In emerging markets, hybrids are a much smarter choice. Here in Brazil there are few fast chargers (say 40kW+), and a great bunch of them are broken anyway. My next car will be a plug-in hybrid. Maybe an electric in 10 years.
Indeed the infrastructure's just not there yet in most places, and not just Brazil, it sucks basically everywhere.
PHEVs can be charged at home and should have enough battery range for those short daily errands across town, while having the range of a normal ICE car for long trips where the lack of fast chargers is most critical. Plus they'll break down more due to higher complexity and the repair shops will love and lobby for them so win-win-win.
EVs are indubitably miles ahead in terms of being simple to maintain mechanically since it's a sealed fixed gear system (the software is another matter, but let's disregard that for now), but I don't believe those numbers for the PHEV for a second.
You're maintaining both an EV and an ICE at the same time in one car with both needing to interface with each other in complex ways. There's bound to be in the range of 4x as much that can go wrong compared to just one or the other. You'll have the mechanical issues of the ICE coupled with the software problems of an EV.
It's an absolutely stupid idea to even consider doing these sort of overcomplicated hybrids, but unfortunately it's also the only way to get around the abysmal battery capacity we currently have.
>> but I don't believe those numbers for the PHEV for a second.
Having driven a PHEV for over 2 years now, I can easily believe them - the main ICE runs so rarely, it's practically brand new. I cover like 90% of my journeys in EV mode alone. I've just done my second service and the brake pads are like 5% worn - after 20kk miles, in a 2.2 tonne SUV. All because of regenerative breaking - it's absolutely remarkable. So yes, I imagine repairs of this car will be cheaper long term, not more expensive - the ICE drive train is going to have fewer problem if you just don't use it half as much.
> You're maintaining both an EV and an ICE at the same time in one car with both needing to interface with each other in complex ways.
The interface does not need to be complex. Hooking them directly together is simple enough. Some designs replace parts of the gearbox with the motors, making the combination simpler than the sum of its parts. And if you have a fully electric drivetrain then you can vastly simplify the ICE.
(Also I don't know how you could possibly reach 4x even if it was as complex as you're saying!)
You don’t really need fast chargers if your overnight spot has any charging. Ours has been charged almost exclusively on a standard US 120V 15A household outlet - 5 miles/hr of range, but it’s parked for >14 hours a day, so it regains 70+ miles overnight.
I don't really need the car on a daily basis, mostly for road trips, and, like the US, Brazil has continental proportions (we think in thousands of kms). The BMW iX is very impressive, there are videos of it doing Sao Paulo > Rio, and half of the way back, without a charge, which is amazing, but that's a best-case path with a considerable number of chargers. Still very pricey though.
Oh well yeah, for road trips it’s different. But for day to day, 70 miles of charging (on a 300 mile range battery) is enough to keep it so it’s usually topped up, and after a longer day trip where it’s not enough, it’ll get back to full over a few days.
It sounds like a normal hybrid is a better idea if the charging infrastructure is bad. A normal hybrid would be cheaper and never needs to be plugged in.
If you can't charge at home, PHEV is completely nonsense, or say waste of battery compared to HEV. PHEV should be for who can charge at home, drives daily, and want long trips with quick gas charge.
Even if you can't charge at home, PHEV is still worth it over HEV because it will increase resale value, and because you may be able to charge somewhere in the future (eg work, or different home). The cost of the plug is negligible, so making an HEV that can't plug in is just a waste.
PHEV for future proof is good point. Simple plug cost could be minor, but HEVs have small battery (and don't use fully for long life) so just adding plug is almost useless. Who wants only 5km EV range?
that's a lot of my point. The Prius prime (for example) has a 8.8kwh battery, which at $130 per kwh works out to $1150 of battery. That's not negligible, but the benefit is pretty massive. That's a big enough battery to get you 20-25 miles of pure electric range which means that if you have a short commute, you will dramatically cut your gas usage. Full BEV is great obviously, but IMO, you probably want 1 car to be gas optional still, and a PHEV gives you an easy path to be driving almost 100% electric with 0 compromises compared to a gas car.
The streets of Paris have lots of chargers along the sidewalks, seems like cities elsewhere should be able to pull that off as well. Doesn’t even need to be high powered if they’re intended to be parked at overnight.
There'd have to be charger every 5-6 meters or so along most sidewalks where I live to make electric viable. Certainly not impossible, but sounds like an absolutely massive investment.
The vast majority of parking spaces are free and don't have any meters at all.
Sure downtown there is parking meters, but not in the suburbs where free parking is the norm and most parking spaces go weeks between seeing anyone park in them.
No meters in neighborhoods around here, just painted curbs. I only see meters on very dense downtown blocks, and many seem to be solar powered (which seems feasible for an LCD and a card slot).
In my city, there's maybe a parking meter for every 20 spots. Plus, most spots are in non-metered areas. PLUS, the meter does not require a very high voltage power line...
The problem is that hybrids are good only for range anxiety. You assume you're getting an EV and a great range — best of both worlds. The reality is that you get worst of both worlds: a crappy low-end EV experience with worst-case charging, and a poor ICE car with even less cabin/cargo space than a pure ICE (and much less than a pure BEV).
In hybrids, the battery is very tiny, so lasts for a day or two instead of a week or more. This means having a home charger is an absolute necessity. Small batteries don't support rapid charging, so you won't be able to use many public chargers, even if you were patient enough to wait hours instead of minutes.
Horesepower of hybrid cars is advertised as a sum of EV+ICE engines together, but that's a rare scenario. You'll be mostly using underpowered EV-only half when you can, and then the underpowered ICE-only half when you run out of juice.
When you're on electricity, you're lugging an ICE engine, and when you're road tripping, you have worse fuel economy due to lugging a useless battery and an EV motor (regen doesn't do much even when it works, and highway cruising is the worst-case scenario for it).
In many hybrids transmission/clutch adds a lag, so you don't get the sweet instant torque BEVs are known for.
You have worst-case maintenance costs. On top of all the moving parts of an ICE engine and a complex gearbox, your battery will wear out sooner. A small battery will tend to be cycled 100% to 0%, instead of kept in the 80%-50% range that is much gentler for lithium batteries.
As a recent PHEV purchaser, I have to disagree on most counts. All typical driving is fully electric, meaning routine commuting, shopping, etc. is all covered by the battery. The home charger is required, but so so simple because it fully charges off a normal (15A) circuit overnight. So it's literally just plugged in to a normal wall outlet. No big deal. Sure you're lugging around the ICE, but it has a much smaller and lighter battery compared to an all electric. Id be curious to see what the real weights involved are, but it's not like you're adding an ICE to a full electric battery. The thing still gets 46mpg even when the battery is depleted, which is better than any other ICE car I've ever had. And there is no transmission in the electric power train as far as I can tell, if there is it's seamless. As for maintenance costs, we'll see. I suspect your analysis will be at least partially correct, having the two independent drive trains and the system to combine them seems like a minefield of long term maintenance. But that was the risk I was willing to take given all of the other benefits.
Like patentatt, I disagree with most of this. Which PHEVs are you looking at?
Some can blend power from electric and gas motors and give you the combined power output for modest durations almost any time--and then will use excess ICE capacity or regenerative breaking to recharge the battery.
Yes, of course you plug in any time you're home. Not an issue if you have off-street parking, any outlet works.
Transmission/clutch lag--which car have you driven? Does not exist at all in mine (GM Volt), have not heard anyone mention it in reviews of RAV4 Prime or other recent PHEVs.
It is in fact the best-case scenario for some driving profiles.
I have many modest-distance trips around town, and ~30 long drives a year, at least 10 of which would require a midway additional hour of charging in a BEV, with half the drive through an area that has no fast chargers and will not get any in the next 3 years.
The funny thing is that everything you said makes sense on paper, but in reality none of it matters.
I have an XC60 T8 PHEV, it's the best car I have ever owned, hands down.
>>a crappy low-end EV experience with worst-case charging, and a poor ICE car with even less cabin/cargo space than a pure ICE (and much less than a pure BEV).
Don't see it at all. It charges in 3 hours - what's the problem? That I can't rapid charge it on the motorway? Ok, fair.
The space inside it is the same as in a petrol XC60. There is no compromise.
>>You'll be mostly using underpowered EV-only half when you can, and then the underpowered ICE-only half when you run out of juice.
The EV motor isn't super powerful, but it's absolutely sufficient for driving around. And the ICE is 320bhp in this model, it's far far far far from "underpowered". It's a rocketship, and I owned an actual Mercedes-AMG before. In the mode where both ICE and EV motors work together this car will outaccelerate anything due to the instant torque.
>>you have worse fuel economy due to lugging a useless battery and an EV motor (regen doesn't do much even when it works, and highway cruising is the worst-case scenario for it).
Maybe, but this car averages 50mpg(imperial) on long journeys anyway, so I really don't see a downside here. Regular Petrol XC60 struggles to keep 40. Diesel XC60 would beat it, but who wants a diesel. And my long term(2 years+) average overal is 120mpg, so really......whatever?
>>In many hybrids transmission/clutch adds a lag, so you don't get the sweet instant torque BEVs are known for.
Many, but not all - in the XC60 the EV motor is mounted directly on the rear axle so it doesn't go through the transmission at all. It accelerates instantly like any EV.
>>You have worst-case maintenance costs. On top of all the moving parts of an ICE engine and a complex gearbox
I'm seeing the opposite after couple years of ownership - the ICE almost never runs, so it doesn't suffer any wear. At every oil change the oil is completely clear - the motor is practically brand new. After 20kk miles the brake pads are 5% worn, because you do most breaking by regenerative breaking. So far this car is saving me a fortune in running costs and maintenance, and I don't see why this shouldn't continue. If anything, this car and its drivetrain will far outlast any regular ICE car out there.
>>your battery will wear out sooner.
If this was an actual concern, the manufacturer wouldn't give it 8 years warranty. It's longer warranty than on my actual real proper BEV that I also have.
I’m an automotive EE, I’ve had almost all types of vehicles to drive. I really like the Wrangler plug in hybrid. My week to week saw almost zero gas being used, it was like having a full electric and I could still drive wherever I wanted. With 4Low and diff lockers. Loved it!
I drive ~12mi a day, works great for me, but I know it’s not for people with commutes.
Plug-in hybrids are in a weird spot in the market. People who have access to home charging can buy long-range EVs which are much nicer to drive. People without access to home charging can buy non-plug-in hybrids or gas-powered cars. Most plug-in hybrids cost a bit more than the non-plug-in versions of the same car and their battery-only driving range is quite short.
No matter where you are in the car market, plug-in hybrids are a weird compromise, delivering all the slowness of a hybrid and the requirement to have access to charging like an EV, for more money than a normal hybrid car.
The other disadvantage hybrids have is that you have all the complexity of a both an electric and a gas car. One nice thing about full electric is that you do away with much of the regular maintenance of an ICE car.
There is that, but in a plug-in hybrid, the gas engine does not get used a lot. When it does, it is usually operating in a serial hybrid mode and runs within an optimal range without much stress. Actual wear and tear and maintenance are much less than in a conventional ICEV. You see this with Priuses and Volts. The gas engines live an unstressed life and last much longer. The Volt keeps track of usage and alerts you when it is time for an oil change. They can easily go 18 months between oil changes.
That's fair, but still a big difference psychologically between 18m and never. Plus various other fluids. Even brake pads and rotors—on pure EVs they basically last forever thanks to regenerative braking. Perhaps modern hybrids do have that benefit as well now though.
>>on pure EVs they basically last forever thanks to regenerative braking. Perhaps modern hybrids do have that benefit as well now though.
They do. I have owned an XC60 PHEV for over 2 years now, after 20kk miles the brake pads were 5% worn. And it's a 2.2 tonne, 400bhp SUV. Without regenerative braking the pads would be almost gone now.
I mean, you take your car in to the shop once a year for its inspection, they take care of it all for you. The only difference with the BEV is they don't charge you $X0 for the oil change.
The recommended frequency for Tesla appears to be every two years, check brake fluids and replace cabin air filter. Lots of Tesla owners don’t bother outside of tire changes.
I'm sure there's a long list of "inspect" to go with that? At some point timing belt? Other belts? Spark plugs? One day the alternator will die, then the water pump, head gasket, exhaust pipe will rust, the battery, starter motor, brake pads, break disks? Oxygen sensor... man the list of stuff in ICE cars that's not in EVs that can and definitely will fail just goes on and on and on. Sure, most of it past the 10 year mark, but it's a lot of stuff.
Is this North America spec btw? (there's difference in maintenance intervals usually).
I've driven ICE for many many many years and I never want to go back. I don't want to smell gasoline in the gas station... The model 3's maintenance is basically cabin air filter and brake fluid which honestly you can just not touch for 5 years with no problem if you live somewhere with clean air ;) it's essentially zero maintenance.
That's exactly my feeling. I still like the ICE for a fun weekend car (not that the Model 3 isn't fun, but something lightweight with some character is nice for variety), but for anything I'm putting a lot of miles on, not having to worry about all that is fantastic.
The biggest concern I've heard for hybrids is lifetime maintenance cost. You have both the legacy ICE and transmission, as well as electrical components to maintain. That's a major hypothetical disadvantage to all electric.
Toyota Priuses have been sold for over 20 years (closer to 25 actually!) and they are very reliable. There are Prius taxis with half a million miles on the original battery.
I love my EV, but I'll be switching to a hybrid when the lease is up. EVs are great but charging is currently a pain. I have no doubt I'll switch back to an EV in a few years, but right now, they're not worth it to me.
"They think Ukraine and Russia has a shared destiny or some other completely unfounded bullshit like that."
No, it is not a war between the West and Russia. It is an idiotic military campaign Russia is waging because of some unfounded delusions. Nobody in Ukraine wants to have anything shared with Russia. The West was just dragged into this conflict because it just happens next to its border and the West is sympathetic with Ukraine and could not tolerate such unprovoked violence.
Now the important question for the context, because what you shared are clear Russian propaganda talking points, are you a Russian? If not, then what you think influenced you to come to this wrong conclusion? I'm trying to figure out some of the paths Russian propaganda is using to get into peoples minds. Thank you in advance if you decide to answer to this question.
In Russia's thinking, it's a war between Russia and the West. And unfortunately, if that's what they think, it is within their power to bring that about.
And, seeing that, the West is helping Ukraine. It's not just sympathy at this attack (and the "Ukraine has no independent existence" BS that tries to justify the attack). There's also an element of self-interest - if Russia thinks it's at war with the West, we should help Ukraine, not just because it's the right thing to do, but also because they're protecting the rest of us.
Interesting. Some of the energy conscious home builders have used the same concept for quite some time but of course not many of them. This concept is also in my "energy efficient dream house" wish list. I think it demonstrates that in fact Europe can innovate when there is pressure on it.
Russia is threat to Europe the same way it is threat to Ukraine - it can launch a military operation that by rational thinking person would be not acceptable and Russian society would tolerate or even support it.
Russian army has lost over 35000 men and over 4000 units of armored vehicles (tanks, AFV, IFV etc) and yet it keeps going while in the Western world any such loss would have considered catastrophic.
In principle this happens every day in the West, at least partially. It is most noticeable in US because here the political landscape is very polarized.
There are two important differences though.
The main difference in this case is that there is no monopoly and complete central control, like Russian leadership has over Russian mass media.
Second difference is that Western media does not have direct influence over other populations, if it decides to weaponize its mass media, it can only direct it against the people in their own country. Everywhere else it will be filtered by local publishers.
Russia has (or now in many instances, had) also media control over large Russian population in neighboring countries (like was in this example).
Asymmetry in freedom of press and freedom of speech works strongly in favor of malicious actors with strong control over media and speech.
This Youtube video was posted already somewhere in end of November, way before the Russian invasion in Ukraine started but I discovered it when I started to look into capacity of Russian propaganda to create and direct larger human conflicts in the West using coordinated manipulation of media and social media.
I'm not sure who is the target audience of this video based on this unique style but it looks to cover the matter fairly exhaustive and as far I could conclude based on review of these events, it appears to be a realistic and truthful interpretation.
I have recognized very similar patterns elsewhere. For example Russia used numerous of falsified reporting of real events and complete fabricated hoaxes to incite the war in Donbas. The information warfare was used against two separate groups of people - ethnic Russian speaking Ukrainians in Donbas area and Russians in Russia. Goal of the information attacks against Ukrainians was to great unrest and wider support toward Russian intervention. Goal of the information against Russians was to deceive them to join Russian armed groups against Ukraine.
I have also suspicion that Canadian Freedom convoy movement might have been initiated and controlled by Russian propaganda through widely available Russian TV channels like RT and Sputnik France and social media. Many movement spokespersons shared beliefs propagated by Russian propaganda. This suspicion was further bolstered with the research that people against vaccination were more likely supportive of Russian invasion by large margin, that suggest that these people were more likely under Russian propaganda influence.
My personal conclusion is that Russian propaganda machinery can build very persistent and resilient but completely fabricated representations of realities that are very often held by the people under its influence even when confronted with undeniable facts. These fabricated realities are very important tool to direct attitudes of the targeted people.
This is important aspect when planning the communication with the groups under Russian propaganda influence.
For example it is widely held false belief that Ukrainian army has shelled Donbas civilian structures while none of this has been independently confirmed by the OECD mission there. Even worse, there have been at least 3 recent occasions where Russia's controlled forces have either bombed or shelled civilian structures like markets or even hospitals while it has been not feasible by Ukrainian forces because they have been out of range. Main motivation behind these attacks appears to be to maintain negative attitudes against Ukrainian armed forces.
These are complicated issues but must be taken into account in my opinion when communication with the people under strong Russian propaganda influence is planned.
We have mostly politically motivated twisting of the words against political opponents (like NYT is against Trump etc). I always recommend to look what was actually said and in what context.
With all of the vast wealth and intelligence agencies we have, the best we do on the propaganda front is when the NY Times says mean things about Trump?
How much American TV watch people in South America? How much English TV watches a German for example, or Italian? I would say, close to zero. So the first issue is that Western media landscape is fragmented. So it is difficult to project such possible attack to outside.
Second issue is media freedom. Media is truly privately owned and there is strong culture of press freedom. Still, there is probably also some level of cooperation with the government. So we should always pay attention if the government is trying to sell us something through media.
>So we should always pay attention if the government is trying to sell us something through media.
Isn't this how our entire "news media" landscape works (with the exception of a handful of legit investigative journalists)?
"My anonymous sources tell me..." really means "someone in the government wanted me to put this message out to the public."
Also, hasn't the US been busted funding revolutions/freedom fighters in 3rd world countries multiple times, utilizing propaganda at every step along the way? Or is that all BS?
This post was about Russian capacity to create such conflicts completely out of blue. You can fear anything you chose to. Like I have explained many times, it is not this scalable because of fragmentation. Yes, there can be a mass hysteria like was for example after 9/11, but it is very difficult to suck something out of non event like was this plan to move some monument. I hope you notice the difference in significance between these two events.
