That's not what they're advocating for, they're saying a plugin hybrid with a 75 mile electric range, that uses a fossil fuel engine for more range.

The general idea is, suppose you want a vehicle with a 400 mile range. Once you have that 75 miles of range (battery pack of around 10-20 kWh), is it then better to add on another 40-100 kWh of battery as a "range extender", or to add a combustion engine and fuel tank as the "range extender" to get you to the 400 mile range?

And if you took that reasoning one step further, and replace the ICE with something zero emissions, such as a hydrogen fuel cell or even something running on e-fuels, it is basically a zero emissions car.

In other words we've completely made transportation green, and without ever having to use humongous batteries. This an obvious conclusion that anyone can make, but unfortunately too many people have been caught up in the "mission" to not realize the existence of intelligent compromises.

I just bought a new car and chose a hybrid with a 1.3 kWh battery in it. According to FuelEconomy.gov:

- Corolla Regular LE: 316 g-CO2/mi (35 MPG) - Corolla Hybrid LE: 210 g-CO2/mi (50 MPG) - Tesla Model 3 RWD: 110 g-CO2/mi (134 MPGe w/ avg. US electrical mix)

So as I see it: - First 1.3 kWh: 33% reduction - Next 58.7 kWh: 32% additional (total 65% reduction from original 316 g-CO2/mi)

So why haven't we made every vehicle a hybrid first before pushing full EVs? Why aren't there incentives for regular hybrid vehicles. Seems like a terrible waste of resources when everything is so supply constrained.

Supposedly hybrids can't be as efficient overall. They're carrying around double the infrastructure. Still, hoping to get one myself before going all electric.

I mean, yeah my comment shows that

an EV + home solar = 0g CO2. You can never do that with a hybrid.

Plus that CO2 generation with an EV happens at a power plant and can be contained much easier (or sidelined when enough wind/solar replaces it). Hybrids also still emit other toxic things like NO2, and require maintenance.

Finally, an EV is simply a better product than any ICE (hybrids included). They are faster, quieter, less stinky and require no trips to the gas station or mechanic. I simply can't go back.

Solar is not 0g CO2e. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489... says it's 14-73g CO2e. Home solar systems are probably less efficient so it could be even more. Do you have a battery to store the solar as well? You should account for the CO2 from its manufacture and losses from charge/discharge, too. This paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8654984/ says that solar+battery produces higher emissions than solar+power from grid

> no one would buy a 75 mile range electric vehicle

My friends bought exactly that - an old leaf with an aging battery that would get max 100km to a charge (60mi). That was more than enough for their daily commute, trips to the local ski resort, kids to school etc. They drove it for 5 years, it's range is now about 50km to a charge, and they just sold it to his sister who drives it to work everyday in Vancouver.

They said it was easily the best car they've ever owned, and they have a Model 3 now, Rivian on order.

When I was commuting daily, the leaf range would last me a full week. The leaf just kind of invites you to slow down and take it easy.

They must be fast charging it or taking it on highways for the range estimate to decay like that. My 2012 leaf still gives me 115km range.

And likewise, I strangely still prefer to drive it for in-town trips over my 2021 model Y. Not worrying about accidents or vandals probably a big part of it, but also it's just chill to drive.