Could hybrids be a better answer than battery electrics? Hmmm...

fricatus

Can someone knowledgeable help me make sense of this?

https://www.completecar.ie/car-news/article/9251/Could-hybrids-be-a-better-answer-than-battery-electrics

It seems this organisation, Emissions Analytics, has come to the conclusion that hybrids are better at reducing emissions than BEVs. As far as I can tell, their methodology was to compare hybrid, PHEV, and BEV emissions compared to a reference ICE vehicle standard, and then divide the reduction from each type of vehicle by its battery capacity.

So obviously BEVs fare out much worse, because their batteries are many times bigger (obviously, since there's no petrol tank!) than those on board PHEVs or hybrids, meaning a much bigger denominator when the calculation is done.

Why this odd methodology? I can see it making sense if the worldwide supply of batteries was eternally fixed and finite, but that's not the case.

Soarer

Well Toyota hybrids are self charging, so obviously they're better!

/sarc

cruizer101

The report was by an "independent" company that do emissions analysis.
They are dependent on testing the emissions from cars.
If cars go fully electric they are out of work so it is in their interest for cars to continue to emit gases that they can test.
So it makes sense for them to push hybrids over pure electrics.

_ned_

Nikki GB did a report on this. Looks like very poor science. Though it may make sense for all those Tesla-killer auto-makers who can't make enough proper BEV batteries!

https://transportevolved.com/2019/07/04/study-suggests-hybrids-not-evs-are-the-better-way-to-reduce-emissions-wait-what/

jusmeig

No.

n97 mini

BEVs have the potential to be zero emissions (they are already, at point of use), whereas anything running on dino juice doesn't.

As regards manufacture, alternative battery chemistry is also evolving. Who knows what the future holds, but I'd be confident it's not going to involve mining.

corks finest

Soarer wrote: »

Well Toyota hybrids are self charging, so obviously they're better!

/sarc

As are honda insights

Mickeroo

n97 mini wrote: »

BEVs have the potential to be zero emissions (they are already, at point of use), whereas anything running on dino juice doesn't.

As regards manufacture, alternative battery chemistry is also evolving. Who knows what the future holds, but I'd be confident it's not going to involve mining.

If you can't grow it you have to mine it, or so they say.

Old diesel

n97 mini wrote: »

BEVs have the potential to be zero emissions (they are already, at point of use), whereas anything running on dino juice doesn't.

As regards manufacture, alternative battery chemistry is also evolving. Who knows what the future holds, but I'd be confident it's not going to involve mining.

The working assumption of many EV critics is that whatever EV tech is today - that will be the end game.

A common error imo - and your sort of thinking is more likely to be accurate.

jusmeig

If you want to reduce emissions (long term), then obviously the fuel type rules out using combustion of a non-renewable.
The hint is "non-renewable" -> it burns and runs out and will not last as long as the sun (Which arguable is a non-renewable!!)

Short term -> much more compelling argument, and Hybrids have a part to play as bridging tech IMO. It's a far easier transition for all concerned to go ice -> hybrid -> bev.
It allows big oil/auto to scale down and reinvest (this seems to be what is happening right now).
BP make wind turbines, Saudi wealth is propping up EV startups and renewables.

What I don't like about studies like this is that they are being used by the people who STILL think that ICE/Hybrid will live forever...to object to emissions being introduced.
Sustainable IMO means
Sun -> Solar -> Storage -> Use
Wind -> Storage -> Use
Tidal -> Storage - Use

VS

BURN **** -> USE

Shefwedfan

Potentially they could if they all converted to hybrids like the i3, the only reason the engine is installed is to back up a large battery