Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

LeftieBiker said:

I agree that what happened with the earlier adopters is happened on a larger scale now: having gotten that taste of EV driving with their PHEV, many people are going on to full-fledged EVs for their next vehicle, now that the range is in most cases at least adequate.

Click to expand...

Yup, agree with this pretty strongly. I knew better than to go this long way around, but somehow I ended up as an example. Got into a Leaf in 2012 (I knew it was a lame short range BEV), and then out of the frying pan and into the fire in a Volt in 2017. Finally bit the financial bullet and made it (barely) into a (barely) adequate used long(er)-range BEV in 2020.

These are still (very) early days and the readability of the situation is made harder by the special nature of the hold-back that the automakers have been engaging in, en masse, and with the markets, particularly in some regions, not really being fully competitive in all ways. So, it's not a piece of cake (in my opinion) to diagnose what will happen, and with multiple motives and factors at play:
- Is it easier for manufacturers to make PHEVs? And does making good PHEVS help them (financially and in strategic market position) to prolong the situation (rather than hasten toward BEVS)?
- Just as short range BEVS were not (at all) "the good stuff", so too shouldn't we understand that short EV range PHEVs are not the good stuff.
- Will decent zero carbon drop-in replacement synthetic fuels in time to make an unexpected difference in the path to BEVs? Or does none of this matter and the advantages of BEV just blast through the market and that's that?

I am sometimes struck by the comparison case of compact fluorescent bulbs: a transition technology that was flawed (especially since they contained mercury, so as a transition they were not good because they would be hard to get rid of once the even-better technology (LED Bulbs) was ready. It seems like CFLs were regarded as an answer, or as a transition answer, in at least some of our society, for awhile, and then no. I don't hear much any more about difficulty in transition to LEDs In fact, last I looked, I was unable to find any sort of decent widely-accessible data and charts on penetration of efficient LED bulbs worldwide. It's as though the transition to the final tech happened, or was on its way (including policy support of banning the old tech once the new tech was ready) and discussion of the old tech, and the transition tech, and of the issue really, were reduced. So, I don't really know fully how it worked out. There are plenty of factors that make this a not-great comparison to ICV/PHEV/BEV, but I still think at times it is worth asking if PHEVs be somewhat akin to CFLs.

jlsoaz said:

{LEDs vs CFLs} including policy support of banning the old tech once the new tech was ready) and discussion of the old tech, and the transition tech, and of the issue really, were reduced. So, I don't really know fully how it worked out. There are plenty of factors that make this a not-great comparison to ICV/PHEV/BEV, but I still think at times it is worth asking if PHEVs be somewhat akin to CFLs.

Click to expand...

I still have two old tech bulbs, and at least one of them can't be replaced with an LED. The oven light.

I don't have a lava light, but I just did a search for incandescent bulbs, and a bulb to replace the bulb in a lava light was one of the first real hits. Oven lights. After a bunch of LED bulbs designed to look like old school incandescent bulbs.

A search for CFLs finds both what I might expect, and some 4000 Lumen CFLs for some special purpose in photography.

Likewise, I expect ICE/PHEV to live on in a very small way for a very long time.

GRA said:

WetEV said:

The current Federal tax incentive means at a 18kWh battery gets the full tax credit. And there is no incentive for going to a higher EV motor power vs gas engine power.

Click to expand...

The customers are capable of deciding what performance they want and are willing to pay for. The one performance mandate I might impose on PHEVs other than a true hold mode is that they be able to reach and cruise at 80 mph on the battery alone, as that's the highest speed limit on any U.S. public road.

Click to expand...

Yet my point is that if you want a lot of electric miles, the electric performance needs to be acceptable to consumers. For example, "80 MPH on the flat" would not be electric miles climbing a pass. Like say I-90 over Snoqualmie Pass. Or US2 over Steven's pass. The higher the electric performance, the more electric miles. The old PIP isn't going to get many all electric miles on the freeway, with a top electric speed of 62 MPH and an electric 0-60 time that could be never.

If consumers are buying the car for other reasons that using less gasoline, such as a subsidy paid to reduce gasoline consumption, then the subsidy might want to be based on the car actually being driveable in all electric mode.

WetEV said:

GRA said:

WetEV said:

The current Federal tax incentive means at a 18kWh battery gets the full tax credit. And there is no incentive for going to a higher EV motor power vs gas engine power.

Click to expand...

The customers are capable of deciding what performance they want and are willing to pay for. The one performance mandate I might impose on PHEVs other than a true hold mode is that they be able to reach and cruise at 80 mph on the battery alone, as that's the highest speed limit on any U.S. public road.

Click to expand...

Yet my point is that if you want a lot of electric miles, the electric performance needs to be acceptable to consumers. For example, "80 MPH on the flat" would not be electric miles climbing a pass. Like say I-90 over Snoqualmie Pass. Or US2 over Steven's pass. The higher the electric performance, the more electric miles. The old PIP isn't going to get many all electric miles on the freeway, with a top electric speed of 62 MPH and an electric 0-60 time that could be never.

Click to expand...

Most PHEVs don't need "a lot of electric miles", they just need enough to run electrically for routine driving, particularly in the most congested areas. If you're a mega-commuter who's got a long commute every day, just lease a Bolt (or buy an Aptera) and have done with it. But the average American driver averages about 13,500 miles/year or 37 miles a day, and that includes all their trips, so a PHEV with much more than that is excessive, and wasted for most drivers.

I left out a lot of the details I'd include in the reg If I were writing it: it would be more specific, requiring maintaining 80 up a moderate slope of say 1-3 or maybe even 6% or into a 5 or 10 mph headwind, while running all hotel loads with at least two occupants or even at GVWR. If more extreme conditions force you to slow to 75 or even 70 that would probably be fine with many people, and for those who want 80 regardless manufacturers can design cars to suit.

Of course, the PiP's electric mode was very limited, but then given the typical urban commute speeds 62 mph isn't much of a limitation in congested traffic, which is where you get the most environmental benefit from electric driving - I doubt many people are long-distance cruising at 80 mph over Snoqualmie pass during a stop-and-go commute - that's what the ICE is for. The federal HOV lane standard requires a 45 mph average speed, and at least until California limited SO HOV stickers to a max. of 4 years, California wasn't attaining anywhere near that - Google "High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane Degradation in California" for a 2018 pdf.

I don't know if we're in compliance now. I know when I had to drive I-880 in a non-HOV lane once during the morning commute a few years back, it took me 1 hour to go 16 miles, and the HOV lane only appeared to be averaging a few mph more - if I ever hit 45 it was for a few seconds, and the same was true for them.

WetEV said:

If consumers are buying the car for other reasons that using less gasoline, such as a subsidy paid to reduce gasoline consumption, then the subsidy might want to be based on the car actually being driveable in all electric mode.

Click to expand...

What do you think I was talking about by requiring a true hold mode and specifying minimum electric performance?

WetEV said:

jlsoaz said:

{LEDs vs CFLs} including policy support of banning the old tech once the new tech was ready) and discussion of the old tech, and the transition tech, and of the issue really, were reduced. So, I don't really know fully how it worked out. There are plenty of factors that make this a not-great comparison to ICV/PHEV/BEV, but I still think at times it is worth asking if PHEVs be somewhat akin to CFLs.

Click to expand...

I still have two old tech bulbs, and at least one of them can't be replaced with an LED. The oven light.

I don't have a lava light, but I just did a search for incandescent bulbs, and a bulb to replace the bulb in a lava light was one of the first real hits. Oven lights. After a bunch of LED bulbs designed to look like old school incandescent bulbs.

A search for CFLs finds both what I might expect, and some 4000 Lumen CFLs for some special purpose in photography.

Likewise, I expect ICE/PHEV to live on in a very small way for a very long time.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that the old tech will have a very small niche, at least for awhile, but the question of the thread is about trying to gauge a tech to see if it is transitional or longer-lasting. In the case of cfl tech, it appears (from what little I know) to have been merely transitional, though maybe it is sticking around more than I realize. It seems hard to get data. PHEV? In some aspects the momentum seems toward full-blown BEVs. There's a black swan to be dealt with, if zero-carbon synthetic drop-in gasoline replacement fuels do improve in price and availability and volume, but for those of us who know the advantages of the best long-range BEVs, and that we are still early that tech, it's hard not to see PHEVs as just a bit of a transitional thing, regardless of zero-carbon fuels. ICV and PHEV will be around for hundreds or thousands of years in small numbers. The question is will PHEVs be around in somewhat larger numbers, or even continue to be revised and manufactured if/when the ghg problem is in-hand?

jlsoaz said:

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that the old tech will have a very small niche, at least for awhile, but the question of the thread is about trying to gauge a tech to see if it is transitional or longer-lasting. In the case of cfl tech, it appears (from what little I know) to have been merely transitional, though maybe it is sticking around more than I realize. It seems hard to get data. PHEV? In some aspects the momentum seems toward full-blown BEVs. There's a black swan to be dealt with, if zero-carbon synthetic drop-in gasoline replacement fuels do improve in price and availability and volume, but for those of us who know the advantages of the best long-range BEVs, and that we are still early that tech, it's hard not to see PHEVs as just a bit of a transitional thing, regardless of zero-carbon fuels. ICV and PHEV will be around for hundreds or thousands of years in small numbers. The question is will PHEVs be around in somewhat larger numbers, or even continue to be revised and manufactured if/when the ghg problem is in-hand?

Click to expand...

I have not any good answer.

It seems to me that there are niche requirements that BEVs will not do well at.

So some other fuel/energy store, such as synthetic, bio-fuel, hydrogen, Al-air batteries: pick one or name a different one, is likely to fill that niche.

Depending on factors I can only guess at, a PHEV might or might not be useful as electric power is cheaper, and doing a PHEV will be more expensive than a pure ICE (or whatever). Will reduced operational costs pay off the extra cost?

PHEVs will persist in the US for as long as the government allows them. In Western Europe and many parts of Asia, I suspect they will no longer be offered as new cars in the near future.

In the Middle East, Russian, Venezuela, and other oil producing, non democratic countries, I would guess ICE cars will only disappear when oil runs out.

The most basic argument for or against PHEV isn't so much a matter of convenience now that truly fast DC fast charging is proliferating, it is a matter of manufacturing: what is cheaper for a 400 mile range vehicle ? Extra battery, or an ICE system ? If the ICE system is a manufacturer cost of USD $4,000 and an EV needs 50 more kWh to make up the range difference, the manufacturer costs has to drop below $80 a kWh to kill ICE.

Tesla is probably a year away if their improved silicon tech pans out, and others a few years later.,

---
My wife and I test drove the Tesla Model 'Y' yesterday as part of pre-planning for when the LEAF needs replacement. Wife was happy, I prefer my Model 3**. But regardless, we agree that our next EV is going to have 400+ EPA miles to make trips in semi-rural area less L2 dependent.

** Partly because the Model 3 has much better driving dynamics than a CUV, and because I was unhappy with the view through the rear view mirror. It is a slat about 8 - 10 inches high. Perhaps Tesla will redesign the hatch to give more view.

Or, that gap can be closed by introducing a carbon tax on gasoline, at the pump. In British Columbia, where I live, we have had a carbon tax for many years. It's not coincidence that we also have one of the highest EV adoption rates in North America.

A carbon tax would also influence PHEV sales, as it might be enough to sway someone to purchase a BEV instead. Getting the majority of North Americans to purchase a BEV, rather than a PHEV, as their primary car is going to take some sort of disincentive - tax credits clearly aren't enough.

Thanks to our carbon tax, almost 10% of new cars sales in BC are for hybrids/EVs and 80% of those are for BEVs. Still a long way to go, but it wasn't that long ago that that figure was around 1%

alozzy said:

Or, that gap can be closed by introducing a carbon tax on gasoline, at the pump. In British Columbia, where I live, we have had a carbon tax for many years. It's not coincidence that we also have one of the highest EV adoption rates in North America.

A carbon tax would also influence PHEV sales, as it might be enough to sway someone to purchase a BEV instead. Getting the majority of North Americans to purchase a BEV, rather than a PHEV, as their primary car is going to take some sort of disincentive - tax credits clearly aren't enough.

Thanks to our carbon tax, almost 10% of new cars sales in BC are for hybrids/EVs and 80% of those are for BEVs. Still a long way to go, but it wasn't that long ago that that figure around 1%

Click to expand...

Americans are wed to the monthly payment of the car loan, and they *really* don't like arithmetic. Talk about TCO goes in one ear and out the other.

SageBrush said:

Americans are wed to the monthly payment of the car loan, and they *really* don't like arithmetic. Talk about TCO goes in one ear and out the other.

Click to expand...

Fair comment, but if gas prices were $4.50 US per gallon (like in Vancouver) then I think operating cost conversations would be more impactful. When, every time you gas up, your reaction is "ouch!", that sinks in pretty quickly...

Gas prices in Vancouver, WA are $3 US per gallon - so our BC prices are 50% higher

alozzy said:

SageBrush said:

Americans are wed to the monthly payment of the car loan, and they *really* don't like arithmetic. Talk about TCO goes in one ear and out the other.

Click to expand...

Fair comment, but if gas prices were $4.50 US per gallon (like in Vancouver) then I think operating cost conversations would be more impactful. When, every time you gas up, your reaction is "ouch!", that sinks in pretty quickly...

Gas prices in Vancouver, WA are $3 US per gallon - so our BC prices are 50% higher

Click to expand...

Back in the Prius days, it took fuel prices of close to $4 a gallon to see spikes in Prius sales in the USA. But that was a HEV that did not otherwise carry newfangled, 'unproven' technology or require *any* adjustment to habits or prejudices (other than less trips to the fueling station.)

$5 a gallon should do it for Merkins.

England, no longer part of Europe has slightly faster growth in PHEVs so far this year.



PHEVs were the majority of the plug in sales until 2019.

alozzy said:

Or, that gap can be closed by introducing a carbon tax on gasoline, at the pump. In British Columbia, where I live, we have had a carbon tax for many years. It's not coincidence that we also have one of the highest EV adoption rates in North America.

A carbon tax would also influence PHEV sales, as it might be enough to sway someone to purchase a BEV instead. Getting the majority of North Americans to purchase a BEV, rather than a PHEV, as their primary car is going to take some sort of disincentive - tax credits clearly aren't enough.

Thanks to our carbon tax, almost 10% of new cars sales in BC are for hybrids/EVs and 80% of those are for BEVs. Still a long way to go, but it wasn't that long ago that that figure was around 1%

Click to expand...

Thanks for these comments on the tax in your area. Admittedly it's not directly to question of the original poster (it's arguably more inline with a different thread that's going on), but I've been trying for a long time to keep my eyes open for anecdotal points like this, or any other information I can find, as to the efficacity and effects of such measures, and your point helps me a bit.

WetEV said:

England, no longer part of Europe has slightly faster growth in PHEVs so far this year.

[...]
PHEVs were the majority of the plug in sales until 2019.

Click to expand...

The lens that I see the overall EV markets story through has for a long time included the overall idea
that the market is supply-constrained for "the good stuff" (the long range BEVs). This lens I think has served me well to have a sense of what's going on, but I think this lens also may serve a bit here to understand that if the established automakers choose to supply PHEVs, then, to some extent, it is PHEV sales we are going to see. This is not to say they are all-powerful, but my own thought on PHEVs is that some of the automakers have been building up momentum for awhile to at least make a go of this transitional tech (perhaps because it's transitional tech and so gives them an extra generation or two of swapping vehicles in and out of folks' garages?). So, as I see things like good luxury PHEV variants of well-established desirable ICVs, then to some extent this makes sense to me for 2021. Will that still be going on a few years from now? I don't know to what degree.

PHEVs outsold BEVs in the E.U. in the first quarter, with almost triple the growth rate Y-o-Y of BEVs. See https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30946&p=603242#p603242 for the details.

GRA said:

PHEVs outsold BEVs in the E.U. in the first quarter, with almost triple the growth rate Y-o-Y of BEVs. See https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30946&p=603242#p603242 for the details.

Click to expand...

PHEVs were the majority of the plug in sales in Europe until 2019. Almost twice as many PHEVs as BEVs in 2015.

If this was pure economics of transport, with a side of air pollution reduction and a side of greenhouse gas reduction, then we might expect to see the transition from ICE as first to HEVs, then to PHEVs then to BEVs. Largely constrained by battery production.

HEVs need about 1kWh of battery, PHEVs need about 10 to 20kWh, and BEVs need about 40kWh and more.

As you might guess, the real world is far more complex than that.

WetEV said:

As you might guess, the real world is far more complex than that.

Click to expand...

But not by much -- just include subsidies and perks in your cost analysis

SageBrush said:

WetEV said:

As you might guess, the real world is far more complex than that.

Click to expand...

But not by much -- just include subsidies and perks in your cost analysis

Click to expand...

Like the subsidy of allowing ICE vehicles to dump toxic gases into everyone's lungs?

Or did you have something else in mind?

WetEV said:

GRA said:

PHEVs outsold BEVs in the E.U. in the first quarter, with almost triple the growth rate Y-o-Y of BEVs. See https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30946&p=603242#p603242 for the details.

Click to expand...

PHEVs were the majority of the plug in sales in Europe until 2019. Almost twice as many PHEVs as BEVs in 2015.

If this was pure economics of transport, with a side of air pollution reduction and a side of greenhouse gas reduction, then we might expect to see the transition from ICE as first to HEVs, then to PHEVs then to BEVs. Largely constrained by battery production.

HEVs need about 1kWh of battery, PHEVs need about 10 to 20kWh, and BEVs need about 40kWh and more.

As you might guess, the real world is far more complex than that.

Click to expand...

The sales seem to be following exactly that trajectory, with HEVs outselling both types of PEVs combined, 18.4% to (8.2% + 5.7%), while sales of gas/diesel cars continue to drop. I'm guessing the preponderance of HEVs is due to familiarity + price + lack of charging. But you are correct in that things are probably more complex than that. The article notes:

During the first quarter of the year, registrations of battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) in the EU increased by 59.1% to reach 146,185 cars, with demand still benefiting from government stimuli for zero-emission vehicles.

Click to expand...

Some of the prior loss of share by PHEVs was due to the Netherlands changing their subsidies several years back, which had favored PHEVs more than BEVs, especially as company cars, taxis etc , which is the source of much of the "drivers never plugged them in" data.

So, subsidies continue to distort the market.