40 GWh or half a million vehicles per year (80 kWh each). A lot but also not a lot if you consider hundreds of millions of vehicles need to be replaced.
If we used plug in hybrids with 10 kWh batteries, this would be enough for four million vehicles.
Disclosure: I work for GM, this is solely my own opinion and experience.
There is a strong assumption that battery costs will come down, and raw material extraction will ramp up.
It is important to remember that we are currently extracting megatons of fossil fuels and just burning them to ash and carbon dioxide yearly.
There is also a strong assumption that batteries will be very recyclable in the future (recycling batteries will make economic sense)
Consider that a plug in hybrid needs two full propulsion systems. Both of those systems need to be engineered, tested, integrated, built, warrantee-ed, and serviced.
If battery prices do come down, the cost of the extra battery pack will soon be lower than the added cost of the ICE propulsion system.
It is my understanding that these factors led GM's leadership team to stop producing the Volt (plug in hybrid) system and transition to all EV.
If, however, battery prices stay high or go up for an extended period of time, this bet will look worse.
This is a really helpful industry perspective, thanks csours. When GM and others are thinking about this, is it focused on beliefs in specific markets or globally? I know that many commodities trade globally but there is a ton of noise in DC about critical mineral supply chains and America's reliance on China but at the same time minimal movement on extraction and even less on processing domestically because of the environmental factors/NIMBYism. But if there were another trade war with China, would that change the equation for GM or are the rest of the markets a large enough weight that doesn't matter? Do you think GM and others believe there will be U.S. mines brought online or that all the growth in extraction will come from abroad? Given the pushback in other places (e.g. Serbia's Rio Tinto mine, Mexico nationalizing their sector, etc.) I'm pretty skeptical about being able to depend solely on foreign growth.
I believe government incentives and regulations will have a huge effect on the speed of adoption in a country, and China and Europe have both of those. I don't think mineral extraction will have much effect on locality. Shipping is pretty cheap - we already move oil to refineries and gasoline to filling stations.
GM does have a
>> “strategic investment and commercial collaboration” with Controlled Thermal Resources (CTR) to procure lithium from Southern California’s Salton Sea
A while back I looked at raw materials for batteries. You can see the big push to get away from batteries that use cobalt. Because that is the one input that is actually supply limited. Everything else but lithium is tapping into an already huge production capacity.
>It is my understanding that these factors led GM's leadership team to stop producing the Volt (plug in hybrid) system and transition to all EV.
>If, however, battery prices stay high or go up for an extended period of time, this bet will look worse.
It's interesting to me that GM was really a pioneer in PHEVs with the Volt. They decided to transition their strategy at the same time as it seems like most other manufacturers debuted their first PHEVs. I have several friends that had Volts who went to other manufacturers because their use case still required a PHEV.
Was this purely to push buyers into the Bolt? This seems like an odd strategy since the Bolt, using LGs battery technology, is a transition technology itself for GM because it doesn't utilize the Ultium architecture.
How expensive would it have been to allow the Volt to solider on for a few more years with minor updates until an Ultium vehicle in a similar package with an extended range were available?
The thing I like the most about the bolt is that it isn’t a spacecar / tron-mobile.
It’s just a Chevy car … but electric.
As opposed to, for instance, Mercedes or Volvo - e-initiative i-mobiles that are chaotic dumping grounds for futuristic design concepts that nobody asked for.
We don’t want your "electric car" … we just want your car, electric.
> It is important to remember that we are currently extracting megatons of fossil
Extracting oil doesn't leave the total devastation behind it as extracting cobalt does [1]. A several orders of magnitude increase in that sort of abomination that I linked to doesn't have anything to do with "saving the planet", it's all politics and money. There's also the whole "child labor" thing [2] but let's assume that countries like Congo will sort it out sometimes in the next 10-20 years, they most probably won't, but there's always hope.
Desulphurisation is required to turn the extracted oil into something that can be used in a car. That process requires cobalt. So yeah the dirty cobalt business is directly supported by oil-based cars as well. However, I think catalyst use vs. battery use of cobalt is roughly 1:5 so your point remains valid (it's used more in batteries than in desulphurisation). Unfortunately I cannot find free statistics to support this 1:5 ratio which is from memory, maybe someone else can supply a link.
1:5 in what? I mean if it takes five times the cobalt to manufacture a kilogram of battery compared to a kilogram of gasoline, that sounds like a point in favour of EVs. You can only use that gasoline once after all, whereas the lithium could serve the full vehicle lifetime.
I'm not going to defend the damage mining like this does, but it seems unfair to say oil is any better [0]. In my opinion, oil causes much more damage and is harder to contain.
I agree about harder to contain, that's why that oil pipeline that was supposed to pass through the middle of an industrialised country was cancelled [1], that was a political move by definition, while cobalt mines and the like, because they mostly "happen" in the middle of Africa, are just seen as "doesn't really affect me -> it isn't really that important".
Today, one of the major uses of Cobalt is removing sulfur from gasoline. Somehow that never comes up in the "child labor!!" arguments against electric cars.
Of course the electric car is simpler, and batteries are getting cheaper. But the electric car with enough range for my use case is significantly more expensive in total still.
We have tax advantages for electric cars, very expensive fuels, very cheap electricity. Still the deal doesn't close yet.
The infrastructure is hopefully developing also, so they would get working chargers and working payment systems by the time the batteries have become cheap enough too. And charging systems that don't cost thousands per post for apartment building parking lots.
In a sense, the system is riddled with so many inefficiencies at every layer. The only way to do it properly is to have a vertically integrated company like Tesla. They have their own chargers and do a lot of their own components instead of using subcontractors. They don't use low quality charging services or apps or payment cards. The experience can be controlled only that way.
As opposed to oil, battery prices are highly influenced by China’s grip on the battery value chain at least until 2030.
Just as China will influence steel and aluminum prices through central planning, battery prices are unlikely to remain higher than current peak as long as the government continues its current stance on stable prices.
Regardless of whether the mines are outside of China, the refinement/separation step of mined raw materials is done mostly in China (>80% global capacity). In addition to the 3-5 year lead time of building the capacity through new refineries, there’s a significant process optimization learning curve (non-transferable learnings) to move down the cost curve for new refinery entrants.
> If battery prices do come down, the cost of the extra battery pack will soon be lower than the added cost of the ICE propulsion system.
That definitively matter for some cars.
However, the relationship between humans and cars is not like it is between humans and most other products. The same car by features can easily be sold for twice the price, or even higher with minor added conveniences, improved quality, or brand. Add $5000 for a different color.
As long as an ICE is a feature people want to their car to have it won't matter that a battery is cheaper.
> As long as an ICE is a feature people want to their car to have it won't matter that a battery is cheaper.
The EU has voted a complete ban of the sale of new ICE and hybrid cars by 2035. It doesn't matter if ICE is a feature people want or not: it's not going to be an option.
The point was that price is not a relevant criterion. There may be others reasons.
The EU isn't the whole world. Also, the EU bans new dinosaur-burning cars from 2035. Cars with ICEs running on something else (synthetic) will most likely remain legal.
For ICEs to fully vanish from the market it would take a complete ban or some disruptive technology that works better for all use cases, to make them completely non-desirable for everyone.
"There is a strong assumption that battery costs will come down"
On what bases? Typically bigger demand leads to price increase, do we have new sources of Lithium/Cobalt/Copper that would increase production significantly?
Or build smaller cars. Not everybody needs an 80kwh SUV. That's just the current market, which seems to favor stupidly big, heavy, and inefficient cars. That's not going to stay that way and VW is already planning to build smaller and cheaper cars. There are some cool vehicles hitting the market now that emphasize efficiency and range over just being big. E.g. Lightyear has very good aerodynamics and weight and a few other manufacturers are focusing on that as well.
A light city car like a Nissan Leaf does pretty well with just 40kwh. The original one shipped with just 20kwh and that was a relatively heavy vehicle. Imagine the same vehicle with twice the energy density. It would have a lot more range. A few kwh go a long way on light vehicles. Electrical motor cycles have somewhere in the range of only 4-8kwh. A lot of electrical bicycles have less than 1 kwh. 10kwh is plenty for a light vehicle.
Anyway, hybrids have all the downsides of owning an ICE car (lots of moving parts, pollution, expensive fuel, maintenance cost, etc.) with only some of the upsides of owning an EV (torque, fuel economy, etc.). Basically, in terms of cost and complexity, they don't make a lot of sense. The cheaper batteries get, the less sense they make. Right now EVs are just really expensive which means not everybody can afford one. However, cheaper, smaller EVs are perfectly feasible and a lot cheaper to make. Once the high end market saturates, smaller, lighter and cheaper EVs are the next obvious growth market. From next to nothing to many millions in volume is going to happen relatively quickly. In such a market, hybrids don't really stand a chance.
Those hundreds of millions of vehicles will be replaced over the course of 2-3 decades. Annual production volume of cars will be mostly EVs by mid next decade; in about 15 years. From then on, another 15 years or so later, most ICE vehicles will have been decommissioned. The value proposition at 2022 cost levels is already pretty great for EVs (with incentives and if you can afford them). Another 3 decades of technical improvements, economies of scale, etc. is going to only improve the economics.
> Or build smaller cars. Not everybody needs an 80kwh SUV. That's just the current market, which seems to favor stupidly big, heavy, and inefficient cars.
From my perspective, this is a regulatory issue.
Auto-manufacturers have been pushing products and platforms that streamline, simplify, and reduce cost. That means if their premier work truck, consumer truck, and SUV all share the same underlying platform it's a win. This doesn't incentivize the development of multiple platforms that are right fit but rather marketing manipulation to make the consumer think something is the right fit.
Making lighter vehicles is a big strategy to make electric affordable quick indeed. Maybe some companies will manage to find good solution and implement them quicker than car makers? Renault managed this with the Twizy.
I investigated myself plugin hybrid vs full electric, and full electric won for the simple fact that a plugin needs to be charged every day I will drive somewhere. For the electric, I can recharge it once a week or twice a month and it will cover my needs. I don't have an in-house charger so this is a massive difference.
For VW to build 10 million electric vehicles to keep numbers up [1], at 60kWh per vehicle which approximately the midsized ID.3 [2], they need to build roughly 12x this capacity, so ~$240B investment which is about what the whole company is worth today [3].
This is also a first investment. They can wait a year and invest double in a larger plant - when building something for mass manufacture you start with a smaller plant to learn how to do it, and then a larger one applying all the expensive lessons learned the hard way from the first. Sometimes this cycle is repeating dozens of times.
In emerging markets, hybrids are a much smarter choice. Here in Brazil there are few fast chargers (say 40kW+), and a great bunch of them are broken anyway. My next car will be a plug-in hybrid. Maybe an electric in 10 years.
Indeed the infrastructure's just not there yet in most places, and not just Brazil, it sucks basically everywhere.
PHEVs can be charged at home and should have enough battery range for those short daily errands across town, while having the range of a normal ICE car for long trips where the lack of fast chargers is most critical. Plus they'll break down more due to higher complexity and the repair shops will love and lobby for them so win-win-win.
EVs are indubitably miles ahead in terms of being simple to maintain mechanically since it's a sealed fixed gear system (the software is another matter, but let's disregard that for now), but I don't believe those numbers for the PHEV for a second.
You're maintaining both an EV and an ICE at the same time in one car with both needing to interface with each other in complex ways. There's bound to be in the range of 4x as much that can go wrong compared to just one or the other. You'll have the mechanical issues of the ICE coupled with the software problems of an EV.
It's an absolutely stupid idea to even consider doing these sort of overcomplicated hybrids, but unfortunately it's also the only way to get around the abysmal battery capacity we currently have.
>> but I don't believe those numbers for the PHEV for a second.
Having driven a PHEV for over 2 years now, I can easily believe them - the main ICE runs so rarely, it's practically brand new. I cover like 90% of my journeys in EV mode alone. I've just done my second service and the brake pads are like 5% worn - after 20kk miles, in a 2.2 tonne SUV. All because of regenerative breaking - it's absolutely remarkable. So yes, I imagine repairs of this car will be cheaper long term, not more expensive - the ICE drive train is going to have fewer problem if you just don't use it half as much.
> You're maintaining both an EV and an ICE at the same time in one car with both needing to interface with each other in complex ways.
The interface does not need to be complex. Hooking them directly together is simple enough. Some designs replace parts of the gearbox with the motors, making the combination simpler than the sum of its parts. And if you have a fully electric drivetrain then you can vastly simplify the ICE.
(Also I don't know how you could possibly reach 4x even if it was as complex as you're saying!)
You don’t really need fast chargers if your overnight spot has any charging. Ours has been charged almost exclusively on a standard US 120V 15A household outlet - 5 miles/hr of range, but it’s parked for >14 hours a day, so it regains 70+ miles overnight.
I don't really need the car on a daily basis, mostly for road trips, and, like the US, Brazil has continental proportions (we think in thousands of kms). The BMW iX is very impressive, there are videos of it doing Sao Paulo > Rio, and half of the way back, without a charge, which is amazing, but that's a best-case path with a considerable number of chargers. Still very pricey though.
Oh well yeah, for road trips it’s different. But for day to day, 70 miles of charging (on a 300 mile range battery) is enough to keep it so it’s usually topped up, and after a longer day trip where it’s not enough, it’ll get back to full over a few days.
It sounds like a normal hybrid is a better idea if the charging infrastructure is bad. A normal hybrid would be cheaper and never needs to be plugged in.
If you can't charge at home, PHEV is completely nonsense, or say waste of battery compared to HEV. PHEV should be for who can charge at home, drives daily, and want long trips with quick gas charge.
Even if you can't charge at home, PHEV is still worth it over HEV because it will increase resale value, and because you may be able to charge somewhere in the future (eg work, or different home). The cost of the plug is negligible, so making an HEV that can't plug in is just a waste.
PHEV for future proof is good point. Simple plug cost could be minor, but HEVs have small battery (and don't use fully for long life) so just adding plug is almost useless. Who wants only 5km EV range?
that's a lot of my point. The Prius prime (for example) has a 8.8kwh battery, which at $130 per kwh works out to $1150 of battery. That's not negligible, but the benefit is pretty massive. That's a big enough battery to get you 20-25 miles of pure electric range which means that if you have a short commute, you will dramatically cut your gas usage. Full BEV is great obviously, but IMO, you probably want 1 car to be gas optional still, and a PHEV gives you an easy path to be driving almost 100% electric with 0 compromises compared to a gas car.
The streets of Paris have lots of chargers along the sidewalks, seems like cities elsewhere should be able to pull that off as well. Doesn’t even need to be high powered if they’re intended to be parked at overnight.
There'd have to be charger every 5-6 meters or so along most sidewalks where I live to make electric viable. Certainly not impossible, but sounds like an absolutely massive investment.
The vast majority of parking spaces are free and don't have any meters at all.
Sure downtown there is parking meters, but not in the suburbs where free parking is the norm and most parking spaces go weeks between seeing anyone park in them.
No meters in neighborhoods around here, just painted curbs. I only see meters on very dense downtown blocks, and many seem to be solar powered (which seems feasible for an LCD and a card slot).
In my city, there's maybe a parking meter for every 20 spots. Plus, most spots are in non-metered areas. PLUS, the meter does not require a very high voltage power line...
The problem is that hybrids are good only for range anxiety. You assume you're getting an EV and a great range — best of both worlds. The reality is that you get worst of both worlds: a crappy low-end EV experience with worst-case charging, and a poor ICE car with even less cabin/cargo space than a pure ICE (and much less than a pure BEV).
In hybrids, the battery is very tiny, so lasts for a day or two instead of a week or more. This means having a home charger is an absolute necessity. Small batteries don't support rapid charging, so you won't be able to use many public chargers, even if you were patient enough to wait hours instead of minutes.
Horesepower of hybrid cars is advertised as a sum of EV+ICE engines together, but that's a rare scenario. You'll be mostly using underpowered EV-only half when you can, and then the underpowered ICE-only half when you run out of juice.
When you're on electricity, you're lugging an ICE engine, and when you're road tripping, you have worse fuel economy due to lugging a useless battery and an EV motor (regen doesn't do much even when it works, and highway cruising is the worst-case scenario for it).
In many hybrids transmission/clutch adds a lag, so you don't get the sweet instant torque BEVs are known for.
You have worst-case maintenance costs. On top of all the moving parts of an ICE engine and a complex gearbox, your battery will wear out sooner. A small battery will tend to be cycled 100% to 0%, instead of kept in the 80%-50% range that is much gentler for lithium batteries.
As a recent PHEV purchaser, I have to disagree on most counts. All typical driving is fully electric, meaning routine commuting, shopping, etc. is all covered by the battery. The home charger is required, but so so simple because it fully charges off a normal (15A) circuit overnight. So it's literally just plugged in to a normal wall outlet. No big deal. Sure you're lugging around the ICE, but it has a much smaller and lighter battery compared to an all electric. Id be curious to see what the real weights involved are, but it's not like you're adding an ICE to a full electric battery. The thing still gets 46mpg even when the battery is depleted, which is better than any other ICE car I've ever had. And there is no transmission in the electric power train as far as I can tell, if there is it's seamless. As for maintenance costs, we'll see. I suspect your analysis will be at least partially correct, having the two independent drive trains and the system to combine them seems like a minefield of long term maintenance. But that was the risk I was willing to take given all of the other benefits.
Like patentatt, I disagree with most of this. Which PHEVs are you looking at?
Some can blend power from electric and gas motors and give you the combined power output for modest durations almost any time--and then will use excess ICE capacity or regenerative breaking to recharge the battery.
Yes, of course you plug in any time you're home. Not an issue if you have off-street parking, any outlet works.
Transmission/clutch lag--which car have you driven? Does not exist at all in mine (GM Volt), have not heard anyone mention it in reviews of RAV4 Prime or other recent PHEVs.
It is in fact the best-case scenario for some driving profiles.
I have many modest-distance trips around town, and ~30 long drives a year, at least 10 of which would require a midway additional hour of charging in a BEV, with half the drive through an area that has no fast chargers and will not get any in the next 3 years.
The funny thing is that everything you said makes sense on paper, but in reality none of it matters.
I have an XC60 T8 PHEV, it's the best car I have ever owned, hands down.
>>a crappy low-end EV experience with worst-case charging, and a poor ICE car with even less cabin/cargo space than a pure ICE (and much less than a pure BEV).
Don't see it at all. It charges in 3 hours - what's the problem? That I can't rapid charge it on the motorway? Ok, fair.
The space inside it is the same as in a petrol XC60. There is no compromise.
>>You'll be mostly using underpowered EV-only half when you can, and then the underpowered ICE-only half when you run out of juice.
The EV motor isn't super powerful, but it's absolutely sufficient for driving around. And the ICE is 320bhp in this model, it's far far far far from "underpowered". It's a rocketship, and I owned an actual Mercedes-AMG before. In the mode where both ICE and EV motors work together this car will outaccelerate anything due to the instant torque.
>>you have worse fuel economy due to lugging a useless battery and an EV motor (regen doesn't do much even when it works, and highway cruising is the worst-case scenario for it).
Maybe, but this car averages 50mpg(imperial) on long journeys anyway, so I really don't see a downside here. Regular Petrol XC60 struggles to keep 40. Diesel XC60 would beat it, but who wants a diesel. And my long term(2 years+) average overal is 120mpg, so really......whatever?
>>In many hybrids transmission/clutch adds a lag, so you don't get the sweet instant torque BEVs are known for.
Many, but not all - in the XC60 the EV motor is mounted directly on the rear axle so it doesn't go through the transmission at all. It accelerates instantly like any EV.
>>You have worst-case maintenance costs. On top of all the moving parts of an ICE engine and a complex gearbox
I'm seeing the opposite after couple years of ownership - the ICE almost never runs, so it doesn't suffer any wear. At every oil change the oil is completely clear - the motor is practically brand new. After 20kk miles the brake pads are 5% worn, because you do most breaking by regenerative breaking. So far this car is saving me a fortune in running costs and maintenance, and I don't see why this shouldn't continue. If anything, this car and its drivetrain will far outlast any regular ICE car out there.
>>your battery will wear out sooner.
If this was an actual concern, the manufacturer wouldn't give it 8 years warranty. It's longer warranty than on my actual real proper BEV that I also have.
I’m an automotive EE, I’ve had almost all types of vehicles to drive. I really like the Wrangler plug in hybrid. My week to week saw almost zero gas being used, it was like having a full electric and I could still drive wherever I wanted. With 4Low and diff lockers. Loved it!
I drive ~12mi a day, works great for me, but I know it’s not for people with commutes.
Plug-in hybrids are in a weird spot in the market. People who have access to home charging can buy long-range EVs which are much nicer to drive. People without access to home charging can buy non-plug-in hybrids or gas-powered cars. Most plug-in hybrids cost a bit more than the non-plug-in versions of the same car and their battery-only driving range is quite short.
No matter where you are in the car market, plug-in hybrids are a weird compromise, delivering all the slowness of a hybrid and the requirement to have access to charging like an EV, for more money than a normal hybrid car.
The other disadvantage hybrids have is that you have all the complexity of a both an electric and a gas car. One nice thing about full electric is that you do away with much of the regular maintenance of an ICE car.
There is that, but in a plug-in hybrid, the gas engine does not get used a lot. When it does, it is usually operating in a serial hybrid mode and runs within an optimal range without much stress. Actual wear and tear and maintenance are much less than in a conventional ICEV. You see this with Priuses and Volts. The gas engines live an unstressed life and last much longer. The Volt keeps track of usage and alerts you when it is time for an oil change. They can easily go 18 months between oil changes.
That's fair, but still a big difference psychologically between 18m and never. Plus various other fluids. Even brake pads and rotors—on pure EVs they basically last forever thanks to regenerative braking. Perhaps modern hybrids do have that benefit as well now though.
>>on pure EVs they basically last forever thanks to regenerative braking. Perhaps modern hybrids do have that benefit as well now though.
They do. I have owned an XC60 PHEV for over 2 years now, after 20kk miles the brake pads were 5% worn. And it's a 2.2 tonne, 400bhp SUV. Without regenerative braking the pads would be almost gone now.
I mean, you take your car in to the shop once a year for its inspection, they take care of it all for you. The only difference with the BEV is they don't charge you $X0 for the oil change.
The recommended frequency for Tesla appears to be every two years, check brake fluids and replace cabin air filter. Lots of Tesla owners don’t bother outside of tire changes.
I'm sure there's a long list of "inspect" to go with that? At some point timing belt? Other belts? Spark plugs? One day the alternator will die, then the water pump, head gasket, exhaust pipe will rust, the battery, starter motor, brake pads, break disks? Oxygen sensor... man the list of stuff in ICE cars that's not in EVs that can and definitely will fail just goes on and on and on. Sure, most of it past the 10 year mark, but it's a lot of stuff.
Is this North America spec btw? (there's difference in maintenance intervals usually).
I've driven ICE for many many many years and I never want to go back. I don't want to smell gasoline in the gas station... The model 3's maintenance is basically cabin air filter and brake fluid which honestly you can just not touch for 5 years with no problem if you live somewhere with clean air ;) it's essentially zero maintenance.
That's exactly my feeling. I still like the ICE for a fun weekend car (not that the Model 3 isn't fun, but something lightweight with some character is nice for variety), but for anything I'm putting a lot of miles on, not having to worry about all that is fantastic.
The biggest concern I've heard for hybrids is lifetime maintenance cost. You have both the legacy ICE and transmission, as well as electrical components to maintain. That's a major hypothetical disadvantage to all electric.
Toyota Priuses have been sold for over 20 years (closer to 25 actually!) and they are very reliable. There are Prius taxis with half a million miles on the original battery.
I love my EV, but I'll be switching to a hybrid when the lease is up. EVs are great but charging is currently a pain. I have no doubt I'll switch back to an EV in a few years, but right now, they're not worth it to me.
We need to cut down on cars a lot, the emissions equation doesn't make sense otherwise. Because (a) replacing cars is hugely CO2 intensive and (b) there doesn't seem to be any reasonable timescale path to leaving the currently known oil/gas deposits in the ground and not pumping & burning them up. Until there is, EVs are just additional emissions.
> you consider hundreds of millions of vehicles need to be replaced.
They probably won't be all replaced. A minority of people (I'd put it at around 15-20% max) will afford to own an EV (price + place to charge it), while the great majority of us will be left with old combustion-engine cars, Cuba style (or until the law will prohibit them entirely, most probably).
That's not what that link says. It says that hybrids deliver a larger CO2 reduction per unit of battery, and because batteries are scarce, we would do better CO2 reduction by focusing limited battery capacity in hybrid vehicles, as this would lead to the greatest number of miles traveled on electric charge, along with some savings from the weight of batteries.
It definitely does not say that BEVs have higher emissions over the course of a car's life. It pretty clearly shows that BEVs have the largest decrease in CO2 emissions, as you would expect.
And yet, there are plenty of BEVs on the market that will never have lower emissions than a Prius Prime. Some of this junk is leaving the factory with embodied carbon higher than the lifetime emissions of a plug-in hybrid. Looking at you, Polestar.
If we used plug in hybrids with 10 kWh batteries, this would be enough for four million vehicles.