on the BEV vs PHEV. Pollution in cities largely the traditional Hydrocarbons, Carbon monoxide and NOx leading to smog. PHEV can help with that. CO2 is a global problem. Passing the emissions on to fossil power infrastructure doesn't help much. Obviously renewable is needed to make a significant difference. See a bit of a shell game going on with claims of carbon reduction. 

[jpd80]

17 minutes ago, paintguy said:

Interesting take on the BEV vs PHEV. Pollution in cities largely the traditional Hydrocarbons, Carbon monoxide and NOx leading to smog. PHEV can help with that. CO2 is a global problem. Passing the emissions on to fossil power infrastructure doesn't help much. Obviously renewable is needed to make a significant difference. See a bit of a shell game going on with claims of carbon reduction. 

It’s only a shell gamefish they don’t replace coal fired power plants with wind, solar hydro or even gas

Its probably easier for government. Regulators to monitor power utilities than control millions of vehicles.

Edited May 18, 2021 by jpd80

[paintguy]

4 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

It’s only a shell gamefish they don’t replace coal fired power plants with wind, solar hydro or even gas

Some things that are part of the shell game is the EU accepting wood pellets as "carbon neutral" and developed nations abandoning heavy industry to China and other "developing" nations. 

[92merc]

If I was a betting man, this is what I'm betting happened.  The EU probably realized that giving auto companies a PHEV option, isn't going to motivate the makers to develop BEV vehicles.  PHEV means auto makers could still continue to make ICE engines.  So the EU just changed the regulations so that PHEV isn't an option any longer.

[akirby]

19 minutes ago, 92merc said:

If I was a betting man, this is what I'm betting happened.  The EU probably realized that giving auto companies a PHEV option, isn't going to motivate the makers to develop BEV vehicles.  PHEV means auto makers could still continue to make ICE engines.  So the EU just changed the regulations so that PHEV isn't an option any longer.

 

That's exactly what it looks like.  Force PHEVs to run in charge sustain mode by forcing them to save EV mode for certain areas, then complain that they're no better than ICE vehicles.  Totally defeats the purpose.  For people like Harley Lover a PHEV can get by on one or two tanks of fuel per year.  Our usage would be similar as we take mostly local trips.  That's maybe 20 gallons of fuel in the PHEV compared with 250-300 gallons in an ICE at 25 or so mpg.   Huge savings.

 

[rperez817]

4 hours ago, 92merc said:

So the EU just changed the regulations so that PHEV isn't an option any longer.

 

The EU rule change regarding PHEV no longer qualifying as sustainable investments after 2025 has not been implemented yet, it's still in draft phase. Link to draft. Implementing and delegated acts | European Commission (europa.eu)

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, paintguy said:

Some things that are part of the shell game is the EU accepting wood pellets as "carbon neutral" and developed nations abandoning heavy industry to China and other "developing" nations. 

That’s the EU all over, the French eliminated coal fired power plants by replacing them with nuclear power plants and declared themselves  low carbon emitters, challenging other countries to follow their lead. Manufacturing gravitating to China happened because of lower costs, tight emission regulations  ensure it never returns to Europe.