GCC: Emissions Analytics: mass adoption of hybrids, rather than low-volume BEVs most effective for cutting CO2 now, meet

[WetEV]

Social support of PHEV via subsidy must take the average plug-in owner behavior into account.

Average, not some.

This is all about utility.

And risk, a factor often ignored in economics. PHEVs have some insurance value. In a gasoline shortages driver behavior (plugging in more) can change gasoline usage more than in the past.

However, if you want to scrap ALL subsidies and simply tax pollution you have my vote.

Subsidies are more efficient when the desired alternative is a small fraction of the market.

Taxing pollution is more efficient when the alternative is a large fraction of the market.

[GRA]

AFAIA, the only case where PHEV owners routinely failed to plug in was the PiP. In the case of company-car Volts, the issue there was one of economics; the drivers were reimbursed for gas they bought, but not for electricity they used for charging at home, so why would they charge? This should be fixable.

The reason I suggest 20 miles or so as a reasonable minimum, aside from the fact that it can cover the routine daily driving needs of 50% of American drivers (assuming it's all done in between charges which won't always be the case, so the actual % may be greater), is that the extra cost of the car is high enough that most people will consider it worthwhile to get their money's worth out of the car by charging it, even if they aren't ideologically motivated to do so.

It does suggest to me that subsidies and perks should be looked at and maybe modified. Right now, subsidies encourage big battery packs, but that may be the wrong approach; maybe they should give the largest subsidy per kWh to the smallest packs that meet the 20 mile (or whatever minimum AER is chosen for PHEVs) limit, with the subsidy decreasing as the battery gets bigger. That way, the people buying bigger batteries are doing so with the full intention of plugging them in, because they know they'll use it. And it pretty much guarantees that people will make full use of their battery range on a daily basis, thus spreading the limited battery storage across the greatest number of cars. Also providing a smaller subsidy to HEVs that meet some mpg requirement (say 45 mpg) would encourage people to really consider their needs, although with the highest gas prices in the country (and another 5.6 cents/gal. tax hike on July 1st, to add to the 12 cents that went into effect 11/2017), maybe no subsidy for HEVs in California will be needed. Prius sales took off starting in 2004 thanks to gas prices.

We really can't allow HEVs back into existing HOV lanes, as they're already too crowded in many parts of California, but what we could do is dedicate another regular lane to them (rather than building new ones, as we know that doesn't decrease VMT or traffic). Naturally, this would be immensely unpopular, and probably politically impossible at least for now.

[GRA]

Re resource limitations, see: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29500

[DarthPuppy]

Dang. And those resource constraints are just the U.K. electrification plans. It is clear that the migration to solar, wind, and battery needs to be done efficiently to get the biggest bang for those scarce resources. Now if we can only find a way to entice people to actually shift consumer demand based on this efficiency need.

I realize the temptation to go big on batteries is strong. Had the 2018 Leaf been the 60kwh version on launch, I would have bought that as that was large enough to work for my commute. But my Clarity PHEV gets the job done, eliminating 90+% of my gas use on less than 1/3 of the batteries.

Smaller range BEVs like my 2013 Leaf are also a great option for those whom that works - in our case it does since we also have a hybid in the family for the longer trips. But as pointed out by Sagebrush, getting people to go that route hasn't been real successful.

[GRA]

Dang. And those resource constraints are just the U.K. electrification plans. It is clear that the migration to solar, wind, and battery needs to be done efficiently to get the biggest bang for those scarce resources. Now if we can only find a way to entice people to actually shift consumer demand based on this efficiency need.

I realize the temptation to go big on batteries is strong. Had the 2018 Leaf been the 60kwh version on launch, I would have bought that as that was large enough to work for my commute. But my Clarity PHEV gets the job done, eliminating 90+% of my gas use on less than 1/3 of the batteries.

Smaller range BEVs like my 2013 Leaf are also a great option for those whom that works - in our case it does since we also have a hybrid in the family for the longer trips. But as pointed out by Sagebrush, getting people to go that route hasn't been real successful.

One of the reasons I'm in favor of FCPHEVs is that it gives us the option of trading off scarcity in one tech's raw materials for abundance in the other, assuming that FC and H2 costs can be brought down to a commercially viable level. Of course, there's also the issue of energy efficiency, but we have to trade that off against likely storage costs of all that RE (and the shortages that will incur). Which is one reason why I'm not willing yet to eliminate nukes from consideration, aside from their hugely reduced steel, cement and land requirements compared to RE.

Realistically, I don't think the one car per adult ownership model is viable going forward - we'll have to adopt MaaS as well as better urban design to eliminate as much powered VMT as possible, and (here) re-adopt mass transit.