As climate change caused by these emissions increasingly threatens life on Earth, the world needs to replace fossil fuels with green sources of energy and PVs with EVs. This was not possible some years ago, as green electricity and EVs were very expensive.
However, things have changed and green electricity now costs less than the electricity generated using fossil fuels such as coal, gas and diesel. At the same time, EVs are becoming cost-competitive vis-a-vis PVs.
Manufacturers of PVs that have failed to carry out sufficient R&D in time to switch over to EV-making seem to have embarked on a campaign to run down and slow the emergence of EVs.
First, they claimed that EVs are not green, as the power used is sourced from fossil fuels, that they cost too much, do not go long distances, and that they lack charging infrastructure. These half-truths did not stop EVs from selling.
Then, to prolong the life of their PVs, they came up with hybrids and tried to portray them as part-EVs. Let us examine what these hybrids are.
Ever since the use of petrol grew, auto-makers have been carrying out R&D to enhance the efficiency of their vehicles and reduce the amount of petrol used per kilometre. As petrol costs rose, fuel efficiency arose as a marketing edge. This was indeed welcome.
Energy in a vehicle is wasted when brakes are applied while descending a slope or slowing down. As power electronics advanced and EVs emerged, researchers developed a mechanism called regeneration to recover part of this energy and convert it back into electricity to charge the vehicle’s battery. This made these vehicles more efficient.
Makers of PVs seized upon this technology to stretch the life of their product portfolios. They inducted regeneration into their vehicles and started charging auxiliary batteries to deliver better fuel economy. They called these vehicles hybrids.
But, as they could derive only a small advantage through regeneration, they started doing more. Recognizing that petrol engines reach peak efficiency only when these vehicles are driven at a particular speed, torque and power, they came with another form of hybrid.
They added an electric drive-train with a small battery and motor to be used while starting the vehicle and to increase speed; the petrol engine would turn on only once its speed reached a certain level.
To differentiate between these and vehicles using only regeneration, they rechristened the former as ‘mild hybrids’ and these new ones as ‘strong hybrids.’ The latter assured higher energy efficiency, using less petrol per kilometre, and resulted in less GHG emissions.
This led PV makers to project such hybrids as EV equivalents. The fact that these vehicles still use a fossil fuel as their energy source has largely been obfuscated.
As regulators refused to accept strong hybrids as EV equivalents, PV makers came up with yet another version: plug-in hybrids (PHEVs). These would indeed have an electric drive-train, but with a small battery to be charged using electricity from the grid.
PHEVs operate as EVs for a limited range (say, the first 60km), but to go further, they have a petrol fuel tank and a generator that converts petrol to electricity and charges the battery.
The argument was that since most vehicles travel only a small distance on most days, they would be driven with grid electricity. Only if they needed to go longer distances would petrol be used for range extension. PV makers have used these arguments to lobby for green incentives for PHEVs of the kind that EVs are given (with success in some places).
However, the experience of some European countries shows that PHEV users usually do not plug their vehicles in for grid charging and mostly use just the petrol engine to drive their vehicles. The plug-in apparatus then looks like just a façade to get incentives.
Manufacturers have also come up with parallel PHEVs, with an internal combustion engine (ICE) and electric motor designed to work in parallel. Confusing? It sure is.
The primary purpose of these so-called hybrid variants appears to be largely to obtained EV-like incentives. It is unfortunate that some governments are falling for such tricks that extend PVs’ lease of life and slow down the adoption of EVs.
In Series PHEVs, an internal combustion engine cannot drive the vehicle directly, but only charge the battery. Such vehicles have a real-life driving range of 100km with air-conditioning (equivalent to a 140km certified range) and could be useful if they use GPS technology to stay strictly off ICE in geo-tagged urban centres, so as to restrain emissions.
If these conditions are satisfied without exception, incentives provided to Series PHEVs will not go waste and could perhaps be used till such time that our charging infrastructure gets strengthened.
Else, incentives for hybrids could hurt the climate by prolonging the life of ICE in the name of going green. The planet’s future depends on fully replacing energy from fossil fuels with renewable electricity and the latter’s use for transport. This transition is what people and governments need to support.
