Pelican Parts Forums - Hybrids vs EVs

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Hybrids vs EVs (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/1147305-hybrids-vs-evs.html)

But what about the Corvette E-Ray ?
I'd never even heard of it until I saw on Leno's Garage last night.
https://www.chevrolet.com/performance/corvette/e-ray

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iqImnIAZwjg?si=n2zF_FFfuoAVPivD" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Quote:

Originally Posted by gacook (Post 12103198)

You answered your own question. Those extra hour or two mean a lot to some people. I'd rather spend a few bucks on gas than waste the most precious resource there is...time.

I can always get more money

Harry Metcalf’s look at EV’s vs PHEV. Like his channel, he is always very thoughtful

Check this out, it should be first on the list when comparing Hybrids to EVs. The EOE (Electrification Of Everything) is not good…

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2021/03/25/sf6-the-little-gas-that-could-make-global-warming-worse/

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgp steve (Post 12128715)

"...While the promise of electrification is in part climate related and to address energy poverty, "

Of the two, our energy poverty is the most serious. Our entire economy is based on petroleum - a globally traded commodity over which we have little supply and little control. We are trusting the countries that do have the petroleum to play nice, and except for a blip in the early 70s they have so far, but the idea that the strength of our economy is ultimately in the hands of countries that don't necessarily like us should scare the crap out of us.

The oil companies aren't our friends. They pump oil out from under our feet and sell it to the highest bidder. We need to base our economy on an energy source that can't be put on ships and sent to the highest bidder. So far it looks like electricity. We need to stop farting around with wind and solar and ramp up our nuclear capacity.

I agree, I think Hybrid is better but never understood why it needs to be a plug-in. If they really wanted efficiency they would put solar on the roof and hood and a wind powered generator in the grill to charge the batteries, they gas as a last resort.

Just my thoughts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdfifteen (Post 12128826)

In the past 10 years, the United States has been energy self-sufficient. We are the most efficient in use of energy (lowest carbon footprint).

Wind and solar have their place, but nothing beats nuclear. The issue with nuclear has always been a focus on extremely large plants. We would be far better off with hundreds or thousands of smaller nuclear plants, say the size used for Nuclear Aircraft carriers. Basically, a civilian version of that nuclear reactor.

Or better yet, a Gen 4 gas cooled reactor, that can exceed 50% thermal efficiency. It would look similar to our Combined cycle gas turbine plants, just using nuclear heat instead of combustion gasses.

The other thing that we need is large scale reliable energy storage. That will help no matter the energy source.

Finally, back on topic, EV vs. Hybrid. When we were designing the solar energy systems for off-shore platforms and then for commercial/residential, a hybrid system was far cheaper than a solar only system. With solar only, you needed 3-5 days of batteries and an over sized solar panel system to allow it to ride through cloudy days and storms.

A hybrid system using 10% or so energy from a generator, reduced the battery size to 16 hours and the solar array to just produce a standard 24 hour day of energy. The cost for the hybrid system was about a third of the standalone solar.

For EVs, most of us could get by with 40-80 miles of range and then a small engine for the long trips. You would probably use the engine only about 10% of the time. It reduces cost and makes the car more efficient (lower weight). It just makes sense.

A Sr Men's club I belong to had a recent speaker for our monthly breakfast meeting. He is a Sr exec from the major regional energy provider and spoke at length on their program for the future which includes existing nuclear, new small nuclear plants converting old fossil steam plants on existing infrastructure, retain some existing carbon fueled, wind, solar, battery and hydro, sounds like a well-balanced program.
One major takeaway I got was when he said that if all of you decide to get EV's and all decide to charge them at the same time your neighborhood lights will go out. Huh? He went on to explain that on top of all the current increasing demand for power, for the foreseeable future there is no generation capacity for this scenario to work and even if there was there is not enough distribution capacity.

Hybrid just increases gas mileage but has very little driving range on pure electric power.
Plug in hybrid is a better option because it may allow to commute on just electrical power.
EV is not practical for mass adoption because the grid capacity just cannot support it, as mentioned above.

From the car maker perspective, EV is a better option because they save on many parts in the drivetrain. From a user perspective, PHEV gives the best of both worlds IMO:gas for long trips, and electrical for short commutes. Never risk to run out of juice, smaller, cheaper and safer battery. Recharge at work at drive back at company’s expense :).

Personally, from a financial and practical perspective, I still think a used high gas mileage ICE engine car makes the most sense. For example, a used Honda Civic that gets 40 mpg and costs less than $8k is hard to beat for usage cost…

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-beard (Post 12128934)

In the past 10 years, the United States has been energy self-sufficient. We are the most efficient in use of energy (lowest carbon footprint)...

BIG snip

For EVs, most of us could get by with 40-80 miles of range and then a small engine for the long trips. You would probably use the engine only about 10% of the time. It reduces cost and makes the car more efficient (lower weight). It just makes sense...

Well said Red, especially the part about nuclear power and, at least in the interim, hybrid cars.
Not only have we been energy "self-sufficient" (a bit of a misnomer), we have been a net exporter of petroleum for the past 3 years.
But the US share of the technically and economically recoverable oil is a tiny drop compared to the global supply. Most estimates are that the US supply of T&E recoverable oil will last somewhere between 35 and 45 years. Technology and the economy are so fluid it is hard to make a solid estimate. Pumping as fast as they can and selling the surplus on the global market, as the oil companies are doing now, will put that at the lower end. We have a lot of oil shale that is currently too difficult and expensive to mine and extract, but who knows?
The most intractable problem we have with depending on oil is that the big players who set the prices and control the volume do so for political purposes while the US producers are profit motivated capitalists. Just this June OPEC+ cut supply to keep the price up for Russia's benefit. When we take away OPEC+ power to manipulate US gas prices we take away a lot of their global political power.
What does this have to do with hybrid cars? Not much. Hybrid vs Plug in is a short horizon problem. Long term, the less we rely on petroleum for energy the stronger the economy we leave for our great grandchildren will be.

EVs and the EoE’s (electrification of everything) may soon be protected from environmental impact studies. Buy stock in SF6.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4313447-biden-environmental-reviews-renewable-energy/