Split Replacing ICE cars with Hybrid or Electric: Pros and Cons

[Bomb#20]

Why is it that plug-in hybrids are always ignored, as if that technology does not exist, in the gas vs. EV debates?

A good solution for the ultra-rural and ultra cold routes.

How so?

That it runs on the gas side when the battery side is depleted.

What battery?

Maybe a Volt, but plug-ins are generally useless.

Where are you getting that? I drive a plug-in. (Rav-4 Prime.) Works great. Charge at home for peanuts. No problem getting to work on a charge. Recharge it in the company parking lot. Get almost home on the recharge. (It's uphill). When I need to drive a long distance, it's just like a regular ICE vehicle but with way better mileage. I put gas in it once in a blue moon. Love it.
[/plug-in-plug]

 

[Metaphor]

Something that bothers me about replacements is the seeming downplaying of total environmental cost (as compared to carbon cost).

My car is 18 years old, and my brother in law is encouraging me to buy an electric vehicle. But what about my current vehicle? There's nothing wrong with it. Surely all the steel and energy that went into its manufacture needs to be counted, and all the energy (and lithium) that goes into an electric vehicle needs to be counted.

Surely it would be better, in terms of total environmental cost, to run my car until it is goes absolutely kaput?

EDIT: And surely the same with many other appliances, like fridges? Surely keeping an inefficient fridge going is a lower total environmental cost than buying a brand new one. Either you will sell or give away your old fridge for its inefficiency to be used by someone else, or it will go to landfill, with all the materials (and refrigerant) with it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Would you have to scrap the car or would it go into the hands of someone who can only afford an 18 yr old car? I would think the more electric cars in actual use the better. Your present car has only a few more years of life left in it. Too many variables to think long and hard on.

 

[Metaphor]

Would you have to scrap the car or would it go into the hands of someone who can only afford an 18 yr old car?

There's nothing wrong with the car, so it would seem wasteful beyond absurdity to scrap it. It would almost certainly be given or sold to somebody- (possibly a niece or nephew)-who I assume would use it. And then I would replace the car I'd given away with a new car with new manufacturing costs and materials and the rare earth elements that have to be mined to put in it.

I would think the more electric cars in actual use the better. Your present car has only a few more years of life left in it. Too many variables to think long and hard on.

If electric cars didn't have an environmental cost to manufacture, sure, yet they surely do have that cost.

 

[Ford]

If electric cars didn't have an environmental cost to manufacture, sure, yet they surely do have that cost.

Well thank goodness internal combustion engine cars don't have an environmental cost.

 

[Metaphor]

If electric cars didn't have an environmental cost to manufacture, sure, yet they surely do have that cost.

Well thank goodness internal combustion engine cars don't have an environmental cost.

Where did I imply that?

I am talking about replacing existing cars with new ones and the environmental cost of that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Something that bothers me about replacements is the seeming downplaying of total environmental cost (as compared to carbon cost).

My car is 18 years old, and my brother in law is encouraging me to buy an electric vehicle. But what about my current vehicle? There's nothing wrong with it. Surely all the steel and energy that went into its manufacture needs to be counted, and all the energy (and lithium) that goes into an electric vehicle needs to be counted.
Surely it would be better, in terms of total environmental cost, to run my car until it is goes absolutely kaput?

Depends on emissions.

EDIT: And surely the same with many other appliances, like fridges? Surely keeping an inefficient fridge going is a lower total environmental cost than buying a brand new one. Either you will sell or give away your old fridge for its inefficiency to be used by someone else, or it will go to landfill, with all the materials (and refrigerant) with it.

These are viable arguments, but I just get the feeling that you are using them as excuses. Also, are older fridges that much more inefficient?

Reduce, reuse, recycle. Reduce is the biggest component here as it limits needing to waste energy recycling.

Personally, I'm not sold on electric vehicles. The tether is an issue for me. Get a vehicle with low emissions and very good mileage. I wish the hybrid system could have worked out, but it kind of was abandoned. The Prius got you up there in mileage and had seating for four.

 

[Worldtraveller]

There are still a lot of hybrids out there being made. That's going to be my next vehicle.

 

[Ford]

If electric cars didn't have an environmental cost to manufacture, sure, yet they surely do have that cost.

Well thank goodness internal combustion engine cars don't have an environmental cost.

Where did I imply that?

I am talking about replacing existing cars with new ones and the environmental cost of that.

So replacing existing inefficient cars which run on fossil fuels with far more efficient vehicles is a fool's errand?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are still a lot of hybrids out there being made. That's going to be my next vehicle.

But almost none of them are worth buying for that cost premium. The Honda Insight (version 2) is out there as is the Prius. These cars get 50 to 60 mpg, but that is about it. A Honda Fit can get 40 mpg easy, for about $5k to $6k less and a ton more utility. I love my Fits!

The Hyundai Elantra doesn't look bad though if you drive locally, pricewise and mileage wise. I have no idea how those hold up.

Also, the big question is, can you drive the car without the battery when it goes, because replacing it will wipe out any cost savings.

 

[Metaphor]

If electric cars didn't have an environmental cost to manufacture, sure, yet they surely do have that cost.

Well thank goodness internal combustion engine cars don't have an environmental cost.

Where did I imply that?

I am talking about replacing existing cars with new ones and the environmental cost of that.

So replacing existing inefficient cars which run on fossil fuels with far more efficient vehicles is a fool's errand?

You are begging the question. What makes the current vehicles "inefficient"? What makes the new ones "far more efficient"? What percentage of the electricity in the US is generated from fossil fuels? (60%). How have you calculated the cost of the mining of rare earth elements in? What will happen to the fleet of vehicles that the postal office will be replacing? Are they going to be junked or put on the market to be driven by other people?

Cars have to be replaced eventually, of course. But replacing functioning cars and trucks according to a set timetable instead of as needed does not seem environmentally sound to me.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why is it that plug-in hybrids are always ignored, as if that technology does not exist, in the gas vs. EV debates?

A good solution for the ultra-rural and ultra cold routes.

How so?

That it runs on the gas side when the battery side is depleted.

What battery?

Maybe a Volt, but plug-ins are generally useless.

Where are you getting that? I drive a plug-in. (Rav-4 Prime.) Works great. Charge at home for peanuts. No problem getting to work on a charge. Recharge it in the company parking lot. Get almost home on the recharge. (It's uphill). When I need to drive a long distance, it's just like a regular ICE vehicle but with way better mileage. I put gas in it once in a blue moon. Love it.
[/plug-in-plug]

The fact is, electric transmission and control even with a battery in the mix, is more efficient than mechanical transfer.

I really don't think folks understand just how inefficient the ICE is at mechanical power transfer.

Wires at that scale are practically lossless in comparison. Even putting a battery in the chain to soak excess current is virtually lossless in comparison.

 

[Ford]

If electric cars didn't have an environmental cost to manufacture, sure, yet they surely do have that cost.

Well thank goodness internal combustion engine cars don't have an environmental cost.

Where did I imply that?

I am talking about replacing existing cars with new ones and the environmental cost of that.

So replacing existing inefficient cars which run on fossil fuels with far more efficient vehicles is a fool's errand?

You are begging the question. What makes the current vehicles "inefficient"? What makes the new ones "far more efficient"? What percentage of the electricity in the US is generated from fossil fuels? (60%). How have you calculated the cost of the mining of rare earth elements in? What will happen to the fleet of vehicles that the postal office will be replacing? Are they going to be junked or put on the market to be driven by other people?

Cars have to be replaced eventually, of course. But replacing functioning cars and trucks according to a set timetable instead of as needed does not seem environmentally sound to me.

You seem to be arguing that cars do not have to replaced so long as they are functioning.

A 1974 Plymouth that produces 85 hp and gets 12 miles to the gallon is - apparently - just as good as a 2022 Kia that generates 200 hp and burns no fuel. So long as the former is "functioning," replacing it with the latter is not environmentally sound. Cars have to be replaced eventually, but according to you they must only be replaced only when the wheezing rust-buckets are finally unable to get to the end of the driveway, and at that reluctantly. Your Ford Cortina is every bit as good as a Toyota Yaris, and we need to stop the progress of these "efficient" vehicles lest we lose some part of our past?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why is it that plug-in hybrids are always ignored, as if that technology does not exist, in the gas vs. EV debates?

A good solution for the ultra-rural and ultra cold routes.

How so?

That it runs on the gas side when the battery side is depleted.

What battery?

Maybe a Volt, but plug-ins are generally useless.

Where are you getting that? I drive a plug-in. (Rav-4 Prime.) Works great. Charge at home for peanuts.

Peanuts? Isn't it a $10+k premium for the plug-in part compared to the Rav-4?

That said, this looks like another Volt, which actually is kind of the design that I think works best for the transition to electric. My opinion on Plug-in Hybrids could be a bit outdated. Though that premium is huge, though 40 mpg for that thing? Impressive.

 

[Metaphor]

If electric cars didn't have an environmental cost to manufacture, sure, yet they surely do have that cost.

Well thank goodness internal combustion engine cars don't have an environmental cost.

Where did I imply that?

I am talking about replacing existing cars with new ones and the environmental cost of that.

So replacing existing inefficient cars which run on fossil fuels with far more efficient vehicles is a fool's errand?

You are begging the question. What makes the current vehicles "inefficient"? What makes the new ones "far more efficient"? What percentage of the electricity in the US is generated from fossil fuels? (60%). How have you calculated the cost of the mining of rare earth elements in? What will happen to the fleet of vehicles that the postal office will be replacing? Are they going to be junked or put on the market to be driven by other people?

Cars have to be replaced eventually, of course. But replacing functioning cars and trucks according to a set timetable instead of as needed does not seem environmentally sound to me.

You seem to be arguing that cars do not have to replaced so long as they are functioning.

A 1974 Plymouth that produces 85 hp and gets 12 miles to the gallon is - apparently - just as good as a 2022 Kia that generates 200 hp and burns no fuel.

Burns no fuel? The Kia doesn't obey the laws of physics?

I am asking for a holistic appraisal for the replacement of vehicles - and indeed most durable goods.

So long as the former is "functioning," replacing it with the latter is not environmentally sound.

You keep saying 'functioning' as if it were a strange word. What is strange about it? Are you making the opposite claim? That any improvement in mileage or efficiency justifies immediate replacement? I can't think you are, so you must agree that at some point a replacement is 'worth it', and at other points, no, it would not be worth it.

Cars have to be replaced eventually, but according to you they must only be replaced only when the wheezing rust-buckets are finally unable to get to the end of the driveway, and at that reluctantly. Your Ford Cortina is every bit as good as a Toyota Yaris, and we need to stop the progress of these "efficient" vehicles lest we lose some part of our past?

You appear to have a strange prejudice and preconception of me as some kind of vintage muscle-car revhead. You could not be further from reality.

The average age of cars on US roads is 12.2 years. Should they all be replaced with electric vehicles? What happens to the cars that were replaced? Will they go to the trash or will other people drive them? Do you think the fuel efficiency for a vehicle from 2010 is so outrageously poor that it is unambiguously justified to replace it with a 2022 vehicle?

Newer houses have better energy efficiency than older houses. If you lived in an older house, would it be justified simply to tear it down and build a new one in its place? Or should you take into account all the environmental impact of a knockdown rebuild?

 

[Ford]

If electric cars didn't have an environmental cost to manufacture, sure, yet they surely do have that cost.

Well thank goodness internal combustion engine cars don't have an environmental cost.

Where did I imply that?

I am talking about replacing existing cars with new ones and the environmental cost of that.

So replacing existing inefficient cars which run on fossil fuels with far more efficient vehicles is a fool's errand?

You are begging the question. What makes the current vehicles "inefficient"? What makes the new ones "far more efficient"? What percentage of the electricity in the US is generated from fossil fuels? (60%). How have you calculated the cost of the mining of rare earth elements in? What will happen to the fleet of vehicles that the postal office will be replacing? Are they going to be junked or put on the market to be driven by other people?

Cars have to be replaced eventually, of course. But replacing functioning cars and trucks according to a set timetable instead of as needed does not seem environmentally sound to me.

You seem to be arguing that cars do not have to replaced so long as they are functioning.

A 1974 Plymouth that produces 85 hp and gets 12 miles to the gallon is - apparently - just as good as a 2022 Kia that generates 200 hp and burns no fuel.

Burns no fuel? The Kia doesn't obey the laws of physics?

I am asking for a holistic appraisal for the replacement of vehicles - and indeed most durable goods.

So long as the former is "functioning," replacing it with the latter is not environmentally sound.

You keep saying 'functioning' as if it were a strange word. What is strange about it? Are you making the opposite claim? That any improvement in mileage or efficiency justifies immediate replacement? I can't think you are, so you must agree that at some point a replacement is 'worth it', and at other points, no, it would not be worth it.

Cars have to be replaced eventually, but according to you they must only be replaced only when the wheezing rust-buckets are finally unable to get to the end of the driveway, and at that reluctantly. Your Ford Cortina is every bit as good as a Toyota Yaris, and we need to stop the progress of these "efficient" vehicles lest we lose some part of our past?

You appear to have a strange prejudice and preconception of me as some kind of vintage muscle-car revhead. You could not be further from reality.

I'm just trying to figure out how you figure that replacing older outdated cars with newer more efficient vehicles is a bad idea.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think as far as reliability goes, nothing beats an EV with a built in IC generator.

Nothing will ever beat it.

Even if we move to post-Fischer-Tropsch captured hydrocarbons, we will still want that immediate portability and injectability of liquid fuels, because we can make and store them with renewable electricity now, and we can do so quasi-passively.

What makes the most sense is to charge batteries for vehicles as much as possible on clean and renewable sources, and then bridge reliability gaps with an IC generator on the EV itself

 

[Jarhyn]

The power train of mechanical transfer ICE vehicles is fucking garbage.

There is a minimal amount of resistance and loss between the magnets on the generator and the magnets on the motors of an IC-EV. Capacitance of the circuit (some of which is done by the battery) allows voltage regulation through caching and metering rather than managing a lossy transmission.

It's the same force of the engine but transmitted along a copper wire by pushing only electrons, without also having to push around protons.

The only reason we didn't do this to start with was the lack of availability of solid state high-current transistors (mostly, FETs) needed to properly manage current levels against capacitive elements.

The only reason we didn't switch was because nobody thought to, and we had established infrastructure at that point.

 

[Bomb#20]

Peanuts? Isn't it a $10+k premium for the plug-in part compared to the Rav-4?

Fair point; but we ran the numbers before we bought it and it looked like the gas savings will cover that, no issue.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is a minimal amount of resistance and loss between the magnets on the generator and the magnets on the motors of an IC-EV. ...
It's the same force of the engine but transmitted along a copper wire by pushing only electrons, without also having to push around protons.

The railroads figured this out a hundred years ago.