I'm not here to convince anyone, but to discuss. I studied to be a researcher (masters in molec bio), and so try to look at data and studies objectively and not close my eyes when the studies say differently than what I hope. I'm liberal and lean socialist...not exactly someone who despises saving the environment. Right now, based on all the life cycle studies, the mass behavior of commuters, and the limitations imposed by resources, it is really quite believable that PHEVs especially are the correct temporary path...a stepping stone to full BEV (or some other cleaner fuel) in future.

My belief is that ICE is doomed, and in the end we will move away from fossil fuel dependence completely, all the while helping our own health and environment.

 

Hmmmm...exactly what did I say that was not factual?

That study was comparing BEV vs ICE.

A PHEV as I said would barely emit any of the pollutants that an ICE would, assuming the normal behavior of the masses of people driving, plus it would not create as much pollutants during the manufacture of its battery due to it's much smaller hybrid battery. Therefore, it strikes a nice balance between the 2 extremes, and this would probably explain why the greenest car in that list is a PHEV, and how almost half of that list are PHEV or HEV.

 

Reminds me of the flaw of averages from the USAF back in the early 20s

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight...e52d60bd9.html

 

ICE is doomed? Moving away from fossil fuel is good for our health and the planet? They why are you touting this?


And this
And dozens of other posts where you slam EVs. But now you want petrol cars to go away?

 

My saying that BEVs aren't the best practical solution right now, doesn't mean I like or support pure ICE cars (in fact, I have said several times I would never go back to such "legacy" cars).

From the very start my opinion was that PHEV (and HEV maybe) is the middle and more practical (and environmentally cleaner) solution at this time. All the data I have found that looks at the entire vehicle life cycle seems to support this position.

 

The Prius Prime, mentioned above as the overall "greenest" vehicle, has a 44 mile EV only range. Which, is on a good weather day. It gets 47 MPG highway, once the battery is depleted. So, the only way it's considered greener is by driving 40 miles per day, or less?

 

My problem with this is....I would have to drive a Prius Prime lol

Nobody I know who drives an EV does so because its "green", they do so because they don't want to use and pay for gas or they love the EV powertrain, etc.



This completely depends on the user. For a daily driver when you have the ability to charge at home, I have a hard time seeing how an EV isn't the most practical solution. I would love to never worry about gas and just always have all the range I need available to me every morning. For travel, thats a different matter.

 

100% agreed. If being green is your primary criteria, then a PHEV might make the most sense. But my criteria include acceleration, capability, capacity, and enjoyment. There isn't a PHEV out there that can give me the combination I currently have

 

There isn't one. A HEV or PHEV is always a compromise. I love the PHEV powertrain in our Pacifica, but thats a utility vehicle. In the PHEV S Class I drove for instance, I did not like the PHEV powertrain because it was too slow in full EV and not smooth and refined enough once the engine kicked on...so in a car like that I would rather have the full ICE V8, or a full EV.

Compromise is fine in some cars, but not in others.

 

Depends on trim. The best gets 52 mpg on HV mode it seems:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...=1&rowLimit=50

On average, Americans drive around 30 miles total per day, which is well within the total EV range of many PHEVs, and I assume that factor is added into the equation to derive the greenest cars list.

Personally, I drive much less than that as I am remote.

Also, BEVs tend to be heavier on average than non-BEV cars due to the heavy battery, and this creates a new source of particulate pollution that many don't seem to realize and is beyond tailpipe emissions.

https://grist.org/transportation/ele...-problem-tire/

So, add this tire problem to the life cycle equation, and it gets even worse for health and environment.

 

They're not that heavier, and the weight is mostly right where it should be (unless you're looking for a "mid-rear engine" type of thing, but that's niche) - the floor. The lower the weight, the better the load distribution between the tires - during all transients. I'm pretty sure that an EV driven sanely and not by someone mentally handicapped that thinks that everybody's racing him will "emit" about as much tyre particulates as a comparable ICE. As for tires being a problem - funny thing is, the more expensive tires are seemingly orders of magnitude less of a problem than the cheaper ones.

 

This seems to be the relevant quote from that article:

Emissions Analytics found that a single car sheds almost nine pounds of tire weight per year, on average. Globally, that amounts to six million metric tons of tire pollution annually, with most of it coming from wealthier countries where personal car use is more prevalent.

The amount of tire pollution emitted per vehicle is increasing as more electric cars hit the road around the world — some 14 million of them this year, according to the International Energy Agency. EVs tend to be significantly heavier than gas-powered or hybrid cars due to their larger, heftier batteries. The average battery for an EV on the market today is roughly 1,000 pounds, with some outliers approaching 3,000 pounds — as much as an entire gasoline-powered compact car. Emissions Analytics has found that adding 1,000 pounds to a midsize vehicle increased tire wear by about 20 percent, and also that Tesla’s Model Y generated 26 percent more tire pollution than a similar Kia hybrid. EVs’ more aggressive torque, which translates into faster acceleration, is another factor that creates more tire particulate mile for mile, compared to similar internal combustion engine cars.

 

So who pays for these studies? Unless “Emissions Analytics” does these studies out of the goodness of their hearts, someone is providing their funding. So who? Someone with few EVs to sell but plenty of aging hybrids?

As always, you only need to follow the money and you’ll likely discover the actual agenda.

 

That company is an independent entity that has partnered with governmental/academic bodies in the UK to confirm their findings.

https://www.greencarcongress.com/202...220513-ea.html

I'll also point out that so long as the data is public and is there to be reviewed, the agenda is irrelevant. Everyone has an agenda, but if the studies are reviewed by peers and judged valid and cannot be refuted by alternative studies, then that's what matters.

Do you have proof that they were biased by some hidden funding? Does it matter if the raw data is valid?

 

In keeping things in perspective, a Prius Prime and a Chevy Volt weigh exactly the same. If you want to go with averages, our household average vehicle weight is 4,800lbs. Our Model Y weighs 4,300, so it's 1,000lbs lighter than our ICE. Our Model Y will probably never need brake pad replacements, so there's another emission you forgot to mention.