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

[akirby]

47 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.   

 

Here we go again.  BEVs are not viable for the majority of buyers and won’t be for many years and probably decades.  So the choice TODAY for most buyers is ICE or HEV.   HEVs provide tangible benefits with almost no drawbacks or compromises until EVs are ready.  

[Texasota]

4 hours 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, which was the primary reason why they are being implemented.

This clearly illustrates you do not understand the purpose or rational for PHEVs.  They were never intended to be plugged in all the time and driven 100% in EV mode. They are excellent at being driven 100% in EV mode for shorter city trips and commutes. They are also excellent for long highway trips which BEVs are currently not. During my recent three day highway trip to my snowbird location I averaged over 40 MPG (no charging). While driving in my home town I'm always in EV mode and no gas is burned.

 

 

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

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?

Again, you are either unable or unwilling to understand the point of PHEVs. I'm confident the majority of PHEV owners are using them exactly the way their manufacturer intended. After all, they paid a premium for them. I assure you that I am using my PHEV properly.

 

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

This clearly illustrates you do not understand the purpose or rational for PHEVs.  They were never intended to be plugged in all the time and driven 100% in EV mode. They are excellent at being driven 100% in EV mode for shorter city trips and commutes. They are also excellent for long highway trips which BEVs are currently not. During my recent three day highway trip to my snowbird location I averaged over 40 MPG (no charging). While driving in my home town I'm always in EV mode and no gas is burned.

 

 

Again, you are either unable or unwilling to understand the point of PHEVs. I'm confident the majority of PHEV owners are using them exactly the way their manufacturer intended. After all, they paid a premium for them. I assure you that I am using my PHEV properly.

 

The issue is that your using your own experience as gospel for everyone else, when the data obliviously is contradicting that, not to mention just basic human nature for not knowing any better or not even caring when using a car. 
 

You also missed the point, that in the eyes of the government and its regulations and what the manufacturers are doing to meet them, by using PHEVs, they aren’t as effective from reducing a CO2 perspective as they where thought to be, because a significant amount of people aren’t using them properly. 
 

As for plugging in-they are tested to be plugged in to get the max efficiency out of them. Average driving distance is roughly 30 miles a day, which using the Escape PHEV, a single charge can do or at least use its ICE to a bare minimum. Otherwise your burning some fuel to get where you need too. 

Edited April 4 by silvrsvt

[akirby]

20 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

The issue is that your using your own experience as gospel for everyone else, when the data obliviously is contradicting that, not to mention just basic human nature for not knowing any better or not even caring when using a car. 
 

You also missed the point, that in the eyes of the government and its regulations and what the manufacturers are doing to meet them, by using PHEVs, they aren’t as effective from reducing a CO2 perspective as they where thought to be, because a significant amount of people aren’t using them properly. 
 

As for plugging in-they are tested to be plugged in to get the max efficiency out of them. Average driving distance is roughly 30 miles a day, which using the Escape PHEV, a single charge can do or at least use its ICE to a bare minimum. Otherwise your burning some fuel to get where you need too. 

And you just keep ignoring the 25% reduction in co2 even when it’s not being plugged in.

[silvrsvt]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

And you just keep ignoring the 25% reduction in co2 even when it’s not being plugged in.

 

I'm not, the various governments apparently don't think that enough or they would say hey its ok if you just make hybrids, instead for pushing the market towards ultra low or no CO2 emissions vehicles (PHEV or EV). 

 

[akirby]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I'm not, the various governments apparently don't think that enough or they would say hey its ok if you just make hybrids, instead for pushing the market towards ultra low or no CO2 emissions vehicles (PHEV or EV). 

 

Since when does the govt do anything logical?

[7Mary3]

11 hours ago, akirby said:

 

Here we go again.  BEVs are not viable for the majority of buyers and won’t be for many years and probably decades.  So the choice TODAY for most buyers is ICE or HEV.   HEVs provide tangible benefits with almost no drawbacks or compromises until EVs are ready.  

 

As I said, while the BEV mandate so to speak is being pushed faster than is technically and economically feasable at this point, I am nonetheles very much AMAZED at the rate of progess that has been made over just the last 5 years regarding BEV's.  If it keeps up at the current pace near 100% of new light passenger vehicles may well indeed be BEV's by 2035.  HEV's may represent something of a temporary stop-gap or bridge on the road to electrification, but I don't think they should be viewed as any sort of permanent solution.  But in the end no one really believes we can give up ICE's by tomorrow anyway.       

[akirby]

6 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

As I said, while the BEV mandate so to speak is being pushed faster than is technically and economically feasable at this point, I am nonetheles very much AMAZED at the rate of progess that has been made over just the last 5 years regarding BEV's.  If it keeps up at the current pace near 100% of new light passenger vehicles may well indeed be BEV's by 2035.  HEV's may represent something of a temporary stop-gap or bridge on the road to electrification, but I don't think they should be viewed as any sort of permanent solution.  But in the end no one really believes we can give up ICE's by tomorrow anyway.       

What really changed in the last 5 years?  Batteries, range, charging times are essentially the same you just have a lot more mfrs entering the market so a lot more products.  Charging infrastructure is somewhat improved.  Costs have gone up not down.  I think we’re 2-3 years from the next wave with new batteries and cheaper vehicles and more charging improvements.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

What really changed in the last 5 years?  Batteries, range, charging times are essentially the same you just have a lot more mfrs entering the market so a lot more products.  Charging infrastructure is somewhat improved.  Costs have gone up not down.  I think we’re 2-3 years from the next wave with new batteries and cheaper vehicles and more charging improvements.

Objectively speaking, there have been numerous evolutionary improvements that have moved the needle, but yeah, no real revolutionary leap.  Still, little things can add up to noticeable cumulative change.  LFP batteries are cheaper, 4680 size more energy dense, vehicle aerodynamics keep improving in general, charging power rates are higher, etc.

 

Subjectively, in my opinion the biggest change by far is what appears to be a genuine willingness to give smaller and more energy-efficient BEVs a try in an effort to make electrification more affordable.  This is so important not only to promote adoption volume, but also to reduce GHGs, and reduce needed electricity generation, transmission, and distribution upgrades, which themselves are incredibly expensive.

 

 

Regarding technology and costs, I went out yesterday afternoon to experience Tesla’s new Full Self Driving that was temporarily made available to owners, and was really impressed by how far this technology has come; not that I think it’s a requirement or worth the cost, but a great achievement and advancement nonetheless.

 

Regarding vehicle costs, the base Tesla Model 3 when adjusted for inflation is probably cheaper today than 5 years ago.  Obviously inflation makes it harder for buyers to afford, but relative to cost of other vehicles, including ICE, a Model 3 is not that expensive.  And while it’s a fairly roomy and heavy vehicle weighing nearly 4,000 pounds, it is incredibly efficient and thus cheap to “fuel”.  Charged at home, my son can make 80-mile round trip to my house for about $3 or less worth of power, while my largest vehicle requires about $20 worth of gas.

 

I’m looking forward to new crop of compact affordable BEVs that could make additional family vehicles more practical so gas guzzlers can remain parked in driveways when their size is not needed.

[Rick73]

For what it’s worth, I’d take the time to see what this data actually represents before taking time to debate pros and cons of whether PHEV owners plug in or not.  Just a suggestion.

 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

For what it’s worth, I’d take the time to see what this data actually represents before taking time to debate pros and cons of whether PHEV owners plug in or not.  

We know exactly what it means and that was already stated.  It means the WLTP estimated fuel economy is not an accurate prediction of real world fuel consumption based on samples.  And the PHEV estimates are wildly optimistic.  

[akirby]

And let’s reiterate the flaw in simply measuring PHEV fuel consumption to conclude that they aren’t being plugged in.

 

Let’s say my escape PHEV can go 30 miles on battery and gets 35 mpg afterwards and let’s say I charge fully every night.

 

If I only drive 40 miles per day I use about 1/3 of a gallon.  Thats 120 mpg.

 

If I drive 210 miles per day I use about 5 gallons or 42 mpg.

 

Just looking at fuel economy one might conclude that one is being plugged in and the other isn’t and that’s completely untrue.

 

Another example of lies, damn lies and statistics.

[silvrsvt]

14 minutes ago, akirby said:

We know exactly what it means and that was already stated.  It means the WLTP estimated fuel economy is not an accurate prediction of real world fuel consumption based on samples.  And the PHEV estimates are wildly optimistic.  

 

 

Quote

The main differences between the EPA and WLTP EV range ratings boil down to the lab temperature and the EPA recording the actual number of miles driven, which is then adjusted by multiplying it by 0.7. By contrast, the WLTP produces its ratings by a more complicated mathematical formula which is not adjusted.

https://insideevs.com/features/695492/epa-vs-wltp-ev-range-difference

 

6 minutes ago, akirby said:

And let’s reiterate the flaw in simply measuring PHEV fuel consumption to conclude that they aren’t being plugged in.

 

Let’s say my escape PHEV can go 30 miles on battery and gets 35 mpg afterwards and let’s say I charge fully every night.

 

If I only drive 40 miles per day I use about 1/3 of a gallon.  Thats 120 mpg.

 

If I drive 210 miles per day I use about 5 gallons or 42 mpg.

 

Just looking at fuel economy one might conclude that one is being plugged in and the other isn’t and that’s completely untrue.

 

Another example of lies, damn lies and statistics.

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

 

Quote

For the new plug-in hybrid electric cars registered in 2021, the average real-world CO2 emissions (139.5 g CO2/km) were only 23% lower than for conventional cars (180.3 g CO2/km), and 3.5 times (100 g CO2/km) higher than what the WLTP test indicated (39.5 g CO2/km) – see Figure 1. For those vehicles, the calculation of their WLTP fuel consumption and CO2 emissions takes into account a utility factor, which is the expected share of distance driven in electric mode. On the road, the CO2 emissions of those vehicles will depend to a great extent on the real share of distance driven fully electrically, which in turn depends on the actual recharging and use patterns, and specific vehicle technologies. The large discrepancy found for these vehicles between the real-world and the WLTP values shows that they are charged and driven in electric mode much less than how they were expected to be used and that assumptions used for calculating the WLTP test result do not hold in real-world conditions.  

 

So the study already addressed that part...WLTP is just a baseline test but the expected difference in the "real world" was quite a bit more then it should be. The difference in ICE was 21% vs an expected 20%

Edited April 5 by silvrsvt

[Texasota]

Quote

The large discrepancy found for these vehicles between the real-world and the WLTP values shows that they are charged and driven in electric mode much less than how they were expected to be used and that assumptions used for calculating the WLTP test result do not hold in real-world conditions.  

Basically what that is saying is that PHEVs are being driven the way manufactures intended and not according to the grossly inaccurate assumptions of the WLTP. Customers are embracing PHEVs because they are an excellent bridging technology that provides an efficient and convenient driving experience on long trips and an excellent EV experience for city driving and short commutes. Claiming that PHEVs are not being plugged in because the data does not match WLTP is absurd.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

So the study already addressed that part...WLTP is just a baseline test but the expected difference in the "real world" was quite a bit more then it should be. The difference in ICE was 21% vs an expected 20%

No it doesn’t address my scenario at all.  Those studies only look at WLTP predictions vs measured overall fuel economy.  It does not take into account how many miles are being driven on a daily basis (nor can it because that data is unavailable).  They’re only measuring total miles driven vs fuel used.

 

I just gave you 2 examples of hugely different mpg for 2 different vehicles that both get fully charged every night.  Without knowing the background the study would conclude the vehicle only getting 42 mpg was not being plugged in.  But that is 100% false.

 

You cannot use observed mpg to determine if a vehicle is being plugged in without knowing how many miles are driven each day.  Period.  It’s simple math.  

[jpd80]

That PHEV data is also distorted by the reality that many cities in Europe and UK have zero emission zones

but to reach them on a commute, PHEVs have to run in the less efficient charge sustain mode.

 

I seriously doubt that owners pay a premium to get a plugin hybrid and then just use it like a hybrid.

That information is also being released to encourage European buyers to move from their current

efficient diesels and hybrids to BEVs. The issue that they’re ignoring is that many European owners

live in residences where any form of charging is hard to do and so most have to use public chargers

which are to put it mildly, dreadful and rather expensive for a charge…...

Edited April 5 by jpd80

[jpd80]

(this view external to USA)
Another annoying part of that data was that up until dieselgate, the European Union was quite happy to 

continue with the use of small capacity diesel engines but once VW was revealed as cheaters, the whole

shooting box was thrown out to be replaced by gasoline hybrids. So then manufacturers began switching

to hybrids and PHEV right about the time the green evangelists took hold in Euro politics and without any

consultation decided to move the goalposts to a full electric future…from that time forward, ICE has been

demonised to the point of being responsible for millions of deaths each year….

 

So yeah, the whole conversation is rigged towards eliminating ICE ASAP instead of considering an orderly 

transition. The zealots won’t have a bar of it…..

Edited April 6 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

On 4/5/2024 at 2:10 PM, akirby said:

No it doesn’t address my scenario at all.  Those studies only look at WLTP predictions vs measured overall fuel economy.  It does not take into account how many miles are being driven on a daily basis (nor can it because that data is unavailable).  They’re only measuring total miles driven vs fuel used.

 

I just gave you 2 examples of hugely different mpg for 2 different vehicles that both get fully charged every night.  Without knowing the background the study would conclude the vehicle only getting 42 mpg was not being plugged in.  But that is 100% false.

 

You cannot use observed mpg to determine if a vehicle is being plugged in without knowing how many miles are driven each day.  Period.  It’s simple math.  

 

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

 

Quote

2.1. Data sources and data processing According to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/392, real-world data must be collected by both vehicle manufacturers and Member States and reported to the European Environment Agency (EEA). Manufacturers may rely on data transfer over-the-air directly from the vehicle or collect this data through their authorised dealers or repairers when vehicles are brought in for service or repairs. Member States have been required to collect the real-world data during roadworthiness tests since 20 May 2023. This first report is based on the real-world data collected by vehicle manufacturers throughout 2021 on their cars and vans equipped with OBFCM devices. 

 

OBFCM: On-Board Fuel Consumption Monitoring

[akirby]

That changes nothing I said.   Did you look at the two examples I gave for fuel consumption of two vehicles that were plugged in every night?

[silvrsvt]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

That changes nothing I said.   Did you look at the two examples I gave for fuel consumption of two vehicles that were plugged in every night?

 

Because the data being collected actually shows when the vehicle is actually charged

https://green-driving.jrc.ec.europa.eu/JRCmatics_Monitoring_Fuel_Consumption_from_OBD

Quote

and lifetime parameters from OBFCM:

• Total driven distance (km)
• Total fuel consumed (L)
• Total energy recharged from the electrical grid (only Plug-in Hybrid vehicles)

 

 

 

[akirby]

10 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Because the data being collected actually shows when the vehicle is actually charged

https://green-driving.jrc.ec.europa.eu/JRCmatics_Monitoring_Fuel_Consumption_from_OBD

 

None of the reports’ conclusions used that data.   They only looked at fuel economy and the report even admitted that the utility factor (amount of time a plug in is driven on battery) estimate in the WLTP is way off.  But that can also be explained by people driving further each day than expected, not just by people not plugging in.   
 

I’m not saying they’re plugging in or not plugging in.  I’m saying the data used by the report does not support the conclusion that PHEVs are not being plugged in because it doesn’t take into account how many miles are driven each day.  If they have actual electric usage data then they should be using it not fuel economy.  They’re drawing a conclusion that isn’t supported by the data they have because their data is incomplete as it doesn’t take into account how many miles are being driven on a particular day.

[Roland]

This begs the question, "Why are these people not plugging in?"  The assumption is that these people would have shown greater gains if they would have bought a BEV.  The truth is probably that most wouldn't have bought a BEV because they can't or don't want to plug in. 

 

You can tell that we're dealing with a religious argument rather than an economic or scientific one because nothing less than full compliance with the dogma is acceptable. ICE must be eradicated, nothing less is acceptable regardless of the impacts on economics or quality of life. 

 

Can't plug in at night because there are no chargers at your slum tenement?  Get on the bus where you belong, prole.   Can't tow your boat more than 100 miles in a day?  Property is theft anyway.  Up against the wall, Kulak.

Edited April 10 by Roland

[silvrsvt]

4 hours ago, Roland said:

This begs the question, "Why are these people not plugging in?"  The assumption is that these people would have shown greater gains if they would have bought a BEV.  The truth is probably that most wouldn't have bought a BEV because they can't or don't want to plug in. 

 

You can tell that we're dealing with a religious argument rather than an economic or scientific one because nothing less than full compliance with the dogma is acceptable. ICE must be eradicated, nothing less is acceptable regardless of the impacts on economics or quality of life. 

 

Can't plug in at night because there are no chargers at your slum tenement?  Get on the bus where you belong, prole.   Can't tow your boat more than 100 miles in a day?  Property is theft anyway.  Up against the wall, Kulak.

 

Your the one introjecting your political view into this...all it is showing is that PHEVs aren't showing in the real world as big of an improvement as they should when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions from vehicles. 

When then begs the reason, why spend extra on PHEV if your not going to use it?

[silvrsvt]

On 4/7/2024 at 9:25 AM, akirby said:

None of the reports’ conclusions used that data.   They only looked at fuel economy and the report even admitted that the utility factor (amount of time a plug in is driven on battery) estimate in the WLTP is way off.  But that can also be explained by people driving further each day than expected, not just by people not plugging in.   

 

What are you talking about?

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

Quote

This first report is based on the real-world data collected by vehicle manufacturers throughout 2021 on their cars and vans equipped with OBFCM devices. Real-world data was received for 988 231 vehicles out of a total of 9 821 479 vehicles first registered in 2021 in the EU, Iceland or Norway (9). 

 

It just seems like that peoples biases are coming through without actually reading what the report says and the information in it. 

[akirby]

15 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

What are you talking about?

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

 

It just seems like that peoples biases are coming through without actually reading what the report says and the information in it. 

Oh for Pete’s sake.  You’re the one with a reading comprehension problem.  All they measured was fuel consumption and they compared it to the expected WLTP estimates.   Period.  End of story.  They even admit that the WLTP utility factor which assumes how much of the drive is in electric mode was wildly optimistic.

 

They expected a PHEV would drive around 75% of miles driven on battery power.  For a PHEV with 30 mile range that means charging nightly and never driving more than 40 miles without recharging.  

 

You simply cannot determine whether a vehicle is being plugged in nightly by only looking at fuel consumption because two PHEVs could both charge every night and one could get 42 mpg and the other could get 120 mpg and another could use no fuel at all depending on number of miles driven per day.  
 

Look at it another way.  You’re fully charged.  If you drive 30 miles your utility factor is 100% EV.  If you drive 60 miles you’re 50%.  120 miles - 25%.  240 miles - 12.5%.  
 

You can’t make conclusions about plugging in or not plugging in based on fuel economy alone.  You must know how many miles are driven each day and they aren’t measuring that.