Hybrids don't really need anymore focus than they have had for multiple decades now. It's a fully mature technology that isn't going to advance much in performance, efficiency, or cost no mater how much attention it gets. If it fits your needs great, buy one, if not but whatever does.
Plug-in hybrids have a benefit over BEVs in that they require fewer batteries. You can build 10 PHEVs with the batteries in one BEV. If Lithium production doesn't ramp up quickly enough, PHEVs should get more focus.
Additionally, PHEVs have unlimited range like ICE while using less fuel so they are good for people who frequently need more range than a BEV can provide.
This. I opted not to continue my EV lease when it ran out. Planning on getting a PHEV in a few months after prices ease a bit more. Right now, PHEVs are more appropriate for many. Also, FWIW, my wife hated the EV charging situation and prefers the familiar concept of getting gas at a gas station vs hunting for an open charger and waiting around for a charge.
That is a silly statement, as absurd as saying electricity itself is a dead end. The fact of the matter is EVs and electrified vehicles in general are the best answer we've got for the future of consumer mobility. Nothing else really competes long term.
There are many current challenges that prevent people from choosing an EV or against rapid majority adoption. We also have to consider that alternative methods of taxation (how to pay for roads) and the eventual reduction in tax incentives are problems that still need to be solved.
I'm also looking forward to the EVs that come out 1-2 decades from now with batteries that should have 4x+ density and/or half the cost. The biggest downer for me is all the damn tech that comes with them currently. If cost can come down, then I hope I can get one with less tech. Or that conversion kit will be common.
> We also have to consider that alternative methods of taxation (how to pay for roads) and the eventual reduction in tax incentives are problems that still need to be solved.
Are roads really payed from gas taxes? Everywhere? I perhaps naively assumed all the taxes go into a big bucket which is used to pay for all kinds of things, including roads.
Somehow even relatively poor countries manage to have good roads. We will save elsewhere. Most of the taxes go into the social bucket in most countries (retirement, social security, health, education) anyway.
"Are roads really payed from gas taxes? Everywhere?"
Fuel taxes are quite common. In some areas they do make up a large component of the road funding. Finding a replacement for them is a major issue.
"Somehow even relatively poor countries manage to have good roads. We will save elsewhere. Most of the taxes go into the social bucket in most countries (retirement, social security, health, education) anyway."
This doesn't make any sense and lacks factual support. How do the poor countries pay for the roads, and which counties are these? What are we saving and where? The majority of current taxes going to social programs has no relevance to this discussion. If we're eliminating a current tax and having the same service costs (or more due to increased weight), a new one will need to take it's place.
Well for me who hasn't owned a car for 25 years I'm going to be quite annoyed that I have to pay higher electricity prices because of EVs. It's bad enough that I have to breath in their exhaust etc.
Okay some portion of that may be Twitter but what does Twitter have to do with Lucid being down -8.4%, Rivian being down -9.3%, QuantumScape being down -8.6%, and Carvana being down -9.4%?
Exactly. Take media with a grain of salt when it comes to the stock market, most news are manufactured and speculated for traders to profit from fluctuations.
Stocks that are more volatile upwards are also more volatile downwards. If the entire market is trending down then volatile stocks will trend down more.
Imagine you you had a magic button that suddenly increased demand for a volatile security any time you pressed it. That would be a fairly valuable thing for some people.
The other responder pointed out I was using the simplest terms, which frankly looks right to me. But the answer is more pedestrian. I read the information phrased it as 2/3 was diesel and 2/3 of the remaining amount was labor. So I eliminated the chain and simplified it to 2/3 and (1/3*2/3) 2/9.
I honestly didn't even notice the denominators were different. All of the fractions were in simplest terms, which is (imo) preferable to using a common denominator.
All those things are true when comparing NiMH to NiCd but definitely not compared to lithium batteries. There's not a single metric for which you can't find a superior suitable lithium chemistry. Except for one: $Cost
Just Toyota doing Toyota things.
Also I would strongly disagree on the Prius comment. A lot of "HV battery fault" cars out there back in the day, refurbing them was a pretty good business for a while. The NiMH pack in the Prius was the basis for so many slack jawed comments "EVs will never work! You're just going to have to replace the battery every 5 years!"
Cost, as you mentioned, is one reason. However they also fare better at extended temperature ranges and under long periods of self discharge. They are, generally speaking, more forgiving of a battery chemistry.
Your quote about rollout of the Prius is exactly my point. That opinion was widespread when the Prius was introduced. The reliability of the Prius since then has changed public opinion greatly.
None of that makes any sense. What are you using as the basis for those statements? I feel like I'm hearing doublespeak where down is up.
NiMH infamously has HORRIBLE self discharge performance in comparison to pretty much any lithium chemistry.
Multiple lithium chemistries outperform NiMH in low temperature performance. Even LFP which is generally not recommended for unregulated conditions below about -10 degree will function at reduced capacity at -40c. Nearly all chemistries, except maybe LMO, have superior high temperature performance.
I also don't understand what you mean by more forgiving chemistry?
Production yields? Modern lithium cell plants can easily do 80%+
Tolerance to production variations? Multiple lithium chemistries are just as tolerant.
Fire/puncture resistance? Multiple lithium chemistries areas as safe or safer
Voltaic efficiency/Energy Efficiency/etc? Lithium chemistries are SIGNIFICANTLY better
Memory effect or reduced voltage? NIMH yes while lithium none
Cycle life? Once again nearly every lithium chemistry is superior. Some even still have acceptable performance after an order of magnitude more cycles than a NiMH cell.
At this point there is literally no reason someone would chose NiMH for a ground up design in a consumer vehicle other than cost ....seriously like none.
Also yes Prius reliability is pretty good, but the reliability and performance of the NiMH battery packs were not even in the range for what would be acceptable in a commercially successful EV.
At the time when commercial lithium batteries were $1000-$5000/kwh hour sure they were a fantastic compromise, but it's not even close now.
If Tesla had started with NiMH they would have been dead meat right out of the gate. Gone out of business in a couple years at most.
I was comparing specifically to Li-Ion in the comment above. As to why major automakers are not using LiFePO4 or other chemistries in their cars, I don’t know, but it’s not anything that makes Toyota unique, which was what I was talking about.
There are, for sure, a tons of great lithium chemistries in existence. But, outside of some very specific markets, they are not used in cars yet.
"Panasonic Corp (6752.T) said on Monday it will begin mass production of a new lithium-ion battery for Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) before the end of March 2024 at a plant in Japan."
Was this detail added by the article writer? Unless something has changed, Tesla cells are produced at the Tesla factories. These 4680 production lines are for Panasonic to sell to customers.
Tesla has been a huge proponent of the 4680 and rely on Panasonic for a huge number of batteries. I doubt they will supply them exclusively to Tesla but the vast majority will likely go there since no other EV platform (that I'm aware of) is ready to accommodate 4680s.
Of course, but the 4680 Y in Austin is being manufactured this year, possibly even right now. The cells aren't provided by this plant in Japan, they are currently being provided by Tesla's own equipment in CA.
I'm just guessing as to how they might use these cells that won't be produced in volume for at least two years. To me, new vehicles that haven't yet been announced are the most likely candidates. That could easily turn out to be wrong, of course.
