To death the electric car ... and fast !!

[realistic ecology]

@Janic

"the thermal EV / V debate is like asking whether it is better to be blind in the left eye or in the right eye"

I partially agree. We quibble over the advantages and disadvantages of one type of vehicle and another and we forget that the real energy transition in the car is to reduce its use, in favor of public transport.
Especially since the electric car is generally looking, of low autonomy, essentially adapted to (often "limited to") a local, city use, in summer. It is for this reason that the electric car is sometimes bought as a second car (in addition to the SUV ...). The electric car for the city, the SUV for "escapades" in the countryside.
But then, what is the point of subsidizing "Bobomobiles" Power personal, which are only used in town, where there is already a massive carpooling - it's called bus, RER, metro, tramways ... It is these public transports that allow really, already, to save pollution, energy, and traffic congestion. What is the best investment? Subsidize electric cars to replace thermal cars, or make both less necessary by investing in dense, frequent public transport, even if it has to be subsidized?

That said, to compare thermal and electric cars from the point of view of CO2 emissions (manufacture + driving):
• In France, thanks to its low-carbon nuclear electricity, an average electric car begins to save CO2 compared to a thermal car after approximately 50 km.
• In Germany, whose electricity is 50% of fossil origin, an electric car saves no CO2, or barely.
• In Poland, it emits more CO2 than a gasoline thermal car.

Is the electric car a good horse?

[Christophe]

Be serious !

Everything is here ... except the highly ironic title!

[Macro]

Especially since the electric car is generally looking, of low autonomy, essentially adapted to (often "limited to") a local, city use, in summer. It is for this reason that the electric car is sometimes bought as a second car (in addition to the SUV ...).

I am in a rural environment and my electric car is my "daily" .... It is the car that makes the most km a year in our home .... And if it were not so limited by its autonomy ... It would probably do between 25 and 30km per year ...

[phil59]

Bah, with a triplet, 60km in 000 years.

I have a colleague who does a little over 25km / year with it.

Yes, with a car that has around 100 km of range. So ? Well, it's possible with a little goodwill.

[sicetaitsimple]

Especially since the electric car is generally looking, of low autonomy, essentially adapted to (often "limited to") a local, city use, in summer. It is for this reason that the electric car is sometimes bought as a second car (in addition to the SUV ...). The electric car for the city, the SUV for "escapades" in the countryside.

I think things change very quickly, your article from 2017 is necessarily quickly outdated.
On the other hand, the plug-in hybrid is certainly a good compromise for those with local daily use and regular "getaway" needs.

[realistic ecology]

@sicetaitsimple
Of course, things change quickly. But some fundamentals remain. Here, the problems of autonomy outside the cities, of recharging time for long trips, will remain for a long time. This is why a number of EVs are actually second cars, which is not in the direction of sobriety.
But the important point of my message is different: it is better to subsidize public transport rather than individual, electric, thermal, hybrid cars.

[sicetaitsimple]

@sicetaitsimple
Of course, things change quickly. But some fundamentals remain. Here, the problems of autonomy outside the cities, of recharging time for long trips, will remain for a long time. This is why a number of EVs are actually second cars, which is not in the direction of sobriety.
But the important point of my message is different: it is better to subsidize public transport rather than individual, electric, thermal, hybrid cars.

OK for thinking about public transport.
On the other hand, when a couple / family have two vehicles, it is usually not for fun, but because they need them independently of each other.

[Macro]

Bah, with a triplet, 60km in 000 years.

I have a colleague who does a little over 25km / year with it.

Yes, with a car that has around 100 km of range. So ? Well, it's possible with a little goodwill.

60km of autonomy with heating today .... And 95 in summer without using the air conditioning .... But there is no choice .... You have to heat otherwise the windshield freezes while driving .... Scarf jacket and beanie inside

[Exnihiloest]

...
I partially agree. We quibble over the advantages and disadvantages of one type of vehicle and another and we forget that the real energy transition in the car is to reduce its use, in favor of public transport.
...

Decidedly after those who want to prevent us from eating meat, here are those who want to prevent us from moving with the means that suit us.
Public transport will never be able to meet our need: to go from point A to point B according to our needs. My point A is usually at home. My point B is anywhere, including in the countryside. Public transport responds to the no need to go from point A 'which is not our starting point, to point B' which is not our arrival point. So the interest of public transport is only a possible saving of time when the journey A-> A '-> B' -> B is done in less time than direct A-> B, case of air transport in general, and metro or rail transport often but not always, far from it.
We see that artificial intelligence will soon make it possible to circulate cars, it is even already the case but with limits. The future is not in public transport. At least in the city, the future is for individual, electric transport, the automation of which will allow vehicles to cooperate and therefore fluid traffic, and with a comfort that we never have in public transport where reigns promiscuity and which complicates life (need to study your route, take tickets, justify your identity, be checked ...).

[realistic ecology]

@Exnihiloest
Suggesting an orientation (investing more in public transport) does not prevent or oblige.

I am thinking of the case of his Parisians who do not have cars:
- public transport for daily trips in town.
- Train plus car rental for vacations or other occasions.

Improved public transport would extend this, particularly to commuters. For example, Versailles is connected to Paris by train (by old trains), via three stations.

Of course it's not for everyone, it doesn't solve everyone's problems. But if we wait until we have a one-size-fits-all solution that will satisfy everyone at all times, we will never have a little bit of a solution for anyone.

"public transport where promiscuity reigns"
Indeed, that is what it is all about: having dense, frequent, comfortable public transport.
Some time ago, during the deletion of an infrequently used secondary line from the sncf, travelers expressed their disagreement by stressing how much they appreciated their short daily journey by train, by chatting with their travel friends or by reading, without having to worry about driving a car.