Why mandate how emissions are cut, instead of heavily taxing carbon emissions and having the market find the best solution?

In general I agree with you. Simply taxing things with negative externalities enough to cover the true cost would simply and conclusively fix a lot of things we struggle with, faster and without relying on politicians.

I think it's politically very unpopular, but the economic theory behind it is extremely sound.

If you priced everything according to the negative externalities they cause, you would have poor people unable to afford $10/gal milk and probably pay more than the dairy farmer subsidy in healthcare costs related to poor nutrition for this entire class of people. I think nuance is needed, but the danger is that this nuance is where industries see opportunities for regulatory capture. Sometimes I think the American political system is too brittle with too much of a focus on who has the most money in the room to perform needed change. Everything in recent decades seems to be a half measure that comes too little too late.

I think the problem of poor people not being able to afford adequate nutrition has to be tackled separately. You're right that there will be all kinds of unintended effects. You're also right (in my opinion) that the US political system seems incapable of solving those kinds of hard problems anyway.

I really hope liquid democracy can someday become a thing.

The fact that an idea can be both good and unpopular is -- IMO -- the linchpin of almost every other problem we face.

Even worse, some ideas are both good and popular, and politicians still don't get behind them.

Yuup. 80% of democrats (and a majority of Americans) support Medicare for All but the DNC rejected it from their 2020 platform. Sadly, lobbyists are running our party system to a much greater extent than the citizenry.

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer...

> an idea can be both good and unpopular

communism is a good idea, but it's unpopular, for a reason i say.

The reason for the idea of taxing externalities being unpopular isn't really proven yet - after all, it hasn't been instated, but just spoken about, and the silent majority don't have an opinion!

Communism is unpopular because it says people on average are unimportant and the "greater good" is more important. Most people aren't going to glom onto that when they realize that's the real result as easily demonstrated in any number of failed communist countries, even China gave it up and moved to a more totalitarian one party system that allows some free market ideas in. apparently they're even moving to a dictatorship steadily rather than communism.

> communism is a good idea

Is that a troll? See my comment below.

I should note, that I don't think massive political shifts should be tested in production.

So whether communism is a good idea or not remains to be seen. We need to run a solid pilot, get the as many kinks out as possible, and then assess.

Similar with taxing damages to Earth.

> So whether communism is a good idea or not remains to be seen.

You are being too charitable. There is no shortage of data on communism after the last century. The results are so unequivocally bad across the board, you have to be ignorant of history or just ignorant in general to still think it's a good idea. As soon as someone tells me communism is a good thing, I realize I'm taking to someone who is not very intelligent and look for a way out of the conversation.

Edit: You can downvote, but you can't change history. There are levels of being wrong, but thinking communism is a good idea is just an extremely wrong opinion completely contradicted by history in over 40 countries (I counted) over a period of 100 years - with not a single example in favor.

On top of that, the evils perpetuated by communist countries upon their own citizens were not surpassed by any regime of the 20th century, not even the genocidal ones like Rwanda, or Nazi Germany. And yet some clueless class of people, largely located in academic institutions still somehow thinks it's a good idea. They are not only wrong, they are so wrong as to be stupid, and while I don't condone ad-hominen attacks generally, I feel it fits accurately here.

Nazi Germany and Rwanda weren't communist. What are you saying? It would help to have a grounding on what communism is before repeating tired talking points.

>with not a single example in favor.

Soviet Russia went from a couple of potato farmers to a global super power in the span of 30 years under communism before transitioning to totalitarian dictatorship. Likewise there was nothing inherent to communism and more the lack of a strong republic.

> Nazi Germany and Rwanda weren't communist. What are you saying?

I didn't say they were. Go back and read it again.

> Soviet Russia went from a couple of potato farmers to a global super power in the span of 30 years under communism before transitioning to totalitarian dictatorship.

No, it already was a totalitarian government from the start. Also Soviet Russia is an excellent example of the failures of communism, citing it in support is not helping your argument.

I down-voted your comment because of your superiority complex, the terms like communism are too generic and the reality is that most communist countries were "kicked" in the balls by the capitalist.

I seen a comment by a "intelligent dude" like you, in his intelligence he compared North and South Korea, ignored that sanctions for the North and the tons of money US dropped on south and he got the conclusion he wanted.

The truth is that there is not enough good data, I would like to see some examples of countries that were not under sanctions or under a cold war or had some insane dictator leading them.

There is plenty of good data. 40 counties make up around 20 independent failures out of as many attempts at implementing communism.

> I seen a comment by a "intelligent dude" like you, in his intelligence he compared North and South Korea, ignored that sanctions for the North and the tons of money US dropped on south and he got the conclusion he wanted.

Don't even get me started on the story of the two Koreas. Everything you need to build an open and shut case against communism can be found in the recent and well recorded history of those two countries.

You can object to my "superiority complex" but at the end of the day I'm still right and your still wrong. This is not one of those things where reasonable people can have differing opinions.

If you can explain how comparing North and South Korea is fair I would be impressed , previous dudes seemed to have no idea about history or their mind was missing the logic skill, maybe you can do a semi decent attempt.

Btw China is a big economy and many of HNers tell me that their are communists and the party dictates everything etc, so you need some other skillful argument to attribute all the good in China to US and capitalism and of-course blame all the bad on communism.

Also I personally believe that most of us understand by communism is not superior to the systems we see in Western Europe, my objection was to your bad argument that there are good clean data where you can extract clear conclusions.

> previous dudes seemed to have no idea about history or their mind was missing the logic skill

I'm getting less and less sure you're qualified to judge that as we go.

> Btw China is a big economy and many of HNers tell me that their are communists and the party dictates everything etc, so you need some other skillful argument to attribute all the good in China to US and capitalism and of-course blame all the bad on communism.

They're economically very capitalist with stock markets, free enterprise, billionaires etc. Having a totalitarian government has not been all bad for them, which is not an endorsement of such a system. However, communism very clearly failed for China, and the story did not change until they abandoned it - at which point that had a success story every bit as impressive as that of South Korea.

> Also I personally believe that most of us understand by communism is not superior to the systems we see in Western Europe, my objection was to your bad argument that there are good clean data where you can extract clear conclusions.

How much more data do you need to see before you can have a clear conclusion? You've got literally 40 case studies, roughly 20 of them independent "experiments", and 100% failure rate. Seriously, it's case closed already. This is not something reasonable people can disagree on. It's the economic equivalent of trying to argue the Earth is flat.

>You've got literally 40 case studies,

Garbage In Garbage Out

More like sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit with your world view.

Dude, your evidence is flawed

you want to prove that green color is better then red, so you put a rat in a green box, a rat in a red box, then you starve the rat in the red box and give a ton of food to the green rat.

Then like a "genius self claimed scientist" you claim to prove that this is a valid experiment that proves that green is better then red.

Really. Why don't you go through all 40 counties one by one and explain why it's a flawed experiment that proves nothing?

You've made up your mind without looking at the evidence, as you've already demonstrated your ignorance of history, and somehow think that qualifies you to reject all of it - without having even considered it. You've proved my point rather nicely I think.

I done it already for Korea , N Korea suffers from external interventions like sanctions, S Korea received a lot of money from US. So it is not a clean experiment.

Would be more simple if you find the perfect example from those 40 and let's talk that one.

Some of us have had first hand experience with communism, it does not "remain to be seen" for everyone, just those who don't know.

Mostly because it makes the poors even more poor and when you live in a democracy that's a hard feat to overcome because they're going to vote for candidates who promise to make them not more poor.

> heavily taxing carbon emissions and having the market find the best solution?

Public perception may be one reason. If a carbon emissions tax directly leads to big increases in fuel costs, it can cause problems for drivers / vehicle users for whom fuel cost is a significant concern. The 2018 Gilet Jaune protests [0] in France were partly due to public dissatisfaction with fuel price rises. Regulatory instruments (such as fuel efficiency standards) are more opaque and may obfuscate the connection between between political decisions and the inevitable price rises.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests

If societies answer to climate change is "Don't punish/impact poor people who negatively effect the environment" Then we might as well just pack our bags for Mars now.

Over the next 100-200 years, every (poor) 3rd world country is going to continue to get more and more industrialized and impact the environment more and more. Maybe I'm 100% off here but i'd be surprised if we (rich countries) can lower our emissions enough to offset the increases elsewhere in the world. And limiting the increases of "their" impact will directly effect "their" quality of life improvements unless "we" step in and aid them with more complex (expensive?) solutions. Likely at the expense of any domestic improvements that could be done without added cost of that aid.

> If societies answer to climate change is "Don't punish/impact poor people who negatively effect the environment" Then we might as well just pack our bags for Mars now.

Dealing with climate change will include costs and sacrifices that affect individuals and societies. Politicians unwilling to deal with these costs, for ideological and / or electability reasons, will not in my opinion be likely to advocate for the measures necessary to address climate change.

(Also, I'm assuming that when the billionaires go to Mars they won't make the mistake that is common in Stephen Baxter's Scifi novels, where the colonisers always seem to include a subpopulation of disaffected criminals / lowlifes / etc who inevitably mutiny.)

There's an easy solution to that though. You redistribute all the money from a carbon tax back to the people, either equally to everyone, or better, based on income.

We already know that wealthy people generate the most carbon. If that activity was taxed and then the money was given to poorer people who can't afford to transition to clean energy, it would still be a net win, because it will reduce emissions while making sure it doesn't unfairly affect the poor.

That's what they do in Canada. It's awesome but a lot of people hate it because they're being told they should by the usual suspects.

The US would most likely invest the money, either partially or fully into the war machine.

People like to rip on the US war machine, but as far as percent of GDP, the US isn't even the biggest spender. Also, the entire world benefits from the US army, which helps protect global trade routes. For example the US patrols for pirates off the coast of Africa, protecting ships that are taking goods from one country to another in which the US has no involvement in any of it.

>but as far as percent of GDP, the US isn't even the biggest spender

The great thing about statistics is you can maneuver them to support your conclusion. Here's some that support mine: in real numbers, "The United States spends more on national defense than China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia — combined."

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

That's a lot of money to fight pirates.

That sounds nice in theory, but it'll be years until it could pass through actual legislative channels in the US federal government. Neither side wants it, the GOP hates new taxes and loves fossil fuel companies; the Dems hate anything that looks regressive, which a gas tax would at first before the pay-back checks come (if it's a neutral scheme, who's to say how the carbon tax would be used).

Voilà.

This is true in theory, but in practice I think hybrids are the worst of both worlds. I've had two Toyota Priuses and a Honda Civic Hybrid all of which we drove to around 150,000 miles each. One of our Priuses and the Civic Hybrid needed their hybrid batteries replaced during their lifetime. Not only was this a significant cost but I've got to believe that it negates a lot of the environmental benefits of the vehicle. It's not an uncommon problem either, there are plenty of 3rd parties selling refurbished hybrid battery packs, it's a common enough problem that a whole industry has built up around it. In addition both of our Priuses started burning oil at some point over 100,000 miles. This is a notorious problem with the Prius and there are lots of discussions about the problem in online forums. It certainly ruins any illusion I had about clean emissions from the cars over the course of it's life. I never fail to notice the little puff of grey smoke when behind Priuses at stop lights when the engine starts up again, so much for being the clean air poster child.

We have a Tesla Model 3 now with about 50,000 miles on it, we've only seen about a 2-3% decrease in range so far, if even that. The only maintenance so far has been refilling the washer fluid and we've replaced the tires once. I see no reason why it won't easily go to 150,000+ miles. The difference with the hybrids we have had is night and day, it's not even close. Toyota does not have a winning hand to play here and they know it. They bet on the wrong tech and they are tied down by a dealer network that is dependent on maintenance costs to support them.

I think the elephant in the room is always going to be people who can't afford new cars and have to contend with used cars. 25% of cars on the road today are at least 16 years old (1), and the trend is the average car continues to get older. A working class person might buy a car for $2000, then junk it once it has some catastrophic repair bill they can't afford, and buy another $2000 car afterwards that might be slightly newer and cheaper than the repair on the first one. What will a $2000 used EV look like? Will it have a decent range? Will it need an expensive battery replacement? Will it even be competitive with a $2000 gasoline car? These are all open questions, but I think they will have to be answered sooner than later if we are to realistically imagine a future without gas cars. It's just not going to come by everyone in America buying or leasing one new from a dealership, even with the government subsidies in place it only knocks EV prices down to brand new entry level gasoline car price, nowhere close to used car prices.

1. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/25percent-of-cars-in-us-are-...

On the flip side, going all EV puts 2.5x more pressure on the supply chain to remove battery production and capacity as a constraint, which might be optimal long term.

The 2nd Gen Chevy Volt was the Model 3 we deserved, but couldn't appreciate.

40-50 miles EV range meant that most people would have an EV most of the time, and use gas only on one off trips.

And while people 10 years behind on ICE advancements would immediately start yelling about dragging around a dead weight ICE all day, modern ICEs are incredibly light, efficient, and reliable in the type of application the Volt had them in, where they only need to run run at their optimal power band.

It didn't even look bad, and it had the same sensor suite AP1 did (of course GM used Mobileye's sensors as designed, so you weren't tempted to take your hands off to play mobile games, and they didn't end up in the back of firetrucks)

Volt was a great car and 5 years ago it was a great solution. Now that long distance road trip charging is good enough I think the value of a PHEV is greatly diminished. They are an especially poor solution to the largest charging hurdle still remaining of apartment and street parkers since PHEVs must be plugged in nightly for carbon reduction ROI.

The issue isn't so much weight as volume and packaging. Having 2 powertrains really eats a lot of interior space. Pure BEVs can have some impressive packaging with a truly impressive amount of leg room and spaces to shove tons of stuff. My parents love their Volt, but there is no denying it's a very tight squeeze and even with the hatch there is not a lot of space in there not taken up by batteries and engine.

I also agree with this. I bought a Volt in 2011 because it was the best solution for 2011. In 2021, that gas generator that I hardly ever use unless the car tells me I have to because the fuel is getting stale feels like a huge weight and maintenance liability to carry around. The Volt seems a lot less like a great solution for 2021, especially as I've watched the rise in better cross-country charging networks and my friends are starting to buy Teslas after years of me as the early adopter telling them EVs were the present, not just the future. I'm convinced that my next car will be a full BEV and don't see any reason to look at any "hybrid" in today's present. (I'm just not yet sure which one yet, my Volt is doing great as the car I already have, and with the number of models expected to be announced in 2023-2025 am in something of an "I can afford to wait and see what happens next" mood.)

That's actually not true, you significantly underestimate the weight and space requirements of batteries necessary for long range EVs. There was just a comparison by heise.de of the Mercedes Eqa and GlA [1] and in comparison of space they write that the more EV the less space, i.e. ICE>PHEV>EV

> they write that the more EV the less space

That's because the EQA is built on the same platform that GLA uses, which was designed for ICE vehicles.[1] The newer crop of electric vehicles that are built on dedicated platforms designed for EVs end up providing much more space than ICEs, mostly due to the ability to have the battery in a flat skateboard layout that is not possible with an ICE platform.[2]

PHEVs end up making the same compromises by shoving a larger battery into an ICE platform, which is why, for instance, the RAV4 Prime ends up having less cargo space than the regular RAV4 hybrid.

[1] https://insideevs.com/news/467187/mercedes-benz-eqa-repeats-...

[2] https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36877554/electric-veh...

There's no particular reason why PHEVs have to be worse than ICE for cargo space. The new Ford Maverick is designed as a hybrid first, for example. I know they don't have a PHEV version yet, but it's expected to come as one in a future model year.

There isn't a PHEV version of Maverick yet, but I'm sure there will be since the platform is shared with Ford Escape which has a PHEV. Notably, the PHEV Escape loses storage space compared to its hybrid and pure combustion siblings. PHEVs need batteries an order of magnitude bigger in size and capacity compared to regular hybrids and they need to go somewhere.

Using skateboard batteries for PHEV would help mitigate the packaging issues for PHEVs, but then you're still stuck hauling around a combustion engine and all the design compromises that entails like long, tall hoods filled with components.

Skateboard batteries mean deep, expensive changes to platforms, the kind automakers only do every decode or so. With the cost of batteries plummeting and emissions rules like EU7 coming, most companies have chosen to focus their development dollars on pure EVs and cheaply retrofit their PHEVs on to existing ICE platforms.

The mechanics are related with the Escape, but AFAIK, it's an entirely different body. The claim I've seen is that the regular hybrid version doesn't take up all of the battery space available, and that area is designated for the PHEV version when available.

The platform that the RAV4 uses (TNGA-K) was also designed with hybrid in mind, yet the compromises still had to be made for the larger battery that the PHEV version requires. The larger battery has to go somewhere, so I suspect the situation for the Ford Maverick won't be so different if they do come out with a PHEV version.

For extreme range the extra weight starts to cost efficiency and you get diminishing returns, but I think my model 3 sr+ is close to the optimal balance. 50 kWh battery gets me 400 km range and weighs right in line with other compact and midsized sedans at 1600 kg. Charging speed is fast enough that long road trips are not a big deal. There isn't a single ICE car in the same footprint with that much storage space or forward visibility.

Tesla happens to be one of the most efficient EV drivetrains out there, but the hyundai/kia twins are right there with them, so it isn't out of reach.

EQA isn't a dedicated EV platform, so of course packaging isn't optimized to take advantage of the space savings available in a BEV.

>There isn't a single ICE car in the same footprint with that much storage space or forward visibility.

That is demonstrably false. The size of the Tesla is the about same as a Volvo V60. The V60 has >500 l of storage volume compared to the 385l of the Tesla. Similarly the Seat Octavia has also more than 500l storage volume (even in the sedan version). So yes there are plenty of ICE cars of that size which have the same storage space, in fact most ICEs of that size have more storage space.

Also the model 3 according to the ADAC [1] in the standard version has an efficiency of 19.5 kWh/100km and around 300 km range, in comparison the Hyundai Ioniq has 14.7 kWh/100km so the Tesla is not even close. The VW ID3 has 19.3 kWh/100km so very similar to the Tesla, it is quite a bit smaller and it's storage is also smaller at 315l (however much easier to get to). So it does not seem like the Model 3 is one of the most efficient.

> The size of the Tesla is the about same as a Volvo V60

Of course a model 3 doesn't have as much space inside as an estate/wagon. It makes more sense to compare a model y there. I could only find rear seats folded where it's 1920 L for model y and 1440 L for v60 (That might include the Y's frunk as well; the sources are not clear).

The 3/Y also crush the volvo for aerodynamics at 0.29 vs 0.23

In real world driving at 110-120 km/hr I get well under 150 kWh/100 km in my SR+. I wasn't able to find the ADAC testing, but they either did it at 130 km/hr+ or it was quite cold out.

Yeah people go based on their guts drawing conclusions with this stuff, but the Volt has a 1.5L engine.

Imagine a 2L coke bottle. It's contents would overflow if you could pour it into the engine.

The Voltec system wasn't anywhere near larger than an equivalently practical BEV drivetrain.

Just like BEVs are coming out without frunks, the Volt simply didn't prioritize interior space at the time.

It was still a plenty practical vehicle, and if it had sold well it was going to get the CUV treatment

1.5L engines are still pretty sizeable once you take into account the head, valve cover, oilpan. Then all the external parts needed to support combustion like water pump, radiator, coils and their wires and engine mounts. The total volume is a lot more than the 1.5L cylinders. Add in the fact Volt can directly power the wheels with the engine and now you are forced to put certain components in very specific, highly valuable places.

BMW managed to hide their rex engine really well in i3 since it isn't connected to the wheels. That comes with it's own downsides as well, since you can slowly lose battery charge with the engine running while climbing steep hills in a rex i3.

Don't get me wrong, I think volt is one of the best cars ever made and at the time it came out it was the most cost effective way to cut your transportation carbon footprint while retaining a private car.

PHEVs are the best and worst of both worlds at the same time. The worst now outweighs (in this case literally as well as figuratively) the best. The downsides of pure EV are now at a point where they only truly impact edge case needs (apart from cost that needs to come way down, but PHEVs are very expensive too).

> 1.5L engines are still pretty sizeable once you take into account the head, valve cover, oilpan. Then all the external parts needed to support combustion like water pump, radiator, coils and their wires and engine mounts. The total volume is a lot more than the 1.5L cylinders. Add in the fact Volt can directly power the wheels with the engine and now you are forced to put certain components in very specific, highly valuable places.

This entire paragraph is like saying an electric motor needs batteries and those batteries need cooling systems and those cooling systems need pumps and those pumps need power and...

No one claimed the entire drivetrain is 1.5L, but 1.5L gives you an idea of how relatively small the engine is. All the components you listed scale down in turn. Smaller engine running at a better point in its power band needs less cooling, less oil capacity, fewer oil changes, etc.

> The worst now outweighs (in this case literally as well as figuratively) the best.

I don't believe in this view point if we're being realistic about a low emission future.

We have an extensive gas infrastructure just sitting there today, meanwhile we have grids that can barely handle our current demands.

PHEVs are a chance for innovative solutions to that. Imagine power companies being able to direct people to use gas during (what will be increasingly frequent) extreme weather events then switch back.

And consider that PHEVs don't need to be Voltec-style all-in drivetrains. Conventional car designs can be converted to PHEVs like the old 3 series ActiveHybrid was.

And while people immediately recoil at the less than optimal results of not designing from the ground up around batteries and EV requirements, there's no changing the fact that designing new cars is expensive.

Affordable PHEVs based on current designs could open up EVs to more segments of the market than currently possible.

> All the components you listed scale down in turn

But don't go away altogether, which is my point. There is a space cost to be paid in any PHEV that is significant, both in absolute volume terms as well as prime placement. The engine occupies extremely valuable real estate. In a pure EV that's space you can move the cab forward for more legroom or cargo space (or just make the car's overall footprint smaller).

> Affordable PHEVs based on current designs

What affordable PHEVs are there? They still command a price premium over the ICE version. Here in Canada Kia Niro hybrid is $27K, PHEV is 34.5K and BEV is $45K.

PHEVs also vary wildly in carbon reduction based on owner action. If the owner plugs in each day consistently they are great. Unfortunately, in the EU PHEVs have turned into tax shelters and studies have shown most drivers never plug them in, resulting in more emissions than if they had just bought the regular hybrid.

5 years ago PHEVs were a great solution while batteries were very expensive, but their window of value is rapidly closing and will be gone once batteries hit $100/kWh in likely mid 2023. I certainly wouldn't spend money on a new one now knowing that inflection point is coming so soon. Used Gen2 Volt is one of the great deals to be had in cars at the moment, but new PHEVs just don't make sense to me.

There's no point continuing this if you insist on displaying such a deep misunderstanding of PHEVs.

You literally still can't get past the fundamental point half of what you listed as needed for an ICE is already needed for a BEV. Even the Model 3 has an oil pump and filter!

The packaging challenges faced are not somehow forcing you to stick the engine in some magical super important place where batteries would never have to be either, like I have no idea why you're acting like a frunk is some sacred place you're robbed of if there's an engine there when several BEVs have come out without them.

Like do you not realize a Model S has a radiator? Or that there are ICE cars with engines everywhere from the front to the back of the car?

-

And theres are no cheap EVs besides econoboxes priced above their bracket. Phev or not.

That's why as far as I'm concerned we're not on a realistic path to reducing our emissions.

Everyone is throwing out deadlines for ICE production and patting themselves on the back until those deadlines approach and are kicked down the line.

An entire classes of EVs hasn't appered yet, and for now we can blame the cost of batteries or something, but eventually we'll run out of excuses.

The true reason is because companies that have been incrementally updating the same platforms for a decade won't go and redesign their cars as EVs and keep them affordable. That's why the Model 3, which really is the EV equivalent of a Camry, costs 10-15k extra.

Meanwhile the Rav 4 Prime is equipped similarly to a Rav 4 Limited but only costs 3k more (also comes with 100 more HP...)

PHEVs are poised to fill the gap when reality comes home to roost. When our power grids are failing to cope with basic cooling, no one is going to force people to look at other options.

> displaying such a deep misunderstanding of PHEVs.

Don't misunderstand them at all, and I have volt in my top 5 best cars of the last 20 years for regular people. I just think the time of the PHEV has come and gone. Used they are still interesting buys, but I wouldn't spend any money on a new combustion engine anymore.

> I have no idea why you're acting like a frunk is some sacred place you're robbed of if there's an engine there when several BEVs have come out without them.

Never said engine space needed to be used for a frunk (though that has been a common choice). MEB is a notable BEV platform with no frunk, but they used that space to move the cab forward significantly, adding valuable passenger and luggage space. MEB cars have pretty insane rear seat room for their overall size class and it's becuase the whole passenger shell moved forward by approx. one transverse engine. Frunks are not necessary, but what's valuable is re-claiming prime space that has always been eaten by engines. Having an engine connected to the wheels forces your hand on a whole bunch of decisions about front wheel and steering rack placement, length of the front control arms, height of the hood, etc. The list is very long.

> Like do you not realize a Model S has a radiator?

And it's 1/3 to 1/4 the size of an ICE radiator of similar kW power output.

>Or that there are ICE cars with engines everywhere from the front to the back of the car?

Mid-engine cars are great to drive, but come with extreme space sacrifices in the pursuit of weight distribution and handling (not to mention typically horrible access for maintenance). Rear engine cars like beetle and 911 are truly interesting for packaging, but have a number of downsides of their own. It took porsche 30 years and tons of developments in tire technology to kill the lift-off oversteer in the 911.

> PHEVs are poised to fill the gap when reality comes home to roost

When studies showed the majority of PHEV owners in the EU didn't ever plug them in I soured significantly on PHEVs as a concept. Turns out people having to actively choose daily to reduce emissions doesn't result in the best results. Perhaps if there was punishing enough carbon taxes, but as it stands PHEVs in the rear world have fallen far short of the ideal.

> Like do you not realize a Model S has a radiator? > And it's 1/3 to 1/4 the size of an ICE radiator of similar kW power output.

Oh so now you get having a smaller sized component matters?

Also, no. It's not "1/4th" the size of a similar power output. The 60D radiator is larger than the one on a 480HP Charger...

-

And all the talk of handling dynamics... Porsche was sticking 500HP to the rear wheels only of 2,500lbs cars with 0 weight in any other part of the car in the days before traction control and modern rubber.

It's hilarious to act like grocery getters, or even luxury sports sedans face those problems.

> When studies showed the majority of PHEV owners in the EU didn't ever plug them in I soured significantly on PHEVs as a concept. Turns out people having to actively choose daily to reduce emissions doesn't result in the best results.

Wait, you mean to tell me that when we don't have widespread charging infrastructure, but we heavily subsidize PHEVs until they're cheaper than comparable gas-only cars... people buy them for the rebates instead of the EV benefits????

People who didn't even have wall outlets to slow charge their cars were buying PHEVs because you could get a 3 series for 10k under sticker for a comparable ICE-only model, there's 0 surprise that they'd be using gas.

Where you can actually examine real world effects of them is when we've reached the point where people can actually charge them, and gas prices continue to rise. And even compared to 5 years ago both are happening.

You don't need a carbon tax to punish people for charging EVs, you just need to make charging make sense.

The bonus here is that solving the problems that made PHEVs end up running on gas solves problems for EVs in general.

Before you reach the point where BEVs have widespread appeal you solve the issues PHEVs face 10 times over.

The RAV4 Prime solves the interior issue by being a CUV and also putting the battery pack below the vehicle.

There is a price to be paid in space for the prime still. Rav4 ICE and hybrid have 37.5 cu ft / 1060 L behind the rear seats. Prime has 33.5 cu ft / 950 L.

If you look at actual data you will see that people simply don't charge these cars as often and end up driving lots of miles with inefficient gas engines.

Your analysis basically assumes that people perfectly optimize their consumption, but actual usage data shows that they don't.

Also these cars driving experience simply can't compare to actual EV. Because of the high cost you simple and up with a cheap EV motor and a cheap gas motor.

There is a reason why GM didn't want to sell a million of them.

The Nissan e-power series is better - the gas engine only powers the electric motor which gives you a full-EV experience when driving.

Hybrids need to start distancing themselves from the Prius and promote the insane 0-60 times that EVs are capable of now.

That is what the Voltec drive train does. The gas engine only directly powers the wheels in some narrow range of conditions, and I challenge you to tell when. It feels 99% like a BEV driving experience.

How is that better?

The Volt was able to use the ICE to improve peak output directly, with fewer drivetrain losses.

e-power is a cost saving measure, not an advancement

A problem with most approaches to having the ICE drive the wheels to is that you don't run the ICE at it's most efficient setting. You gain in the drivetrain, but lose in the actual combustion. Whether you lose more in one than you gain in the other is an issue.

Except Voltec was also able to run the ICE at its most efficient setting by switching to Serial hybrid mode, where it was acting like the e-Power mode.

Voltec was using clutches to let you run like either the e-Power example or the Prius example on the fly, or even somewhere in between with the 2nd generation depending on power demands: https://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/02/secrets-of-the-2016-che...

CS3 is what you're describing when talking about the most efficient ICE operation

The latest ICCT report shows that in the european market fossil car are around 250gCO2eq/km in life cycle analysis, hybrid at 180 and EV at 80, so I don't agree at all that more hydrid are better than less EV, and even it seems quite a wrong reasoning, more EV will bring more money to lithium mining just look at Rio Tinto entering the lithium carbonate market with a 2.4B$ investing.

https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-cars-j...

So, assuming the same total number of vehicles is sold and used, then the mix of p% full EVs + (100 - p)% ICE vehicles can be better than the entirely hybrid fleet when

80 p + 250 (1 - p) < 180

170 p > 70

p > 7/17 ≈ 41%

So 1 EV and 1.5 ICE are roughly equal to 2.5 hybrids. And anything more is an improvement.