The End of the Transitional PHEV

it's not a matter of a 'right answer', it's a matter of predicting the future. and it is imperative that all car manufacturers be reasonably on target to remain viable.

 

Completely right. If gas were much higher, this topic wouldn't exist, and in Cali, gas is about a buck higher than elsewhere in the country. However, everyone drives around in pickups and SUVs here too.

 

BEV is the future, but ICE is not ready t gone. For the same price and similar quality/size etc., I would rather to get a Clarity/Prius instead of Tesla.

 

Tesla is selling beyond California. Even in states that excluded their stores, and denies them incentives given to others.

 

PHEV and BEV have been running neck and neck in California, with BEV winning this year after Model 3 introduction. But I do not see how the article scales up from last couple months to conclude PHEV is dead. I believe the EU manufacturers are coming up with a lot of PHEV's. One thing I will say is USA GM et al may tend to want to go BEV for USA since they are not getting beat by Toyota/Honda/others there. Some USA political push for BEV only, which I tend to feel these articles are pushing that agenda.

 

I think the PHEV is the best of both worlds. You get a good range, 500 miles or more; a practical recharge time, two and half hours; and good mileage, over 90 MPH is pretty good in my mind. I can go months without filling up.

 

You also get the worse of both worlds. The loss of space and utility fitting all the necessary components into one car, still need a reliable, dedicated electric circuit or other means of charging, and the need to burn and buy gasoline along with the rest of ICE maintenance, even if all your driving is on EV.

 

Yes but hybrids aren't going away. You can not achieve the fuel efficiency of a hybrid with a gas or diesel engine vehicle. PHEVs are a simple extention of the hybrid.

 

I'll say. I remember a few years ago when Consumer Reports had an article on the cars with the best fuel economy rated by mileage. I eagerly read the article, curious as to which hybrid was getting the best mileage. I got confused when the first car had mpg mileage in the 30s. Then I noticed there wasn't a single hybrid in the list.

The problem, I realized, is that Consumer Reports, like much of the public, didn't consider the hybrid a real car. Even though you filled it with gas and drove it like any other gas car, they put it in its own separate category. They could have done the same thing with any other gas car type: 4 cylinder vs 8 cylinder, supercharged, etc, but only the hybrid got this 'special' banishment to its own category.

They've gotten a little better over the years, but they still seem to think of hybrids and electric cars as these weird curiosities which they reluctantly have to talk about.

 

Except that they aren't a simple extension of a hybrid in practice.

Compared to the Prius; the Prime has a modified transaxle, loses the middle rear seat(for now), loses 1.6 cubic feet of passenger space, and loses 7.6 cu.ft. of cargo space. It will use less gasoline, assuming the owner has reliable access for charging, but still requires the same ICE maintenance as the hybrid. A hypothetical Prius BEV wouldn't have those fuel or maintenance costs, nor would it lose utility compared to the hybrid. Eliminating the range anxiety of a BEV, or keeping the familiar utility of the ICE car with EV operation, by getting a PHEV does not come free.

Can't beat a hybrid for fuel efficiency, but ICE car efficiency is still improving, and full hybrids have a high cost where fuel is cheap.

 

Another technology that no one talks about is CNG vehicles. Natural gas is stupidly cheap right now, around $0.50 per therm, and 1 therm has a similar amount of energy as 1 gallon of gas. It's clean burning, and auto makers could retrofit their existing vehicles without much trouble (see the Civic GX).

Unfortunately the fueling infrastructure seems to be pretty expensive. It can't be compressed very quickly, so it has to be stored compressed for fast fueling. Although natural gas itself is cheap, CNG is relatively much more expensive. Prices seem to be similar to the price of gas around here. But I bet that could be overcome if the technology was scaled up, and if home refueling stations were common.

A hybrid electric CNG vehicle would be the cheapest form of transportation, possibly costing less than $0.01 per mile in fuel. Even riding a bike would cost more for fuel when you consider the food for additional calories you need (unless you drink straight soybean oil for your calories).

 

you answered your own question, but it is also a fossil fuel as well.

 

What does something like this cost (price link not working)?

...And now, there’s no need to wait for a nationwide network of fueling stations. Phill® by BRC FuelMaker enables you to refuel at home and save even more money on a gallon-equivalent basis. Phill is a small compressor appliance that’s as easy to operate as your natural gas stove. Mounted on your garage wall or a freestanding on a pedestal, it allows you to refuel overnight. Phill runs on electricity (at 800 watts, it uses less than most small kitchen appliances) and connects to the existing natural gas line at your house. More than half of U.S. homes – some 60 million – are already equipped with a natural gas line...​

Refueling at Home | Natural Gas

 

first google hit says 'on hold since 2012'

second hit from 2007 says 4k, and a 2k refurbish every 3,000 gallons

3rd hit says eaton is working on a unit in 2013, that would be available in 2015 at a cost of $500. to make.

4th hit says phill from zebulon is available for $4,500. there may be a fed tax credit

cngcenter.com says there is nothing reliable in the near future at a reasonable price

 

Natural gas is a very powerful greenhouse gas; much more than CO2. I can imagine fugitive emissions from CNG fueling stations all over the place contributing to a larger global warming problem than burning gasoline.

 

CNG has the same issues that hydrogen does, just to a lesser degree. A pump for filling a vehicle costs more than a gas one, and it takes longer.

The needs of containing a compressed gas require a heavier fuel tank that comes as a sphere, cylinder, or some variation of that, which can't be mounted as space efficiently in a car. The tanks also have a shelf life, with annual inspection requirements. Granted, long enough for most cars' lifetimes, but it does become an issue on the used market. It actually isn't much different than a plug in's battery in most people's perception.

For fleet operators of trucks, the issues become less of a problem, as there is more space for mounting the tanks. In addition to lower fuel costs, the maintenance costs also drop as the clean burning CNG means fewer oil changes than when using diesel or gasoline. So using CNG can save money overall.

For personal cars, it didn't work out with the Civic. The tank meant losing the spare tire, and maybe loss of some trunk space. That should improve with a chassis designed for CNG tanks, but the amount of CNG held can't be increased much without loss of space somewhere. Which is important to consider because the the CNG Civic had about as much range on a full tank as the Ioniq Electric; 120 to 125 miles.

Filling those tanks by a home filling station took over night. So living with a Civic CNG was like like living with a BEV, but with a charger that required regular maintenance, and without the EV perks of performance and low maintenance. A hybrid would help with the range, but faces the same issue as a diesel hybrid, the higher price.

Note that Honda stopped supporting home filling stations near the end, because they wouldn't dry the natural gas enough, and the cars' fuel systems were rotting out.

We can make methane renewably through different sources. But if we are at that point, we can convert it to methanol for spark engines and fuel oil for diesels.

It does break down into CO2 relatively quickly(IIRC, a few decades of life to CO2's centuries) once released. Renewable sources using CO2 from the atmosphere should stabilize the concentrations in the air. Not claiming no effect, but something much better than burning fossil fuels.

 

I'm not familiar with exactly how CNG filling works, but in theory it should be a completely sealed system. Anything more than a miniscule leak would be dangerous, not to mention the greenhouse effect.

Some of the problems could be overcome with a little technology. My electric toothbrush has RFID to see when the brush head is worn out. A similar system could prevent out-of-date tanks from being filled until the next service/inspection (after several conspicuous warnings of course).

I was not aware the home filling pumps need so much maintenance. But I bet pump technology would get better as CNG adoption increased. I knew home filling stations were an investment, but probably not much worse than early EV chargers.

The space limitation makes sense. If it's a less dense fuel that's not ideal. But it seems like it could work for huge SUVs and pickups, might as well make them even bigger.

 

Methane is a considerably more potent GHG, but not exhausted on purpose, at least from the commercial/consumer delivery/fueling side. And methane in the atmosphere has a half life of "only" 7 years.

Seeing as to the initial costs, maintenance, and safety of home CNG filling, it would make more sense to go with commercial CNG stations at existing gasoline stations. Most of these existing stations (unlike delivering H2) have natural gas lines already plumbed to them.

CNG might have made a good transition strategy for residential vehicles. Alas, we are already well enough into the BEV age, so the time for CNG has likely passed.

 

Anytime you make and break a filling connection, there's a puff of NG going out into the atmosphere.

NG is cleaner burning than gasoline, but it's still a fossil fuel, is a greenhouse gas, and combustion produces CO2. I don't think it solves a whole lot when it comes to global warming. See this article Natural Gas & Methane - Greenpeace USA also this one Natural gas vehicles worse for climate than diesel ones?

 

I just bought a Prime Plus. Not because it is a lot less expensive to run (gas here is down to about 2.61, at least for now) or because I save a lot on electric use for the 25 mi of local travel (at about 14 ¢ per Kw hr, and 6.7 kwh battery, about $0.90 compared to about 2.61/2 = 1.31 in gas for 25 mi). It was purely because I get around 5250 in state and federal tax rebates, so net cost before tax and tags was under 18500. There's no pure electric I could have used - the ranges are too low and the time to recharge even if I could get there is prohibitive. Only when battery tech gives like double the range and also there is a fast charging infrastructure (10 mins or less) that is almost as ubiquitous as gas stations could I use one.
Hydrogen fuel cell is fascinating but look at the map of fuel stations, just a few in CA. If that ever develops, we'll see.

moto g(6) ?