Of course electric cars are more expensive to drive, considering all the costs. At least for the first few years until the technology improves a lot. Buy a gasoline car today while you still can, and let the true believers get stuck with an electric. In 5 years, trade it and go electric. In time we all will drive Teslas etc. When their prices come down and their practicality makes it worth our while.

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

The "self charging hybrid" nonsense was one of their marketing attempts to promote their hybrids and discredit full EV.

That might refer to the fact that a lot of the time Toyota's hybrids use the ICE to charge the battery. It allows the engine to be operated at more efficient torque and rev ranges, without letting the energy go to waste. The recuperation also charges it (which EVs also have, of course). And the ICE on most Toyotas and Lexus' are of the Atkinson cycle variety, so a good deal more efficient than conventional Otto cycles.

A lot of studies show that over a car's whole life cycle (manufacturing, operating, disposal), hybrids emit the least GHGs, when using today's energy mix. That will change.

25 minutes ago, d.tsakiris said:

That might refer to the fact that a lot of the time Toyota's hybrids use the ICE to charge the battery.

 

Well yes, that's what hybrids do. But the way Toyota market it to the none technical buyer is some kind of revolutionary system, an electric vehicle you don't need to plug in. That's the impression the less knowledgeable, less technical purchaser gets, which is of course many potential purchasers. 

Norway has actually banned the ad for being misleading.

 

Quote

"Toyota has a history of creating misleading electric-vehicle advertising, especially with its “self-charging hybrid” ad campaign. Norway has now banned the campaign, deeming it a lie."

 

https://electrek.co/2020/01/24/toyota-self-charging-hybrid-ad-banned-norway-lie/

 

 

Quote

 

"Toyota has been going further than simply not making all-electric vehicles, aside from compliance cars. It has also been producing advertising content that some would call propaganda against all-electric vehicles.

In 2018,  Lexus, Toyota’s premium brand, started a new advertising campaign for its hybrids (HEVs without plugs) with claims like “self-charging,” having “infinite range,” all while trash talking all-electric vehicles in the process."

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 20205 yr by martin-w

28 minutes ago, d.tsakiris said:

A lot of studies show that over a car's whole life cycle (manufacturing, operating, disposal), hybrids emit the least GHGs, when using today's energy mix. 

 

Err... if the study is conducted by those selling the hybrids maybe.  They do generalise that way.  It's only true if the electricity is derived from power stations that  rely on coal or gas. Increasingly that's not the case. The UK is substantially renewable energy, 47% last quarter. And the island I live on is 100% renewable energy.  17% US. 20% Europe. 

Then we have the latest scandal.  Hybrids emitting far more CO2 than claimed. 

https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/plug-hybrids-new-emissions-scandal-tests-show-higher-pollution-claimed

https://airqualitynews.com/2020/09/16/hybrid-vehicles-emit-2-5-times-more-co2-than-official-tests-indicate/

 

Quote

Electric vehicles produce less carbon dioxide than petrol cars across the vast majority of the globe – contrary to the claims of some detractors, who have alleged that the CO₂ emitted in the production of electricity and their manufacture outweighs the benefits.

 

Quote

Hybrid cars may pollute more than previously thought, claims NGO

https://www.euronews.com/2020/11/24/hybrid-cars-may-pollute-more-than-previously-thought-claims-ngo

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 20205 yr by martin-w

3 hours ago, dave2013 said:

You know, it must be nice to relocate to an offshore tax haven, where big oil companies and banks, among others, set up subsidiaries to avoid paying taxes in their true home countries.  From the comfort of this low tax haven one can preach to the rest of the unwashed masses about the virtues of being a good global citizen by reducing our consumption and paying higher taxes and prices overall to fund the green utopia.  In the meantime, like the big corporations and wealthy elites, one can avoid the high taxation in ones own home country while the taxpayers in that home country pay for ones defense and other govt. services.  One should be asked to put ones money where ones mouth is.

There is plenty of opacity and subsidies (to the middle class) in the current energy regime. Anything that exposes the true costs (both explicit and external) is a good thing from an economic conservative view, and taxation is always preferable to regulation.

Cheers

Luke

Plug-in hybrids are a scam to meet  fleet emissions requirements. Most people don't even bother to plug them in on a regular basis. Further,  having both ICE and EV systems in one vehicle just increases maintenance costs. I own one BEV, one PHEV and a few ICE vehicles. I would never buy anything in the future except a BEV. Between word not allowed, Tesla and Ford, there is a decent selection of BEVs with good range. Hundai, Nissan, GM and Kia also sell cheaper BEVs with less range. 

Oh and BTW, "miracle" battery technologies are announced on a regular basis but most them never end up in production vehicles. It's probably equivalent to having 30 Pharma companies attempting to produce a COVID-19 vaccine and having only the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines actually making it to someone's arm.

Edit the acronym for Volkswagen Auto Group is obviously profanity on AVsim.🤬

Edited December 17, 20205 yr by jabloomf1230

14 minutes ago, martin-w said:

if the study is conducted by those selling

Same could be said about your sources.

14 minutes ago, martin-w said:

It's only true if the electricity is derived from power stations that  rely on coal or gas

That's why those studies calculate with the average energy mix being used right now. And that's why I said that will change.

Regarding the PHVs: Nobody should be surprised they use more gas and thus emit more CO2 than advertised (especially the ridiculous SUV variants). They are optimized to perform well on the standard testing loops and claim unrealistic mileage values of 1,x - 2,x l/100 km. But the good life cycle analysis also applies to PHVs...at least at the moment.

9 hours ago, W2DR said:

The lithium battery cells for current Toyota batteries are made by Panasonic in Osaka, Japan. Panasonic will also be the supplier for the new battery technology. Toyota has entered into a joint venture agreement with Panasonic and established a new company to do the R&D. Where the new batteries will be manufactured is, as far as I know, still a matter of conjecture but, at least initially, I would think it will also be Osaka. (Panasonic also manufactures all the lithium cells for Tesla in the Osaka plant).

thanks for the detail answer.  I thought it was going to be china.  Alas the green activists always seem to forget things sometimes and give certain countries a free pass.

alas.  Ill just leave this here....  But I would love to have a tesla. 

 

who are the worst climate polluters?

Top 3 polluters

• India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2.
• Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2.
• Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2.

 

 

Edited December 17, 20205 yr by fluffyflops

This is going way off topic, but: That last list isn't correct...for 2018 it was China with 10 Gigatons, the US with 5.4, India 2.6, Russia 1.7, Japan 1.2, Germany 0.8, then Iran, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. These numbers of course have to be weighted against the size of their economies, or broken down into emissions per capita, or another of the dozens of ways to look at these numbers...

13 hours ago, d.tsakiris said:

or broken down into emissions per capita

 

 

And when we do look at emmisions per capita, its US at the top and China down in 7th place I recall. Unless its recently changed.

13 hours ago, d.tsakiris said:

 

That's why those studies calculate with the average energy mix being used right now. And that's why I said that will change.

 

Can you provide a link to the study you mention please. 

17 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Ah, OK.  So the article you posted where Toyota claims to be developing a revolutionary solid state battery is also suspect, then.

 

 

I wouldn't trust anything Toyota claim to be honest. When the prototype arrives and does what it says we can get excited. Having said that, if you look at developments that are taking place in terms of solid state batteries, you will se its not just Toyota. There's even a prototype solid state production line up and running. So yes, that fact gives credence to Toyota's claim. In fact within Toyota's projected time frame of 5 years, I expect quite a few companies will have solid state batteries available. 

 

Quote

My point was that he was honest about the true costs of a clean energy future.  I doubt that he was funded by the oil industry as his policies aren't exactly good for business.

 

Would help if you told us who you are referring to... 

 

Quote

You know, it must be nice to relocate to an offshore tax haven, where big oil companies and banks, among others, set up subsidiaries to avoid paying taxes in their true home countries.  From the comfort of this low tax haven one can preach to the rest of the unwashed masses about the virtues of being a good global citizen by reducing our consumption and paying higher taxes and prices overall to fund the green utopia.  In the meantime, like the big corporations and wealthy elites, one can avoid the high taxation in ones own home country while the taxpayers in that home country pay for ones defense and other govt. services.  One should be asked to put ones money where ones mouth is.

 

Was that a dig at me David? Because you know I live in the Channel Islands. Hope not. 

19 hours ago, dave2013 said:

.

I suppose that govt. subsidies can make this clean energy utopia a reality, but don't think for a minute that it's not going to cost you, the average middle class person. 

Dave

 

 

 

You mean like the $20 billion US subsides to the fossil fuel industry every year. Or the $5.2 Trillion globally every year? 

Meanwhile, renewable energy subsidies are a small fraction of that, and governments around the world are doing their best to reduce them further. Ironic isn't it?

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/05/how-much-does-world-subsidize-oil-coal-and-gas/589000/

 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

And when we do look at emmisions per capita, its US at the top and China down in 7th place I recall. Unless its recently changed.

Here's a list. It reflects well what I've seen on other websites.

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

Can you provide a link to the study you mention please. 

Study from 2016, Analysis from 2020

23 minutes ago, d.tsakiris said:

Here's a list. It reflects well what I've seen on other websites.

Study from 2016, Analysis from 2020

 

That's PEV's! Hybrids compared to BEV's we are referring to. Whether hybrids emit less CO2 that BEV's. 

A body of evidence is required of course, not just one article. 

Edited December 18, 20205 yr by martin-w