Since the discussion of the CNET review abruptly ended after post #7, and we’ve plummeted into yet another hagglefest over the virtues of PHEV vs BEV, I’ll chime in with my crystal ball vision of the future that is yet to unfold.
Ten years from now BEV market penetration may be 5%. With luck it will never go over that percentage because it’s just a bad idea. Has anyone calculated the kWh’s of battery capacity that would be required to replace all the ICE vehicles currently used for personal transportation?
Trying to make BEV’s take the place of all ICE vehicles isn’t going to happen until Captain Kirk returns with the dilithium crystals. We don’t even need to make that happen.
BEV’s are extremely limited in capability and are more expensive than an ICE car. The cost can be reduced by installing smaller batteries. Yes, smaller. Put a 30-40 kWh battery in these things and keep them in the city. That’s where most people drive and that’s where most people put on the miles. They don’t need to go 300-500 miles and we don’t need to build supercharger stations all over the country. Build them in the cities.
BEV’s, PHEV’s and ICE vehicles are expensive because they are loaded with nanny features and comfort features that no one really needs. I honestly think my next vehicle will have a V-8 with a distributor cap and an 8-track player.
Internal combustion engine, fuel and exhaust system for $10K, or a 25-60kWh battery for $8-16K? Which one will continue to perform as originally designed after 5-6 years? Which one will be more likely to be replaced after 100K, 200K or 300K miles? And some owners on this forum have demonstrated that it is less expensive to operate their PHEV on gas rather than electricity. So the thinking needs to be more than an inch deep when comparing operating costs and total ownership costs.
This is particularly true in a single vehicle household. A PHEV can provide ~90% of the benefits of a BEV and 100% of the benefits of an ICE, for the price of one vehicle. I don’t see a PHEV as a bridge to a BEV. I see the push toward long range BEV’s as being more detrimental to reducing vehicular emissions than a push toward more PHEV’s.
This would be somewhat true if you assume that battery tech and costs remain the same as they are today (I think that notion is absurd). There is a reason the use of carburetors and distributor caps have long ago been abandoned - not sure what attraction they hold for you. You can insist that the Earth is flat in as loud of a voice as you can muster, but it still will not be true.
BEV's are a bad idea "because of the kWh's of battery capacity that would be required"? There is a leap of logic in that statement that needs some sort of explanation. Kind of along the lines of "Gas vehicles can never replace horses because of the massive amount of wells, refineries, ships, pipelines and trucks required to get it to the user." Use horses (or steam engines?) for long distance travel and put gas stations only in the cities?
I'll throw out my question:
$15K+ for a hybrid ICE (and association components) or $10K for 150 kWh battery (both probable in 5 years)?
150 kWh is more than enough to drive cross country with fuel stops of 10-15 minutes every 3-4 hours - possible with
today's charging equipment and batteries (800V batteries and real world 275 kW charging).
There are plenty of 6+ year old BEV's with over 100K miles performing as originally designed - not sure you could say that about ICE vehicles from the 8 track tape era. Very, very few consumer vehicles make it to the 300K mile marker, most for reasons other that their power train. There is no reason to believe a BEV will have any more difficulty with this milestone than an ICE (unless you buy into the assumption that batteries only last 5-6 years), and a pretty good argument that they will actually perform better. BEV's also have a significantly lower maintenance cost, and the more miles you drive, the greater the savings.
You obviously place little to no value in the environmental benefits of EV's, but most people have come to acknowledge that a reduction in carbon emissions would be beneficial if not vital. I remember the air quality in the LA basin in the early 70's - I can't begin to imagine what it would be like today without the push towards cleaner vehicles. BEV's are a natural extension of the choice to have cleaner, healthier air. How much $ value this represents varies by individual, but most would be willing to pay at least a little more.
A PHEV provides ~60% of the benefits of a BEV, and about 90% of the detriments of a pure ICE vehicle.
