Hybrids v. Electrics... am I the only one who sees a major drawback?

Yeah, this irks me to no end. We can't compare the cost of the car if the most expensive component isn't included in the price!

I've never understood why people are happy with water emission. The FC proponents talk about water exhaust as if it is something we should all strive for! Is emitting water (that can freeze in the tailpipe, and thus needs to be heated to keep the fuel cell working) better than ZERO emissions?

Oop. I'm gonna take you to task. I bought my car for $31,000. I have driven it just about every day for seven years. I've paid nothing for fuel, and I've paid about $500 in maintenance (one brake job, one set of tires, one set of wiper blades). I can sell the car today for over $40k. If that's not paying me back, I'm not sure what is! When was the last time you heard of an automobile being your best investment in the past few years!? Mine was!

If we never account for the pollution, or the wars, or the people and animals that are sickened and killed by gasoline, then this simple math problem will not give us a relevant answer. We can't afford to keep burning gasoline, no matter what it costs at the pump.

Doh!

Double Doh!

I'll tell you though, I'm not to happy to hear about all these car drivers who are apparently NOT taking a shower to stay safe!

 

1. Yes, I'm a nit picker. You might as well learn that about me up front.
2. I'm quite relaxed, actually.
3. I now see what you were trying to say, but as you can see from the other comments (and mine), your point was not as clear as you might think.

You said, "that electricity comes from something being burned, and that is true." This of course is NOT true, even when we talk about the "average person." This simple fact has nothing to do with the average person. Electricity can be made in limitless ways. And that is a VERY important aspect to the subject of this thread. I hate to see it being swept under the rug.

 

I'm not even going to read all the posts and arguments because arguing why battery electric vehicles would be good for most drivers seems pointless.

One cannot go anywhere in the US of A (or likely the world) and buy a battery electric vehicle something like an all-common Honda Civic, that can perform anywhere near a Honda Civic. And if someone did build a Civic-like BEV, today, I'll bet it would cost $50k, be heavy and slow, and have a hugely expensive battery that costs ~ $10k to replace.

Everyday people are looking for cars to drive to get to work and such, not techno toys to play with in traffic.

When someone builds, first, a great car, that's very practical, seats 4, cost effective, comfortable and performs well among mad-dashing gasoline cars, and such car happens to be BEV, and they can juice up at home or on the road, well, I think the mainstream would buy them.

It is what it is. I'm glad hybrids are becoming mainstream. Hopefully in 10 years, plug-in hybrids cars will be fairly common.

 

That is more a reflection of community attitudes toward non-motorized transport than to anything else. Or to one's lack of familiarity with the best bike routes, which are usually different than car routes.

Over the past three decades, my region has put enormous effort into making the area somewhat bike-able. Now, my ability to pedal almost anywhere within 20 miles -- and much more in some directions -- is limited more by time, energy, and willingness to ride in foul weather, than by safety.

 

Sage. this isn't really comparing apples to apples though.
If you are going to include the efficience of producing the electricity, you should also include the efficiency loss in refining the crude oil and then shipping it to the gas stations.
That to me seems equivalent to 'refining the coal (into electricity)' and 'shipping' it to your home or other outlet.

And if using averages, coal makes up about half of the US electrical grid. The other half is a mix of natural gas, nuclear and renewables (and a tiny bit of oil?!).
So the efficiency at the electrical generation point is higher than 40% 'on average'.

 

It doesn't re.ally make much difference if thing are 32% efficient or 40%, what is important is that gas and diesel have a very limmited supplyl Some geothermal, solar, wind, can take over, but its likely to be clean burning of coal, diesel , or shal. If the coal power plant pumps the co2 back into the ground (sequestration). I'd like plug in suv's, and safe mini cars. Diverse solutions are needed to solve the problem.

 

I was being sarcastic, I dont think Fuel cells should be something we should "strive for" Electric is the future in my eyes.

I STRIVE for the day when I have an all electric car that I can recharge via my own personal solar array. no guilt no worries.

I would kill for a Tesla or even a converted Prius!

 

Wont I get really smelly Darell?

How do you sweep electricity under a rug?

 

I agree that we don't have a pit->wheel vs well->wheel comparo going on here.

Regarding your other point regarding source fuel mix currently making electricity, I think a fairer approach is to think marginally; as in, where does the newly required, additional electricity come from ? Unfortunately, that tends to be coal.

 

Got it! And while I did quote you, I wasn't really pointing my comment at you. The FCV proponents really do trot out this "we just emit water" thing as the holy grail. I just find it very odd why emitting *anything* is better than emitting *nothing*. But hey. They have to grasp at whatever they can.

I'm going to guess "yes" on this one, Pat.

Worst part is accidentally dripping the electricity on your hands and shoes when you unplug.

And the OTHER thing being left out of the discussion is how EVs are electricity storage devices on wheels. And E storage is exactly what the grid needs to make it cleaner and get away from coal and such. EVs are the path to a better, more efficient and cleaner grid. Yet their thought of as just another toaster on the coal nipple. EVs can time-shift usage tremendously.