Talk:Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Please see Hybrid What?. --D0li0 10:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] PIA Rewrite

Plug In America, CalCars, and friends will be attempting a major overhaul of this article on the sub-talk page here Talk:Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle/PIA Rewrite with discussion here in this section...

Please let us know if there is a more appropriate manner in which to go about this rewrite process. --D0li0 09:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source for advantages?

From the article:

A 70-mile range HEV-70 may annually require only about 25% as much gasoline as a similarly designed HEV-0, depending on how it will be driven and the trips for which will be used.

Is there a source for such statement? I'm going to change to something more verifiable if not. Daniel.Cardenas 16:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply by J. Ronning:

I wrote an SAE paper in 1997 on the topic (SAE # 971629) where I researched the the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey and found the distribution of daily travel. As engineers on the GM EV1 program, we used the same basic data to justify EV range on the order of 70 miles as being enough range to cover 9 out of 10 days for the average american driver, and about 3 of 4 annual miles for a "Plug-In" HEV (which I termed "Unlimited EV" at the time). I became an advocate for this architecture in my industry over those years, but it is an industry that is resistant to fundamental change. My colleague, Andy Frank, advocated more successfully from the academic world and Felix Kramer has done a Yeoman's job of raising awareness, especially with the media.

Another colleague of mine, Greg Grant, co-authored a following SAE paper in 1999 where we studied the economics of this architecture versus other HEVs over time and around the globe. EPRI has since done a much more exhaustive study on the same topic.

A PHEV-20 does not enjoy nearly as high of petroleum independence as a PHEV-70, but the battery system is a whole lot cheaper, so the answer is not crystal clear as to what will be optimum. There may very well be a range of choices based on consumer preference, as lithium battery prices fall significantly in the future.

Regards, Jeff Ronning

Jeff, thanks for the reply. Your credentials are impressive. :-)
Some thoughts to consider: The first people who buy plug-in hybrids aren't going to be average american drivers. They will be drivers who know they can take advantage of the range. For example the next gen plug-in Prius may have a 9 mile range. For some people this will fit in their daily commute and therefor they will save much more on gas then your statement suggests.
Follow on years, because of increase production and improved technology we will get to PHEV-20 in mass production. So the immediate need for PHEV-70 seems unnecessary to me. Although I suspect unintended, the statistic you are using suggests people will get less of an improvement with smaller ranges.
Just my 2 cents, Daniel.Cardenas 04:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

J. Ronning reply: Daniel, thanks for the reply as well. Since it is impossible to predict how the buyer pool will be skewed in terms of daily travel (many owners of PHEVs may be attracted for general environmental or other reasons while their daily driving exceeds the particular ZEV range), I prefer to use average US driving statistics. This also helps to aggregate the societal benefits. If it can be proven one day that the PHEV market segments somewhat neatly along the lines of individual driving habits, it will then be fair to use the improved numbers in my opinion. I suspect you may be right that early PHEVs would have only 9 miles or so and later versions increase to 20 and higher ranges, but that does not preclude the possibility of versions with much higher ranges. Often battery pack power requirements drive the pack size giving more energy than might have been required. Nevertheless, if PHEVS eventually become mainstream and there is not a substantial market "grouping" effect, then the higher-range PHEV will clearly displace a greater percentage of its petroleum consumption than the lower-range version. You make a good point about market segmentation and we'll see one day just how much discretion consumers can bring to bear in their decision about PHEV range.

Quote from the article: "While a Prius is likely to convert fuel to motive energy on average at about 30% efficiency (well below the engine's 38% peak efficiency)" I would like to know the source of these figures please 83.245.48.112 00:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Arnaud

Also, this seems to contradict a statement from the article about the Prius: "The Prius minimizes the pumping loss by running the gasoline engine at high torque range with throttle fully open". Something is wrong ! or unclear ... 83.245.48.112 00:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Arnaud

Sources for Prius' fuel conversion efficiency are both a Toyota presentation as well as computer simulations using industry standard software. Vehicle efficiency is a multi-faceted topic, making it easy to compare apples to oranges. Efficiency depends heavily on driving schedule. The statements above do not detract from the the fact that the Prius engine is well-conditioned to operate often at near peak efficiency. Also, the Prius engine thermodynamic cycle is superior to a standard SI engine in terms of efficiency. The confusion is probably due to the suggestion that there is yet room for improvement, primarily in the first area, percent operation at peak efficiency. In a PHEV, where engine operation is relatively rare given substantial battery energy, the role of the IC engine becomes rather mundane - to mainly provide cruise power - something which can be accomplished at very near peak efficiency with a much smaller engine. Jeff Ronning 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV: Motorized bicycle

A motorized bicycle is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle that needs to be carefully placed in the article. The problem is this information seems to contradict the first line of this article. This article is totally biased and need a serious look into redevelopping non-pov attributes. CyclePat May 30th 2006

Perhaps you should take a whack at making the article more NPOV. Alternatively the article could be split up in to plug-in hybrid car or something like that. Daniel.Cardenas 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand the point about neutrality as there have been dozens of contributors to this page and as the document has developed over the last year or so it has been growing into a fairly well understood topic. As far as motorized bicycles go, that is another topic altogether and I believe there is a section in Wikipedia for it. Plug-in hybrids is a huge growing movement in the US and is commonly understood to mean passenger cars primarily. There was a major meeting on the topic earlier this month at the DoE to discuss how these passenger vehicles can help reduce US dependence on imported oil. Major manufacturers of cars and trucks are being asked to consider how to make these vehicles in a cost effective way because of the potential they offer. That does not take away from the beauty of motorized bicycles - more power to you on that, but it's a different topic.Jeff Ronning 22:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Claim Refutation

I think the NPOV comment made by CyclePat is not sufficiently detailed. No specific suggestions are offered to make the article more neutral other than to add information about motorized bicycles.

I am a reporter for the National Public Radio affiliate in Austin, Texas (KUT-FM) and have covered PHEV stories. Austin Mayor Will Wynn (Chairman, Energy Committee, US Conference of Mayors) started the "National Plug-in Partners Campaign" along with the director of Austin's electric utility. Some credit this campaign with Ford's recent announcement of PHEV development. This wikipedia article on PHEVs is less tilted in favor of PHEVs than the National Plug-in Partners would like. I think this strongly indicates that the article is, in fact, balanced.

Motorized bicycles could be a subsection of this article or a different topic entirely. But the neutrality of this article is not, in my opinion, in legitimate dispute.

WRHowellJr 18:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you should have attributed that to CyclePat. Daniel.Cardenas 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Corrected. Apologize for the oversight. WRHowellJr 15:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plug-ins not viable yet?

According to this: [1] Plug-ins aren't yet viable. What I was wondering is what it will take to make them work? Could the system simply not allow the batteries to get up to a full charge or for there to be some kind of advanced cooling system for the batteries? As much as I want plug-ins to work, wishful thinking isn't going to do it and I would like to see this article make current or future viability seem more realistic.

There have been several reports of mass produced plug-ins in the works. The guardian web site had a link that said the next version of the Prius will have plug-in capability with 9 mile range, but then removed this information from the article. I also saw a link to Ford article that said they are working on one too. The first ones will have short ranges and perhaps low top speed, but will improve as battery technology improves.
Look for the new Prius with Li-on battery at the end of next year. http://vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=553701
Daniel.Cardenas 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

- GM is in fact creating a plug-in hybrid for their Equinox LOOSELY based on the UC Davis version that the students designed under the supervision of Dr. Andy Frank, the reputed father of modern PHEVs. Only a few will be made, and they will most likely be leased with no option to purchase.

It is likely a true statement that Plug-In HEVs are not commercially viable today nor QUITE technologically viable, but I believe the Forbes article is off-target in comparing how cell phone batteries "get warm" to how a battery system is thermally managed. Proper pack engineering includes sufficient air cooling for the cells. In fact, some lithium batteries are about the most efficient available with ultra-low internal resistance. It would not be thermal management per se that hinders lithium powered plug-ins, but safety under abnormal conditions like severe overcharge. And on the commercial front, the cost of the batteries is still way too high, needing reduction by 2X or more.

- Correct, thermal management is easy. A BMS (Battery Monitoring System) like the smart chargers for your AA nimh batteries is required to prevent the overcharge. And the cost of batteries is high because of volume manufacturing.

The strange thing is that the domestic industry is bent on pursuing the H2 fuel cell vehicle (a system that Forbes devoted a cover page article to criticizing and worth reading) but its commercial and technical UNviability today is off the charts. Yet the industry complains about how plug-ins are not viable today. It will be very hard to compete with batteries in round trip efficient storage of renewable electricity. Batteries can give you 90 to 98% of the original energy back to the vehicle drive motor. If your storage media is compressed hydrogen, expect around 30% of the electrical energy back to the drive of a fuel cell vehicle. It is important for the public to understand that hydrogen is not a primary fuel, but simply a way to store energy that has been generated from primary fuels like coal, or from renewable sources, all of which ultimately come from solar energy. The energy required to generate H2 and store it (normally in compressed form) is often ignored and it can be substantial, typically 50% efficient. Jeff Ronning 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

- Which is why the auto industry is pursuing hydrogen as a hobby project. It is not viable in the near future, thus, it will not change the status quo of fossil fuel vehicles.

[edit] CO2 emissions

"Finally, if the local source of electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, the benefits in terms of reduced CO2 emissions could be lost." - I deleted that sentence. The CO2 emissions will still be lower even if all the electricity is produced from fossil fuels because of the higher efficiency of the electric motor compared to an internal combustion engine. --cassini83 03:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

True. And it would be worth citing some Well-to-Wheel studies and facts comparing BEVs and PHEVs to ICE vehicules to support this fact. I will dig some and add references when I find the time. Feel free to do it too. - Vcote, 21 July 2006
I researched the "well to drivetrain" efficiency of a PHEV running off of stored electric power...the results were not encouraging...about 25% (see article section on "disadvanatges"). This 25% will be reduced even further by the power train of the vehicle, but such losses are likely comparable to other vehicles, and defintely comparable to non plug-in hybrid vehicles. All efficiencies cited are linked to other articles or referenced to a thermodynamics text. ~D.Clippinger 138.29.80.220 18:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Your research seems to contradict most other research I have heard of on the subject (one could start with Ovshinsky's piece on the CalCars website, http://www.calcars.org/history.html, and go from there). The section you added to the page did not reference your sources, and it only discussed inefficiencies of the PHEV wheel-to-well chain without comparing them to the corresponding inefficiencies in the wheel-to-well chain of ICE-powered cars or non plug-in hybrids, rendering your assumed comparisons invalid. Therefore, I deleted the section you had added. Fbagatelleblack 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I cited a standard thermodynamics text. If you read this textbook you will see that my analysis is sound. Specifically, page 643 of this text describes second law efficiency of a system. My calculations follow exactly from this and should be second nature for any undergraduate engineer. I also caution your reliance on the article you found at calcars.org. This article was written to specifically address the emissions of the vehicle only . If you look at the whole system (generation of energy to its actual use) the efficiency is what I posted. The number I posted can be obtained quite easily by multiplying the various efficiencies of the system together. Also, I question reliance on the article at calcars.org as a source of authoritative information on this topic. The author of the article is president of a company that makes Ni-MH batteries that are used in such vehicles. While this fact does not in and of itself invalidate his claims, it means that such articles should be read with caution. If you read the calcars.org article more carefully, you will see that it is merely the petroleum consumption of the plug-in hybrid that is reduced--not the total energy consumption of the vehicle as a component of the transportation system. But reducing petroleum consumption in the car while increasing fossil fuel consumption at the power generation facility is the result of the engineering trade-off. Please let me know where the fault is in my analysis, otherwise I will re-post. Also, the efficiency that I cited was for "well-to-powertrain." Any efficiency improvements beyond the prime mover (i.e. regenerative braking) are not specific to the plug-in hybrid and hence cannot be claimed to be included as a result of "plug in" technology. D.Clippinger138.29.80.220 22:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Citing standard thermodynamics equations in this instance is insufficient. In order to be credible, you would have to show the details of your models and/or data analysis, demonstrating which specific energy sources were considered, how the values were calculated, and what the analysis showed. You would need to take into consideration the varied sources of power generation contributing to the grid (hydro, nukes, natural gas, coal, etc.) and show the CO2 emmsissions/Megawatt generated by each source as a percentage of total grid capacity. Additionally, you would have to consider CO2 emitted in the distribution of gasoline, including transportation to gas stations, etc. (very large) versus CO2 emitted in the distribution of electricity (very small). It is likely that the innefficiencies associated with gasoline distribution would more than make up for any innefficiencies in electrical generation, even if all electrical power were generated by burning fossil fuels, which is not the case.
In other words, for your claims to be credible, you will have to compare the "wheel-to-well" CO2 emissions of PHEVs against those of other vehicles, creating a substantial, all-encompassing list of all such inefficiencies in all cases, before you can claim that PHEVs generate more CO2 than do other vehicles. You will have to disprove the sizable body of work to date that supports claims that the wheel-to-well CO2 generation of PHEVs (and BEVs) is significantly less than that of other vehicles.
FYI: You will find that Ovshinsky's large format NiMH batteries are specifically NOT used in PHEVs, much to the dismay of many EV enthusiasts. Many feel that the lack of availability of these batteries has been created by some oil-company conspiracy. Others feel that these batteries are simply not suited for the task because nickel in expensive and lithium ion batteries have much better energy density. The only large-format NiMH batteries currently used in PHEV R&D are those from Electro Energy, whose bipolar design is strikingly different from Ovshinsky's design. EnergyCS and other conversion-oriented companies are using lithium. EAA's DIY plans call for lead-acid.Fbagatelleblack 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you are making the same mistake that Cassini83 made in deleting the statement about increased CO2 production that begin this discussion. I have read the Argonne labs' reports extensively and they don't substantiate the claim that (in Cassini83's words) "[t]he CO2 emissions will still be lower even if all the electricity is produced from fossil fuels because of the higher efficiency of the electric motor compared to an internal combustion engine." In contrast, even the calcars.org website qualifies its statements by claiming "reduced emissions...even on a 50% coal grid."
Please re-read what I originally posted more carefully. I think the best statement is what you wrote yourself..."[i]t is likely that the innefficiencies associated with gasoline distribution would more than make up for any innefficiencies in electrical generation, even if all electrical power were generated by burning fossil fuels. (emphasis added)" Note that your use of the word likely is exactly my point...even you admit that there is a possiblity that emissions would increase on a 100% fossil grid. If that same grid is not simply a 100% fossil grid but is more and more a coal grid then the math works less and less in the PHEV's favor. To give a fair and complete picture of PHEV's and their potential role in reducing emissions, it must be understood that driving a PHEV alone will not reduce emissions, but rather it is the continual cleaning of the electric grid that will really be doing the "work" of reducing net global emissions. (Note that in CA much of this has been done by obtaining about 30% of electricity from natural gas...whether or not this is sustainable and what will replace it if it isn't are other questions...see the discusion on the natural gas crisis here at Wikipedia).
Regarding the batteries, I would prefer not to cite anything from someone who has a financial interest in the adaptation of the final technology. That said, in all fairness, even the Argonne lab reports have a heavy automotive and oil industry input. Some of this is unavoidable because the very sources of the information are those with a financial interest. If you want me to concede that that particular author's batteries aren't used in the PHEV's that have been built to date, I will. However, I believe such discussion is a distraction from the larger issue of obtaining reliable information about a technology from individuals who have or may obtain financial benefit from the adaptation of the technology. The apparent non-use of these specific batteries in PHEV's is one thing...lack of financial interest is another. I agree to the former, but can you confirm the latter? D.Clippinger 138.29.80.220 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have extensively revised and re-posted my original post, citing studies and news reports rather than a text and efficiency analysis to more closely adhere to the NOR guidelines. Please let me know what you think. D.Clippinger138.29.80.220 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

People tend to care more about the bottom line to their wallet than CO2 emissions. If the political process decides that C02 emissions are important then it is easier to clean up relatively few power stations, rather than millions of cars. Good post otherwise. Thx, Daniel.Cardenas 04:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
D.Clippinger's research shows that CO2 emmissions would likely decrease by 15% for the average American driver switching from a HEV to a PHEV. So why would this phenomenon be published as a disadvantage? Clearly, this is a benefit, not a disadvantage, given the global nature of problems associated with CO2 emissions. There is no localized danger created by increased local CO2 emissions. Therefore, I have reclassified the results of D.Clippinger's research as an advantage, not a disadvantage. I have reworded the associated text to remove misleading verbiage and highlight the benefits of PHEVs with regards to CO2 emissions.Fbagatelleblack 21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, but I believe the current wording presents the results of the study in an uneven manner. Specifically, the use of a phrase such as “certain studies have suggested” greatly downplays one of the main conclusions of the original work. The use of this phrase is particularly questionable considering that other information from the same study (information more flattering to the PHEV) is cited without such a phrase.
Let me know what you think of the additional edits I made to try to correct this. D.Clippinger138.29.80.220 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Noting potential increases in localized CO2 emissions might give readers the impression that there are localized problems associated with such emissions, which is not the case, so I re-inserted a note pointing out that CO2 emissions are primarily a global concern. Also, I included a link to the "clean coal" entry to show that power plants using coal can be made to emit less sulfur, mercury, etc. Otherwise, everything looked good. Fbagatelleblack 21:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough, but for completeness, there really should be a reference for this sentence..."However, given the global nature of problems associated with CO2 emissions, specifically those related to global warming, localized increases in CO2 emissions are not considered a significant problem if global CO2 emissions are decreased." I don't think it's in the original work. The same should be done for the clean coal sentence. I moved the citations to before the sentences you added to remove any ambiguity about what is in the original source and what's not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.29.80.220 (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for cleaning up. I think the internal link to the clean coal entry should be enough of a reference for that issue. I also added an internal link to the global warming entry to back up the statement that CO2 emissions are a global concern.Fbagatelleblack 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GM PHEV remote?

Although the possibility is fairly remote, General Motors or DaimlerChrysler could potentially effect a marketing coup by producing a markedly more versatile and fuel-efficient hybrid; a PHEV.

Isn't this less than remote, now likely (via unconfirmed info) in the case of GM? (Of course the possibliity of a significantly useful PHEV from GM, rather than Green Window Dressing, ala flex fuel, remains remote.) - Leonard G. 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you but wikipedia doesn't like to take action on rumors. Also the unencylopedic comment you are referring to should be removed or changed. Daniel.Cardenas 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Now appearing slightly less remote, a GM produced Saturn PHEV[2] (What it would look like if they make it.)- Leonard G. 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I tossed a similar article into the news section a few weeks ago. Daniel.Cardenas 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electric with generator approach

It appears that an entire approach to PHEVs is neglected by this article. This approach is the electric vehicle with an internal combustion generator. This is the approach of the Mitsubishi MIEV concept, which seems to be the most likely to hit the market first, at least in the US. This is an old and tested technology, being used in trains for over 50 years.

You're right. Actually, the "Battery Electric vehicule" section of the article touches this subject but it is well worth expanding. Actually, one of the EV1 prototypes had this precise configuration (see EV1 article). However, one of the characeristics of today's hybrid drivetrains is that the power of both the ICE and the electric motor can be applied to the wheels together. Not the case with the approach you mention. This and other facts can be part of an interesting discussion in the article. - Vcote, 21 July 2006
Here is tech paper [[3]] that describes similar approach, with the difference of using continuosly variable transmission (CVT). It states: It is now possible to use this concept ( Charge Depletion HEV ) in a system which is much simpler mechanically and lower in manufacturing cost while providing higher performance and much better fuel efficiency and lower emissions. Two cars designed and constructed with this concept will be described with measured fuel economy, energy efficiency and emissions obtained. The objective of this paper is to describe the design of a medium size car with a mass of 1400 kg, a 6 passenger capability, and good performance with a fuel consumption of less than 3 liter per 100km on gasoline and emissions only slightly above clean electric power. In addition, the manufacturing costs will be comparable to a conventional vehicle and running costs will also be lower by 50% in most countries. Stated fuel consumption is for running on gasoline, while running on batteries consumption is 10-15 kW Hrs per 100km. However, it's a pity not to see Mitsubishi MIEV concept (4 motors) vs "CVT + one motor" concept comparison, as todays AC motors claimed to produce high enough torque (for example).--Skuzmin 10:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GM / Toyota in race for first wide scale plug-in

It appears from reading the news that Toyota and GM are in a race to produce the first wide scale plug-in. Should this be plugged into the main article somewhere?
Here are two news sources, but there is much more of the same:

Judging from reading the varied news sources the optimistic date for release of plug-in is end of 2007 as a 2008 model. The pessimistic date is end of 2008 as a 2009 model. GM is said to show their plug-in prototype in January 2007.
The Prius plug-in will most likely be based on the new corolla platform. I suspect the delay in the redesign of the corolla has something to do with making it more plug-in friendly. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=116076

[edit] Issues for wide-scale commercialisation

Gerfriedc has entered the below text:

  1. Costs: Increasing demand will raise prices before parts producers ramp up their production (for example shortage of electric motors is expected), also shortages with some metals in the short run will raise prices. Economy of scale and reengineering will solve this problem with beginning market penetration.

I don't believe this fits in this section. This section is about what is stopping plug-ins from being successful. Not what is going to slow them down once they are successful. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas 19:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google.org to develop plug-in hybrid car engine

These are the first four paragraphs of a New York Times article requiring registration:

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 13 — The ambitious founders of Google, the popular search engine company, have set up a philanthropy, giving it seed money of about $1 billion and a mandate to tackle poverty, disease and global warming.
But unlike most charities, this one will be for-profit, allowing it to fund start-up companies, form partnerships with venture capitalists and even lobby Congress. It will also pay taxes.
One of its maiden projects reflects the philanthropy’s nontraditional approach. According to people briefed on the program, the organization, called Google.org, plans to develop an ultra-fuel-efficient plug-in hybrid car engine that runs on ethanol, electricity and gasoline.
The philanthropy is consulting with hybrid-engine scientists and automakers, and has arranged for the purchase of a small fleet of cars with plans to convert the engines so that their gas mileage exceeds 100 miles per gallon. The goal of the project is to reduce dependence on oil while alleviating the effects of global warming.

No concrete mention of this at http://www.google.org/ yet, though. 66.159.220.115 02:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...and where does the electricity come from?

This article seriously needs at least a mention of the fact that the extra electrical supply PHEVs require will place additional strain on electrical grids which are already running at pretty much full capacity.

Natural gas has become the main source of electrical power-generating capacity in North America, and in general, fossil fuels are the #1 feedstock for production of electrical power around the world. Thus, while PHEVs may be more efficient and less air-polluting at the local level, their use results mostly in displacement of pollution towards power-generating facilities, and does not reduce dependence on fossil fuels by as large a proportion as this article seems to imply.

What also remains to be addressed in this article is the lifespan of the electrical batteries required to make PHEVs possible, as well as the environmental impacts of used battery disposal.

For the sake of NPOV, I strongly suggest the inclusion of a 'criticism' section mentioning the above concerns.

65.92.214.51 22:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC) px79

Recharging will mostly come at night when there is excess capacity in the electrical grid. I'm not sure what your natural gas statement is saying. Coal is the largest producer of electricity in North America. It is easier to clean a few power stations than it is to clean a few million cars. Toyota warranties their batteries for 10 years in California. Next generation li-ion batteries do not pose a significant environmental impact.
I'll add a concerns section with counter pointers to my to-do list. It would be good if someone else wants to do it.
Daniel.Cardenas 23:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This article talks about the excess capacity of the electrical grid at night. Enough to power 84% of the nations 220 million cars: http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20179&hed=U.S.+Could+Plug+In+Most+of+Cars&sector=Industries&subsector=Energy
50% of our electricity comes from coal, 19% from nuclear, and another 19% from natural gas: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html . See Electricity generation
Daniel.Cardenas 00:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have read the article you posted but it makes reference to a DOE study. Do you have a link to the study? I would like to read the original work. Regards. D. Clippinger 138.29.80.220 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GM's concept "Volt"

Once again, GM has screwed up in chassis design. The text below looks great, until you see the photos at [4] and [5] Look at the angle the driver gets to see the road in front of the car. The first thing a consumer is going to think is, "what if I can't see a toddler out in front." What a pathetic and transparent attempt to remain in bed with OPEC.

Maybe the Saturn Vue, Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Malibu will also eventually be PHEV; maybe at the same time and they can drop the ugly "concept." AnAccount2 21:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

GM goes electric with new concept car at auto show

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/autoshow_volt_dc

By Jui Chakravorty
Sun Jan 7, 8:39 AM ET

DETROIT (Reuters) - Struggling auto giant General Motors Corp. (NYSE:GM - news) on Sunday revived its once-failed idea of a mass-market electric car, unveiling a new "concept" car called the Volt designed to use little or no gasoline.

Introduced at the North American International Auto Show here, the Chevrolet Volt will draw power exclusively from a next-generation battery pack recharged by a small onboard engine -- if the technology is ready in two or three years.

"We have a thoroughly studied concept, but further battery development will define the critical path to start of production," said Jon Lauckner, a GM vice president for product development....

Lauckner said the Volt should be ready for production around the same time the lithium-ion batteries will be, which GM expects to be in two to three years.

Automakers have been cautious that lithium-ion batteries, which are now used in consumer electronics such as laptop computers, have a tendency to overheat.

But GM also plans to introduce hybrid systems in its Saturn Vue, Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Malibu cars and in its Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks.

Last week, GM awarded lithium-ion battery development contracts for its Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid to Johnson Controls Inc. (NYSE:JCI) affiliate Johnson Controls-Saft Advanced Power Solutions and Cobasys, a venture of Chevron Corp. (NYSE:CVX) and Energy Conversion Devices Inc. (Nasdaq:ENER). Cobasys will work with privately held A123Systems to develop the technology.

Here is another article from Forbes.[6]

AnAccount2 21:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Often chassis for concept vehicles aren't practical. They are designed that way to grab attention and not necessarily to meet the needs of drivers. I doubt the 2010? production vehicle will have that problem. I agree GM has a problem. They should come out with a production vehicle today and not make battery excuses, even if it has a 5 mile range and the generator needs to kick in at 35mph. Daniel.Cardenas 21:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear! AnAccount2 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honda, Toyota, Daimler, Renault, etc.

This is apparently autoshow news weekend.

Reuters: AUTOSHOW-UPDATE 1-Honda mulling plug-in hybrids for development

"We are studying what kind of conditions would enable a plug-in," [sic] Motoatsu Shiraishi, president of Honda Research and Development, told Reuters....

Daimler repeated their 2004 Sprinter van plug-in option. (a/k/a Mercedes-Benz Sprinter)

Toyota made their announcement last summer. They aren't toying with "concept marketing," they probably will start selling their own Prius "conversion" within a year, I'd guess. AnAccount2 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In 2003, Renault produced "Elect'Road," a PHEV variant of its "Electri'cite" Kangoo battery electric van (50-80 km range) with a small gasoline "limp-home" engine able to drive 100 km before refueling. Renault discontinued the Elect'Road after selling about 500, mainly in France, Norway and a few in the UK, for about 25,000 euros. -- http://www.calcars.org/history.html AnAccount2 22:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stranglehold on battery technology?

This section appears to be conspiracy theory nonsense. The Cobasys website has several news items about selling its batteries for automotive purposes. Can anyone even give the patent numbers for these patents? Even if they exist, they may have already expired. Paul Studier 04:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, until recently. Sherry Boschert's book, Plug-in Hybrids - the Cars that Will Recharge America makes a convincing case that there is some truth to the issue. I am working on an article on the subject, which should appear on EVWorld.com in the next few weeks. Fbagatelleblack 05:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The controversy surrounding NiMH batteries is a complicated issue without any straightforward, obvious answers. The recent rash of name-calling and unreferenced claims does nothing to shed light on the matter. I have tried to clean up the section, leaving referenced arguments for both sides, but removing the name-calling and other nonsense.Fbagatelleblack 17:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to video presentation on of

I believe that the following video of Sherry Boschert, president of the San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association disussing Plug-in Hybrids is useful to the article and should be included in the external links section.

Great idea. Sherry does a great presentation in this video, and her question and answer session is worthwhile as well. I went ahead and added the link. Fbagatelleblack 22:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/l/u/Talk%7EPlug-in_hybrid_electric_vehicle_aeac.html"