2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
For me, the "mission" question is "does each battery put in a hybrid reduce atmospheric GHG's as much as an equivalent amount of battery put in an EV RIGHT NOW?" I actually think that answer is a little tougher to come up with, particularly given that globally, the EV manufacturers cannot make enough EV's to meet demand. Does taking a small amount of battery materials and putting them into a 53 mpg Prius (my current Gas Guzzler when I'm not driving the Model Y) knock out more GHG's than the ~1/50th of an EV battery you could make with it? Depends on what the consumer would have bought otherwise - this is not simple since, again, no one (not even the 800-lb gorilla in the room, Tesla) has the factories to meet demand right now.
If some percentage of those battery materials end up in Priuses (straight hybrid for this discussion, not PHEV - added complexity to calculate), and those 53 mpg Priuses (which Toyota can make en masse) displace 15 mpg Toyota Tundras (yes this does occasionally happen), are we better off overall in the next 20 years than if those battery materials were sitting idle while Tesla builds more factories (remember, Elon says they are not cell constrained)? Particularly since those Prius batteries at end-of-life can still be downcycled to energy storage, or recycled into EV batteries once we have enough EV manufacturing worldwide?
Or does the absolutist stance that considers none of these things but just says "no more ICE build ever" hold?
I do not think I know the answer, but I do not think it is simple. But I agree that, in all these scenarios Tesla is still in thehedgehogcatbird seat.
These are valid points to consider, and in my view there are a few more to add.
There is no shortage of battery materials, lithium, iron, nickel, silicon, manganese, etc. are plentiful. The shortage is in the ability to mine and process these in adequate volume to meet increasing demand. My view of this is that of a classic supply/demand scenario that will sort itself out simply because there is profit to be made.
The next thing to add is the lifespan of a car. A pure BEV will cost less to maintain and will have a longer life than will a Frankenstein's monster PHEV that provides a limited version of the benefits of a pure EV while toting along all the additional costs across it's reduced lifetime that comes with the parts that are still but a traditional ICE vehicle beneath the sheet metal, masquerading as a Green machine.
In both cases the most significant variable to consider is time. How does any GHG advantage of a PHEV in the moment of purchase weigh out over time, after considering shorter lifespan, higher maintenance costs, and reduced efficiency when compared to a BEV?
It seems to me that the time factor is the part of the equation which will doom PHEV, once the information permeates the semi-consciousness of the buying public.