Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Transportation Earth Power

Americans are Buying Twice as Many Hybrids as Fully Electric Vehicles. Is The Next Step Synthetic Fuels? (yahoo.com) 141

Posted by EditorDavid from the motley-fuels dept.
As recently as 2021, GM "all but eliminated" hybrids from its future product plans, reports the New York Times. "But then a funny thing happened." Car shoppers balked at the high prices of fully electric models and the challenges of charging them. In the last few years, sales of electric vehicles have grown at a much slower rate than automakers once expected. And hybrids have stepped in to fill the gap, accounting for a large and growing share of new car sales... In the first three months of this year, hybrids — including cars that can and cannot be plugged in — made up about 14 percent of all light vehicles sold in the United States, according to the Department of Energy. That was around twice the market share of fully electric vehicles in that period...

Several automakers are slowing the introduction of new electric vehicles, and have accelerated development of new hybrids.
Robb Report looks at the current status of hybrids — and a possible future: "The charging infrastructure in most countries is not yet mature enough to support convenient mass adoption of battery-electric vehicles, and in some territories never will be," says Jonathan Hall, head of research and advanced engineering at U.K.-based consulting group Mahle Powertrain....

Porsche, active in this space since 2010, just hybridized its iconic 911 for this model year. Lamborghini also joined the trend with the debut of its 1,000 hp Revuelto hybrid in 2023. "The company doesn't plan to give up the internal-combustion engine anytime soon," says CTO Rouven Mohr. "We are also considering synthetic fuels to keep ICE vehicles running after 2030."

Hall concurs: "With the emergence of bio-based and even fully synthetic fuels, the link between the ICE and climate change can be broken." Combined with the development of better batteries, this progressive hybrid model could offer the best of both worlds for years to come.

Americans are Buying Twice as Many Hybrids as Fully Electric Vehicles. Is The Next Step Synthetic Fuels? More | Reply

Americans are Buying Twice as Many Hybrids as Fully Electric Vehicles. Is The Next Step Synthetic Fuels?

Comments Filter:

  • Toyota Hybrids (Score:5, Informative)

    by 0xG ( 712423 ) on Sunday June 22, 2025 @11:40AM (#65467637)

    We put down a fully refundable deposit, but they told us 1-2 years wait for delivery.
    That was for a RAV4 or Highlander.

    • I expect that to drop dramatically because Toyota just recently opened a new battery plant for their hybrid models. And I wouldn't be surprised that Toyota will start sourcing battery packs from third parties for their burgeoning hybrid lineup.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        Maybe, but unlikely. RAV4s and Corollas have been all hybrid in much of the world for a while now. But those have tiny batteries, lowest end models don't even have a single kWh of capacity (1.8L Corolla for example has somewhere between 0,7 and 0,8 kWh battery for example). It's there to work as a regenerative braking's storage, not something that offers meaningful range. Also these hybrids can generally take both NiMH and Li-ion versions of the battery. It's generally so small that added weight from going

    • If the hybrids are plug-in hybrids, using electric to run around town, and gas to extend the range, this is nearly as good as fully electric vehicles. Most driving is pretty short distances, and so you only need a pretty small battery.

      If they're not... well, why not? Hybrids have electric trains and batteries already, why not go the rest of the way to a plug-in hybrid?

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by MacMann ( 7518492 )

        If the hybrids are plug-in hybrids, using electric to run around town, and gas to extend the range, this is nearly as good as fully electric vehicles. Most driving is pretty short distances, and so you only need a pretty small battery.

        I can certainly agree, and I'm amazed more people don't make that realization. There's some "purists" that can't comprehend why someone would want or need anything but a BEV. I guess they never had to travel with children on a long trip. The kids want to get home so they can eat, play, nap, or do anything than be strapped to a seat. The shorter the stops the better. Pull up to the pump, Mom takes the kids to the restrooms, Dad pumps the fuel, strap the kids back in, and off you go again. If the kids s

        • >"There's some "purists" that can't comprehend why someone would want or need anything but a BEV. I guess they never had to travel with children on a long trip."

          There are people blinded to others' positions everywhere, all the time. It is rather frustrating and education is key.

          It really comes down to two major things when deciding if you want/need a gas option in your vehicle. First is if the range will meet some X% of your needs, and second is if you can charge adequately at home. Consumers are beco

      • I agree, it will be the best of both worlds, especially since the charging infrastructure still is quite insufficient in some areas as well as it sometimes incur some outrageous costs due to some companies having excessive fees in some places.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        Two reasons:

        1. Battery size increases dramatically, requiring redesign of the entire chassis to fit it. Normal hybrid batteries are around 1kWh, and as a result can fit under rear seat with minimal modifications. Plug-in hybrids realistically start at around ten times that, and that means redesign to fit it.
        2. MGs must be much more powerful. Specifically MG2 (if you're going with original hybrid patent naming pattern) must be significantly more powerful, as that's the one that is responsible for driving the

  • Synthetic fuels (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Sunday June 22, 2025 @11:43AM (#65467645)

    Aren't happening.

    Let me get this straight. To make a synthetic fuel you need to burn some energy in processing. Does your new synthetic fuel have more energy than you put into it? Unlikely. You created something more expensive with less stored energy than the raw materials. Who is going to buy your new more expensive fuel that's less energy dense than gasoline?

    Same deal with hydrogen. It's an amazing fuel. You just have to burn energy to get some.

    • Use solar to get the initial charge without fuel costs

      • Might as well go with fully electric vehicles at that point.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by caseih ( 160668 )

          The energy density of liquid synthetic fuel is far greater than a battery ever will. Plus such fuels would take advantage of existing infrastructure, whereas BEVs are requiring the development of new infrastructure. We've really missed an opportunity to explore the creation of carbon-neutral fuels by picking BEV as the sole, obvious winner. The future will involve both BEV and carbon-neutral fuels.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by taustin ( 171655 )

        Without fuel costs? What about equipment costs? Remove the subsidies and renewables are still more expensive. And it's only a matter of time before the subsidies go away.

        • Expensive [Re: Synthetic fuels] (Score:4, Informative)

          by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Sunday June 22, 2025 @12:58PM (#65467801) Homepage

          Remove the subsidies and renewables are still more expensive.

          This is entirely dependent on the location and the application. For some applications, renewables are much lower cost. For others, they are higher cost. I wouldn't go with solar in Nome, Alaska, for example, unless maybe for a summer cottage that isn't used in the winter (in which case the 21.5 hours of sunlight will really make solar look good).

          The point of subsidies is to kick-start the industry in the applications in the middle, where it isn't yet economical, but could be if economies of scale kick in.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by butlerm ( 3112 )

      I agree most synthetic fuels are not exactly energy efficient. In places like Brazil they make ethanol from sugar cane and power many of their cars that way, and there are some in the U.S. that fuel appropriately adjusted automobiles with 85% ethanol from corn. And both could work, but they are generally less economical than ordinary gasoline, at least around here. There is also synthetic gas that is produced from coal, sometimes known as syngas, which can be (and has been) used to power furnances for (r

    • Lots of people either can't drive an EV or don't want to drive an EV. If you ever expect those to be lower emission then e-fuels will be the only way. Plus there are all sorts of other uses - long haul trucking, aviation, shipping, small engines, emergency stationary generation, etc. where changing fuels is quite simply easier than changing all the infrastructure.

      If you are one of those people who think we will just make everything in the world battery powered, rest assured you are going to fail.

      • Lots of people either can't drive an EV or don't want to drive an EV.

        Can't can be solved. Don't want to can be addressed with laws.

        If you ever expect those to be lower emission then e-fuels will be the only way.

        This is nonsense. Biofuels are viable.

        Plus there are all sorts of other uses - long haul trucking, aviation, shipping, small engines, emergency stationary generation, etc. where changing fuels is quite simply easier than changing all the infrastructure.

        Easier doesn't mean the other thing is impossible.

        If you are one of those people who think we will just make everything in the world battery powered, rest assured you are going to fail.

        I agree with this part, but not because we cannot use batteries, only because we will not. It might also make more sense to continue to use liquid fuels for some purposes, but then, it makes even more sense to do some other thing. For example, using more wind again for shipping, and accepting some delays for some cargoes. For some things (mostly bulk industria

        • Can't can be solved. Don't want to can be addressed with laws.

          Can't is what we are discussing. Don't want to seems safe if politicians want to get elected.

          This is nonsense. Biofuels are viable.

          Biofuels have their own drawbacks, but I'm fine with whatever liquid fuel meets meets my needs.

          Easier doesn't mean the other thing is impossible.

          By all means do things the hard way. We already expect you to fail.

          It might also make more sense to continue to use liquid fuels for some purposes, but then, it makes even more sense to do some other thing.

          I, and apparently all these new PHEV owners, are going to be burning gasoline for a long, long time to come. You can make it cleaner, or not. It really makes no difference to me. I doubt they will lose sleep either.

        • This is nonsense. Biofuels are viable.

          The land requirements for biomass fuels make them nonviable. Plants need sun to make the alcohols or oils we desire as fuel. Sunlight is quite dilute, and intermittent. To get enough sun to make up for the liquid fuels we consume means occupying a lot of land.

          This is where people will step in about making floating biomass systems, putting them out at sea or something. Okay then, how much will that cost to cordon off a section of the sea to grow algae or whatever? How much labor is there in maintenance

          • The land requirements for biomass fuels make them nonviable. [...] To get enough sun to make up for the liquid fuels we consume means occupying a lot of land.

            We've got more than enough land to replace our transportation fuel needs with biodiesel from algae. Loads of estimates are a websearch away. We're also decreasing that, and can decrease it more, which decreases the amount of land needed. This generally requires adopting more solar and wind, and you need overproduction to make up for those times when there's little supply of either, but there's loads of unexploited land with low or even positive impact from solar installs in particular. Solar is a benefit to

      • Lots of people either can't drive an EV or don't want to drive an EV.

        It's true there are some who won't drive an EV for ideological reasons - they probably believe God loves exhaust fumes, or something. However, I think a much larger percentage are more concerned about the price and the perceived inconvenience of driving a BEV - mainly range and access to chargers.

        I think both of those issues are being addressed. BEVs have started as luxury models, but cheaper models are showing up, and manufacturers - especially Chinese - have built enough capacity to start seeing economies

        • However, I think a much larger percentage are more concerned about the price and the perceived inconvenience of driving a BEV - mainly range and access to chargers.

          Mostly access to chargers. If you cannot charge at home owning an EV is going to be a less than desirable experience.

          Also, as more and more people drive electric cars, it becomes profitable for businesses to start supporting them, so the infrastructure improves. At the same time the infrastructure for ICEs will start dwindling; as this happens, I expect a lot of the non-hard core ICE users to switch, since it will become more convenient to own an electric car.

          Maybe, but not in our lifetime. And if the e-fuel infrastructure improves people won't have to switch, they can continue to choose. Otherwise there are still going to be lots of gas powered cars on the road for many decades to come.

    • Does your new synthetic fuel have more energy than you put into it? Unlikely.

      Wrong question. The question is what is that energy that you're putting in and where is it sourced from. This is not a balanced equation. Expending energy when that energy can be sourced in a sustainable way does not need to be more efficient than digging dead dinosaurs out the ground. The only time efficiency is in the equation is when both things you are comparing are equal in terms of the impact they produce.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      When you charge a battery you burn some energy in processing. Does your battery have more energy than you put into it? Unlikely. You created something expensive with less stored energy than the raw materials. Who is going to buy your new more expensive energy?

      Synthetic fuel is gasoline. It's just as energy dense. Or you can make tweak it and make it more energy dense if you want to. Of course you lose some energy transforming it. You always do. Form factor is important.

  • If you want to keep burning fuels, making synfuels doesn't appear as if it will make sense any time soon, because of the energy cost. It's a lot cheaper to make biofuel from algae grown in open raceway ponds as proven at Sandia NREL in the 1980s (yes, I have been posting sentences similar to that here for decades) because you get the energy for making the hydrocarbon chains from the sun. Clean water is hard to come by, but algae doesn't need clean water to grow in; it can be contaminated, brackish, etc.

    But the oil companies are some of the biggest lobbyists, so they are going to get their way. For a moment there I thought they were going to dominate solar power, which would allow them to remain relevant going into the future; they can easily afford to sponsor regulatory capture which would make them the de facto winners in the space, but they are choosing to ride petroleum into the future because it's the cheapest source of energy, so there's simply more profit to be made there. And they have never cared about externalities, so why start caring now? The owners don't live downwind or downstream from refineries, and if they do, they can afford to move. It's cheaper than cleaning up.

    In order to protect their monopolies on liquid fuels, the oil companies will certainly steer us towards synfuels as much as they can when petroleum becomes nonviable. They are compatible with their existing distribution networks, and don't require the massive amounts of land that biofuel from algae would. There is plenty of land that's not really useful for anything but energy farms (whether solar, algae, or both) but it would be a hassle to acquire it for energy production and there's money to be made without all that hassle, and nobody in charge cares that profiting from it involves destruction of the biosphere we need to live.

    • Algae generated biofuels probably also help with another issue: converting CO2 to O2. In the early days of the space program, algae tanks were hypothesized as a real option for space stations to scrub CO2 and produce breathable oxygen, because various algae varieties do so much more efficiently for their mass than most plants.

      Frankly there's probably room for that alongside a whole lot of other energy tech. The main complication I see with renewables at the moment is they seem to be offering Megawatts

      • Algae generated biofuels probably also help with another issue: converting CO2 to O2.

        It's true that most of the oxygen we breathe is released by algae, but biofuel from algae does little to produce more net breathable oxygen, because the carbon taken from the atmosphere (and split from the oxygen) is released and recombined with oxygen again when the biofuels are burned. It's possible that some of the captured carbon will wind up in soil, but the goal is always going to be to turn as much of it as possible into fuel. For example, you could separate the lipids and make them into diesel fuel,

  • Told you (Score:3)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Sunday June 22, 2025 @11:52AM (#65467655)

    I knew [slashdot.org] we would get here. The sales trend was obvious as much as three years ago, but only if you aren't a pie-eyed EV advocate that can't tolerate any anti-EV facts.

    There are genuinely good hybrid products available now in every segment of the market, from compact to medium trucks. Government Motors, however, can always be relied on to go full establishment group-think, so now they're caught out again, playing catch up.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      I knew [slashdot.org] we would get here. The sales trend was obvious as much as three years ago, but only if you aren't a pie-eyed EV advocate that can't tolerate any anti-EV facts.

      There are genuinely good hybrid products available now in every segment of the market, from compact to medium trucks. Government Motors, however, can always be relied on to go full establishment group-think, so now they're caught out again, playing catch up.

      It's obvious that we would get here with the completely gutted EV subsidies that we have now, yes. EVs cost more, and drivers tend to mentally overestimate how many long trips they take, making them believe that EVs are way more inconvenient than they actually are.

      It's not obvious that we *should* be here, though. Hybrids are still way worse for the environment than EVs, and infinitely worse than EVs powered by renewable energy.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Tailhook ( 98486 )

        Hybrids are still way worse for the environment than EVs

        No, they're not. As I already pointed out (a year ago,) plug-in hybrids can conceivably zero out fossil fuel use for the bulk of passenger vehicle travel. The ICE engines in these vehicles are extremely efficient, as well: they don't need to operate over the extreme range of pure ICE vehicle engines, so their real world thermal efficiency is significantly better.

        But do carry on with your nonsense. The market doesn't care and isn't listening to you.

        • Re:Told you (Score:4, Interesting)

          by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Sunday June 22, 2025 @12:48PM (#65467779) Journal
          Instead of the clunky ICE drivetrain with an electric motor bolted on, I'd rather have that in reverse: a fully electric drive train (with a full size battery), combined with a small petrol generator that can be enabled to extend the vehicle's range. The advantages: much simpler construction, the engine can be kept small and light, and always runs at the optimum RPM, saving gas. There are a few cars with range extenders already, and when enabled they can almost double the range of the car, but sadly most offerings only have a shitty little EV battery that doesn't have much range to begin with.

        • As I already pointed out (a year ago,) plug-in hybrids can conceivably zero out fossil fuel use for the bulk of passenger vehicle travel.

          For plug-in hybrids, yes, accurate. Most of the driving can be done on battery charge, with the IC engine only for long trips (and to eliminate range anxiety.)

          With the caveat that it only zeros out fossil fuel use if the electricity production doesn't use fossil fuels, of course.

          The ICE engines in these vehicles are extremely efficient, as well: they don't need to operate over the extreme range of pure ICE vehicle engines, so their real world thermal efficiency is significantly better.

          That really is the optimum way to go, use the electric engine for drive, and only use the gas engine to recharge the battery, with no drive train attached to the gas engine at all. As you point out, that way you can run the gas engi

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by shilly ( 142940 )

          It is wildly unimportant that PHEVs can theoretically zero out fossil fuel use given that *in practice this isn't happening*. People just don't plug them in, by and large. Maybe you do. Maybe you know 10 people or 100 or even 1000 who do. Doesn't matter. What matters is what the bulk of owners do. And the bulk of owners don't plug them in, as shown by repeated research into the topic.

          https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net].

      • Hybrids are still way worse for the environment than EVs, and infinitely worse than EVs powered by renewable energy.

        Infinitely? No. Nothing is infinite, this is no exception. 1/4 to 1/3 of a vehicle's average lifetime energy consumption is spent in production; 1/4 for a gasser, 1/3 for an EV, somewhere in between but probably closer to 1/3 for a hybrid since it has both kinds of power systems, even though the battery is much smaller. (Also, the amount of energy it takes to make a battery has decreased with time — most lithium battery chemistries no longer require a lengthy hot cure.) Both vehicles also have a bunch

      • drivers tend to mentally overestimate how many long trips they take, making them believe that EVs are way more inconvenient than they actually are.

        It's not obvious that we *should* be here, though. Hybrids are still way worse for the environment than EVs, and infinitely worse than EVs powered by renewable energy.

        It's not obvious that we *should* be here, though. Hybrids are still way worse for the environment than EVs,

        Overestimating long trips also exaggerates the advantage of BEV over a PHEV. There are very large emissions from producing the larger batteries needed to give the BEV the same range as a PHEV and they are rarely needed. So its not at all clear that the small amount of emissions from a few longer trips in a PHEV will ever exceed the emissions from producing that larger battery.

        What is clear is that someone moving from a 4 gallon per hundred mile ICE vehicle to a 2 gallon per hundred mile hybrid is going to r

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shilly ( 142940 )

          You've failed to account for the duty cycle. A PHEV's battery is going to be deeply discharged about once every two days, max, more likely daily, if it's run on purely electric power. A modern BMS is a marvellous thing, but still, with the best will in the world, you're going to see range dropping significantly by 1000 cycles, ie 3 to 6 years. And a 20% drop in range on a 50 mile PHEV may make a US commute unviable. The battery is lasting significantly less time than the chassis.

          By contrast, a BEV will have

      • drivers tend to mentally overestimate how many long trips they take, making them believe that EVs are way more inconvenient than they actually are.

        It's not the number of long trips, it's the circumstances and maximum length that often set the requirements for a vehicle. It's easy to base planning on the idea that everyone needs the same thing, on average, but I don't think it works that way in practice. When buying your own vehicle, you plan for something that meets your needs for the edge cases, not what you do on the average.

        For example, consider the driving needs of an amateur astronomer: travel comfortably cross country to a dark site, carry

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shilly ( 142940 )

          The thing is, there just aren't that many amateur astronomers. They're vastly outnumbered by the people whose edge case is that they have no edge case -- they never take any long trips at all. Loads of people with cars fit this category, far more than the astronomers. Everyone focuses on the people for whom BEVs don't work that well (yet) while ignoring the people for whom they work really really well right now.

    • I knew we would get here.

      I'm also feeling vindicated with this news. I've been predicting the rise of the PHEV for some time. You made your prediction in 2024? Ha! I made mine in 2023!
      https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]

      I could likely find an older post of mine like the above, I merely stopped once I bested you. :^)

      I can recall people making plug-in conversions on early hybrids from the time they first left the dealer lot. People wanted a practical PHEV as soon as there were BEVs and HEVs. A hybrid electric car that can charge t

    • The sales trend was obvious as much as three years ago

      You're crediting luck for your answer. The trend wasn't obvious, specifically because the trend you cite 3 years ago was the same everywhere in the world, but not everywhere in the world is embracing hybrids in the same way the USA is. Raw data alone luckily lead you to the right conclusion in the USA, and the wrong one everywhere else.

      Specifically the problem 3 years ago was one of massive supply. Hybrids looked like they may win because buying an EV meant sitting on a god damn 2 year waiting list. Now tha

      • Don't pretend the consumers are choosing cars. They are being told what to buy through the marketing and supply side of the equation.

        The government telling you what to buy is not an improvement.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shilly ( 142940 )

      The mindset that the US is the only market in the entire world continues to dominate Slashdot in a really tiresome way.

      Meanwhile, in Europe, BEV sales growth outpaces PHEV sales growth, and BEVs have twice the share of PHEVs.

  • EVs scale fine on the existing grid (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AirHog ( 118412 ) on Sunday June 22, 2025 @11:57AM (#65467657)

    From first hand experience, I can state that FUD like "the infrastructure will never be ready for mass adoption of EVs" is blatantly false.

    For 5 years I charged my first EV at home using the charger it came with, which plugged directly into a standard US 120V socket. No significant increase to my electric bill. No need to install a special ("Level 2") charger. I logged tens of thousands of miles driving to and from work, stores, etc.

    Some more modern EVs can even store power and return it to the grid when needed, drawing power when it is plentiful and returning it to the grid when it is scarce. This helps _increase_ grid stability, not threaten it.

    If you see statements about infrastructure not being ready for EVs, you should immediately dismiss the author as either gaslighting or hallucinating.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      The plural of anecdote is not data. Your personal experience does not define reality.

      About 1/3 of those in the US live in rentals, over 40% in California where you literally cannot hold down a job that pays enough to have a home without a vehicle. Most of those people live in apartments. The cost to provide chargers for the small complex I live in would be over a million dollars, plus the cost of tearing up the street for months to bring in a multi-megawatt circuit to feed them. Rent in Los Angeles for a on

      • It seems to me like the truth is somewhere in between your two statements. The GP is projecting their situation onto people who it doesn't fit, and you're allowing perfect to be the enemy of good and ignoring useful parts of their comment.

        On one hand, the average commute is now a half an hour, and that means for a lot of people, charging from 120V isn't going to suit their needs. On the other hand, that's an average, so it means it will suit the needs of a lot of other people. You're right that we would hav

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shilly ( 142940 )

        How on *earth* would it cost more than a million bucks to install chargers in your small complex. Do you have AC? Did it cost a million bucks for AC to be put in? AC draws the same kind of power. You said a "multi-megawatt circuit" would be needed for your "small complex". A typical US domestic Level 2 charger supplies about 7kW of power (30A at 240V). Let's define "multi-megawatt" as being at least 2MW. A circuit that size could supply *285* 7kW chargers. Noone could possibly describe a 285 unit complex as

    • you should immediately dismiss the author as either gaslighting or hallucinating.

      A 120 volt socket with a dedicated 20 amp circuit will produce AT MOST 2400 Watts of power So if you charge it for 8 hours you will get 19200 watts. One estimate is that the "typical" EV uses 190WH per kilometer. So that is about 100 kilometers or 60 miles. That's better than the range of a typical PHEV, but not by much. The added battery of the EV isn't giving you much for the extra emissions it requires.

      • >"A 120 volt socket with a dedicated 20 amp circuit will produce AT MOST 2400 Watts of power So if you charge it for 8 hours you will get 19200 watts."

        Why pull such an unrealistic example? Plus you meant 19,200 watt hours, not watts.

        1) You can't pull 20A on a 20A outlet continuously. You are only allowed to pull 80%. So that would be 15,360 Wh.

        2) Almost nobody has 20A 120V outlets at home. Not that I have ever seen, anyway. They are almost always 15A. And still limited to 80%, even if dedicated. S

    • If you see statements about infrastructure not being ready for EVs, you should immediately dismiss the author as either gaslighting or hallucinating.

      Not quite. You've got a connection to charge your EVs, great, more power to you. But that doesn't change the conclusion from the author. Mass adoption of EVs is a mindset problem and the mindset is: I can't charge this thing at a whim wherever I am. There is definitely an infrastructure problem in the USA. Compare that to where I live. I don't have the ability to charge at home. But here's where I've been in the past week:
      - Home: 6 chargers within 200m from my house, 4 within 60m.
      - Work: 25 chargers in the

  • ICE cars produce 350g of CO2 per mile versus 200g of CO2 per mile for EVs. At last check, synthetic-fuel-powered vehicles took about 4x as much power per mile as battery-electric vehicles. So unless the energy mix used to produce them is *very* different from the average, that would mean that synthetic fuels would be expected to produce 800g of CO2 per mile, meaning that a modern hybrid using synthetic fuels would be about as bad as a gas guzzling 1980s-era SUV burning normal gasoline.

    So while synthetic

    • ICE cars produce 350g of CO2 per mile versus 200g of CO2 per mile for EVs.

      That obviously depends on a lot of factors including which cars you are comparing.

    • ICE cars produce 350g of CO2 per mile versus 200g of CO2 per mile for EVs.

      There's a "sunk cost" of emitted CO2 for producing each vehicle so it is not a complete comparison to take on the CO2 emissions per mile. Add the PHEV option to the mix and we'd find the PHEV almost always wins out. I'd point to a source but history tells me I'd only be accused of cherry picking my source. So, I'll ask someone else to try to prove me right or wrong with their own source.

      Right now, the idea of switching to synthetic fuels is basically pure fantasy from a practical perspective.

      I know that there's plenty of disagreement on that point. That includes the fine article under discussion right now.

      Hy

  • "With the emergence of bio-based and even fully synthetic fuels, the link between the ICE and climate change can be broken."

    Can we have some scientifically validated numbers showing that burning a different fuel suddenly makes all the pollution from the car industry and usage magically disappear?

  • A hybrid is the answer for many people. They work well. Electric continues to improve but is still too much of a niche product.

    I recently bought a new car. If I could lay my hands on something like a RAV4 Hybrid I'd be all over it. Good luck. I bought a VW Taos instead.

    ...laura

  • Americans are Buying Twice as Many Hybrids as Fully Electric Vehicles. Is The Next Step Synthetic Fuels?

    Hybrids are a stepping stone for conservative people with extreme anxieties about new technology i.e. about 40-50% percent Americans (excluding the MAGA base that thinks electric cars are a manifestation of satanic communism and that would rather ride a mule to work than drive an EV). The next step is usually a full EV when people figure out that range anxiety is bullshit and they spend most of their time driving their hybrid in full EV mode anyway. Aaaand yes, given the way the US works, with all the corr

    • Your "political" take on this is laughable. I know plenty of conservatives who have EV's. I would say there are probably as many (if not more) "never-ICE out of principle" leftists as there are "never-EV out of principle" conservatives. The biggest difference is the ICE camp isn't trying to force ICE down people's throats, they just don't want their choice taken away.

      The reality is that the vast majority of people don't care about some political stance/ideology when it comes to what vehicle technology th

      • I know plenty of conservatives who have EV's. I would say there are probably as many (if not more) "never-ICE out of principle" leftists as there are "never-EV out of principle" conservatives. The biggest difference is the ICE camp isn't trying to force ICE down people's throats, they just don't want their choice taken away.

        The only difference between the left and the right is which particular aspects of everyone's lives they want to run.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shilly ( 142940 )

      I think it's wildly underappreciated in the developed world (the US particularly, but also Europe) just how significant it will be that SE Asia is not emotionally attached to the idea of ICE vehicles. The only thing that is going to keep the SE Asian ICE fleet around is that vehicles remain an expensive purchase and these economies are not as wealthy as the developed world. But consumers there will absolutely shrug and buy a BYD Song EV when they next invest in a car. I'm sure the same will be true in Latam

    • I would be happy to have pure EVs for my family's around-town vehicles, then a PHEV for the SUV which would make it affordable around-town (currently we avoid it) but still useful for longer trips, often with towing, to very out-of-the-way places.

      How is that conservatism? It makes perfect sense.

  • A significant reason I bought an electric car (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hwstar ( 35834 ) on Sunday June 22, 2025 @12:55PM (#65467793)

    Was to to have a way decouple from the petroleum supply chain and its volatility. An electric car coupled with rooftop solar and suitable battery storage is a good way to declare your energy independence. (Battery storage with zero-export will become more essential as utility companies lobby for laws to eliminate net metering)

    The current administration wants us to be totally dependent on the petroleum supply chain. The introduction of synthetic fuels will not change this. You'll still have to be each week to fill up your gas tank to go to work either way. That's exactly where they want you to be.

    Additionally, I have doubts that the production of synthetic fuels will be done in a way which will help the environment. The profit motive will get in the way of this.

    • The current administration wants us to be totally dependent on the petroleum supply chain. The introduction of synthetic fuels will not change this. You'll still have to be each week to fill up your gas tank to go to work either way. That's exactly where they want you to be.

      I spend more on coffee than gasoline. Is that a conspiracy too?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hwstar ( 35834 )

        Mot a conspiracy it is a fact. It's just the way the American alliance between business and government works. It has always been this way. Whey do you think they ripped up the tram and trolley tracks after World War 2? Is was to make cities more car-friendly and to force people to buy cars and gasoline instead of using public transportation. In Europe, they didn't rip up the trolley and tram tracks, and they tax gasoline at a much higher rate to incent people to use other forms of transportation.

        Coffee is o

        • Is was to make cities more car-friendly and to force people to buy cars and gasoline instead of using public transportation. In Europe, they didn't rip up the trolley and tram tracks, and they tax gasoline at a much higher rate to incent people to use other forms of transportation.

          People like the freedom of cars. Europeans obviously don't care as much. Not sure why they find it shocking not everyone wants to be like them.

          The current administration wants us to be totally dependent on the petroleum supply chain.....(in Europe) they tax gasoline at a much higher rate to incent people to use other forms of transportation.

          Both seem like examples of government meddling to me. I know I speak for a lot of people when I say I would much rather buy gas than share public transit with a bunch of sketchy strangers.

          A lesson in finance: Anything which is engineered to be a recurring revenue stream works against your personal interests.

          So like a bus pass then.... Or rather more like electricity, natural gas, water, internet, cell phone, insurance and all my other recurring bills. I'm happy to live in the deve

          • People like the freedom of cars.

            People also like the convenience of other forms of transportation, where they are available. What is or is not available is only partially determined by what is in people's best interests, or even what they ask for.

            life is perfectly good as is.

            Everything is always changing into something else.

            • People also like the convenience of other forms of transportation, where they are available.

              Sometimes I ride my mountain bike in the summer, but the car is more fun.

              Everything is always changing into something else.

              Yes. Life in 2125 will be as different from today as today is from 1925, but I won't be here so I concentrate on enjoying life as it is now.

    • >"A significant reason I bought an electric car was to to have a way decouple from the petroleum supply chain and its volatility."

      For me that was a smaller reason than the ability to skip having to go to gas stations, have something powerful, quiet, and easy to maintain.

      >"The current administration wants us to be totally dependent on the petroleum supply chain."

      I think it is more they want people to continue to have choice and an if that choice is petroleum, it should be as cheap as possible and for t

  • Hybrids offer some interesting options for power (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Sunday June 22, 2025 @01:14PM (#65467839) Homepage

    The biggest thing about hybrids is that they allow for an electric drive-train. That opens up a lot of options for powering the vehicle since the engine doesn't need to physically drive the wheels. Gas turbines, for instance, with the turbine driving a high-RPM generator which eliminates the need for high-ratio reduction gears. Gas turbines, in fact any sort of continuous-combustion engine that doesn't need to be throttled to control it's speed, are more fuel-efficient than traditional IC engines. Add in regenerative braking to recover power and the ability to charge it's own batteries while parked and you get a vehicle that can have a much smaller engine without sacrificing range or performance. Maintenance costs would probably be lower too because with a gas turbine there aren't as many complex moving parts to break and they won't be under as great a strain.

  • Not unless they cost $2 per gallon.

  • EVs are far more efficient than ICEV. They have far less of a carbon impact, and this goes many times over if your source of energy is green. And this includes the impacts of battery production. And this gets better as battery production increases.

    Synthetic fuels? They have two primary use cases:
    1. When an oil-poor nation is at war.
    2. When the fossil fuel industry wants to keep ass-fucking the world.

    Is your use case 1 or 2?

    If you are not 1 and you find 2 distasteful but you still want synthetic fuels, y

    • Synthetic fuels? They have two primary use cases: 1. When an oil-poor nation is at war. 2. When the fossil fuel industry wants to keep ass-fucking the world.

      How about airplanes?

  • Worst of both worlds (Score:3)

    by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Sunday June 22, 2025 @01:37PM (#65467879)

    Hybrids combine the inefficiency, high maintenance (worse due to constant start-stop operation) and pollution of ICE vehicles with very small batteries so not really useful for anything except green-washing.
    They are just a way for manufacturers to extend the life of their stranded ICE assets and keep the fossil fuel providers happy.
    Synthetic fuels are inefficient, expensive and polluting.

    • Well akshually...

      There was one plug in hybrid, the Chevy ?olt (can't remember can't be arsed) which had an electric drivetrain with the ice engine driving a generator, except at highway speeds, it could engage the engine directly with the wheels with a dog clutch of all things.

      It's out of production now.

      But the point stands that hybrids are not necessarily what you expect.

      I'm not making a comment for our against here, just the narrow point that there are extent designs of hybrid which do not have the proper

  • Hard to tell (Score:3)

    by Casandro ( 751346 ) on Sunday June 22, 2025 @01:44PM (#65467889)

    I mean sure, electric vehicles are going to plummet in price, once the Chinese want to add the rest of the world to their market. It's just so much cheaper to build an electric car than one with an internal combustion engine.
    As for synth fuels... well the conditions under which that would make sense are very... special.

    That said, we are living in extremely odd times, particularly in the US.... so maybe your president declares a war on the sun, outlawing any use of its energy, or a ban on technology past 1935, who knows?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      once the Chinese want to add the rest of the world to their market

      That would be yesterday. The rest of the world (not just the USA) is worried about China's monopoly in rare earths (magnetics) and battery manufacturing capacity (of which they have about 80%). Both of these are dual use resources. Both for civilian EVs as well as military uses.

  • Aren't all fossil fuels bio-based?

    • Aren't all fossil fuels bio-based?

      Not according to everyone. There's theories that some of the petroleum was from geological processes, made from carbon trapped during the formation of the planet and "cooked" from the heat of the core into hydrocarbons that then would seep up by being less dense than the rock around it, collecting in places where cooled solid rock near the surface would not allow it to seep up any higher.

      If all fossil fuels came from biological forces then it should only be found so deep, under sedimentary rock, and so for

  • Well blow me down with a feather, the guy from the electrified and hybridised powertrain consultancy company thinks that "the charging infrastructure in most countries is not yet mature enough to support convenient mass adoption of battery-electric vehicles , and in some territories never will be".

    Apart from the obvious conflict of interest which drives him to answer this question in the only way that makes sense for his salary, he ignores the facts that:
    1. We don't *need* charging infrastructure to be read

  • We penciled it out as best we could with our usage patterns, and we kept running into range and charge time problems. Hybrid solves both.

  • And that word is no. Electric vehicles based on solar power will cost a fraction of the TCO of a synthetically fueled car. They can't make it competitive with hydrogen, they sure as hell aren't going to work with a complex organic liquid. The only reason ICE is an option at all is because of the energy trapped by algae in the Devonian.

  • ... to feed the AIs. Or perhaps the ayys. If they are not one and the same.

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.

Close