"Even if you buy no options at all, this will still be an amazing car!"

[Topher]

If we ask what is better for the community/country/earth for the next 10-20 years
PHEV+PV, or
EV+grid
is the answer really so obviously in favor of EV ?

I think so, yes. Over the next 10-20 years, gas gets worse, grid gets better; PHEV encourages gas infrastructure, EV encourages solar; EV also has the effect of making EV mainstream. Once we all agree that EV is the eventual end goal, hybrids just delay that. In 20 years,with some encouragement, the grid will be 100% renewable. In 10 years, if we get our act together. Run the exponential growth numbers out that far for PV panel production, see for yourself.

Thank you kindly.

 

[SageBrush]

At the same time, MPGe is about relative (tank/plug to wheel) energy efficiency/use, not energy quality, externalized costs, and so on.

Yep. It's the so on that gets me.

Not consumer fuel cost per mile, either absolute or relative if comparing an EV to an ICE
Not lifecycle CO2 per mile if comparing an EV to an ICE
Not EV range remaining

So **what is** the practical use ?

 

[SageBrush]

Over the next 10-20 years, gas gets worse, grid gets better; PHEV encourages gas infrastructure, EV encourages solar; EV also has the effect of making EV mainstream. Once we all agree that EV is the eventual end goal, hybrids just delay that. In 20 years,with some encouragement, the grid will be 100% renewable. In 10 years, if we get our act together. Run the exponential growth numbers out that far for PV panel production, see for yourself.

I agree with all these points, but I must point out the qualitative nature of each argument*. It is for this reason I prefer to support both approaches.

*From Topher, no less. ;-)

 

[SageBrush]

To me it is EV+grid. The grid is getting cleaner every year. A PHEV will still burn gas 10 years from now.

That is the rub. While you are waiting for a clean grid, emissions are much higher than a PHEV+PV

Try out the exercise for yourself, calculating out CO2, Nox and Sox emissions for the combined use of your car(s) and home electricity use over the next 15 years.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Yep. It's the so on that gets me.

Not consumer fuel cost per mile, either absolute or relative if comparing an EV to an ICE
Not lifecycle CO2 per mile if comparing an EV to an ICE
Not EV range remaining

So **what is** the practical use ?

All those are derived from the energy use per mile figures, but given the differences in gas/electricity costs as well as the carbon intensity of those fuels, I don't think there's enough room on the Monroney sticker for all that.

The range is pretty straightforward to me though.

http://hiwaay.net/~bzwilson/prius/Prime_vs_Volt_010.jpg

 

[Topher]

*From Topher, no less. ;-)

Here is a quick look at (some of) the numbers...
http://environmentnorthcarolinacent...eports/NCE Renewables on the Rise July 17.pdf

Thank you kindly.

 

[Topher]

Try out the exercise for yourself, calculating out CO2, Nox and Sox emissions for the combined use of your car(s) and home electricity use over the next 15 years.

Ok. Couldn't find all the numbers for SOx and NOx, so left as an exercise for the reader.

As of Last Month:
Car: 2007 Prius, 50 MPG, 12,000 Miles, 240 Gallons, 5,184 lbs of CO2
House Electricity: 2725 kWh (July 2016- June 2017), 2399 lbs of CO2
House Heating: Wood, 1.3 Cords (July 2016- June 2017), 4,597 lbs of CO2
Total (per year): 12,180 lbs of CO2

As of Today:
Car: 2007 Prius, 50 MPG, 12,000 Miles per year (actual), 240 Gallons, 5,184 lbs of CO2
House Electricity: Solar PV, 3269 kWh*, 290 lbs of CO2
House Heating (est): Wood, 0.3 Cords, 1,061 lbs of CO2; Heat Pump, 1563 kWh, 138 lbs of CO2
Total (per year): 6,673 lbs of CO2

With EV:
Car (est): Model 3, 4 miles per kWh, 12,000 Miles per year, 3,000 kWh, 266 lbs of CO2
House Electricity (est): Solar PV, 2276 kWh, 201 lbs of CO2
House Heating (est): Wood, 0.3 Cords, 1,061 lbs of CO2; Heat Pump, 1563 kWh, 138 lbs of CO2
Total (per year): 1,666 lbs of CO2

Notes:
1. Current house electricity is overproducing solar, costs (CO2 produced) are calculated on rated capacity, not use, as that higher cost is paid in advance in the production of the panels.
2. The Solar, EV and Heat pump all mutually reinforce each other. Each separately is a border line decision, together it is obviously a win.
3. This represents an order of magnitude improvement in my carbon footprint. Previously 10% per year was the average improvement.
4. CO2 produced for grid electricity is my local grid, yours will no doubt differ.
5. Having a hybrid (even had it been plugin) had not produced a reduction in my heating carbon output. Ever.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Red Sage]

Lol, hyperbole aside it is a bit silly and naive to reduce supercar-level "performance" to mere drag racing capability (for which auto makers don't engineer supercars, and buyers don't buy supercars).

Uhm, NO. That wasn't Tesla's doing. It wasn't even Tesla fans' doing. That was done by automotive enthusiast magazines and their fans -- long ago. There was a point where pretty much anything under the sun that could achieve a 0-60 MPH time below 6 seconds was considered a Supercar. Then the mark was placed below 5 seconds. And for a while, there were very, very few vehicles that could achieve 60 MPH or 100 kph in less than 4.5 seconds while being street legal production cars.

The problem for the guys making the hyper exclusive extremely expensive sports cars was at least three fold: 1) It had been discovered that their 'supercars' weren't as 'super' as had been claimed in the late 1970s and early 1980s -- none of them could actually reach or maintain or exceed 200 MPH after all -- often 300 kph (~186 MPH) was a struggle even under the best conditions; and 2) each benchmark they set for acceleration was matched by the much less expensive Chevrolet Corvette, and then matched again by the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird; and further, 3) Honda came along with the NSX and proved that an 'exotic' didn't have to be uncomfortable, unreliable, or unruly -- it could be a competent 'daily driver' that 'anyone could drive well' instead. That ruined the mystique of high end sports cars for some time. They were more about conspicuous consumption than anything else.

So, someone came up with the great idea of setting the benchmark for 0-60 MPH to under 4.0 seconds for Supercars, and below 3.5 seconds for Hypercars. For a good, long while it seemed as if that did the trick. Larger companies had to be wary of emissions and fuel economy results, so they were content to keep Chevrolet Camaro & Ford Mustang out of the running, while having limited sales of top-of-the-line versions of pony cars. Even a young and prosperous Elon Musk bought one of the first cars capable of 0-60 MPH in an almost magical 3.2 seconds -- the McLaren F1 -- before he promptly crashed and totaled the $1,000,000 car. Oops.

However, many people are only interested in their favorite car's drag racing numbers and like to emphasize how it compares to that of usually more expensive cars.

Well, sure! It's an AMERICAN TRADITION, and stuff! Going way back to the 1950s, when neither of my Parents had even reached their teenage years yet, drag racing was a great way to show the inherent superiority of AMERICAN IRON to wimpy European Trash. You know what? It still is! Heck, you had to throw a great big honking high displacement AMERICAN V8 into an Austin-Healey to do anything worthwhile on a drag strip... And the Shelby Cobra still did great on other race tracks too when it came time to make LEFTS and RIGHTS. That's how you show a Sunbeam Tiger or Karmann Ghia the way a race should REALLY be run!

Seems the same exact drag racing championing is going on here as with old souped up, tiny-engine import or "sleeper" camp vs the big V8 muscle car camp of 30 years ago.

Yes. This represents a big hidey high ho see ya later bye-ya to the tried and true phrase "There's No Replacement for Displacement!" theorem. And along with it, a long sayonara to all the squeeze bottles and turbocharging and engine management computer trickery that has kept 'tuners' one step ahead of CARB and OBD II all this time. Because now it doesn't matter how many pistons, turbos, valves, superchargers, cams, or rotary plates you throw at the issue -- you will be looking at an electric car's tail lights tripping the tape after 1,320 feet. So ends the interminable claims that, "Yeah, but I bet you can't do THIS!" Because one by one, they all fall. ICE vehicles are destined to be trotted out just like horses, as a novelty to be seen on closed courses for parades or on race tracks on the weekends. No longer used as primary transportation. No longer revered for their race performance. Thus, the ICE AGE ends.

 

[Waiting4M3]

That is the rub. While you are waiting for a clean grid, emissions are much higher than a PHEV+PV

Try out the exercise for yourself, calculating out CO2, Nox and Sox emissions for the combined use of your car(s) and home electricity use over the next 15 years.

According to this calculator, in California, per 1,000 kwh of electricity, it emits 0.24 ton (480lb) of CO2, in Colorado, the same 1,000 kwh electricity equates to 0.87 ton (1740 lb). You should be blaming your state's dirty grid, and not EV. I live in a condo so can't have my own solar, so I'm paying PG$E ~$10/month to help them with grid level solar, what can you do in Colorado? Last time I visited there is plenty of room and sunshine there.

 

[Topher]

I live in a condo so can't have my own solar,

Are community solar farms not allowed in California? I was under the impression that they were. A community solar farm allows you to have your own solar, that travels with you (within the service area), and you can sell independently of your condo (if you move out of the service area).

Thank you kindly.

 

[SageBrush]

According to this calculator, in California, per 1,000 kwh of electricity, it emits 0.24 ton (480lb) of CO2, in Colorado, the same 1,000 kwh electricity equates to 0.87 ton (1740 lb). You should be blaming your state's dirty grid, and not EV. I live in a condo so can't have my own solar, so I'm paying PG$E ~$10/month to help them with grid level solar, what can you do in Colorado? Last time I visited there is plenty of room and sunshine there.

It was not my intent to turn this into a me Vs you, or Colorado Vs CA.

I did, however post earlier my annual emissions from a Car+Home_electricity using a PHEV+LEAF+PV
Sox: 0
NOx: 15 grams a year
CO2: 2,500 pounds (100 gallons)

I flipped a 2013 Honda Fit and 2012 Toyota Prius V + tax credits + $7,000 into the 2013 Leaf + 2017 Prius Prime + PV

This is not a clean comparison obviously, since I own a LEAF. My point here is that buying a PHEV left money for the PV array

 

[Waiting4M3]

It was not my intent to turn this into a me Vs you, or Colorado Vs CA.

I did, however post earlier my annual emissions from a Car+Home_electricity using a PHEV+LEAF+PV
Sox: 0
NOx: 15 grams a year
CO2: 2,500 pounds

I flipped a 2013 Honda Fit and 2012 Toyota Prius V + tax credits + $7,000 into the 2013 Leaf + 2017 Prius Prime + PV

This is not a clean comparison obviously, since I own a LEAF. My point here is that buying a PHEV left money for the PV array

I see your point. I'm coming from a little different perspective. I'm still driving a 2004 Prius, after 13 year and 160K miles. My next car could well be my last if the autonomous driving thing works out. I don't want my next car to have anything to do with gasoline at all. If I were to be switching cars frequently, I probably would have been driving a PHEV or short range BEV at this point. But at least for me personally, I've moved on from the hybrid scene.

 

[SageBrush]

I see your point. I'm coming from a little different perspective. I'm still driving a 2004 Prius, after 13 year and 160K miles. My next car could well be my last if the autonomous driving thing works out. I don't want my next car to have anything to do with gasoline at all. If I were to be switching cars frequently, I probably would have been driving a PHEV or short range BEV at this point. But at least for me personally, I've moved on from the hybrid scene.

Don't be distracted by the car flipping -- it was a side-effect of generous tax credits.
And if you have the money for EV+PV -- GREAT.

My point is that PHEV is usually cheaper than EV and the money left over plowed into PV is likely better for than environment, community and country than EV+grid use. Topher thinks not and I respect Topher immensely so I'll just say that it is a choice that should not be dismissed out of hand and certainly not derided.

 

[DR61]

That's how you show a Sunbeam Tiger or Karmann Ghia the way a race should REALLY be run!

Wait, you mean Sunbeam Alpine - the Tiger had a Ford V-8 stuffed in by Shelby. I had one once .

 

[Topher]

My point is that PHEV is usually cheaper than EV and the money left over plowed into PV

Addressing just this point: The issue should not be money, but credit. If one has credit available, buying PV is a sound investment by itself (pretty much anywhere).

Given that one is getting PV, the incremental cost for adding a few more panels to service an EV as well as the house is pretty small (say around $120 per yearly 1k miles traveled). Now run the TCO for the PHEV and an EV.

Sequence is very important in calculating energy savings.

Thank you kindly.

 

[SageBrush]

Given that one is getting PV, the incremental cost for adding a few more panels to service an EV as well as the house is pretty small (say around $120 per yearly 1k miles traveled). Now run the TCO for the PHEV and an EV.

I'll take a stab at this:

My Prius Prime cost $25.5k before subsidy and is used for 11k miles at year a ~ 110 mpg for annual petrol cost of ~ $220
For my use the cheapest alternative EV is the Model 3 at $35k before subsidy
The petrol consumption carbon can be offset with about 1.5 kW of PV which has a marginal cost of ~ $1,500 ... and has the benefit of no NOx or SOx emissions from the grid and can be expected to last two car lifetimes.
In total:
PHEV+PV+ $220 a year
vs
EV+$8,000

There are other pieces to this puzzle like cost of car insurance, taxes, car repair, car maintenance and car longevity that all detract from the EV argument so I'll skip them since the bare bones analysis speaks for itself. And since I could never keep my mouth shut, I'll just quietly mention that the low marginal cost of extra PV just dilutes the EV argument further by increasing the latter's opportunity cost. The car cost difference is worth an extra 6 kW of PV.

----
Keep in mind, I'm looking forward to a Model 3 that will run off my PV. I'm solidly in the EV camp, although I do not call it the least expensive environmentally sensitive alternative.

 

[DarthPierce]

...although I do not call it the least expensive environmentally sensitive alternative.

As someone originally from Colorado, but living in Seattle for the last decade, solar can be wonderful environmentally, and from a cost perspective when you live someplace that's heavily coal dependent and sees 300+ days of sun. However it is far from " the least expensive environmentally sensitive alternative" if you live somewhere where 95% of the grid is renewables and it's *very* cloudy 300+ days a year.

Further example, using Tesla's solar tiles estimator on my parents house (in Colorado) it pays itself off and generates a net of $50,000 in extra energy during 30 years. My house in Seattle, on the other hand could only generate 19k in energy TOTAL, paying back way less than half of the original cost even over 30 years....

I'm a great believer in PV, but it certainly isn't practical everywhere.

 

[SageBrush]

I'm a great believer in PV, but it certainly isn't practical everywhere.

I agree -- not everywhere. Say 90% ?
But you do not have to place it locally. That is one of the silver linings of CO2 emissions.

And if you live in a progressive area like Europe, you probably have the option of community wind if the climate is too cloudy.

 

[Red Sage]

Comparing a Tesla Model S drag racing capability to a super car's drag racing capability was admittedly reductionistic, ok. So now you are comparing an EV supercar's capability to an ICE supercar's capability. And by extension the 5000lb Tesla sedan is now somehow a super car? But, but, but...

No, you claim it is 'reductionistic'. I disagree. It is a long held tradition in 'run what ya brung' automotive enthusiasm that 'bang for the buck' performance yields serious bragging points and awesome kudos. When Honda/Acura hung a $55,000 price tag on the NSX, fans of the Mitsubishi 300GT VR4 immediately cried foul and pointed out how for $20,000 less you could get that car with all wheel drive, four wheel steer, and two turbos... Of course, the much, much heavier VR4 got smoked by the NSX, but that is another story...

When some guy pulls up to the line in a crappy Porsche 911 Turbo and blows the doors off every Corvette, Camaro, Firebird, and Challenger on the premises? You pat him on the back, shake his hand, and congratulate him. Then you go back to the shop and figure out a way to blow his doors off next weekend. There's no crying in motorsports. And when everyone at the local 1/4 mile strip is scared $#!+less to run against that rocket car that set the car in the other lane on fire last week, all that matters is the time that it trips the lights at the end of the run. No one is gonna file injunctions to try and get it banned from the circuit, just so that their old HEMI 'Cuda can be KING of the STRIP again.

When it comes to ICE, there are a myriad of different ways to do it, and plenty of people willing to claim their way is 'best' while putting their reputation on the line. V, Inline, Horizontally opposed, Boxer, Wankel Rotary... Front engine, rear engine, mid engine... Pushrods, overhead cams... Timing belt, timing chain, carburetor, electronic fuel injection, computer fuel injection, variable valve timing and lift... Turbocharged, supercharged, naturally aspirated, nitrous oxide... Put them together in the 'formula' you personally prefer, then challenge all comers. That's the way it always has been. No way to back out now.

The track tests were engineered over the course of decades and accepted as primary measuring sticks long ago. 0-60 MPH (0-100 kph) runs, 1/4 mile (1,000 m) trap speed, skidpad, slalom, braking, emergency lane change, figure eight... All these and more have been used since well before Tesla came on the scene. And even some that make no sense whatsoever in the 'Real World' like Top Speed or Nürburgring lap times are revered goals that have achieved a level of significance that approaches religious fervor.

Oh, but when an electric car starts to tic off those goals, one by one, and by a wide margin, and easily three decades before anyone thought it might happen? All of a sudden the goalposts must be moved (let's see it do ten laps) or the numbers 'don't really mean anything' anymore (who cares about acceleration). C'mon, MAN! That's [BOLSHEVIK]!

And don't tell me it has to be a 'real car' that is street legal and 'affordable' for the Nürburgring lap times to count, either. With a starting price of $117,895 the Dodge Viper SRT-10 ACR was probably the least expensive car in the top 10 finishers on that track. The Porsche 911 GT3 was $146,300 to get into. The Nissan GT-R Nismo is likely in third place with pricing, at within 10 bucks of $175,000 to start. The BMW M4 GTS that posted the #32 time at Nürburgring has little to do with the version you can drive off the lot of an 'independent franchised dealership'. Just about every car in the top 100 is either race prepped complete with decals and stickers or is gutted of any creature comforts prior to making the run. I think that before the end of 2019 a Tesla Model ☰ will in some guise occupy a position in the top 30.

 

[zenmaster]

So, someone came up with the great idea of setting the benchmark for 0-60 MPH to under 4.0 seconds for Supercars, and below 3.5 seconds for Hypercars.

lol, when was this nonsense spewed. Very bad info. BTW, the Tesla Model S P100D out accelerates the $1.48 million NIO EP9, so I guess that makes the Tesla a "hypercar". Too funny and naive.