Yet another study shows plug-in hybrids aren’t as clean as we thought

[silvrsvt]

https://electrek.co/2024/03/25/yet-another-study-shows-plug-in-hybrids-arent-as-clean-as-we-thought/

 

Quote

For this reason, PHEVs have long been thought of as an ideal transitional technology between gas vehicles and electric ones. People would be able to do most of their driving on electricity and only occasionally use gas.

The problem is… that doesn’t happen.
 

Multiple recent studies have shown that in the real world, plug-in hybrids pollute much more than their labels would indicate – though still less than pure-fossil vehicles – both because they overstate their capabilities in electric-only mode and because people simply don’t plug them in.

 

[Texasota]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

https://electrek.co/2024/03/25/yet-another-study-shows-plug-in-hybrids-arent-as-clean-as-we-thought/

 

 

Oh boy, yet another bunch of regurgitated nonsense. But, let's assume the ridiculous claim "people simply don’t plug them in" is true. It is still a hybrid and in the case of the Escape PHEV, when operating in hybrid mode, it's EPA MPG rating is almost as good as the Escape HEV. This never ending nonsense is really old.

 

This article and all the other ones you have posted are propaganda from EV evangelists who are freaked out that PHEVs will slow down EV adoption.

Edited April 3 by Texasota

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, Texasota said:

Oh boy, yet another bunch of regurgitated nonsense. But, let's assume the ridiculous claim "people simply don’t plug them in" is true. It is still a hybrid and in the case of the Escape PHEV, when operating in hybrid mode, it's EPA MPG rating is almost as good as the Escape HEV. This never ending nonsense is really old.

 

This article and all the other ones you have posted are propaganda from EV evangelists who are freaked out that PHEVs will slow down EV adoption.

 

Maybe before you shoot your mouth off, how about checking the actual source data that the article got its information from:

 

First Commission report on real-world CO2 emissions of cars and vans using data from on-board fuel consumption monitoring devices

PDF: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/document/download/b644dafe-1385-4b56-98d9-21e7e9f3601b_en?filename=report.pdf

 

This was published about three weeks ago

 

Quote

The first data from a sample of 600 000 cars indicates that the real-world fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from diesel and petrol vehicles on the road are around 20% higher than indicated by the official values from the standardised WLTP type-approval test used for regulatory purposes. This discrepancy is in line with what the Commission had anticipated.
 

For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the real-world CO₂ emissions were on average 3.5 times higher than the laboratory values, which confirms that these vehicles are currently not realising their potential, largely because they are not being charged and driven fully electrically as frequently as assumed.
 

As the dataset expands over the coming years and its representativeness of the evolving fleet improves, it will be possible to determine how the gap evolves and whether further steps should be taken to avoid it growing.

 

[akirby]

In this case Texasota is 100% correct.  All those articles are saying is that based on a sample of real world fuel economy (sample being the key word) owners are using more gasoline than predicted which means they aren’t driving as much on electric power alone.  However - that could also be because the owner drives 150 miles a day not just because they aren’t recharging.

 

And his point is still true - even if you don’t plug in a PHEV it’s still as good as a hybrid and still far better than a non hybrid.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

And his point is still true - even if you don’t plug in a PHEV it’s still as good as a hybrid and still far better than a non hybrid.

 

But here is the thing-the latest study didn't even factor in HEVs...only PHEVs.

 

 

And using CO2 as the metric to compare to (which the article is using as a measurement), you do not see a huge improvement going to a hybrid vs fuel efficient ICE route vs PHEV. Not to mention using MPGs as a measurement sucks because as it gets higher, the less return your going to see. 

http://www.mpgillusion.com/p/what-is-mpg-illusion.html#:~:text=The Cause of the Illusion&text=By necessity%2C MPG has a,10%2C000 miles divided by MPG.

Using the Escape as the example since it comes in 3 different flavors that applicable to this conversation

 

Its a 1.2 metric ton difference between ICE and Hybrid and 4.42 vs PHEV using US EPA testing. 

 

 

Edited April 3 by silvrsvt

[akirby]

32 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Using the Escape as the example since it comes in 3 different flavors that applicable to this conversation
 

Its a 1.2 metric ton difference between ICE and Hybrid and 4.42 vs PHEV using US EPA testing. 

 

 

That’s a 25% improvement.  Times millions of vehicles sold per year.  Yes, that’s quite significant.

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

That’s a 25% improvement.  Times millions of vehicles sold per year.  Yes, that’s quite significant.

 

But there isn't millions of P/HEV being sold yet and its "only" 25% improvement...when other tech out there offers a larger improvement.

 

[mackinaw]

8 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

But there isn't millions of P/HEV being sold yet and its "only" 25% improvement...when other tech out there offers a larger improvement

 

Worldwide, 2.9 million PHEV's were sold in 2022.  1.9 million in 2021.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/442759/global-sales-of-plugin-hybrid-electric-vehicles-as-a-share-of-evs/#:~:text=About 2.9 million new plug,electric vehicle sales in 2022.

 

 

[Flying68]

So the articles make it sound like PHEV's are bad for the environment, when in reality what the data actually shows is that the regulatory testing for PHEV's is flawed and the real world implementation of the plug-in doesn't match what expectations are.  This all goes back to a fundamentally flawed emissions cycle that also affects range publication for BEV's.  The testing cycle has too much low speed, low acceleration in it, where as real world city driving is faster acceleration to higher speeds with greater deceleration, mixed with periods of long idling and some highway driving.  The highway test still uses lower acceleration to 60 mph where most commonly people are using 75% of throttle to accelerate to 70 mph with 75 mph being a common interstate highway speed.

 

PHEV's are just like regular HEV's in terms of CO2 emissions when people don't plug them in, and may be worse depending on the extra weight being carried around from the larger PHEV battery vs a normal HEV battery.  I wish our '24 Nautilus that is on order would have been a PHEV, but am satisfied with it being just a HEV.

[silvrsvt]

2 minutes ago, Flying68 said:

So the articles make it sound like PHEV's are bad for the environment, when in reality what the data actually shows is that the regulatory testing for PHEV's is flawed and the real world implementation of the plug-in doesn't match what expectations are.  This all goes back to a fundamentally flawed emissions cycle that also affects range publication for BEV's.  The testing cycle has too much low speed, low acceleration in it, where as real world city driving is faster acceleration to higher speeds with greater deceleration, mixed with periods of long idling and some highway driving.  The highway test still uses lower acceleration to 60 mph where most commonly people are using 75% of throttle to accelerate to 70 mph with 75 mph being a common interstate highway speed.

 

PHEV's are just like regular HEV's in terms of CO2 emissions when people don't plug them in, and may be worse depending on the extra weight being carried around from the larger PHEV battery vs a normal HEV battery.  I wish our '24 Nautilus that is on order would have been a PHEV, but am satisfied with it being just a HEV.

 

Looking at the source article, ICE had about 20% variance from laboratory testing (which was expected by them), but PHEVs where significantly worse then their testing, which was deducted down to them not being plugged in all the time.

 

What it ultimately boils down to is that PHEVs don't really offer a huge improvement in CO2 emissions unless they are plugged in all the time, which was the primary reason why they are being implemented. 

 

Then add in the fact that larger vehicle hybrids offer almost no improvement over a smaller gas engine (ie F-150) in CO2 emissions either

[Flying68]

11 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Looking at the source article, ICE had about 20% variance from laboratory testing (which was expected by them), but PHEVs where significantly worse then their testing, which was deducted down to them not being plugged in all the time.

 

What it ultimately boils down to is that PHEVs don't really offer a huge improvement in CO2 emissions unless they are plugged in all the time, which was the primary reason why they are being implemented. 

 

Then add in the fact that larger vehicle hybrids offer almost no improvement over a smaller gas engine (ie F-150) in CO2 emissions either

The bolded is very true, then again I wouldn't be buying an F-150 if I wanted great gas mileage and high efficiency.  The large engine hybrids gain a lot of efficiency though when compared to an equivalent power level ICE only system, and that there is the benefit.  I get more low end torque, a peak horsepower bump, and an onboard generator, while burning a bit less fuel.  I only wish Ford would get a hybrid F-250 package that would pair a slightly more torquey EM (as compared to the F-150) and a 2 to 3 kWh battery to the 7.3l to get gas engine emissions, maintenance, and power with diesel levels of torque.

 

I did notice in the EU document that they will be examining the factors used in the WLTP test and regulations for PHEVs.  I wish they would also examine how far off the WLTP is from real world usage on BEV's as well.  It is widely understood that the WLTP range numbers for BEV's is pure fantasy, they are even more optimistic than EPA range numbers.  All these regulatory testing protocols would benefit from an update that reflects real world driving cycles.

[silvrsvt]

2 minutes ago, Flying68 said:

I did notice in the EU document that they will be examining the factors used in the WLTP test and regulations for PHEVs.  I wish they would also examine how far off the WLTP is from real world usage on BEV's as well.  It is widely understood that the WLTP range numbers for BEV's is pure fantasy, they are even more optimistic than EPA range numbers.  All these regulatory testing protocols would benefit from an update that reflects real world driving cycles.

 

The issue is that laboratory testing needs to be done at a fixed constant, which why there is a difference. 

EPA Vs. WLTP EV Range Ratings: Here’s Why They’re Different

 

Not to mention that EPA Fuel Economy tests are off themselves, I can get almost 20 MPG with my Bronco without trying with local driving, which is bit better then the city rating for it. On the high way I'm lucky to get 20 MPG, because its a brick LOL 

 

What it boils down to is EPA Fuel Economy/range and WLTP ratings are a baseline, not a guarantee 

[akirby]

28 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Looking at the source article, ICE had about 20% variance from laboratory testing (which was expected by them), but PHEVs where significantly worse then their testing, which was deducted down to them not being plugged in all the time.

Which is EXACTLY THE POINT.  The assumptions that are made in the estimates don’t match reality.  So the estimates are flawed.

 

30 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

 

What it ultimately boils down to is that PHEVs don't really offer a huge improvement in CO2 emissions unless they are plugged in all the time.

But for those who DO plug in the savings are huge.

[silvrsvt]

5 minutes ago, akirby said:

But for those who DO plug in the savings are huge.

 

but apparently the data is stating they are not.

[akirby]

4 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

but apparently the data is stating they are not.

I give up.  Hybrids are terrible and plug in hybrids are more terrible.  Go it.  Move on.

[Gurgeh]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

But for those who DO plug in the savings are huge.

 

7 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

but apparently the data is stating they are not.

Seems to me that the headline then is flawed. It is not that plug-in hybrids are not as clean as we thought, but that many PHEV owners don't make full use of the their car's substantially cleaner properties.

[akirby]

2 minutes ago, Gurgeh said:

 

Seems to me that the headline then is flawed. It is not that plug-in hybrids are not as clean as we thought, but that many PHEV owners don't make full use of the their car's substantially cleaner properties.

Exactly.  Not sure why that’s so hard to u derstand.

[silvrsvt]

10 minutes ago, akirby said:

I give up.  Hybrids are terrible and plug in hybrids are more terrible.  Go it.  Move on.

 

Did I ever say that? The only point I was addressing is that they aren't as clean as they are made out to be because people aren't using them properly, so at that point what is actually the point of it? 

 

Manufactures are building P/HEVs because they need to make CO2 requirements due to government, but customers are not using them properly to get that benefit and what it defaults to isn't a major improvement over ICE in the same product. 

 

 

 

 

 

[akirby]

9 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

what it defaults to isn't a major improvement over ICE in the same product. 

I rest my case.  You keep saying over and over that hybrids aren’t that much better.

 

Going from 21 city to 30 city and from 24 to 30 combined AND getting more power to boot is quite significant.

 

[akirby]

And do not say “Here’s the thing”……. 😂

[silvrsvt]

3 minutes ago, akirby said:

And do not say “Here’s the thing”……. 😂

 

LOL

But your comparing MPG to CO2, which is what the article is about 😛

 

 

And don't forget that MPG doesn't linearly get better either as it goes up. 

 

Edited April 4 by silvrsvt

[akirby]

Going from 5.6 to 4.3 is a 23% reduction.  
 

On the Escape going from 4.3 to 3.4 metric tons is a 24% reduction.

 

If you’re trying to say those reductions aren’t significant then there is no point continuing the discussion.

[silvrsvt]

32 minutes ago, akirby said:

If you’re trying to say those reductions aren’t significant then there is no point continuing the discussion.

 

They are insignificant if you use a properly charged PHEV or EV in comparison. Since both of them can produce less then .5 metric tons of CO2 a year. 

 

[7Mary3]

The point is to get away from ICE's.  Hybrids still have ICE's.  Hybrids, plug-in or otherwise, therefore are not the solution.  The recent increase in hybrid interest is driven by current consumer reluctance to buy BEV's and auto manufacturers wanting to recoup ICE costs in danger of eventually becoming 'stranded'.  While I believe it is true that many of our elected (and otherwise) officials and environmental advocates are pushing the BEV mandate faster than is technically and economically feasable, it is very clear that BEV's are the long term solution to clean and efficient ground transportation.   

[silvrsvt]

7 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

The point is to get away from ICE's.  Hybrids still have ICE's.  Hybrids, plug-in or otherwise, therefore are not the solution.  The recent increase in hybrid interest is driven by current consumer reluctance to buy BEV's and auto manufacturers wanting to recoup ICE costs in danger of eventually becoming 'stranded'.  While I believe it is true that many of our elected (and otherwise) officials and environmental advocates are pushing the BEV mandate faster than is technically and economically feasable, it is very clear that BEV's are the long term solution to clean and efficient ground transportation.   

 

Thanks for summing up what I was unsuccessfully trying to get out