Subject: Re: OT: BYD introduces hybrid with 1300 mile range
Hybrids have always made more sense to me. You get the quick range add of an ICE with way better fuel efficiency from the energy regeneration.


It's easy to see the attraction of going all electric - with hybrids, you have all the cost of the ICE, all the maintenance, and much less virtue signalling points.

But for real-world adoption, hybrids get most of the CO2, pollution, noise and fuel cost advantages, at a much lower cost, without sacrificing range.

The hybrid (Audi A3 etron, an upscale VW Golf) that I owned for 6 years did about 60% of its kms on electricity and 40% on gas, despite having only 40km of battery-powered range, and I never had to worry about overall range (in fact, being a hybrid gave it MORE range than an ICE car with the same gas enging and fuel reservoir, because of the regeneration on hills and stops).

To get this back to Berkshire, I think the market size for hybrid cars is probably a lot bigger, once you get past wealthy first adopters for whom all-electric is obviously more attractive. You get a lot more fossil fuel savings for the same quantity of batteries, at much lower cost. I'm not disputing that all-electric is the future, but for the next 5-10-15 years, I think BYD may be better positioned than Tesla, with the capacity to make both.

dtb