Thanks to subsidies and fear of running out of gas, sales of hybrids are picking up. GM, Toyota, and Jeep are adding models. 
The Plug-In Hybrid Car Starts to Win Over Buyers
The Wall Street Journal reports The Plug-In Hybrid Car Starts to Win Over Buyers
As automakers slow-walk plans to roll out more fully electric vehicles in response to lighter-than-expected consumer interest, more are embracing plug-in hybrids, which run on battery power for about 20 to 40 miles before reverting to a gas engine.
The technology has been on the market for more than a decade, but sales hadn’t taken off until recently. Some automakers shied away from offering them because of the added cost and engineering complexity—they essentially require two ways to power the car, packed under one hood. The relatively small number of models available also were pricier than gas-powered cars, limiting their appeal.
Now, car companies are finding more reasons to offer plug-in hybrids, which provide another path beyond full EVs to meet tougher U.S. tailpipe-pollution rules.
Ford Motor said this past week that it canceled plans for a fully electric large SUV and instead will offer hybrid versions, potentially including plug-ins.
A few years ago, plug-in hybrids seemed destined to fade as the industry rushed to develop full EVs. Now some automakers are giving them another look, partly because EV demand has been lighter-than-expected.
For example, General Motors GM was one of the first companies to offer a plug-in hybrid with its 2010 launch of the Chevrolet Volt. The Detroit automaker phased out the Volt in 2019, declaring its future in EVs. Now GM plans to bring back plug-in hybrids, starting in 2027.
Plug-in hybrid sales in the U.S. jumped 59% in the first quarter of this year from a year earlier, and their share of the overall market—while still small—has roughly doubled since 2022, to 2.4%, according to research from Cox Automotive.
The Jeep Wrangler and Grand Cherokee alone accounted for about one-third of U.S. plug-in hybrid sales during the first half of 2024, according to data from research firm Motor Intelligence.
Yet, there is “limited natural demand” among Jeep customers for electric range in their rugged SUVs, said John Morrill, who owns Planet Chrysler Jeep Dodge in Franklin, Mass. Sales of the plug-in Jeeps are supported by “very aggressive” manufacturer discounts of up to $12,000 a vehicle, plus a $7,500 federal tax credit if the vehicles are leased, he said.
“A lot of people come in and say, ‘I don’t want a hybrid,’ ” Morrill said. But after the salesperson explains it is $70 cheaper a month than the gas version, “they say, ‘I’ll take the hybrid.’ ”
Mainly because of the EPA rules, Toyota will expand its plug-in hybrid lineup from the RAV4 and Prius, while making plug-ins more widely available, said David Christ, group vice president at Toyota Motor North America.
German auto giant Volkswagen VOW3 is strongly considering plug-in hybrids for its U.S. lineup, said Lyndon Lie, executive vice president of Volkswagen Group of America. For now, it is a better business than EVs, he said.
“You can make money on a [plug-in hybrid] or at least break even…and give the customer something that they are more comfortable with,” he said.
Leasing Loophole
CNBC reports ‘Loophole’ may get you a $7,500 tax credit for leasing an EV, auto analysts say
This EV tax credit “leasing loophole” has likely been a key driver of increased leasing uptake in 2024, Barclays auto analysts said in an equity research note published in June.
About 35% of new EVs were leased in the first quarter of 2024, up from 12% in 2023, according to Experian.
“Want a good deal on buying a car today? Your best bet may be leasing an EV,” Barclays said.
The new goal now for car manufacturers is to break even on clean vehicles. With hybrids and leasing subsidies at least the dealers have a chance.
Government at its Best and Worst
Worst: Government is at its worst when it mandates something then tells business how to do it.
Best: Government is at its best when it stays of out of things.
Middle: The middle ground is letting businesses determine how to reach government mandates.
Spotlight on the Worst
- August 10: Another Green Energy Company Declares Bankruptcy, Thank Biden’s Tariffs
- April 26: Ford Loses $132,000 on Each EV Produced, Good News, EV Sales Down 20 Percent
- August 24: New York to Pay $155 Per Megawatt Hour for Wind, Current Rate is $36 Per MWH
A number of solar installers have gone bankrupt because they still cannot make a profit with subsidies. The Biden administration insists on US-made parts despite the fact they are so expensive that nobody wants them.
Ford is losing a mere $132,000 thanks to Biden mandates.
As a result of insisting on clean energy, then mandating wind on top of it, New Yorkers will pay four times the going rate for energy at a subsidized cost of billions of dollars that will go to foreign corporations.
Aside from Toyota/Lexus, PHEV have the worst reliability. Buyer beware. If you’re leasing then it probably doesn’t matter. Also keep in mind there is the concept of “stale gas” so even if all of your trips are within PHEV’s electric range, it must still run the gas engine sometimes to consume gas and ensure you cycle the tank every few months.
If people were actually interested in Climate changes they would be studying interaction of Oceans and Landmass as powered by Sun along with geologic impact of natural occurring events such as Volcanic contributions. These are the real Forces which affect Climate.
Difficulty with that is the interactions are rather complicated as to outcome prediction.
What is left with is the usual Banter about Mankind is at fault and the world will end cause people are alive.
Gots to get Government involved and they can fix up everything just fine. Putting this foolish thinking away in the loony bin is not feasible in the near term as too much money is involved with selling apocalypse now narrative.
Hybrids have some validity as they can go short distances electric, when the minimum travel distance is exceeded there is a backup plan. That redundancy has strength in the engineering aspect of transport. Make it cost effective and it will prove itself.
New ICE engines are in development with weight and size reductions approaching being 25% of current available ICE engines weight and size.
Also appears they will offer 30% improvement in fuel usage.
Hybrids have validity once the new concept engines prove their worth. Reductions in weight and size of ICE would accommodate increased Battery size, increasing electric range potential.
Within five years time frame is doable. Getting that to mass production scale a few more years.
Lol!
There ARE people who are interested in climate changes. These people have been studying climate for the last few hundred years and the tiny bit that you might understand is thanks to them.
These people are called Scientists. And there are thousands of them who have spent their working lives studying all aspects of climate. There isn’t anything you know about climate that didn’t result from their hard work.
Their accumulated knowledge is often freely available to everyone. Perhaps you should try to learn a bit more of it before you make such assinine statements. All you are demonstrating is how little you currently understand.
Kids, don’t drink bong water.
it’s packed with vitamins and protein. very healthy
… These people have been studying climate for the last few hundred years….
How about same names to go along with these scientists??.Or do you mean weather?
Sure. Here’s a couple of names:
1824: Joseph Fourier: first to calculate that the earth’s average temperature should be -18c based on its distance from the sun; his equations are still used today; he reasoned that since the average temperature was actually +14c that something in the atmosphere was retaining the sun’s warmth: though he was not the scientist to discover what that was
1856: Eunice Foote: first to discover that CO2 retained heat in the atmosphere; what we now call a greenhouse gas
1859: John Tyndall: did extensive experiments to determine which parts of the atmosphere retained heat and which did not; nitrogen and oxygen do not retain heat; CO2, CH4 and H2O do and are classified as greenhouse gasses
1895: Svente Arrhenius: first to calculate the amount of global warming that would be caused by a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere: this was a result of the massive amount of coal that was being burned at the time and the estimates of how much this was increasing atmospheric CO2 levels
All before 1900. Hope that helps.
Are you aware there is a long written historical record going back to middle ages which reveals the cyclical nature of Climate.
That is also reinforced by carbon dating of Trees going back Much further in geologic history.
Then there are the core samples of Ice taken from both northern glaciers and South Poles which also show cyclical nature of Climate.
Possibly you may have looked up at that Orb in the sky. It is known as the Sun. From which comes sunlight which fluctuates in output. Now I do not wish to make things all too complicated for you to understand, but the earth axis is tilted in its orbit, which creates four seasons here on Planet Earth.
Yep, in Winter when Northern Hemisphere has winter the Earth is tilted away from the Orb, hence less energy gets inputted into the Northern Hemisphere.
Again i do not wish to make things complicated for your understanding. In Summer the Earths Axis tilts the Northern hemisphere towards the Orb.
The Northern hemisphere gets exposed to more energy from the Orb hence it gets warmer in Northern hemisphere and we have summer.
This is all quite Scientific and we must follow the Science, must we not.
So thus any discussion that ignores the Orb in the Sky or the Historical record resulting thereof as primary determinant of climate, is Bogus.
I am aware of a lot more than you are. You talk like someone from a fifth grade science class while I have a PHD.
Scientists have been recording the climate history of our planet, going back billions of years. Everything you think you know came from their work.
The fact that you don’t understand it and intentionally misinterpret it is not their fault. It’s yours.
You seem to want to discuss Milankovitch cycles and their role in climate change. Take your pick. Eccentricity, Obliquity, or Precession. Or all 3.
Go ahead and explain to me how the warming of the last 200 years is the result of those cycles. It should be fun
.
Lets “follow the science”. I will enjoy the debate.
Yes absolutely, you are genius. Disregard the impact of the Orb in the sky, disregard all the Geologic evidence of reoccurring shorter cycles of warming and cooling which run about 215 to 220 years and all is well with your analysis. Who needs evidence of past Glaciations.
Yep I stand corrected viva La Climate change.
You don’t inspire much confidence.
You try hard to “sound” knowledgeable, but you are clearly out of your depth here.
You wouldn’t explain how Milankovitch cycles are causing the warming, which you said was happening. Then you switched to “geologic” evidence because you got caught in your lack of knowledge.
You also said “Who needs evidence of past glaciations”.
Are you going to ignore them because you can’t explain them, or because they don’t fit your narrative?
You are the one disregarding the evidence.
For example, you keep mentioning the sun. But you clearly don’t know much the sun’s energy has changed over time. If you did, you wouldn’t be talking the way you do. How much energy does the earth receive from the sun and how has this changed over the last 10 million years, 1 million years, 100,000 years, and 10,000 years?
Show me you actually know something.
And please explain the “geologic” evidence which demonstrates your “short cycle” warming and cooling. Go ahead. Show me some science. Show me you understand “something”!
Though I will keep my expectations low.
You are flailing around like a fish out of water because you have no idea how to prove a single thing you say.
I am simply not mentally Bankrupt enough to exclude the Solar energy of the Sun from the equation used to determine Warming of the Planet. That the Suns energy output is not constant state but Varies over time, which the Historical and Geologic record supports fully.
That given the Geologic record currently the Earth is in an inter-glacial period that is long in time when compared to prior episodes.
That Volcanic action pours much greater Volumes of particulates and Gases into the Atmosphere to Dwarf anything produced by Humanity.
Also I accept that Planet Earth revolves around the Sun not the other way around. As a Planet it is the direct consequence of Solar energy exposure which produces Climate.
I will state for the record that Oceans and Landmasses absorb Solar energy and that is what controls heat distribution or lack thereof (as during Glaciation periods) which is where Climate originates.
Again. No proof of the sun’s output. Just empty words and talking points from cult websites that spread misinformation.
Here’s a link that may help you with the sun’s recent output and global warming.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
Now you have added misinformation about volcanoes. Your cult websites will tell you garbage like this; “a single volcanic eruption spews more CO2 than man does in 10 years.”
Want to know the truth? Mankind’s annual CO2 emissions are sixty times (60x) that of ALL volcanic eruptions every year.
Here is one of dozens of links that will tell you this.
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
The fact is you are clueless about the science. The truth is out there. You just don’t want to see it because it doesn’t fit your cult narrative.
“while I have a PHD”
This one has been educated into imbecility.
very true. i spent my 20s doing just that. using remote sensing and geomorphology and GIS and computer cartography and interplanetary climate studies…………my internship/job at NASA and other universities and agencies was a fantastic use of my time on this planet………all these marketing and economics and business people only really know soft science dribble and think they have a clue……….
Very nice. Good to have another person here who understands some science. There are only a few who post here.
The obvious solution to global climate change is limiting liberals to one child per couple. The problem will be solved in a generation.
Nope. Reducing population only slows the problem. It doesn’t solve it.
China tried the one-child policy and now they are f*cked demographically. So it’s probably a bad idea. Though you can personally follow your own advice if you want.
Why stop at one. Since the World is going to end according to Saint Gore and Prophet Greta, these people should spare any children from such a fate. The answer for them is not to procreate at all.
Solves the problem for the rest of humanity who is leaving a future for their own offspring.
PHEVs are also often the highest performing vehicles. If you want one thousand horsepower and 70mph in a full size luxury SUV, you can move to China and buy a Yangwang U8.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangwang_U8
If you are stuck in the land of “free’ markets, your best bet is a Ramcharger. They’re carefully designed to be just a little slower than the TRX – because they can’t let their PHEV be too good or regulators will tell them to build even more. But still good enough to beat everything else.
Where I live EVs are everywhere now. EV sales outstrip Hybrids by a nice amount this year. Full EV sales are over 20% more than in 2023 and there doesn’t seem to be the same slowdown as we see in the US. Of course the market is more amenable since commuter distances are smaller and for long trips people take the train. Generally Europe is more fertile terrain for EV adoption than the US.
Two reasons
1) Gas prices
2) Urban density
The first may one day be equal between Europe and the US but the latter will never be. EV’s make way more sense for Europe and China than the US.
That said, even in Florida there are a fair amount of Teslas on the road. 5 years ago it was rare to see one during a whole weeks worth of driving. Now its rare not to see at least a couple on my 10 minute commute to work and then a couple more on my way home.
There’s one hidden advantage of EV’s at least here in Florida. The chargers are all located close to the front doors so in effect an EV is he equivalent of a handicap sticker if you want to park close.
Also people don’t go around towing boats or trailers here. It happens but is very rare although where I live we have lots of stables so we see cars pulling horse trailers. Those cars are of the diesel variety.
phoenix and parts of ca are packed with the cyber trucks.
EVs and PHEVs make sense for some folks. Buy one if it makes sense for you.
Best: Government is at its best when it stays of out of things.
—
Actually most of what’s in a modern vehicle came about because of government regulations. Seatbelts, pushing for improved mpg, airbags and other features came b/c of various tests government ran to regulate the car industry.
Oh by the way, the internet you are using originally came from a government research project at DARPA.
As long as the trend continues downward in the long run of using ICE cars. Climate targets may be missed but then we are headed in the right direction.
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/chart-electric-vehicle-growth-is-slowly-eating-into-global-oil-demand?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8fN4SC_M3scCshU1LlOqzP8aXc_D1xih5mHtFC6l-31Ez-OWu74bsZajSapsIYiELdPFALE_HoNzcjEUjINHGzyPt5Pw&_hsmi=312563730
Stricter emissions regulations on gas cars will bring oil demand down further. The European Union’s strengthened standards require emissions for new cars to be 50 percent lower in 2030 than they were in 2021. In the U.S., strengthened efficiency rules for cars are projected to halve emissions from light-duty vehicles within the next decade, due to higher uptake of both EVs and hybrid vehicles.
Though growth in oil demand may soon disappear, that doesn’t mean oil use will drop off. According to the IEA’s estimates, the world will still be using too much oil to be on track for climate targets by 2030 — even though EVs are expected to displace millions of barrels of oil per day by then.
To reach the Paris Agreement net-zero emissions goals, oil and gas use will need to decline by more than 75 percent by 2050. In other words, oil demand will need to not only plateau but fall significantly.
“To reach the Paris Agreement net-zero emissions goals, oil and gas use will need to decline by more than 75 percent”
ZERO Percent Chance
Well, zero percent chance of that happening voluntarily
I haven’t found anything saying 75%. Plus this does not have a time by. I have found 2 articles that say 50% by 2030. The one below is quite informative. Hitting 3.0*C is one rough road for our society to live in.
https://www.vox.com/climate/24139383/climate-change-peak-greenhouse-gas-emissions-action
Then there’s the clock. In order to meet the Paris climate agreement target of limiting warming this century to less than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) on average above pre-industrial temperatures, the world must slash carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. That means power generators, trucks, aircraft, farms, construction sites, home appliances, and manufacturing plants all over the world will have to rapidly clean up.
The current round of international climate commitments puts the planet on track to warm by 5.4°F (3°C) by the end of the century. That’s a world in which the likelihood of a major heat wave in a given year would more than double compared to 2.7°F of warming, where extreme rainfall events would almost double, and more than one in 10 people would face threats from sea level rise.
“That puts us in this race between the really limited time left to bend the emissions curve and start that project towards zero, but we are also seeing this sort of huge growth, an acceleration in clean technology deployment,” Grant said. “And so we wanted to see which of these factors is winning the race at the moment and where we are at.”
men said the same about whale oil, wood burning, then coal burning in cities and towns…………too. one thing for sure is i don’t know. you don’t know. only thing i don’t know is if you know you don’t know. regardless of what you type.
Nope. We still burn a lot of wood and coal. Coal is still the second most used energy source, after oil. We would probably still be using whale oil if not for a 1986 moratorium. When it comes to energy, we will burn dung if we have to; and many places still do.
So much to discuss here. I could spend hours replying. But I will start with just your first statement.
“ As long as the trend continues downward in the long run of using ICE cars. Climate targets may be missed but then we are headed in the right direction.”
Partly true. But sadly insignificant. Transportation accounts for just 21% of all emissions. Road transport, just 15% of all emissions. Even if you could snap your fingers and replace every ICE vehicle today (1.5 billion of them) with an EV, at best you eliminate 15% of all emissions.
Now. Let’s look at how feasible that is.
In 2000, there were 670 million vehicles on the roads worldwide. That grew to 1 billion in 2010 and 1.5 billion in 2023. And yes, its still growing.
The world produces around 90 million new vehicles each year and retires around 30 million. So we are adding around 60 million vehicles to the total every year.
In 2023, roughly 1 in 7 vehicles sold were EV/PHEV or 14 million. The other 76 million were ICE.
Even if every one of the 30 million vehicles retired were ICE, that still means we added a net 46 million ICE vehicles to the total in 2023 vs 14 million EV/PHEV.
So yes, ICE vehicles as a percentage of ALL vehicles is declining, but the total number of ICE vehicles is still going up each year on a global basis. So emissions are still going up.
Yes, EV sales grew rapidly over the last decade. That growth is now levelling off because we do not have the infrastructure to allow it to continue. A switch from EV to PHEV will help overcome the infrastructure problem. But it will be many years (perhaps 15-20 years) before we can get EV/PHEV sales from around 15% today to over 50% of all vehicle sales. So by 2040, we should finally be able to start reducing the total number of ICE vehicles from the 2 billion total it will be by then.
So by 2040, we can begin to slowly reduce the 15% of emissions that comes from road transportation.
This is globally, of course. Here in the US we should be able to do better than that. We might be able to begin to reduce the total number of ICE vehicles on our roads by 2030 if we can ramp up PHEV sales very rapidly. (Yes, PHEV still has an ICE component, but it is used infrequently.)
And, I am not trying to imply that we should not attempt to reduce our emissions from road transport. Every single EV and PHEV will help reduce emissions a tiny bit. But it is important to understand the enormity of the situation, and how long this is going to take.
In the meantime, global emissions will continue to increase, global warming will continue to worsen, and the economic impact will become more costly each and every year. Perhaps that is a new theme that Mish can start to focus on; how global warming will reduce economic growth going forward.
That is the reality we all face. No point sticking your head in the sand and wishing the problem will disappear. It won’t.
Will buying an EV or PHEV help? Sure. Will it make a significant difference? Nope. So buy one if it makes sense for you. And if you want to be part (like 0.0000000000000000000000000001%) of the solution over the next few decades.
And to all the global warming deniers out there; time to wake up and smell the coffee. Global warming is very real, and we are the cause. And it’s going to cost us all a lot economically. However, there is very little you or I can do to stop it. So don’t worry too much about it. In fact, you can look for ways to take advantage of it. Lots of business opportunities come from figuring out how to mitigate the problems arising from global warming.
“And to all the global warming deniers out there…”
Global warming and global cooling occur. Climate is not static. Climate is always a problem. Few people live in Alaska because of climate issues. Most of the population of Canada is in the southern most part of the country.
All pointless arguments. As usual.
You can deny the science; but that won’t change the reality of it.
I’m sure that at some point, cult morons like yourself will say; why didn’t the scientists warn us? Lol!
IMHO where the H is honest… I don’t know whether it is the existential issue it is claimed to be. We do know the planet was hotter and more fertile when CO2 was in the 20% range. A case might even be made that current low CO2 levels indicates a dying planet–eg. vast deserts and frozen wastelands that were once covered by forests.
Not sure what you mean by 20% CO2. Maybe you are thinking about O2? O2 is 21% of the atmosphere and N2 is 79%. The rest is trace gasses like CO2.
CO2 is just 0.04% of the atmosphere. Yet it the most consequential greenhouse gas. And it’s the primary one that the atmospheric temperature responds to.
The best way to track CO2 is in ppm. CO2 was 280 ppm for the last 10000 years. Then, 200 years ago, as we started burning a lot of fossil fuels, we started to raise CO2 levels. We have now raised CO2 to 425 ppm.
And as scientists have calculated, more CO2 increases the greenhouse effect and warms the planet. (See my earlier post to you on this.)
And no; you cannot make a case that current CO2 levels are too low and indicate a planet that is dying. That is pure horsesh*t designed to fool the uninformed.
Over the last 10,000 years, mankind has developed from being hunter gatherers to agrarian societies that grew crops and began settling where it was best to grow those crops.
We grew our population from 1 million, to 8 billion in those 10,000 years as we learned to cultivate more and more crops. All those crops developed with CO2 levels of 280 ppm. That is what they are used to. As are we. So it’s horsesh*t to say that increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 425 ppm means CO2 levels are too low.
tl;dr, I say a lot of words. I love typing.
Didn’t ‘they’ change the name from ‘global warming’ to ‘global climate change?’
Now, how do you ‘prove’ the climate is changing?
The point is with a ‘change’ hypothesis, any change can be construed as evidence. The scientist does not need a valid model, just the normal variation in weather becomes proof for the public.
Nope. But that is one way that deniers try to trick the uninformed.
Global warming is simply a result of mankind adding more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and this is warming up the planet.
Climate change is simply a result of the warming world.
Proof comes from both studies of past climate change and the scientific models accurately predicting many of the changes that have already happened. They have predicted the warming that is occurring in the atmosphere and the oceans. They have predicted the melting ice and rising seas. They predicted that hurricanes would intensify faster due to warming oceans (true). They predicted more frequent 1 in a hundred year and 1 in a 1000 year storms due to more water in the atmosphere (true again). They predicted the Troposphere would warm while the Stratosphere would cool. And hundreds of other things.
Of course deniers will ignore all this and present lies and misinformation. Which is very easy to do. And they never provide a single peer reviewed scientific study to prove anything they say.
Of course, you realize that the word ‘denier’ has a religious origin, which makes global warming less about saving the planet and more about control of non-believers. True science encourages alternate hypotheses, because in testing them, they can be discounted. The last thing global warming zealots want is alternate hypotheses, or validation of their models, for that matter.
As a general rule, when issues divide along political lines, there is intellectual corruption afoot . More debate is always better than one-sided ‘debate.’
Of those ‘greenhouse gases,’ carbon dioxide is the ‘worst’ according to EPA. Think about that. A gas upon which all plants depend is destroying the planet. In fact, the EPA is specific:
“Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil), solid waste, trees and other biological materials…” Quick, ban all oil products, the climate is changing.
It also enters the air every time we breathe. The oxygen you consume is exhaled as CO2, but we can neglect that because plants convert it back to oxygen, according to MIT. Maybe we need to plant more trees and have fewer parking lots. Or reduce the heating and cooling of homes and wear more/fewer clothes.
As for ‘peer reviewed’, it’s become an echo chamber. Contray research is excluded.
Thanks for your reply.
We have known which gasses are greenhouse gasses since 1859. And yes, CO2 is the most important and influential greenhouse gas.
Yes. CO2 is a necessary part of our atmosphere. Without CO2 in our atmosphere performing it’s greenhouse gas role, the average temperature of the planet would plummet to -18C and the earth would be a ball of ice. Not good.
And yes, CO2 is necessary for plants. No one is disputing that.
But for the last 3 million years CO2 levels ranged between 180 ppm and 300 ppm. That is the level that current plants have evolved to live in.
The last time CO2 levels were over 400 ppm like today, was over 4 million years ago, and the planet was much hotter, and ocean levels were 50 feet higher. And that is where we are headed again. Not sure why you want ocean levels to go that high again.
I haven’t focused on the whole picture, true. And I could put out even more information. Nevertheless as I read articles, there are a lot of companies coming up with solutions. Mining equipment, heavy trucking, shipping, etc. The next 20 years are going to require our engineers in the world to go carbon free over time. Then its finally time for replacement as we scrap out the fossil fuel equipment for carbon free energy work.
An interesting development down the road is the younger generation isn’t as resistant as our genertion is. If you check out the Vox article I posted to Mish, the acceleration of getting out of carbon is going to pick up. How much, I don’t know. But things are changing in the right direction.
Yes. There is a lot to consider. And the reality is; the problem is much more difficult to overcome than most folks are aware of. Still. You have one big advantage over the “global warming is a hoax crowd”. At least you understand that global warming is a problem. While they are so f*cking stupid as to believe we need even more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Global warming is a nothing burger and the least of our concerns. The push for renewables is hastening the worldwide economic collapse and depletion of oil and gas reserves.
https://www.artberman.com/blog/metacrisis-getting-honest-about-the-human-predicament/
https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
https://www.climate.gov/media/11332
https://vimeo.com/602819278
https://co2coalition.org/publications/challenging-net-zero-with-science/
https://notrickszone.com/2024/04/30/the-97-consensus-claim-is-in-fact-97-bogus/
https://notrickszone.com/
https://notrickszone.com/2024/04/23/3-physicists-use-experimental-evidence-to-show-co2s-capacity-to-absorb-radiation-has-saturated/
https://climatethemovie.net/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HX5Z8B1KdFu9/
Lol! Please explain this statement:
“ The push for renewables is hastening the worldwide economic collapse and depletion of oil and gas reserves.”
How does using more renewables cause the depletion of oil and gas reserves? It should make them last longer.
Sigh! This has to be explained to you? I’ll let these bloggers help you out. I can supply oodles more…
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/downslope
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2024/02/17/or-to-put-it-another-way/
https://energyskeptic.com/2024/wind/
Using up precious fossil fuel reserves to try to transition to renewables that cannot in any way make up for a large reduction in fossil fuel use is complete folly. Then there is this…
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Exxon-Joins-OPEC-in-Warning-of-Looming-Oil-Supply-Crisis.html
Anyways, you’ll see the light soon enough.
Nope. You misunderstand what I was saying. And, you are talking my book.
You are describing the reason that I am a big investor in oil and gas companies, which is something I have been talking about for the last four years here. Reduced capex spending over the last decade will limit supplies in the future and raise prices.
What I am disputing here is the suggestion that oil reserves will “deplete” if we don’t use them because we are using renewables instead. That is just nonsense. Oil left in the ground does not disappear if we don’t use it. And the oil that is still in the ground will last us a lot longer if we use more renewables instead.
I also take issue with this gem:
“ Using up precious fossil fuel reserves to try to transition to renewables that cannot in any way make up for a large reduction in fossil fuel use is complete folly.”
Please show me the statistics on this statement. I don’t think you will though. Because they don’t exist. You just pull this crap out of your ass.
bingo. one thing i’m 100% certain of. most of the science deniers will go to their dirt naps never changing their minds. these are the boomer cohorts and the graves are being dug at a rapid pace……….i’m one of the boomers and am looking forward to the rest. i’ll be composted.
If we reach the Paris Agreement goals, will the climate change back? Are there other consequences of the strategies used to achieve the Paris goals? If the climate continues to change, do we need more draconian laws?
If we reach zero emissions (very unlikely) then yes, the earth will rebalance eventually and return to its natural cycles. However it will take many thousands of years for nature to do the job and get back to 280 ppm from the 425 ppm today or 500 ppm that is likely by 2050.
During a typical Milankovitch cooling cycle it can take 80,000 years for CO2 to drop from a typical 300 ppm to get down to 180 ppm. A drop of 120 ppm in 80,000 years.
See, this is bull$hit. We have no idea of consequences long term, or even that 600ppm is ‘bad’. The last time I checked, NASA was observing increased vegetation growth around the world. What if the ideal CO2 level is 800 ppm? And the obvious question… why is CO2 changing before the industrial revolution?
What proof is there of an optimum CO2 level for the world?
Regarding CO2 levels; science explains that they change regularly because of Milankovitch cycles. Eccentricity, Precession and Obliquity. But the change happens slowly over tens of thousands of years.
What is an optimal level depends on what living organisms are accustomed to and evolve and adapt to. When change happens slowly, life can adapt to that slow change. When change happens quickly, it is much harder to adapt.
For the last 3 million years, CO2 levels have ranged between 180 ppm and 300 ppm. Never higher than 300 ppm till recently.
That period of time covers most of the history of the life forms that exist on the planet today. That is what they have evolved and adapted to. That’s what is “ideal” for them.
And in the last 10,000 years when mankind has dominated the planet, CO2 levels were a very steady 280 ppm. Again, all life forms currently on the planet are comfortable with that level. That’s how nature works.
But in the last 200 years, we have raised that level to 425 ppm. A level not seen for over 4 million years. A level that current life has never experienced. Some life forms will adapt, but many will not because this dramatic change happened so quickly over 200 years rather than a more normal 20,000 years.
Now, if you think an ideal level of CO2 is 800 ppm, then please explain to me the last time that CO2 levels were that high, what the temperature and climate conditions were like at that level of CO2, and what type of life existed on the planet at that time.
This will give you a chance to prove your thesis.
Note: I am not taking exception to the Milankovitch cycles–all based on astronomical conditions, and well known, as are various solar cycles based on sunspot activity. Early on in the global warming debate, the Russians pointed that out. And since it was Russia, immediately rejected by western scientists.
What is clear is that all the carbon released from oil, gas, coal, and peat was at one time in the air. The CO2 level was much higher, and vegetation covered the planet. As CO2 levels declined, so did the vegetation and the planet climate changed to today’s
You are incorrect about your Russian statement. Please provide proof.
Yes. CO2 has been higher. And scientists can explain how high and why. Can you?
I will repeat my request.
Tell me the last time CO2 was 800 ppm. What were the temperature and climate conditions at that time. What life forms existed. How high were the oceans. You know. The standard stuff. Nothing too complex.
And why would you want to return to those conditions?
One more tool is carbon sequestration. Our young ones will decide if they want to use this when its their turn at the helm of society. Sequestering carbon for several hundred years would be better than waiting several thousand. This is where an ounce of prevention is worth gigatons of cure.
Yes. If we want to return to the CO2 level of the last 10,000 years, we will have to start pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. A very expensive and difficult endeavour. Because it will take nature tens of thousands of years to do it on its own.
As we in the first world countries are forced by bad legislation to get off of oil, countries like India and Mexico will ramp up their oil and gas use as the price drops from the drop in demand, leading to oil being used just as much, but at a lower price point. I might even argue that it enriches those countries as they can do more with cheap energy while we go into decline due to the socialists forcing their agendas down our throats.
Resentment doesn’t fix the AGW problem. Plus as FFs lose political clout, in marches carbon tarrifs. United States, China, Europe enforce carbon tariffs, the rest of the world falls in line.
Eventually FFs loose their clout in congress. Social cost of carbon and carbon tariffs kick and the rest of the world gets it.
For the most part BEVs and PHEVs are increasing from the years before. World wide, oil demand is starting to flatten out. As world wide electrification increases, at some point, oil demand will start to decrease for the ICE vehicles.
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2024/trends-in-electric-cars
Strong electric car sales in the first quarter of 2024 surpass the annual total from just four years ago
Electric car sales remained strong in the first quarter of 2024, surpassing those of the same period in 2023 by around 25% to reach more than 3 million. This growth rate was similar to the increase observed for the same period in 2023 compared to 2022. The majority of the additional sales came from China, which sold about half a million more electric cars than over the same period in 2023. In relative terms, the most substantial growth was observed outside of the major EV markets, where sales increased by over 50%, suggesting that the transition to electromobility is picking up in an increasing number of countries worldwide.
The majority of the additional 3 million electric car sales projected for 2024 relative to 2023 are from China. Despite the phase-out of NEV purchase subsidies last year, sales in China have remained robust, indicating that the market is maturing. With strong competition and relatively low-cost electric cars, sales are to grow by almost 25% in 2024 compared to last year, reaching around 10 million. If confirmed, this figure will come close to the total global electric car sales in 2022. As a result, electric car sales could represent around 45% of total car sales in China over 2024.
In the context of a generally weak outlook for passenger car sales, electric cars would still represent about one in four cars sold in Europe.
Yes. China is accounting for the vast majority of global EV, PHEV, and HEV sales. And even there, PHEV sales are increasing at a faster rate than EV sales.
Outside of China, EV sales are mixed. The days of strong growth in EV sales is over (except for China). PHEV sales are growing much faster than EV sales now.
Which is why automakers are shelving plans for EVs and replacing them with plans for more PHEVs.
The only way to reinvigorate EV sales outside of China, is to allow tariff-free inexpensive Chinese EVs to be imported and sold. But the US and EU are not going to let that happen
Automakers depend on selling cars that people WANT TO BUY.. The downturn in EVs sales may well be the product life-cycle is already peaking, and turning down.
Where does govt get off telling people what they can and cannot drive?
Hey Jeff Green — your business involving buying used Teslas must be thriving… seems the hype is vapourizing … so you must be able to buy them for a song… how many thousand of them to you have in storage now?
Congratulations Jeff!
I suggest a Mishtalk Investor of the Year Award… the inaugural award to go to Jeff Green
All three of my used EVs over 9 years? You are quite the hot snot Eddy.
How is it clean … when the manufacture of the vehicle involves enormous volumes of fossil fuels… the batteries end up dumped in landfills… and the vehicles are for the most part charged with fossil fuels and uranium?
BYD makes some really cool plug in hybrids that are also inexpensive.
I’ve owned 3 Prius’s and other than not a good car for dating their cost of ownership is minuscule. The batteries are not an issue because as an old IT guy I simply buy used individual cells off EBay for $35 and swap em out myself. They save me a fortune on Ca gas.
If one knows how to drive a hybrid the original batteries in a Prius last over 200k miles.
A dealer tried to push a hybrid on me… I asked the sales guy how much it would cost to replace the battery …of course he lied… said it was around 3k… reluctant to give me anything in writing … so I contacted another dealer and was informed the number was around 7500…
So I says to the sales guy … once I get close to the end of the warranty period (8 yrs) what’s that going to do to the resale value of my vehicle….
His comment was… I never thought of that…. I see your point
We own a plug-in Hybrid and average about 65mph…better if we go up a MTN PASS and descend a big grade…you can then SLIGHTLY ride the brakes and the battery re-charges. THE ISSUE, though, is the compromised trunk space due to the cavity where the HYBRID BATTERY SITS (IN THE BACK).
Bravo for pointing out GM’s Chevrolet Volt, The project was started by Bob Lutz, who ‘forced’ GM’s Board to approve it as a way of taking on the Toyota Prius–media darling of the left-wing media at the time. Right wing media (you know who I mean) destroyed the car after two caught on fire after DOT crash tests–failure by staff to disconnect batteries. Sean Hannity and others presumed it was an ‘Obama car.’
It was the world’s best selling plug-in hybrid until 2018, winning numerous major awards in 2010-11
What’s weird is Sean H bragged he drove a Hybrid Chevy Tahoe……
Not at the time. In 2009-10 he was one of the worst critics of the Volt.
I don’t understand. How could right wing media destroy a PHEV when it’s the left wing that is buying them?
Read what I wrote.
The Volt was manufactured at a loss to prove a point. The car was liked by a small segment of the market. Not big enough to make it profitable. The govt forced industry to do what it wanted. F*(k the consumer.
The Obama govt also forced the end of Pontiac, one of GMs best-selling and liked brands.
I believe that Mish and I have been on the same page on this topic for the last few years. The push to promote EVs as the ONLY solution to reduce transportation emissions was misplaced. Plug-in hybrids are the best way to reduce emissions, and clean the air.
You can produce 10 plug-in hybrids with 40 mile batteries using the roughly same amount of battery materials as a single EV with a 400 mile range. This reduces the strain on providing all those materials. It’s also a lot cheaper when it comes time to replace the battery.
A 40 mile range covers over 95% of all trips, which are almost all local. Which dramatically reduces emissions in cities and towns.
When taking the occasional longer highway trips, you still have a gas engine and no range anxiety. Without adequate charging infrastructure, it puts a big question mark on the rollout of EVs.
Yes; it costs more to have two systems in one vehicle. But you are paying for convenience and optionality. Just like a homeowner who adds a woodstove for backup heat, or a generator for backup electricity. (or solar panels, a heat pump, etc) It costs extra, but you now have optionality.
I have been suggesting that both consumers and auto makers would move in this direction for some time now.
However; some will still buy EVs. And the majority will still buy ICE for the next decade or so. But sales of Plug-in hybrids are soon going to surpass EV sales.
For those of you who insist you will ALWAYS drive an ICE; one of the advantages of continued EV and Plug-in hybrid sales will be a reduction in demand for gasoline. Which will help keep gasoline prices lower for longer. (other than taxes). So you can thank the buyers of EVs and hybrids for helping keep your gas costs down.
Re “Yes; it costs more to have two systems in one vehicle.”
Total cost of ownership is LOWER* for hybrids vs the gas-only models.
My 2 “non-plug-in” hybrids have ~50% improved overall fuel efficiency vs non-hybrid equivalent. The hybrid equipment has already “paid for itself” in reduced gasoline costs. At least at California prices…
These hybrids also have better initial acceleration than the gas-only models. There’s literally no reason not to own these instead of the gas cars.
* Not for all – some performance-oriented models weren’t built with enough extra efficiency from their hybrids.
Yes. Studies show that most plug-in hybrids save money in the long run. Still, the extra cost up-front can make it harder for some to justify.
And the great thing is that they can be charged with a 110 outlet and have zero range anxiety, both of which put less strain on the grid.
An excellent point. No need for expensive superchargers to rapid charge your vehicle at home. 110 will do fine for smaller batteries.
Not sure why you’d get a down votes here, so I’m going up vote.
At some point, you’d wonder if car manufacturers will continue to pay for a L2 charger to be installed in homes, which would slow down adoption due to cost cutting.
I piss a lot of people off here because they are often afraid of the reality which I attempt to present. Many will down vote me if I simply say “ have a nice day”.
I consider it a badge of honor. Thanks for your upvote though.
I have to say Papa, that you have called this since I can recall, way back when! Congrats to You!! I had agreed with you, but long after your call to be sure, and have grown from a dislike for EV’s, to flat out uselessness at this point for most.
Environmental disaster in the making I also think, as disposal will never be properly done and rightfully paid for imo. They will get dumped, in some way as time goes on.
As You point out: “You can produce 10 plug-in hybrids with 40 mile batteries using the roughly same amount of battery materials as a single EV with a 400 mile range.” That basically ends the discussion right there for many. Especially when you consider: “A 40 mile range covers over 95% of all trips, which are almost all local. Which dramatically reduces emissions in cities and towns.”
I am definitely in the GV (ICE) camp for my driving lifetime (20 more if I am fortunate). I can and will fix it myself, and buy material when/if needed when the time comes, to make sure it stays running. Not newer/older cars of course. I figure gasoline will still be around long, long after I am gone!
Thank you Stu. I appreciate your post.
EVs have a place and they work for some folks, but I have always considered them a niche and a distraction. We cannot produce enough of them fast enough to make a big difference, and even if we could, the infrastructure isn’t ready for them. Which is why EV sales growth is now stalling, and people are having second thoughts about them.
Plug-in hybrids can be churned out faster and don’t need the charging infrastructure to be built out as quickly. They are a better emissions solution for the next decade (or two) while we build out the infrastructure.
Eventually, we will be ready for almost all road vehicles to be EVs; but that is decades away. And even when that happens, that will only eliminate 15% of all emissions. Which is why I say it’s a distraction.
If we truly want to reduce emissions quickly, we could cut them by 7% in less than 5 years by replacing all coal generation with much cheaper natural gas.
Catalytic converters and EFI cleaned the air already, decades ago. Mission Accomplished EPA! But like all govt scams, they didn’t dissolve it, so they invented a “new” mission…..and an effective propaganda campaign which includes classifying CO2 as a poison!! Stop exhaling and farting you evil humans, you are killing the “planet” !!
CO2 Classified as a poison? Not that I am aware. Can you provide proof of this claim?
It was classified as a pollutant (which it is not), for legal reasons so that they could regulate it.
Scientists classify it as a greenhouse gas, which it is. They do not classify it as a pollutant or poison since it is a natural part of the air.
I await your response on the poison classification. Thanks.
Internal combustion engines will have the lowest total cost of ownership for the foreseeable future. Batteries are expensive to replace and in the long term replacement batteries won’t be available. Liability insurance for battery fires become unaffordable. Insurance companies should not insure EV homes against fire. Electric power costs are rising faster than petroleum fuel costs. Electric vehicles initial costs are not competitive even with government subsidies.
Not true for hybrids; the extra equipment pays for itself in greater fuel efficiency.
See my comment above.
Park a lithium battery in your garage for twenty years and you are guaranteed to burn your house down.
Nope. A bunch more Fossil Fuels FUD.
200,000 ICE vehicles catch FIRE in the US EVERY SINGLE YEAR. So many that it barely makes the local news anymore, much less become a talking point for FUDsters
The die has already been cast. There will be about 17 MILLION plugins sold globally this year. FAR more than the total number of vehicles sold in the US.
China is far larger than the US as a market an plugins have already crossed 50% of all passenger vehicles. Europe has countries with WELL over 80% EVs and plugins.
The US is simply not a big enough market compared to the rest of the world to keep ICE vehicles from getting replaced.
China is already selling vehicles in South America and Mexico and the US will eventually follow suit with China and Europe as old Dinosaur Burners die off and are replaced by plugins.
It’s 100% going to happen with Buses and Trucks and delivery Vans and will follow with passenger vehicles in the US.
I look at EV’s as the Agenda / Ideology purchase. The idea of EV’s have been shoved down our throats, since inception and then total buy in from those involved, pushing, profiting from, control over etc. I feel the same way about Windmills (ineffective, too costly, no material so we must pay someone else for it, and environmental disaster in the making (fiberglass shrouds on the beaches… nice!) and Solar too, for mostly the same reasons, and even more as storage is not viable as of yet, as both are simply horrible, costly, environmentally unsound, and don’t work if you want Energy Independence, as it cannot be counted on, so you Must Remain Dependent on other forms of energy, so Why Bother?
They (in my opinion thoughtless, and greedy but I digress) come up with an idea, see $$$ and if played right, buy in from the Public. Without full and complete analysis and understanding of what it will take, and if it will work. Again, they see $$$ and the ability to control (via the grid!), and that’s all it takes…
Of course with time, issues always emerge. So now we have a duped Public awake to the BS of EV’s. As a result They Don’t Want Them! For all the usual reasons that could be seen up front, if they wanted to see them, but $$$ have a way of blurring things for many. Too Costly, Not good in the Cold Weather, Environmentally a potential nightmare, as well as massive expense, at a time you will Need A New Costly Battery, Zero infrastructure to speak off, and a cost of “Billions” by the “Taxpayers” (the ones who are supposed to be buying, but now can’t afford for obvious( reasons) if it is to ever get built out at all, and may not even be needed for a decade or more, at this point by the looks of it.
Hybrids are the ONLY True answer for America imo. Maybe not to the Politicians and the Businesses they got into bed with, to have EV’s quickly come to fruition. They may be perfect for the EU, but why bother? Just stick with the Less Costly and More Efficient Hybrid for everything. No need for an EV at all really.
Of course the Unions in America, along with the Politicians and their promises, are now stuck. They made deals, with the EV as the Premier Choice, for America, amidst promises of $$$ and Power, but got none of it. Now the Unions are pissed off, the Workers are pissed off, as EV’s are being pushed to the grave yard, and no $$$ Or Power was realized.
Our Government, with Our $$$, Not Hard at work… well they are, but just Not For You!!!
Exhibit A on distortion. Jeep Wangler Hybrid has 20 mile range! on fully charged battery. Essentially a gimmick to obtain $7,500 credit. Owner of Tesla Y – great commuter/around town vehicle – 300 miles. Physics don’t work well for long distance driving, towing/hauling or for non aerodynamic designs (Wrangler). Ford had no business investing in a huge ramp up of F150s – impractical for intended use.
Most people who own F-150s don’t tow it or use it for hauling. They’re grocery getters and Soccer Mom or Dad family vehicles. I live in the south and we are surrounded by them. Plus oversized SUVs. These will all go away or shrink back to their normal size before they made them way bigger (and more expensive) to dodge the CAFE fuel standards.
A 300 mile range is way more than a commuter vehicle and we both know that.
I live in the North. People tow their (gas) boats and their (gas) four wheelers and their (gas) snowmobiles. If you’re pulling two snowmobiles 200’miles in -5F temp, you damn sure don’t want to use an EV.
There is $7500 rebate on plug-in hybrids. The rebate on plug-in hybrids is half of that (and assuming the battery is of a minimum size).
EV is only practical for short range, congested, polluted urban driving,
And the ability to charge it at home
Yes, Ours takes a standard 120v Duplex 20 amp plug (three prong). Charges take 3.5 hours…so, we plug it in when we return from Fred Myer to get food.
Nonsense. Plenty of people driving them where I live in 10 acres and a horse country. 300+ miles is more than enough for 99% of driving needs.
David, vacations are where the issues arise. We know FIVE families who ran afoul of NO charging stations available due to malfunctions (not maintained well in fly-over country and not as many of them)….so each family kept ICE SUV’s, older ones, for family trips from the Coast to see family in the Midwest (where I grew up) or their kids in VA or FLA or ARK….etc. EV ONLY SO FAR ARE NOT WORKABLE for longer trips.
94% of EV owners own or have access to an internal combustion engine vehicle.
We use our plug-in at our Resort Town Home in Oregon and the Fred Myer and all of the other stores in an a 3mile radius. So far, we still have a nearly full tank and no fill-ups Since May.
Hybrid with Rechargeable battery pack + regenerative braking + good price
= best of all possibilities, even better if there is gov’t incentive.
Toyota has always insisted that the BEV would not be the future and invested in hybrids and fuel cell technology.
The problem with the BEV is that as you extend the range (the biggest draw back), you are exponentially increasing (proportional to the range) the amount of battery pack (weight) required to lug the battery pack itself. There is no easy way out of this quandry.
“…, even better if there is gov’t incentive.” // So you say, Comrade. 🔦✝️
BEVs are getting better and more range and LESS expensive every year. ICE vehicles are going the OTHER direction and getting Larger and More expensive every year. They will go extinct like the Dinosaurs, except it will be an electric charge instead of a comet that has doomed them.
Plugins have already crossed 50%+ of New Vehicle Sales in the Largest Market in the World. In several countries in Europe, they’ve already crossed that threshold years ago.
The US will follow along dragging its feet because of the buying of politicians by BIG OIL but they are already losing their grip in other markets.
This won’t even be a discussion in 6 years as ICE Vehicles Sales Collapse Globally. GM will be 4% smaller than it is today because they’re getting crushed in China where they used to sell half their vehicles.
You need to do more Homework, DavidC. I did and have real life examples that America is not quite there yet to be EV only owners. Our kids came here from outside of Sacto during XMAS and she had used 75% of her available range and there was not a charging station for her Tesla within that AVAILABLE RANGE. She plugged in the 120V side and it took until 10am the next day (XMAS DAY) to be able to get home to see her Folks. NOT PRACTICAL YET but I see it happening say in less than 25 years.
We live in Ore and that range is outside of the practical range from Sacto. She has a locator and the charging station she found was too far away. The kids were all over the floor, in our extra bedrooms and Mom and Dad slept on couches.
*GM will be 40% smaller Globally
Dodge Ram EV with V6 generator. Should have been the goto system from the start imo. But we’ll see who actually buys it.
Samsung , Toyota, and Quantumscape will introduce SSB batteries for EVs by 2027.
Only sedans will benefit short term. Heavier suv/trucks will benefit as the technology improves.
Yet, no benefit until the infrastructure is built out.
Nearly every building in the US is wired for Electricity. More and more EV chargers are installed every day in the US. China and Europe have already hit critical mass and ICE vehicle sales will continue to plummet in China and in Europe. Nobody wants to be reliant on Russian OIL anymore in Europe.
17 MILLION plugins will be sold Globally this year. That’s well above the total number of New Vehicles sold in the US.
The end is coming for ICE vehicles and it’s going to change everything.
Europeons would rather be dependent on US LNG. Idiots. Bummer for France that Niger isn’t willing to keep selling uranium for next-to-nothing. On the plus side, Russia has lots of uranium.
Not enough yet, David C.
Sincerely, David
Plugin-hybrids are great if they can recharge the battery pack while breaking. Even better if they can seamlessly increase torque when most needed.
Not an easy engineering task, and some will do it better than others.
I have an Acura NSX which is a non plug-in hybrid but it can run on electric only. The system is completely seamless and you can’t even tell when it switches from electric only mode to hybrid mode, it’s all automatic. Obv the price point isn’t realistic for most people but it is proof that Honda at least can pull this off. A similar system (with slightly larger battery and plug in) would be ideal in something like a civic or Camry type vehicle.
Is the ICE motor that quiet?
Depends on what drive mode you’re in. There are four modes, two of which heavily favor the electric motors. In those modes, valves in the exhaust quiet it down. In “quiet” mode the car is literally like driving a Honda Accord around. Awesome for commuting. In the two more aggressive.modes the engine remains on all the time and it’s about as aggressive a.sound as you could expect from a TT V6 on a stock exhaust. The sound gets a little tiring when commuting so I don’t use those modes day-to-day.
Ours gas regen brakes.
Practically all hybrids, including plug-in ones have regenerative braking.
The car industry have to think about survival instead of experimentations. In the
next decade the boomers leftover will approach 90Y and gen alpha, which is 30 millions short, will approach 25Y.
Yes, same as the year before in Q1. That’s not a “crash”, however.
Remember back when hybrids were for crazy California libtards? Like, say, 5-10 years ago?
Funny stuff.
No one with any sense would ever buy a 100% electric vehicle. Life is too unplanned. If you have to divert to Uncle Julio’s house to bring him some beer, and you run out of battery, you’re dead in the water. Leasing a plug-in Volt in 2011 (32 miles on full battery then gasoline-generated electricity) was the smartest thing I could have done if I wanted to try to get away from using so much gasoline. I’m on my 3rd Volt now. And of course GM had to kill the car …
GM is incompetent and will lose almost 40% of their Global sales over this decade because they are going to lose almost ALL of their ICE sales there this decade.
The vast majority of New Vehicles sold in China and Europe will be BEVs within the next decade.
The US will follow this trend as well but bribery by BIG OIL will try and slow down the transition to EVs. It likely won’t save GM. They will go BK again in the next serious economic downturn.
I am beginning to think that you lack imagination and research skills. Do you read Engrish? 🙂
You are correct. Our kids got stranded at our home on Xmas Eve.
Or buying an ICE Corolla could save both money and carbon emissions compared to driving an SUV.
Bingo ! We have a winner. Most EV people I know drove big SUVs and Mercedes , BMW ,Audi and went to and EV they were always about trend and look at me . Just to think they could have been driving around 4 cylinders Accords or Camrys about the same size of a tesla all these years and really made a difference .
The best selling vehicle in the entire world last year was the Tesla Model Y. Way outsold all the other EVs for the previous 5 years.
This change will happen because you no longer need to make EVs oversized. That was done by ICE manufacturers to avoid CAFE fuel standards. BIG ICE vehicles will go away like the Dinosaurs.
Smaller EV Trucks and SUVs will take their place and will be cheaper to own and operate than ICE vehicles. Cheaper to make for the manufacturers too.
Great – then end all subsidies and tax credits.
NOT cheaper to own without subsidies. NOW I think that you are ignorant or possibly stupid.
There is DIVERGENCE!.
Chinese automakers retain grip over Southeast Asia’s …Reuters
https://www.reuters.com › business › autos-transportation
21 June 2024 — Electric vehicle sales are surging in Southeast Asia, led by China’s … 2024. REUTERS/Chalinee Thirasupa/File Photo Purchase Licensing …
Trends in electric cars – Global EV Outlook 2024 – AnalysisIEA – International Energy Agency
https://www.iea.org › reports › trends-in-electric-cars
Sales in emerging markets are increasing, albeit from a low base, led by Southeast Asia and Brazil · Strong electric car sales in the first quarter of 2024 …
My 2012 Prius gets about 430 miles on 9 gallons. My dad’s Ford Maverick Hybrid gets about 585 miles on ~14 gallons. Hybrids are great and they don’t burn my house down or cost more to insure.
They catch on fire a much higher % of the time than either BEVs or ICE vehicles. There are 200,000 ICE vehicles that catch on fire every single year. It’s not BEVs that are the problem. It’s COMBUSTION that is the problem.
What’s a BEV?
Dude, you’re trying way to hard to be a know if all.
The EV proponents really screwed up by marketing them first as “Blazingly Fast” instead of pushing practical and inexpensive. The pure EV play is best for a mostly city/suburb commuter car where a slow plug in overnight charge is practical. When the gov and gang green force the EV as a “be all for everything” vehicle it comes off as “they” just wanting “us” out of any affordable and practical personal transportation.
“gang green force” 😂 🔦✝️
Nah, Chinese EVs are already cheaper and more affordable than most ICE vehicles. The US automakers, except Tesla are heading for disaster and bankruptcy as they continue to lose Global Market Share.GM is about to lose most of their sales of ICE vehicles in China and will be out of the country by the end of the decade or sell off their partnerships.
I’ll bet China could produce a really cheap ICE vehicle. Cheaper than EV.
Biden and Trump BOTH will tariff Chinese EV’s.
David, where I think you’re a bubble off is the EV is not something hugely demanded by most people…it’s a compliance vehicle being forced into the transportation arena. Take away the force and subsidies and most folks outside the urban hives would go with some form of ICE. Fast refueling and more practical uses outside the hives. The cost of your time is given little consideration from the Gang Greens forcing their choice on peeps.
Correct.
EV’s make the most sense in urban area’s where there is a lot of stop-n-go traffic and smog is a concern. That’s why China is adopting them so quickly because their urban areas are so dense. California is doing the same because the smog trapped by the coastal mountains.
In the rest of the US, they really only make a difference in a few major cities.
Unless you are a stock holder of GM/Ford why do you care if their foreign manufacturing plants all go under? Doesn’t affect workers here in America nor does it affect people here wanting to buy ICE vehicles.
In fact the best strategy for Ford/GM is to ignore EVs and focus on ICE/Hybrids. Then when China or someone else perfects battery and charging tech you just buy one of their cars and copy the battery/charging technique and voila, you are all caught up (China esp owes us since it copied our tech over the last 25 years) . It won’t take more than 10 minutes to reverse engineer and you’ll save billions in research cost and losses on EV’s along the way.