- cross-posted to:
- europe@lemmy.ml
- collapse@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- europe@lemmy.ml
- collapse@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://feddit.it/post/6569904
It’s not a typo: plug-in hybrids are used, in real word cases, with ICE much more than anticipated.
In the EU, fuel consumption monitoring devices are required on new cars. They studied over 10% of all cars sold in 2021 and turns out they use way more fuel, and generate way more CO2, than anybody thought.
The gap means that CO2 emissions reduction objectives from transport will be more difficult to reach.
Thruth is, we need less cars, not “better” cars.
“range anxiety”. You’re literally adding “well Joe schmo might not be able to drive 300+ miles and that makes him nervous” as a reason not to fight emissions lmfao.
The average driver doesn’t need a hybrid. They want one because they are lazy and will mostly still fill them with gas, as this article showed.
When the average car price is greater than $48,000 in the US now, one doesn’t have the luxury of choosing something for eco aspirations. Many US states are huge sprawling affairs, and many people have to drive large distances with frequency for work, life, errands.
Example: I can’t even make it to my state’s border in the longest-range currently-available electric car, and would end up in the middle of nowhere with no services, no charging stations, no infrastructure. In winter, it would be half that distance or less.
I am also probably the perfect demographic for a plug-in hybrid, and could utilize the plug-in aspect for shorter trips frequently. However, there’s no reason to replace a perfectly functional vehicle in good mechanical shape with an expensive fiscal debt as well as the carbon debt that new vehicle would also create.
If one does not understand the scale and size of places, one can’t comprehend how range anxiety (more like range reality) truly fits in.
However, if America was truly forward-thinking, they’d nationalize the railroads and put a focus on rebuilding the old rail infrastructure that existed over a century ago to entirely eliminate the necessity of long-distance personal vehicles.
Bro, I love in the middle of nowhere. My boss drives 2 hours a day to get to our work. So do a handful of other people with all electric vehicles.
It’s an emotional response, not a logical one.
Try figuring out to drive 120 miles vs 700. Try an 8 hour drive-day. Try being in a situation when your family has a problem and you have 1,700 miles to drive. Do you spend almost fifty grand on an electric car and plotting charge points that may or may not exist, or a vehicle that can let you cross multiple states without stopping? I hate gas. I would love a Toyota Mirai. Leaving home to get one US state over is a larger distance than the entire width of Germany. It’s a reality response, not emotional.
No? The main reason I would consider taking a car over bike or bus is if I am going long travel with family or have multiple passengers. Either way if a car can’t be of use when I need it the most then it’s pointless to me. Might change if the tech and infra improves here but for another few years it is not even an option for me.
So you need a gas car for that one time you might drive 300+ miles. The multiple people part is bullshit since we’re comparing hybrids to full EVs, not hybrids to a bicycle.
So, the one time you might need to drive really far, instead of taking a train, you want to own an hybrid 24/7.
Perfectly proving my point that it’s not a logical argument, it’s an emotional one.
Yeah?? Don’t assume things about others. My mom and grandma has serious motion sickness and we have to stop multiple times and take rest when they are with us. If a car that I paid a heavy price for doesn’t satisfy my need then I don’t buy it.