[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by nandrive

I am not sure why you say so. I drive an all wheel drive hybrid car and get almost double the
real world mileage of non-hybrid version of the same model. My contribution to environment is almost halved(50%) by using a hybrid. Though using hybrid was not making any economical sense for my usage pattern, I bought it just for this reason by paying a premium.

We have seen a lot of research lately into hybrids. The only way a hybrid can be more efficient and thus more environmental friendly is when it gets used on e mode rather than dual mode a lot AND when it gets charged at home, not during driving.

Everybody who has ever attended a physics class would be able to tell you so, it is down to how energy is converted into kinetic energy,I.e. forward motion. If you use the engine to charge the battery you are not saving anything. The only way you are really saving fuel and energy is when you have regenerate braking and charge the battery using solar panel.

The reason why hybrid show up with such incredible fuel mileages in the test results is exactly this: the standard test is done in a way very few people if any use their car. So real live mileage is much poorer and doesn’t differ that much from a comparable ICE.

Again, politicians tend to suck at math and physics, so in many countries hybrid are taxed in a far more attractive way than regular ICE powered cars. Because they think they are more green as they have a large battery.

And there is just the fact that on many more luxurious cars the prime reason for making it a hybrid is not environmental concerns, but to make it go like the clappers. A Porsche Panamera with a 350hp IC and a 120HP e-motor? Come on?

Here in the Netherlands all tax advantages on hybrids are being rolled back and will only apply to proper EVs. UK and others are to follow soon. Essentially, finally people, including politicians begin to realise hybrids, in most cases, are just a scam or marketing ploy at best:

https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/pl...iendly-choice/

For those wanting to a bit of serious read up on Hybrid scam:

The detailled story behind these hybrids:

https://www.transportenvironment.org...hybrid_con.pdf


A couple of interesting quotes:

Analysis of databases of real world emissions of PHEVs by T&E shows rather than emitting on average 44 g CO2 per kilometer (measured using a flawed laboratory test) most PHEV are actually emitting ​over two and a half times3 this level of CO2 emissions when driven on the road. This is because the cars are frequently not charged by their owner or the car does not drive using only the battery and electric motor ​even when in the supposed zero emission mode​. The data on real world emissions from PHEVs has been collated from a wide range of sources (see Annex 1) representing around 20,000 PHEVs in fleets or private use.

Over the lifetime of the vehicle a new PHEV in 2020 will emits about 28 tonnes of CO2, slightly less than a conventional hybrid car (33 tonnes).7 In comparison a conventional petrol or diesel car emits 39 and 41 tonnes respectively.

Claims PHEVs drive in zero emission mode are a con

And of course for the more visually inclined we have a graph:



Jeroen

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by Napalm

I see a lot of misconceptions about electric vehicle technology. Will try to give my views here based on the information that I have. It might be a long post, but please bear with me as this is very important.

Great points, we should have a separate thread to debunk myths and explain about EVs.

Some more points to address:
EVs are heavy hence higher tyre dust.
There is no enough Lithium.
Batteries end up in landfills.
Batteries require cobalt from Congo.
Batteries explode quite frequently.
EVs are feasible only when they can travel 1000km with 5 mins charging time.


I recently came across an excellent article on Nuclear energy. Creating Nuclear waste and hoping for next gen to solve the waste problems is just stupid.

https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreic...nuclear-power/

[batladanny]

Originally Posted by Cessna182

Electric vehicles are important to reduce the carbon footprint, but not without addressing the electricity source. In India even now coal is the biggest generator of electricity and the same happens in most developing countries. In the next 30 years coal will get replaced by natural gas. But unless nuclear is promoted in a big way it will be tough to make sure that carbon emissions come down- it is just that the emissions shift from the exhaust of a car to the chimney of a power plant.

This is a popular argument against EVs since it sounds logical. But the numbers don't add up for it. The long tailpipe theory, as it is called, has mostly been accepted as incorrect or at least a big over-exaggeration.

Coal — the worst polluter amongst energy generation sources by a large margin — constitutes about 30-60% of production for different countries (with most being below 50%). Even a car running purely on coal-generated electricity will emit carbon at the same rate as a gas car that gets 30 mpg (~13kmpl).

source of above (it is a very long ready but a really nice one)

[Gansan]

I have read a report sometime ago which said even accounting for their own manufacturing process, battery disposal/recycling and electricity generated in distant power stations, EVs are still fifty percent more efficient than ICE vehicles.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by batladanny

Coal — the worst polluter amongst energy generation sources by a large margin — constitutes about 30-60% of production for different countries (with most being below 50%).

Current world average is about 40%. Which, remarkable, is the highest it has ever been. Large difference between countries:



Source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-w...l-power-plants

[SulemanP]

It seems the statement is towards specific audience more likely the investors. The automobile industry for its part is trying to switch over from ICE to EVs thanks to the rules & regulations that come into existence from time to time and there are many technologies around this subject. I think the environment will not be saved only by switching over to other transport technologies but we also need to look at preserving our forests, to have robust transport systems in place so that many people find it easy/affordable/safe to use public transport rather than using own transport.

I like the concept of hyperloop if it really comes into operation and is easy/affordable & safe think of how much time, energy and money will be saved in travelling between various cities.

[shreevishnu]

Unpopular opinion, but based on facts:

1. We need better power density (no. of cells needed for given performance), cycle life (how long they last) and energy density (how long they last per charge - range) in batteries/energy storage devices to make EV's mainstream.

2. Nobody, i repeat, nobody will wait forever to charge their vehicle, nor will they pay a nice sum to replace batteries every 10-15 years of use. (See YouTube videos of old hybrids being junk due to relatively inexpensive (compared to EV) battery replacement issues). Recycling these cells will also be an issue, re-use for other applications after EV for now is a stop-gap solution.

3. Freedom/convenience to choose - should remain with consumers - not mandated by some big brother. Govts should incentivize EV's, development of technologies to make EVs more compelling. (develop Jet powered aircraft, not mandate use of Zeppelins)
Nobody will go back to booking taxi's the old way (I know a guy,..) when Uber/Ola is much easier/better, you cant force people to change for worse without incentives. (see Paytm's current market share in wallets? No discounts - lesser people use)

4. Going carbon neutral or negative, whatever the means should be the target. (Hybrids? Magic Beans? I dont care as customer) If the incentive is to meet this goal, ingenuity will get us there.
Mandating Battery Electric Vehicles by banning other technologies is a fools errand. It's like asking you to have breakfast when you are hungry but you're allowed to eat only cereal!

The zero emission goal is the need, put a target, let folk choose the best path there.

[mayd85]

There have been arguments from both sides so far, viz. 'it's a case of sour grapes for the big T' and 'whatever Toyoda san said is logical'. I feel following questions need answers before we reach any conclusion.

1. Let's accept for argument's sake that hybrids are really the future, at least for the near term. Question is till when? The limits imposed by scarcity of fossil fuel are going to haunt the hybrids as much as they do conventional vehicles. And it is not that innovations in hybrids are so disruptive, that they'll suddenly become a better alternative to EVs. In fact, bigger the electric component in a hybrid, costlier and heavier it becomes. At this point hybrids start losing their purpose and value proposition.

2. Can we look at the advent of EV technology in isolation from other technologies, especially in ADAS, shared mobility and connectivity domains? The EV along with these other technologies is actually going to threaten the very way we perceive mobility, both personal and shared. Some of the things that such technologies will enable us to do, will be possible only with EVs. This I believe is the real value proposition EVs can bring, which hybrids or conventional vehicles cannot.

[Ragavsr]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

We have seen a lot of research lately into hybrids. The only way a hybrid can be more efficient and thus more environmental friendly is when it gets used on e mode rather than dual mode a lot AND when it gets charged at home, not during driving.

You clearly are getting confused between hybrids and PHEVs .

Hybrids can't be charged at home and the battery helps in recuperating energy and assisting the engine. Models like the RAV4 Hybrid,Camry Hybrid, Escape and Fusion Hybrids are examples of this.

Hybrids are no scam or ploy. They have real efficiency without overloading the electrical grid or transferring the pollution to power plants.

A hybrid can easily double the mileage of a car in the city and give a decent enough boost of 20% on the highway. That's no sham there.

Hybrids can increase the average fuel efficiency by double and cut demand for oil by half. And for EV sold, the battery can be used to make 40 hybrids.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Ragavsr

You clearly are getting confused between hybrids and PHEVs . s.

No, they are both not what they are marketed to be. The PHEV only being marginally better (or worse depending on your point of view).

Please read the report and look at the graph in my earlier post. Very little difference between hybrids and PHEV.

Even the impressive WLPT figures of a PHEV are unlikely to be achieved for the reasons I outlined before. WLPT numbers are derived from an ideal drive, where maximum energy is extracted from the electrical package, which then subsequently gets charged at home.

We are now seeing several legislators here in the west that want to change the WLPT measurement. Which is a bit of a laugh, as they were the ones that approved it in the first place. But then again, as I mentioned earlier these folks have no clue about these matter. And admittedly it is difficult to standardise these sort of test drives to resemble something meaningful. But the collective car industry managed to pull the wool over just about all legislators and regulators on this WLPT numbers. Sure in order to compare one PHEV to the next it is fine, but it is not anywhere the sort of fuel efficiency people are expecting.

As I explained the very concept is flawed. In the sense if you have the engine that powers your car, also charge the battery that drives the e-motor. It is impossible to make that more efficient by the very nature of it and by basic engineering and physic principles. You can only gain, by charging your battery by some other means, or through re-generate braking.

But again, what we are seeing at large is that very few people charge their PHEV at home or at work. They just let the engine do all the work. Which means nearly all the potential gains are gone immediately!

IF you charge your PHEV at home fully, run it down fully before using the engine, you will see a better fuel consumption. As soon as you don’t charge fully and don’t run the batteries down, it start degrading the potential gains.

So its down to how you use your PHEV.

Fact remains that hybrids and PHEV are on their way out in the west, even before ICE will be fully banned.

Jeroen

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

No, they are both not what they are marketed to be. The PHEV only being marginally better (or worse depending on your point of view).

And for those who like to understand through a video here it is.

https://youtu.be/EETTKlPvNow

[ShivrajG]

Call me old school or anything but I Love my IC engines and I hate EV's.

EV's dont produce the sweet sound of a turbo diesel/petrol engine.

This is the only one reason I hate EV's.

That being said EV's are the future of motoring believe it or not.
If you cant change yourself with changing times, time will show you the door out.

Toyota dont have a single EV to showcase whereas our Indian Manufacturer's are selling EV's in good numbers.

Time to Change Toyota or else Ta Ta Toyota

[shreevishnu]

Agree that that the test cycles are tweaked (lobbied by OEMs/lawmakers) to make the hybrid efficiency and BEV range look better than they are. (Not reflective of reality)

The correct way is to design a hybridization or electrification solution (battery+motor+inverter) that is the best solution for real world, which is much harder as each drive cycle and use case is different.

For typical consumer applications, it's very hard to customise hardware solutions for each user. Most optimisation is software based for use of standard/typical hardware configurations already installed on the vehicle. In this situation, it's cheaper/easier to hybridise than to fully electrify.

In fleets, it is possible to change both usage patterns and optimise hardware solutions to meet that usage given the number of vehicles per fleet and more representative "typical" usage. However, in fleets, acquisition cost isn't a constraint.

For consumers who want flexibility of use cases (city driving on weekdays, long drives on weekends?) and low incremental costs, hybrids are the way to go for having no range anxiety and some reduction in fuel consumption in "typical" usage.

[tirumalavoleti]

Definitely not over hyped, electric cars are bound to be main stream even if one agrees or does not agree.

What is more important is the transition needs steps and can not be over night, over month, or even over year.

While Tesla is a great example its super costly and most of the world could not afford.

We could see it as iPhone, but with the proportionate cost, iPhone took less time and external battery packs were also successful.

The transition should be through PHEV and all manufacturers are actively developing cars including Toyota- Electric Torque, Cheap Energy, and fuel When You Need It This also helps the infra and people acquainted

Definitely Toyota Head should not be saying such comments as they have already started the journey for electric through Hybrids and PHEV

[Ritkon]

I have to agree with Mr. Toyoda here. Electric vehicles (pure ones) are advertised as having zero emission and yet, no large scale study has yet been undertaken to verify this.
Allow me to clarify. Coal is still the major global power source today (38%), despite a lot of hullabaloo of its tremendous polluting capacity. As most pure EV's will draw power from this source, after taking into account transmission and efficiency losses, I doubt how much carbon emission will actually be reduced. Not to mention, coal has additional pollutants, which are very hard to remove.

The second power source, natural gas (23% of global power) will also be less feasible, since logistics associated with such powerplants make them unsuitable for many places and since we already have cars running on natural gas, obviously EV's drawing power from gas powered powerplants will always be less efficient in terms of carbon emission.

It may so happen, that EV's may actually end up being more polluting than ICE cars!
So, for EV's to become the environment saviour it is projected as, we actually have to change over 2/3rds of all the powerplants in the world.
Then of course, the other drawbacks of EV's become even more apparent like long charging times, short range, lack of charging infrastructure and battery issues in certain climatic conditions.
I am sorry if I sound like a pessimist here, but EV's are praised a lot more than they deserve. It is just a popular topic, hyped by politicians, who have little idea of how things actually work.