Environmental impact is still less than ICE, yes, but until we figure out a better way to process lithium and make batteries last longer hybrids still have a smaller environmental impact over the lifetime of the vehicle. Eventually we need to cut out petrol entirety of course, but until we get clean batteries the better short-term solution is hybrids when a vehicle is strictly necessary, and bikes or waking in all other cases. An electric motorcycle might be a good short-term solution too, but as of now battery manufacturing is unacceptably dirty. But as you said, it's still better than ICE. I just think hybrid would be better as a transition while the technology is improved.

[–] Starshader@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

Actually hybrid cars aren't more green than electric cars. As much as electric cars aren't perfect, they are by far the greenest option. Don't trust oil lobbies :)

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

I agree that battery tech needs to be better. We also need to put in the work now to improve the grid so that when there's wide scale adoption, the grid won't collapse under the strain.

For the most part it's a transit issue.... we simply cannot move that many watts of power.

For the rest of it, and hybrids versus full electric vs bikes vs walking, that's a much larger discussion, since not everyone will be able to adopt something more green than a highly efficient vehicle (whether hybrid or EV or otherwise)...

My main point is that they'll argue dumb crap like manufacturing, that causes so much pollution, and say it in a way that almost seems like they think that ICE cars are better for that, somehow?

It's like, we know it's not "carbon neutral" or whatever.... it's just carbon massively reduced and that's the point Carl.

[–] jose1324@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hybrids are often times even worse dan pure gas cars. Don't believe the oil lobby.

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From a practical standpoint, hybrid cars make no sense. You inherit the problems of both electric and fossil and you gain pretty much nothing. I don't understand why they are still being made.

[–] AlgeriaWorblebot@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 year ago

I understand the electric bit is cheaper and more efficient in city traffic while the fossil bit is more supported over long distance travel.

It seems intended for the teething stage where the charging point infrastructure isn't rolled out extensively enough for pure EV usage, and public transport doesn't do the thing.

I see a risk in complacency where the final steps aren't taken of rolling out charging points and buffing transit because hybrids are "good enough". Probably not a massive risk though as fossil's stigma grows and fuel prices rise.