EV technology is not perfect and the use cases are more limited than ICE vehicles, especially when considering long-distance travel and heavy towing, but ICE vehicles tend to come at a greater environmental cost and the use cases of alternative technology are far greater than the actual demand for them acknowledges. That is not to say that the environmental cost of EV technology is zero, and automakers need to better understand – not just established consumer demand of bigger and bigger vehicles (of which they are more than a little responsible for creating in the first place) – but the logical use cases and the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches. For Ford to deny the many use cases of PHEV technology is clearly not doing that.

Examine the actual practical use case of a Ford F-150 Lightning (disregarding the use case of “I just want a big F’ing truck) and taking into account some recommended EV best practices. The range of a Ford Lightning is 230 miles standard and 320 miles for an extended range. You lose about 30% of that range while towing so it’s range while towing is more like 161 miles standard and 224 extended. It is also recommended for lithium ion batteries to keep the battery between 20% and 80% and rarely drain or exceed it beyond that point in order to ensure the longevity of the battery. So following those guidelines while towing with a Ford Lightning you get a practical range of 96.6 miles standard and 134.4 miles extended range without even taking into consideration terrain, weather, driving habits, and load distribution. LFP-type batteries are cheaper and do not have the same constraints as lithium-ion batteries, but they are even heavier and do not get as much range per kwh.

The Ford Lightning’s battery weighs in at 1,800 pounds and that requires a LOT of critical minerals, take a lot more electricity to charge, and the electric grid in the U.S. still relies heavily on fossil fuels. Critics of electric vehicles are not wrong to criticize the mining practices of the minerals that go into current battery chemistries, but only because of current market trends that are leaning towards bigger and bigger EV’s with longer and longer range – not because it is an inherently bad technology. Mining is bad, but it’s not worse than drilling for oil so it’s still not the argument to maintain the status-quo that critics think it is. However, it’s true that gigantic EV’s with huge range hordes critical minerals and the extraction and processing of these minerals does have negative environmental and social impacts. There is an intersection in that analysis where you aren’t doing the environmentally right thing anymore when you drive such an EV. For instance, I have read that even a Model Y charged on a legacy power grid is only as clean as the most efficient ICE vehicle.

Another article made a convincing argument that we could reduce far more carbon if everyone drove hybrids and plug-in hybrids instead because of 4 compounding reasons 1. Even though the VAST majority of daily commutes are under 30 miles trip, 2. most people hesitate to buy ev’s because of range anxiety and the thought of the inconvenience of finding and waiting for a charger, even while public charging is only necessary on long trips or if you live in an apartment complex, but 3. you could make 10 plugin hybrids or 60+ regular hybrids with the same amount of minerals that it takes to make the battery pack of one Ford Lightning and not have to deal with range anxiety, so 4. there would be less overall fuel emissions, you would maximize the use of rare minerals, and more people would be able to afford a car if the preference was for hybrid and plugin hybrid technology that gets >30 mile range rather than huge, long-range EV’s. It would be easier to convince many more buyers who hesitate to purchase an EV because of range anxiety and they would effectively be driving with the electric drive train in a hybrid 30-50% of the time or in full EV mode as much as 90% of the time in a plug-in hybrid. Meanwhile the adoption of EV’s is hampered by the prospect of being inconvenienced by their existing constraints and the still exorbitant cost of a full-fledged EV, that is compounded by the demand for huge battery packs…

I am not a critic of EV or hybrid technology, I own a Chevy Bolt and have a Ford Maverick hybrid truck on order – but I also love my e-bike! I’m not even saying that nobody needs something like a Ford Lightning – it’s just a very, very small segment of truly environmentally-conscious use cases. For instance, contractors or anyone who really needs the load and tow capacity, and can even frequently use the EV battery to power tools at job sites that don’t have power, but will only drive it locally (96 to 134 miles round trip) and charge at their home/business >90% of the time. If you don’t need to tow or haul that much or very often, then guess what, you don’t need a Ford f-150 Lightning! And just try to charge at a public charger if you do need to tow a trailer on longer trips! Not a whole lot of use cases in the real world for such a thing… Although there are no use cases for a Hummer EV – those are gross for the environment. I drive my Bolt around town and will take my Ford Maverick Hybrid on longer trips. Yes, hybrids do not get as good mpg on the highway as they do in town but it’s a small truck with better fuel economy than a Honda Fit that is still big enough for traveling with my family and luggage, and can even tow a bass boat.

I really wanted Ford to come out with a plug-in Maverick though and if the 2025 Toyota Stout includes a plug-in hybrid option, well I might still get a good resale value for my Maverick…

https://fordauthority.com/2023/08/ford-hybrid-push-apparently-excludes-plug-in-variants/