I don't think we'll need two or three more waves of ICE PHEVs, just one or at the outside two, provided that public charging infrastructure is massively increased to service an all or mostly BEV fleet. But that requires public charging to be profitable while being cheaper than gas, and at the moment that isn't the case here.
Personally, I'm in no doubt that reducing GHGs and other emissions in routine daily driving ASAP is the best route to buying us the time needed to boost BEV/PHFCEV capability/reduce prices/build infrastructure. California has already instituted a minimum (35 mile UDDS, which is about 25 miles EPA combined) AER requirement for PHEVs to qualify for rebates and/or HOV stickers, forget which. That can be boosted as needed as time goes on and battery prices drop, although we don't want to boost the requirement beyond a range that covers the routine daily driving range of say 80% of U.S. drivers, or that can't be charged in 8 hours or less of L1. We need to keep prices and charging infrastructure requirements to a minimum so a much greater percentage of buyers can afford these cars and, especially for renters, be able to charge them. They can't afford and often have no practical way to charge long-range BEVs, for the next several years at least.
We'll either have to raise gas taxes considerably, as is the case in Europe, or provide other incentives. I favor ULEV and ultimately ZEV-only zones in cities, with some way (transponders) of allowing PHEVs to be used in them when running solely on the battery. Reduced tolls are another method. Of course, should they ever be politically possible here, carbon taxes on fuels and vehicles are the simplest route.
Last edited by GRA
on Sun Aug 23, 2020 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].
The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.