Plug-in Hybrids: A good choice for this point in cars' evolution?

 Aren't these defensible positions on cars?:

1. A hatchback is better than a sedan, because it doesn't take much metal to raise the trunk to the roof and enclose a lot more space for carrying stuff. AND, having a rear wiper is useful.
--so that pushes us towards SUVs and crossovers.
2. A plug-in hybrid is a good choice because:
(a) you can use e-only on trips up to about 39 miles, and power prices here in PacNW are the lowest of anywhere in the US, and probably well over half our trips are short enough to be e-only;
(b) EV's (electric-only cars) are not yet quite ideal: (i) The US needs more time to get a nationwide fast charging network set up (and preferably just one network, not many different kinds), so that we won't have to search far or wait long to get recharged, on long trips; (ii) a lot of scarce minerals are used to make EVs, whereas a hybrid or plug-in hybrid (PHEV) uses a lot less of those minerals, thus allowing more people to "drive electric."
(c) enviro-minded car owners want to reduce hydrocarbon use as fuel; and
(d) a hybrid (such as our RAV4 which we love) can't go more than 100 feet on all-electric. But we get 40mpg in it and it has 69 cu ft of cargo space, so we're using less gasoline with it while enjoying wonderful efficiency, power, and cargo space.
BUT, some automakers (e.g., Subaru) are moving directly from gasoline engines to all-electric, skipping hybrids altogether; and PHEVs cost more and weigh more and carry a bit less than hybrids.

I've made a huge matrix of car choices and features; my current favorite (to replace our 7 year old Impreza) is Mazda CX-70 PHEV. Seems to have the best features for a lower price.
That's my proposition; please attack it.
https://carbuzz.com/cars/mazda/cx-70



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's time to harp on the US deficit again!

Image
Time to harp on the deficit again. 43% of every dollar spent by our federal govt is being borrowed. The government's expenses are only 57% covered by revenue (from taxes, mostly). This is wildly unsustainable, and in a strong economy it is beyond reckless--it's criminal. In my opinion, it can only lead to the destruction of our currency, our economy, and our very country, which means of course that you and I may lose all our assets and possibly our lives. The only way to avoid this is to do what no politician is willing to even talk about: Dramatically raise taxes and dramatically cut spending. Doing that might cause a deep recession and greatly increase poverty, but it would save the country. The irony is that NOT doing it will also cause a deep recession and increase poverty, but it will further bring about the end of the US. When you've borrowed all that you can, then you are out of options. You are bankrupt; the game is over. We are close to that point. No one can kno
Read more

Oh, this is nice: Shell Oil feigning support for renewable energy while worsening climate change:

Image
  This article is interesting:  Oh, this is very nice: Shell Oil is paying its shareholders $23B in a special dividend, while cutting its staff 25% in the group that's working to move the company into low-carbon business. Nice. The only way to fight this, on a personal level, is to work very hard to use less oil and natural gas. Fly less! Drive a hybrid or all-electric car! Replace gas stoves and furnaces and water heaters with electric. Look for ways to use less plastic. You know, if any company has a spare $23B that they don't know what to do with, it might be nice if they paid more in taxes, or donated to nonprofits that feed, house, and educate people. Our governments don't take care of the destitute, so maybe the big corporations should.
Read more

Absolutely there are limits on free speech

Image
  Absolutely there are limits on free speech*. College presidents are clueless when they defend free speech so much that they fail to discipline students who call for the extermination of Jews. And they should discipline students who call for the extermination of Palestinians, or any civilian peoples. It's surprising, that high-paid college presidents, who have access to good attorneys, would let themselves be paraded thru a shitshow in Congress, over this. Rep. Stefanik, though guilty of grandstanding for political gain, was right to complain about this, though I hope she remembers there are limits to free speech, whenever she has an opportunity to combat hate speech against gays, atheists, and liberals, which has been so vociferously spouted by some members of her party. (*Most people agree that you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Similary, I believe that the intentional publication (especially by mass media) of a known lie, as true, should carry civil an
Read more