Talk:Plug-in hybrid/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Hybrid What?

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

A similar article named Petroleum electric hybrid vehicle appears to exist with substantial content, I'm wondering if we should consider trying to merge the two... --D0li0 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
For the intro section, what do you see as useful that is PHEV-specific? The Ronning reference might be good for a history section, once it's verified with the actual SAE paper in hand. Motorized bicycle: no. The battery consipracy idea would, I think need its own page and some documentation - it's too speculative to be material to definition of a PHEV, IMHO. Wish I could be more positive. Jack Rosebro 23:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I need to look more closely at the Petroleum electric hybrid vehicle article, but at first glance it appeared to be talking about Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Perhaps I am mistaken and it more closely paralles the Hybrid Vehicles page and should be considered for merging with that article? I just hate to see good work going into two seperate articles that are describing the same thing, one should become a redirect if that is in fact the case... --D0li0 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ronning SAE Paper is number 971629 (1997) and is titled "The Viable Environmental Car: The Right Combination of Electrical and Combustion Energy for Transportation" and was written before the acronym PHEV or term was developed. The paper calls the architecture "Battery Dominant" or "Unlimited EV" and discusses how the configuration compares with other popular hybrids of the day. It also lays out the data and rationale for PHEVs based on US daily driving patterns. The following paper by Ronning and Grant (1999) discusses the world markets where this type of hybrid (here going by "Energy Hybrid") might succeed first and studies various size platforms and compares it to other popular hybrid types. This is paper number 1999-01-2946. SAE papers have to be purchased via the SAE web site. Regards, Jeff Ronning —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Ronning (talk • contribs) 16:47, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

OK, i'm an european, but in my opinion, "vehicle" include most contraptions for road transportation including bicycles, mopeds etc. This also happends to be the view of at least our (Swedish) department of traffic. Vehicles can be further diveded inte motor vehicles, human powered vehicles, horse-powered vehicles. It says a bit that about car-centrism that many regard vehicle equals motor vehicle ...

The article isn't non-NPOV, as much as using an overly broad assumptation as title. My suggestion is to move the article to something like Plug-in hybrid *car*, or at least have a disambiguation section that give links to other types of plug-in vehicles like, for example, electrical plug-in Velomobiles.

130.242.96.60 09:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)
General Motors is now advertising their future Chevrolet Volt via radio ads in the San Francisco Bay Area (December 2007, couched as a future product). As this particular area has a much higher than national proportion of "green" buyers, "early adapters", high income families, and "techies" it would form a natural environment to introduce such a vehicle. Such advertisements may not be heard nationally, but it does definitely indicate that GM is making an investment to prepare a market for this vehicle (hopefully). - Leonard G. (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

Of course, this mass-production plug-in race must appear. HybridBoy 22:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

This section is quite out of place here.

1. It's not exclusively related to plug-in hybrids - the claim used to be that corporations were doing this because of the elecric vehicles.

2. The Boschert book does not add any new information to the theories or information previously floating around the net.

3. I see no source references other than the book and the EV1 website. Not exactly unbiased.

4. Go the the ev1.org website and read the statements on the subject. Do they sound like a proper source for an encyclopedia?

5. And so on...

Regardless of one's opinion on the subject, the presentation here is not befitting Wikipedia or any reference source. I'm worried that a reporter will see this and think it's proven gospel Jack Rosebro 21:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The article references the book and its claims, without making any direct declarations, so there's no real issue with a reporter assuming this as a primary source (they'll just look up the references). The subject merits inclusion as it directly relates to one of the most important aspects of a PHEV. --Skyemoor 00:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but by that token, anything about a Ni-MH or Li-Ion battery would be fair game for the PHEV article. Remember that this claim first surfaced about EVs. Now it has been switched to PHEVs. If the claim is made in relation to fuel cell hyrbids, does this go in there?
Please review point 1, 2, and 4, above. Will this make an interesting story? Maybe someday, but it's not close to encylopedia material, IMHO. The Ni-MH article might be a marginally acceptable home. This is not PHEV-specific. Jack Rosebro 23:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

PG&E endorses plug-in Prius

  • PG&E Unveils Hybrid Car That Can Power Your House -- CBS5.com
  • PG&E says hybrids could help power grid -- Central Vally Business Times
  • PG&E sees plug-in hybrids as potential profit centers -- News.com
  • PG&E Unveils Prototype Hybrid Car -- ABC
  • PG&E Unveils High-Powered Hybrid -- KTVU

James S. 02:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

PIA Rewrite

Plug In America, CalCars, and friends will be attempting a major overhaul of this article here --D0li0 09:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro & Definition - Draft

DRAFT - DEFINITION - PHEV for Wikipedia article on "Plug-in hybrid vehicle"
This section is intended to replace the present introductory language in the article.
Original Draft date: March 29, 2007

A plug-in hybrid electrical vehicle (PHEV) is any vehicle powered by a combination of internal combustion engine and electric motor whose storage batteries or capacitors can be recharged by connecting the vehicle by plug to an external electrical power source. Plug-in hybrids typically have characteristics of both conventional hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) and of battery electric vehicles (BEV).

A plug-in hybrid may be capable of Charge-depleting, Charge-sustaining, and Blended modes of opperation. They may drive for an extended range in all-electric mode, either only at low speeds or at all speeds, with the internal combustion engine used secondarily for power-assist, and/or for longer range travel. Although there is no technically mandated minimum all-electric range (AER), future state and/or federal legislation may address this for policy purposes.

While the term "PHEV" most commonly refers to passenger vehicles, plug-in hybrid technology has been implemented or proposed in delivery vans, trucks, buses, military vehicles, and other medium to heavy-duty vehicles for on- or off-road use. Plug-in hybrid passenger vehicles are presently not in mass production, although some manufacturers have indicated that they are developing PHEVs Prototypes have been built to demonstrate the technology and to encourage its widespread adaptation. Conversions of production model hybrids may be possible through conversion kits or conversion services pending commercial production.

Some PHEVs are adaptations of Toyota Prius hybrid cars. These prototypes retain the Prius's "idle-off" capability and regenerative braking, among other characteristics, while adding extended electric-only drive capability, and electrical grid-charging. Some of these vehicles have demonstrated fuel economy exceeding 100 miles per gallon of gasoline (plus electricity) in day-to-day driving with electric recharging each night.

Plug-in hybrids have been identified as having significant potential as alternative fuel vehicles.[1] If their battery packs are charged from renewable energy such as solar, wind and/or hydropower, and if their engines can use fuels such as biodiesel or ethanol, then they can operate on minimal amounts of [2] fossil fuel during engine operation.

I trimmed this way down and replaced the existing intro with it. 75.35.74.5 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

References

These references will simply appear in the main articles references section, included here to see how they will look:

  1. ^ Cost-Benefit Analysis of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Technology. Simpson, A. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Report CP-540-40485 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40485.pdf
  2. ^ Even “pure” biodiesel and ethanol typically contain some fossil fuel-based additives, hence the reference to “minimal” fossil fuel rather than “no fossil fuel.”

Section Notes

Notes from Greg:

  1. It is assumed that the text will be footnoted and will have various internal and external links as is typical in a Wikipedia article. Once the draft language is commented on and finalized, I would like to add such details with your help.
  2. The bar graph at the top of the current Wikipedia article will be removed. In its place will be a better graphic or none at all. Please comment on this. Do we need a new graphic or not? If you think we need one, please suggest the graphic you recommend.

Notes from D0li0 01:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC):

  • I would like to retain PHEVs are commonly called "grid-connected hybrids" or "gas-optional hybrids" (GO-HEVs) from the current intro paragraphs.
Re: "commonly called "grid-connected hybrids" or "gas-optional hybrids" (GO-HEVs)": please provide documentation. I have many, many PHEV articles and papers archived. The term "gas-optional hybrid" (GO-HEV) is waning in usage, probably because of its misleading nature: even with E95 ethanol, there is still some gas in the tank. "Grid-connected" hybrids is STARTING to get a little more common, but it's not yet there. A quick Google search confirms my observations: Plug-in hybrid 754,000, PHEV 242,000, GO-HEV 1,410, gas-optional hybrid 1,410, grid-connected hybrid 1,180. --Jack Rosebro 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I am not personally attached to gas-optional, rather perhaps combustion-optional... I sorta like grid-connected or gridable as it implies plugging into the grid. Just didn't want to toss our other nicknames that people have been using, such folks can always add them back into the article if they so choose. --D0li0 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Two other names used by a major U.S. automotive supplier and in a 1999 SAE paper are "energy hybrids" and "true hybrids". from the current intro paragraphs. I would like to find a link to the mentioned 1999 SAE paper.
As for the 1999 SAE technical paper, what's the title and the significance, please? There have been many PHEV technical papers in the eight years since. --Jack Rosebro 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the title nor significance is, I just happen to agree very much with the two terms "energy hybrids" and "true hybrids". Energy Hybrid is quite simply one of the most clear and concise way to describe these PHEVs, I take energy to mean energy source or Fuel, Plug-in Fuel specifically. True Hybrids seems ironic as it takes on the tone of mild-, full-, partial-, hybrid and many of the other truly meaningless descriptors since none yet are True energy hybrids. --D0li0 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
While I can sympathize with your preference for "energy hybrids" or "true hybrids", they aren't in common usage, and aren't technically based. Other cultural terms like strong hybrid, mild hbrid, etc. have the same problem. And as this is a defining section, we have to stick to comman usage. --Jack Rosebro 22:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, perhaps they can be used elsewhere in the article but not in this intro paragraph and definitions section. --D0li0 07:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to retain a link to battery electric vehicles in the intro paragraphs as PHEVs are a combination of HEV and BEV.
  • I would like to combine a few of the existing paragraphs into fewer larger paragraphs.
Add BEV and HEV makes sense so the links will be there. And I'm sure the section will be condensed into less (but bigger) paragraphs; here, it's just a data dump. I think I'll adjust that now, come to think of it. --Jack Rosebro 22:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the links to be less ambiguous. --D0li0 07:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack, thank you for getting started with the definitions for Charge-depleting and Charge-sustaining modes. I have renamed an older Mixed-mode article to Blended mode which is a more accurate title. I then reverted much of this header such that it mentiones these topics briefly as we do not need to get bogged down with technical details in the new introduction paragraph. This way other articles can also use these specific topics. I also wanted to mention that it is not nessecary to link multiple instances of a word such as battery, I generally link the first instance of it in an article. --D0li0 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the work yourself, and for the tip! Jack Rosebro 11:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Patent protection section

Can we get links to actual patent numbers in the patent protection section, please? James S. 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Politicians?

Are there any politicians who specifically refer to plug-in hybrids in their campaign platforms? James S. 08:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See Bush´s photo in the article, as President. --HybridBoy 13:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a campaigm platform. Jack Rosebro 15:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why was this article moved from PHEV to PH?

I'm not sure why this article was moved from it's original name to Plug-in hybrid? The article is about PHEVs or Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, it's not about Plug-in hybrid bagel toasters. I for one feel that the Electric and the Vehicle portions of it's name are rather important. The Electric part asserts that one of it's fuel sources options is electricity. This is key to clarifying the Plug-in portion of the title, as opposed to plugging into a gas pump, or plugging into a hydrogen filling station, etc. The Vehicle portion tends to match the naming convention for other vehicular articles, aswell as being part of it's most common abbreviation. I intend to revert this move if there aren't any very good reasons to keep this shorter name. I also think it may have been inappropriate to rename it without discussing it first... --D0li0 11:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit history, there are three reasons:
  • ghits;
"plug-in hybrid" has more Google hits referring to PHEVs, 492,000 than "plug-in hybrid electric vehicle" does, 37,300. See WP:SET.
  • optionality of removed terms; and
There are no plug-in hybrid "bagel toasters" or any other plug-in hybrids which are not electric vehicles of any significance that I have been able to find.
  • existing redirect
Before the move, there was already a redirect from "Plug-in hybrid" to the article.
There can be no "naming convention for vehicular articles" because all of our article names must reflect the most popular usage. See WP:NC. BenB4 05:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding on your edit summary, btw "PHEV" has 328,000. I can see how the terms electric vehicle are optional, I suppose I should read up on WP:NC. I'm still a little torn on this renaming, thank goodness for redirects. So, it it still appropriate to begin the article with "A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) is a..."? --D0li0 12:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, due to the overwhelming number of hits alone. --Skyemoor 10:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Battery electric vehicle and battery trailer

This section was removed from the articel, thought I think that there are parts which should remain included somehow in the article. —The preceding and following unsigned comment was added by D0li0 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

  • For battery electric vehicles. These trailers are called hybrid adapters and might also be considered a part of a plug-in hybrid. The pusher trailers or genset trailers are two working examples of this concept. About 15 kW of power is required to maintain freeway speeds in a lightweight EV. This is about one third the power output of the Honda Insight's 1 L three cylinder ICE. One advantage of this configuration is that the ICE or other energy conversion device can be tuned to maximize efficiency by running at an ideal constant power level.
  • For hybrid electric vehicles. They are called baset trailers.
How about a couple of see-also links to genset trailer, and baset trailer? BenB4 05:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose, except that pusher trailers consume gas, while baset trailers do not, so I adjusted the links in the article. I still think the see-also solution is lacking something. This paragraph pointed out that the ideal PHEV is built like the chevy volt, which is primarily a BEV with the additional confidence of having unlimited range via traditional fuels. A BEV with range extending capabilities which are easily added by such trailers. As opposed to the Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive and other similar PHEV solutions which could be, but are not currently built to run primarily as a BEV. I happen to have tricked my Prius into running like a BEV for somewhat longer than it's supposed to, but It would be far better as a simple electric S-10 with a genset in the bed... I suppose I'll have to sit down and rewrite such a paragraph someday and see how that goes over, I mostly wanted to have the removed paragraph available for that here on the talk page in the future... --D0li0 11:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are battery trailers. They can be re-placed by other trailers, when the batteries are discharged. A similar system is the Battery Range Extender Module. They are in the spare tire well and the removable battery could be replaced when discharged (for example, in a shop). The idea of renting is good, because the user has no worry about sizes, standards and maintenance... and they could be offered by battery makers or other companies --Nopetro 13:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
They are battery trailers? What are? Are you trying to say there are or that they exist, do you have links to such devices? I'm aware that BREMs exist as I've built one for my Prius, but they are hardly the kind of thing you would want to swap out simply because they are discharged. Perhaps if they were on a trailer you might consider swapping one out, but again I'm not aware of any that exist or are in the works. Battery swapping is a topic that is often discussed with regards to EV's and may actually be done in industrial settings such as a warehouse with fork lifts. If you are passionate about this topic I would start with such a Battery swapping article or whatever the term is that's used if the practice is actually used in real life. I don't have the time nor inclination to do that research at this time. Perhaps someday once BEVs and PHEVs are common place and companies are willing to offer battery leasing contracts and swapping service stations, but that's all speculation at this point. --D0li0 16:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Conversion and Patents sections need to be improved

The bullet items in the 2006-present section need to be converted to paragraph (at least two sentences each) and reference citation format. James S. 22:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Done. James S. 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also many if not most of the external links and see alsos need to be moved up into the article. James S. 14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Done. James S. 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

the intro's whitespace needs to be removed ... intro consolidated J. D. Redding 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at WP:LEAD, an article of more than 30 kB is supposed to have three or four paragraphs for the intro. Thank you for your great help otherwise. James S. 03:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And the Conversion and Patent sections need to be converted to standard reference format. James S. 01:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we have the PHEV-(miles) designation in the intro?

I think so. James S. 21:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, with the effort you put into the article today who am I to argue? Great job! You too Jack! The only sticky point is whether the designation represents miles or kilometers... One might assume that any vehicles in the states without a m/km were in miles while vehicles from elsewhere would use km by default. Perhaps we should head that issue off right now by using, especially in the introduction for example, PHEV-20m which would be equal to PHEV-32km? I imagine that the All-electric range article can go into more details and perhaps describe future regulations as they come into effect. --D0li0 10:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've only ever seen PHEV-x referring to miles, and never with m or km suffixes. However, Google led me to this report which suggests to me that PHEV(x)km means kilometers and PHEV-(x) means miles. James S. 11:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The only example I saw in that pdf was PHEV30km, but no equivalent PHEV-18, PHEV18, PHEV-18m, or PHEV18m. I have only ever seen this designation with a dash, which I think improves readability. How might we treat this if it were any other standard (metric) measurement, I think it would be PHEV-10m (PHEV-16km), I can live with the miles being optional since that's how it's often used but would rather see it there or else enforce mentioning the (km) equivalent after. --D0li0 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

News is history

I've fully integrated all of the news items into the History and other sections. If you want to add more news quickly, please add links as bullet items to the end of the 2006-present section like this:

* [http://URL Title] -- Source, date

Thanks! James S. 13:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1899?

Hybrid vehicles were produced in 1899 by Lohner-Porsche. What were they plugged into? Corvus cornix 16:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dynamos. James S. 04:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And although James is right, the article does not specifically state the Lohner-Porsches were plugged into anything - just early hybrids. The grid came pretty quickly, at any rate.

Stuff to add

I was looking at the UC Davis "Team Fate" news page and found all of these:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/upda-070223.html
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1860309.htm
http://www.team-fate.net/media/American_Scientist2007-03FrankJanuary161.pdf
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/119753/article.html
video: http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/67
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/DOE_Plug-In_Nation_a_Possibility.S196.A11577.html

The last one cites a "soon-to-be-published Department of Energy study" -- can anyone find it? James S. 04:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/phev_rd_plan_02-28-07.pdf Jack Rosebro 13:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Addendum: I've added that, with references. I have a bunch of other 2006-2007 stuff to add as time permits. Jack Rosebro 13:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment about CO2 emissions from grid sources being less than from petroleum for the same number of miles driven in the KQED video should probably figure prominently. James S. 17:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First Sentence

A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) is a vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine or hydrogen fuel cell, as well as an electric motor with onboard energy via storage batteries or capacitors that can be recharged by connecting a plug to an electrical power source.

The emphasis by placement order implies that the internal combustion engine (or fuel cell) is the primary motivating energy source. In local travel, the opposite is true, and arguably local travel would predominate for the vast majority of the population. These are enhancements to current hybrid vehicles, with the difference primarily being higher capacity batteries that can be recharged via an outlet. I propose a rewording as follows;

A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) is a hybrid vehicle where higher capacity onboard energy storage can be recharged by connection to an electrical power source. The electric motor is augmented by a liquid fuel (gasoline, diesel, ethanol) internal combustion engine or by a hydrogen fuel cell. --Skyemoor 13:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A sentence that mentions two things, one after the other, does not automatically imply that one is more important than the other. Furthermore, it is not necessarily true that electric drive is dominant in blended mode. The proposed sentence is awkward, as well.Jack Rosebro 20:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've made refinements. --Skyemoor 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Modes of operation

I'd like to delete the "Modes of operation" section, because it doesn't seem to add any useful information, it doesn't have any sources, and parts of it don't seem particular to PHEVs. But I'm not sure. Do other people think this section adds useful or important information to the article? James S. 00:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the only area of the article that links to the various modes, which I feel are really at the core of what diferenciates a PHEV from a HEV (or standard ICE vehicle) and a BEV. A PHEV can opperate in both HEV and BEV modes, so has the advantages of both without their disadvantages. Perhaps this section simply needs some work to better convey what the descrete modes are and why combining them in a PHEV makes such vehicles superious. (without the POV ;)... See the Charge-depleting and Charge-sustaining articles talk pages for their widespread use WP:SET. If we do decide to loose this section then we should probably improve those articles it links to and be sure to include such links elsewhere within other areas of the article. I would say keep it for now. My opologies for not helping as much as I would like on some of the more technical oriented portion of this article... --D0li0 03:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've done some work on this section, but it really still needs some more help from others. I just hope that I've been able to clarify/explain the various modes enough that others will understand them and be able to help fix up the clumsy examples and paragraphs... --D0li0 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Understanding modes of operation are key to understanding PHEVs. Many people think making a PHEV is simply a matter of adding a bigger battery and a plug. The section has only been around for a few days, and I haven't yet had enough time to add sources. As PHEV operating strategies often weave in and out of conventional HEV operating strategies, it's important to descirbe the strategies in full in order to provide context.
As these ARE the operating strategies that PHEVs use, we wouldn't be able to use anything else to replace them. Jack Rosebro 21:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I've added a couple of references and done a bit of cleanup; more to follow. Thanks. Jack Rosebro 22:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Toyota and GM in 2009?

From the intro:

Toyota and General Motors have both announced plans to introduce production PHEVs as early as 2009.

The reference only mentions GM. Has Toyota also announced 2009? 64.9.235.200 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"As early as." References added. Jack Rosebro 23:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Lutz says Chevy Volt is going into production

On NPR's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me as the "Not My Job" guest (RealAudio) at the end, GM Vice Chairman Robert Lutz said that GM intends to take the PHEV-40 Chevrolet Volt into production. How reliable is this in terms for inclusion in the article? 75.18.208.222 11:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Its going to be taken into production in 2010. Not very news worthy since they have already said the same thing since the beginning. Also GM can change their minds several times before then. Other companies may come out with more interesting products before then. Daniel.Cardenas 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Complete history, new article?

I just wanted to preserve a link to the version of the article prior to the pruning on the history section. I think that a number of these items are worth mentioning, in particular the introduction of two of the Prius converters, Andy Franks projects, and the news that A123 will be producing EV/PHEV batteries (countering the industry mantra that batteries are not yet ready). Perhaps a new Plug-in hybrid history article could be started containing the complete history timeline, then we could further reduce the history section of the main article to only the most important items, such as mention of Andy, CalCars first Prius, the Sprinter Van, and which ever manufacturer gets a PHEV to the dealer showroom first! --D0li0 10:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how those projects counter the industry. They don't make sense on a cost basis. And there are other battery companies besides A123 doing the same thing. Why the preference for a123? Daniel.Cardenas 15:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "counter the industry" nor why you view such projects as attempts or examples to do so. The folks converting Prius (including the two that were removed) are currently one of the groups moving forward and placing this technology in the public view while applying pressure on the auto makers, the manufacturers are not IMHO embracing these vehicles while they are the ones who need to be. Andy Frank has build some outstanding vehicle, and is another major player in raising awareness. A123 seems to be leading the way with their battery technology and has even investment in a conversion company. None are more important than the others and I don't have a preference for A123 batteries. These are all very worth their mention in the time line and were removed prior to the history migration to it's separate article. I've gone ahead and restored those which were removed, thank you for creating the new History of plug-in hybrids article with space to keep them all. --D0li0 11:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It's the event, not the company. A123 is the first company to announce that it will produce PHEV battery packs for retrofit. Jack Rosebro 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure they weren't the last? Edrive is/was earlier I believe. Calcars also has a do it yourself kit. Daniel.Cardenas 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
A123 is a lithium ion battery manufacturer, EDrive/EnergyCS is an automotive technology company converting vehicles with Valance batteries, CalCars was the first to convert a Prius using generic PbA batteries and is a non-profit PHEV advocate organization trying to developed DIY instructions. So, A123 is in fact the first battery company to acquire a converter, Hymotion, with the intent to produce battery packs for these applications. In the end this entire discussion thread has run astray as I only mentioned it because that section of the article was removed though it was notable, and has since been added back into the new history page. --D0li0 08:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, so it sounds like they were the last. Not notable in my opinion. Sounds like football statistics they give on the TV. The first person on tuesday who crossed the finish line sideways. Who cares. Daniel.Cardenas 14:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point that A123 is a battery manufacturer, their batteries have been used in a number of electric vehicle and PHEV applications. The other companies and organizations are not battery manufacturers, they are advocacy groups and systems integrators who have used many different types of batteries such as Valence, A123, standard lead-acid, whatever happens to be available. So the fact that A123, a manufacturer of advanced Lithium batteries, has made a commitment to these vehicles and has gone so far as to acquire one of the systems integrator companies is very notable, and a first for a battery manufacturer. I'm not sure if we're simply arguing over semantics here or what. Only the very first, Porsche perhaps, can be called to first to have created a PHEV, CalCars was the first to convert a Prius, A123 was the first battery manufacturer to commit to producing PHEV conversion battery modules, no other battery manufacturers is doing this. Am I mistaken, what am I missing? --D0li0 04:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
D0li0 is correct: EDrive has not announced plans to sell a conversion kit. CalCars does NOT have a commercial kit. Most folks who follow PHEV developments know this. There is at least one company that I know of that plans to introduce such a kit, but they have made no announcement, and thus I defer from mentioning them.
And the "last company to announce a PHEV conversion kit" is bizarre, to say the least. This is an evolving technology, and none of us can predict the future. It takes just a few keystrokes to make this article shorter, and requires no knowledge of the subject. Let's work to make it better. 212.190.88.121 09:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The history section is still too long, and don't want to make anyone mad by trimming it further, so I created the separate article as suggested. Needs plenty of tidying up. Daniel.Cardenas 23:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the idea was good, but as for the need for tidying, that's pretty much because you had cut many entries out prior to doing this, which was somewhat subjective and arbitrary, before you separated the article. Can you go back and put them back in the new article? That will save those of us who took time to build the history section the trouble of fixing that. We had 75 references with no problems before this. Hint: using a version that existed before your cuts will make it relatively painless.
And you may want to wait more than a couple of days after putting something in the discussion section to get feedback. Deleting is easy, contributions are better. Appreciate it. Jack Rosebro 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that I have already recovered the entries that were removed prior to the migration of the section. --D0li0 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I'll double-check within the next few days. I don't see any problem with letting the 2007 seciton of the "history" article run long; at the end of the year, it will be easy to look back and see what was truly notable. Thanks again. Jack Rosebro 16:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with making a new article, as this one is too long for good article standards. I believe it should be named History of plug-in hybrids and am moving it. Although WP:NAME is silent on this topic, all the other history article forks I could find followed that pattern, e.g. History of coins. BenB4 00:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, when you do this sort of split, please watch for named refs, which are now missing on both articles. I'm attempting to fix.... BenB4 00:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Powertrains section needs references

A FAC reviewer asked that the powertrains section have more sources, please. BenB4 09:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the featured article nomination until that section gets at least another couple of sources. BenB4 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I found some for each paragraph/type. 75.35.79.57 00:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cost of electricity

The cost of electricity in California is greater than than the $.10 cited in the article for California. [7]

Baseline Usage $0.11430
101% - 130% of Baseline $0.12989
131% - 200% of Baseline $0.22722 (R)
201% - 300% of Baseline $0.31719
Over 300% of Baseline $0.36434 (R)
Total Minimum Charge Rate ($ per meter per day) $0.14784

Baseline is set to be fairly low. My usage is not excessive and is always at least in the 201% bracket. Few households with an electric car are likely to be paying a marginal rate below the 131% bracket.

--JWB 02:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you would probably make sure that you charged your vehicle during the evening under the Baseline usage rates. I'm going to have to assume that the baseline rate is at night just about the time you would head for bed, when there is excess grid power usually. If you had a 5kWh battery in a PHEV then perhaps you would find out when these various rates take effect and only charge when power costs $0.11 ($0.55 to recharge) rather than unwittingly happening to charge during the $0.22 ($1.10) or $0.32 ($1.60) times, right? I mean if you could choose to air condition your home with cheap power at night and somehow save that cool air to use during the day you would. --D0li0 03:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Baseline is a monthly total quantity, not time of day. This is the default service. PG&E also offers time-of-day metering, which you have to specially request. The rate schedules for those services are also at [8]. From a quick look, they do not look much better - even the off-peak price escalates to similar levels as you exceed monthly quantities. There is even a special schedule for low emission vehicle owners [9] and it suffers from the same problem - even off-peak you pay up to $.28. --JWB 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps investing on PV and net-metering as a replacement for transportation fuel would be a good idea in your situation? I believe the payback is substantially quicker that way. Anyway, I'm not sure exactly where the $0.10/kWh came from, but but apparently it's inappropriate to use any single households rate, You pay $0.11 to $0.26, I pay $0.06, and others in my area pay as little as $0.02/kWh, so we need to reference a national off-peak average price. --D0li0 08:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I've looked into PV and with the amount of tree cover I have, it is not feasible. In any case, the article should not give the impression that it is simply a no-brainer to plug in and start saving most of your gasoline costs. I think the article should do the numbers for 3 or so sample electricity prices. Your 6 or 2 cents sounds excellent (where do you live??) but 10 or 6 or 2 cents all come out saving most of gas costs. I would suggest including analyses for 10, 20, and 30 cent electricity. --JWB
Several reports put the overall average retail consumer price of electricity in the US at around 10 cents per kilowatt hour. California is among the most expensive, at 14 cents according to this 2007 DOE report. This 2005 chart suggests that a 5-10 cent price range is common in most of the world. I think article calculations would do well to simply use 10 cents per kilowatt hour, but explicitly state that assumption in the article when it is used. Off-peak rates may apply more to future PHEV owners, but that's speculative. -Agyle 23:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Google puts $10 million up

Google plugs in to hybrid car development with $10M 
Internet search giant Google hopes to speed the development of plug-in hybrid cars by giving away millions of dollars to people and companies that have what appear to be practical ways to get plug-ins to market faster. But the money, announced Monday afternoon at Google headquarters in Mountain Valley, Calif., totals just $1 million so far with another $10 million pledged, which might not be enough to move the needle.[10]

75.35.79.57 00:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also: http://www.google.org/recharge/ 75.35.79.57 06:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Patent encumbrances of large format NiMH batteries

The NiMH technology developed by Ovonics for GM and subsequently acquired is not cost-effective for PHEV owing to short lifetime of NiMH batteries when deeply discharged and high replacement costs. The section suggests that there is a conspiracy to make the technology unavailable. In fact, it appears that lithium batteries outperform NiMH and are the current state-of-the-art. I do not have the nerve to start a reversion war over this. Bruce A. McHenry 05:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

They have a long life span when not deeply discharged, based on Toyota 10 year warranty for them. Li-on have there own set of problems which have made them even more impractical, such as lack of experience with them, fire, etc... Li-on battery technology issues will be solved, but that doesn't mean that the oil companies didn't win by delaying electrical vehicles. Daniel.Cardenas 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought the statements attributed to Sherry Boschert's book mischaracterized her position on the patent encumberance issue. I spoke with her, and she agreed, so I rewrote the statements to more closely match the ideas expressed in her book.Fbagatelleblack 04:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Current sentence: "Cobasys will only accommodate very large orders, and the major auto makers capable of placing such orders have shown little interest in NiMH." Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM, and others all use NiMH batteries for hybrids. They're manufactured by Panasonic (Matsushita) and Sanyo, and Ford is trying to line up Delphi as a supplier (see Ford slams Toyota on hybrids). Unless "large" or "large-format" NiMH batteries means something other than the batteries in current hybrid vehicles, I don't see how the sentence regarding Cobasys could be true. And if it's not, then the entire implication of the section seems unfounded. There are patents on batteries, and every other component of cars, and those can technically be considered "encumbrances." However, unless there's some undue obstacle to licensing the patents, I don't see this as worthy of inclusion here. If citation of pre-Prius (1997) obstacles can be provided, then an altered version would be appropriate as historical background. -Agyle 22:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree the current version seems at odds with reality as well as what Boschert actually says in her book, which indicates that at some point at the past Cobasys was flat-out refusing to license independent of the order size. I'm going to leave a message on Fbagatelleblack's talk page about this. ←BenB4 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe the section should be removed. The Prius NiMH battery is only 99 lb and are only lightly discharged under normal use. Toyota has designed the Synergy drive heuristics to achieve over 180,000 miles. For a PHEV, however, much higher kWH capacities are needed, either requiring larger batteries, or many of the current small batteries. Unless Cobasys has agreed to make or license larger batteries, this is an 'obstacle'. See battery tradeoffs at http%3a//www.calcars.org/conversions-factsheet.pdf and http://www.edrivesystems.com/faq.html --Skyemoor 02:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I added a lot of sourced information to the Cobasys article. Unsourced additional info: the license for current makers of NiMH batteries for hybrids restricts them to 10 Ah batteries or smaller, which is allegedly adequate for regular HEVs, but less practical for PHEVs or BEVs (battery only). This section is apparently about higher capacity (10+ Ah) batteries. Cobasys claims they do make them (Cobasys FAQ) for high-volume applications, and lists several models in a sales brochure, up to a 400 kg (881 lb) monster. It's also not clear to me whether Cobasys or its half-owner Ovonics ECD currently holds the NiMH patents; GM's joint venture held them, but Texaco's buyout involved major restructuring. (No reliable, explicitly detailed source.) Here's a "Reader Comment" on an evworld.com article attributed to Sherry Boschert (not reliable; could be forged):
"Just to be clear, though, my view on Chevron's (actually a Chevron/ECD partnership called Cobasys) control of NiMH licenses is a bit more nuanced: the only way for us to know whether they'll make NiMH licenses for EV batteries available is if a major automaker places on order large enough to make it worth their while. As far as I know, no car company has done that. I think the conspiratorial focus on Cobasys is misplaced -- it's the car companies we should be demanding answers from. Have they placed a large order? If not, why not? NiMH is ready now. They keep saying they can't sell electric cars or plug-in hybrids yet because the lithium batteries are not ready yet. In a way, that makes lithium the new hydrogen -- a way of stalling. NiMH is proven capable of doing the job. Sherry Boschert, author Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America, www.sherryboschert.com, 23/Feb/2007"
The edits made to the Encumbrances section were well done and improve it substantially. The only way to dispute the last two sentences attributed to Boschert's work would be to acquire the book and verify what it says. In the interest of a neutral point of view, and the sinister nature of the allegations, I would encourage someone who has the book to try and quote from her book verbatim, or carefully verify the paraphrasing. -Agyle 11:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The quote you cite from the discussion section of an EVWorld.com article, "Just to be clear...," really did come from Sherry. I wrote the article. Sherry talked to me about it before she posted the comment. Article is found here: [11].Fbagatelleblack 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I updated this section, referencing dates and events (including the date on which Boschert's book was published) in chronologically-correct order. I also added a note on GM's recent licensing agreements with Cobasys to produce hybrids using Cobasys NiMH batteries.Fbagatelleblack 22:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have the book now, and question much of this paragraph which cites it as a source:
"In her book, Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America, published in February, 2007, Sherry Boschert argues that large-format NiMH batteries are commercially viable but that Cobasys refuses to sell or license them to small companies or individuals. Boschert reveals that Cobasys accepts only very large orders for these batteries. When Boschert conducted her research, major auto makers showed little interest in NiMH batteries. Since no other companies were capable of producing large orders, Cobasys was not manufacturing any NiMH batteries for automotive purposes.[64]"
Where does it say large-format NiMH batteries are commercially viable? They're expensive in low volume (Boschert said one researcher paid $40,000 to $100,000 per battery pack on page 82), produced on experimental lines (page 83), and estimates a volume commitment of tens to hundreds of thousands of vehicles necessary to make mass production of the batteries, required for low unit pricing, worthwhile (pages 83 and 85).
The claim that Cobasys refuses to sell or license large-format NiMH batteries to small companies or individuals, and that they accept only very large orders, isn't exactly accurate. The book says people who called Cobasys were reportedly told Cobasys didn't sell low-volume vehicle batteries to individuals, on page 82. It then says Cobasys would only consider large orders for vehicle batteries, but that's contradicted by their supply of batteries for prototype vehicles (as described in the next paragraph, and more extensively in other sources; look at the batteries used in Challenge X winners, for example). As for licensing small volume production, page 84 says "Varta, a Cobasys licensee, performed well enough in the first few plug-in hybrid Sprinter delivery vans..." that they were building 20 more. Cobasys has stated that their goal is mass production of vehicle batteries,[12] which would indeed require the commitment of a large company, but that doesn't mean they don't sell small quantities, or sell to small companies. Cobasys claims there's a safety concern working with batteries that large,[13] and I could see saying "Cobasys doesn't sell large-format batteries directly to consumers, citing safety concerns," but that seems too tangential and trivial to include in this article, or at least in the section on patent encumbrances.
Where does it say auto makers showed little interest in NiMH batteries in the timeframe the book was being written? I think all high-volume HEVs use NiMH today. If what was meant was large-format NiMH batteries suitable for PHEVs, that may be true, but I'm not sure it's said in the book. On pages 201-202 the book says Toyota, Ford, and GM were looking into PHEV development, but it doesn't mention what batteries they were considering, and indications (not in the book) are that they'd all prefer Li-ion to NiMH.
Where does it say Cobasys wasn't manufacturing any batteries for automotive purposes? Maybe that meant to say they're not mass-producing large-format NiMH batteries for automotive purposes, which is consistent with the book. They certainly were manufacturing NiMH batteries for HEVs during the writing of the book, e.g. the Saturn Vue that came out in mid-2006. It is true that only large companies are positioned to place large orders, and true that no large orders for large-format NiMH batteries have been reported, but there's also no evidence that large orders were attempted and refused.
Boschert's book refers to the idea that Cobasys is stifling NiMH technology to protect Chevron's gas business as both a rumor and conspiracy theory (pp 82-83), and provides information supporting both sides of the theory. I'm not sure I'd say she argues in support of the theory (read pages 45, and 82-84), but she does seem sympathetic to the theory, and how her explanation is characterized is subjective. I think the evidence is scant enough that it doesn't belong in this article, but that's been suggested previously, so here is a suggested replacement for the entire section:
Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) and Cobasys, a company jointly owned by ECD and gasoline-producer Chevron, own many key patents related to nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries.[14] The 2007 book Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America suggests "it's possible that Cobasys is squelching all access to large NiMH batteries through its control of patent licenses in order to remove a competitor to gasoline." Cobasys both builds and licenses smaller NiMH batteries used in HEVs,[15][16] but PHEVs typically require higher capacity batteries than HEVs. Cobasys was involved in a 2001 patent infringement lawsuit against a rival automotive NiMH battery maker, and the case was settled out of court in 2004.[17] The book claims "Chevron representatives have argued that NiMH batteries can't handle a 20-mile electric range in a plug-in hybrid," despite their use in GM's 140-mile range electric vehicle EV-1, and several prototype PHEVs. Toyota, GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler are all considering or planning to produce PHEvs using lithium ion rather than NiMH batteries.[18][19][20][21] Cobasys is currently partnering with A123Systems to fulfill a contract to develop lithium-ion batteries for GM's PHEV program.[22]
Any sentence without a citation would cite Boschert's book. Citations here are just links; I can supply the citation detail if people favor using this text. -Agyle 12:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Agyle, I like your suggested rewrite very much. You have shown arguments on all sides of the discussion in a compact but comprehensive manner. Thanks. Fbagatelleblack 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

To whomever is deleting the verbiage regarding Cobasys contracts with GM. This is an important point in relation the the subtopic of "Patent Encumbrances." The Saturn contract does use large format, 36V, battery modules designed as "Plug and Play" units for hybrid vehicles. Please follow the link in the reference for more details. While the GM contracts do not deal directly with PHEVs, their relevance to future PHEV development and to availability of NiMH batteries is strong. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fbag, I deleted the verbiage regarding Cobasys contracts with GM because the deal involves the Cobasys NiMHax product line. There are no batteries in that product line, which max out at 8.5Ah, that come even close to being adequate for PHEV usage. PHEVs require at least 25Ah and ideally 50-100Ah. Therefore the vebriage about the GM contract is not relevant to the commercial viability of PHEVs and was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.221.125 (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your assertions are demonstrably untrue. ACP, Tesla, Pheonix and other manufacturers are building BEVs around cells with capacities much, much less than 17Ah. The fact that these are lithium cells is immaterial - the fact remains that BEVs and PHEVs can and are being designed around much smaller cells than those your describe. Furthermore, NiMHax cells in question are covered by the Cobasys patent protecting large format NiMH cells, and are therefore directly relevant to this subtopic. Please stop deleting this verbiage immediately, or I will escalate this matter to Wikipedia admins. Thanks very much. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Li battery designs used by these companies are neither commercially viable in the mass market nor technically viable using NiMH technology. ACP does not make cars and the conversion kit they sell costs twice as much as the car that it alters. The Tesla Roadster costs $100,000K+. Pheonix has neither sold a car to the general public nor even publicized prices as far as I can tell. Moreover, even the largest NiMHax cells are not sufficient for PHEV usage. Finally, technology aside, we also know from court documents that Cobasys' licensing agreements not only specify battery characteristics, but also the intended usage of the battery. Cobasys' own marketing literature specifies the applications for NiMHax batteries and PHEVs are definitely not on that list. So even if Cobasys did permit the production of sufficiently large batteries for HEV use (which they don't), that does not mean that Cobasys would necessarily allow the technology to be used for PHEVs. Therefore, GM's deal with Cobasys is not relevant to the discussion and the deletion is warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.221.125 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

These assertions on your part are, at best, pure speculation and have no place in Wikipedia. Please cease editing based on these speculations immediately, or I will be forced to escalate this matter to Wikipedia admins.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Continued reverts of my edits will put you in violation of [WP:3RR] and will result in disciplinary action by Wiki admins. Please cease immediately or face the possibility of being blocked or banned.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I have contacted a very good Wiki admin to evaluate the current situation. Please refrain from further edits until he has weighed in. Many thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything in my most recent edits is neutral, factual and properly spelled. You refuse to specifically address any problems you have other than the GM deal question. You reverted the text on GM without providing any explanation or rebuttal to my rationale. Moreover, it is you who began reverting my edits first. Therefore, it is you who is in violation of WP:3RR. Quit changing my edits or I will report you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xchange (talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the matter will be decided by admins. I am truly sorry it has come to this.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
PS - Spelling mistakes are still present. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The matter has been reported to admins for evaluation and action. Until I hear back from them, I shall withdraw myself from the matter. I encourage other editors interested in this article to take action.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good. The admins will recognize that I made a good faith effort to respond to your comments by re-editing my original contributions line by line last night. I provided a reasonable explanation for each change. You reverted my new edits 3 times with no specific explanation and no edits of your own. Therefore, you are the one in violation of 3RR, not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xchange (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Xchange, I see your recent edit regarding Chevron's equity stake in ECD. While this is a valid, important point, it does not result in the 60% control of Cobasys that you claim. Because Chevron does not own a controlling interest in ECD, it's minority stake in the company does not result in automatic, direct control of ECD shareholders' decision-making process. Undoubtedly, owning 20% of a company gives another company a great deal of influence, but not the directly-proportional influence you suggest. I would greatly appreciate it if you could reword your edit such that Chevron's ownership position in ECD is brought to light, but without the implication of direct, proportional control. Many thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The term, controlling, was removed at your request.Xchange (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I specified Chevron's contractual power over the usage of Cobasys' NiMH technology, and identified the current legal dispute between Chevron and ECD Ovonics over the control of that technology.Xchange (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a few edits to the discussion of Boschert's book. It is not accurate to say that major auto makers showed little interest in NiMH batteries for at least 2 reasons. First, Toyota uses NiMH tech in the Prius. Also, Boschert specifically mentions that complaints of Toyota employees that they had difficulty getting large format batteries on page 82.Xchange (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Content looks generally good, but please fix grammar. And see my second comment about Chevron's ownership stake in Cobasys. Thanks! Fbagatelleblack (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fbagatelleblack, is there some way we can make the final paragraph more informative? My concern is that the paragraph about the recent GM deal offers no new information and may be misleading. Cobasys demonstrated its willingness to use NiMH technology in the automotive industry when it licensed NiMH tech to Panasonic for use in the original Priuses. There has never been any question about Cobasys' willingness to facilitate the production of standard hybrids. The question has always been whether Cobasys was willing to allow the tech to be used in automotive (non-bus/truck/military) EVs and PHEVs. Cobasys deserves credit for developing larger format NiMHax battery packs (bundles of 8.5Ah batteries). Indeed, a 17Ah battery pack is available for use in standard hybrids. However, the Cobasys literature specifies intended applications for the batteries and PHEV applications are only mentioned in association with the Li Ion battery product, on which Cobasys does not have a monopoly. My inclination is to erase the paragraph altogether, but a more accurate, nuanced discussion also seems appropriate. Xchange (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cobasys website contains a section devoted to "Transportation Solutions." This section contains the verbiage "The information below highlights our NiMHax® transportation energy storage systems for Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV), Electric Vehicles (EV), Heavy-duty Vehicles (HDV) Bus, Truck and Military applications." Note that this list specifically includes EV applications as a separate item from bus, truck and military applications. Their NiMHax Series 9500 battery modules are 12V/86Ah (~1kWh), and are marketed as being "plug and play" compatible with EV drive systems using Cobasys's BMS. These modules would clearly work well in PHEV applications as well BEV applications. String 10 of them together in series, and you have a 120VDC, 10kWh, 180kg battery pack which would work very well for PHEVs. In sufficient quantity, Cobasys would be happy to sell such assemblies for PHEV applications. If an auto company decided to take this path, they would encounter no licensing/patent problems from Cobasys.
That said, I would have no objection to including verbiage which stated that Cobasys's current marketing plan promotes LiIon as their preferred solution for PHEV applications. Also, I would have no objection to someone pointing out that the 8.59Ah batteries used as the base cells in the NiHHax Series 9500 are smaller than other NiMH base cells which were available in the past.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. No change was made. Xchange (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ford

I wonder if Ford is going to announce a commitment tomorrow. They've been coy about "deep-seated engineering problems" with plug-in vehicles which they don't describe. BenB4 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured article

Congratulations!!!. Also plug-in hybrids are featured vehicles, the power that is recharging the world. ;) --HybridBoy 10:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Full hybrid a synonym for PHEV?

The opening paragraph says PHEVs are sometimes called full hybrids, and "full hybrid" redirects to this PHEV article.

My understanding is that the distinction between a "full hybrid" and "mild hybrid" is that a full hybrid can drive (supply power) with the gasoline engine shut off for at least short periods of time, while mild hybrids cannot - either they supply only supplemental power to the gasoline engine, or supply no electric power, and just cut off the gas engine when coasting, breaking, or stopped. (Marginal source: Mother Earth News). So a PHEV could theoretically be a full hybrid or mild hybrid, and a full hybrid could be either a PHEV or not a PHEV. (And in fact most full hybrids are not PHEVs). While the sentence in question could be viewed as technically true, it implies (to me) that the terms are synonymous, which I don't think is true. -Agyle 20:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree and removed it. Someone put that in a long time ago. Thanks for checking it. ←BenB4 00:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

PHEVs soon standard in auto industry?

The article says "However, some authors argue that PHEVs will soon become standard in the automobile industry," citing a Scientific American article. The article's authors predict HEVs "are likely to become an option for most models" around 2020, and PHEVs "will probably become the dominant alternative-fuel vehicle" "relatively soon" after that. (See its last paragraph.) The speed of "relatively soon," they say, would depend on oil prices and government policies. Neither prediction suggests that they will be standard, only an option. No basis for the predictions is given; the article is mostly about technical issues, not market share issues. Unless other authors' predictions can be cited, I'd suggest ditching the sentence, as it seems too speculative and without basis, or at least changing it to "However, authors of a 2006 article in Scientific American predict that PHEVs will likely become a common option sometime after 2020," or maybe "by the 2020s." -Agyle 17:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Resource flows?"

Current: "However, plug-in hybrids typically use larger battery packs than comparable conventional hybrids, and thus require larger resource flows." Is that a fancy way of saying "require more resources," or is something more meant by "resource flows," having to do with material lifecycle through recycling? I don't think resource flow is a commonly understood term, so if it is intended, perhaps it could be briefly explained or expanded upon in the article? -Agyle 17:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-fossil fuel sources

Current: "Plug-in hybrids use no fossil fuel during their all-electric range if their batteries are charged from renewable energy sources." I made that "from renewable energy or nuclear power sources," which was reverted as irrelevant/unnecessary. There are only two main types of energy sources besides fossil fuels: renewable and nuclear. Listing only renewable here seems arbitrary, perhaps belying an anti-nuclear bias. France generates around 80% of its electricity from nuclear sources. That makes PEVs and PHEVs in France more significant in fossil fuel (and thus greenhouse gas) reduction, and in improving energy security, compared to the U.S., which burns fossil fuels for most of its electricity. Thoughts? -Agyle 09:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your point about nuclear power being an alternative to fossil fuels is absolutely relevant. I contend that renewable sources are a much better choice than nuclear power, but to ignore the nuclear issue would be to bury our heads in the sand in an unforgivable manner.Fbagatelleblack 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason for saying that renewable energy is an alternative to fossil fuels for plug-in hybrids is that people can produce such power locally (e.g., through solar or wind energy). Such forms of power are capable of being used in small-scale uses. Nuclear power is not. Nuclear power is fed into the power grid and becomes indistinguishable from other power sources. One can have renewable energy sources in their backyard, but not a nuclear reactor. I see no point in referring to nuclear power in as a source for PHEVs. Logically, to include nuclear power, we should also include hydroelectric power and all other non-fossil fuel sources. I can't see why we would do that. I will amend the sentence to read "off-grid renewable energy sources." Sunray 16:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
But alternative energy sources can be distributed on the grid as well as being delivered off the grid! To say that energy sources become indistinguishable from each other once they "hit the grid" is true in terms of power output from the grid. However, it is the method of generation that defines an energy source as an alternative to fossil fuels, not the method of transmission. If the grid were fed purely from non-fossil fuel sources, we would still be independent from oil. I do not want to get into an edit war here, so I will leave your edits as written, but I do not fully understand your reasoningFbagatelleblack 18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You have a point there. Power is 'blended" in the grid. Perhaps we need to introduce the notion of sustainability into the paragraph. Power generated from fossil fuel or nuclear sources rely on extraction of substances from the earth's crust and intensive refining or processing. Because of the scale involved, they also rely on power grids for distribution. A true alternative to this approach would be renewable energy provided in a distributed, or local, system. Life cycle analyses are, as yet, inconclusive as to the advantages of the various non-fossil-fuel alternatives. However, it is reasonable to assume that as off-grid renewable energy alternatives are further developed, they will provide a more sustainable alternative to both fossil fuel and nuclear-derived power. Of course, all of such discussion is way outside the scope of this article. I don't see how we can get into it without straying from Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia.Sunray 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that BenB4 has reverted me. I have tried to express why I don't think that nuclear power should be added as an alternative to fossil fuels in this context. Perhaps I haven't stated it clearly. While nuclear power may be an alternative to fossil fuels in the energy system as a whole, it is not a choice that a consumer can select, unless all the power in the grid is nuclear-derived. Realistically, only off-grid power represents a true alternative. If someone can figure out a better way to say that, it would be a real contribution. Sunray 19:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Logically, to include nuclear power, we should also include hydroelectric power...." Hydroelectric is a type of renewable. People use only three main sources of electric power: fossil, renewable, and nuclear. There are types of each.
Off the grid generally means not connected to a power grid, or not connected to any utilities. It includes using gas generators. Wiki's off-the-grid defines it as renewable only, but cites no sources, and contradicts popular usage. See: HAVENS; Life, Unplugged: Surviving 'Off the Grid', New York Times, 2002, or Batteries included: Enclave of adventurous families takes advantage of solar power, but it's hardly free, San Diego Union-Tribune, 2001.
So non-grid includes fossils, renewables include GHG-emitting biomass/biofuel, non-fossil includes nuclear, and non-GHG includes nuclear but excludes biomass renewables. Since some PHEVs can charge their batteries from the combustion engine like a HEV, I'd shy away from any absolute claims about their all-electric range. Maybe something like "For trips within their all-electric range, driving PHEVs may result in less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than driving comparable conventional vehicles, particularly when charged from GHG-free sources of electricity." -Agyle 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Your suggested re-wording seems like an improvement to me. It makes the point without inviting controversy. The inclusion of a citation would put it on the side of the angels ;-) Sunray 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Greenhouse gases are mentioned in the previous sentence. I am afraid of getting into too much detail about energy sources because they are kind of tangential, especially for the intro. How about, "Plug-in hybrids use no fossil fuel during their all-electric range if their batteries are charged from other energy sources."? Well, that kind of seems to tautological. I guess I'd like to leave it as "renewable or nuclear" because they still aren't fossil fuels, and biomass is such a small portion of renewables that it won't matter for the foreseeable future. ←BenB4 21:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, fair point. However, I think we have to change the wording from what it is now. Batteries cannot be "charged from... nuclear power sources." (I have an image of people driving up to a nuclear power plant with their hybrid vehicles). Of the various options, I think that "charged from off-grid renewable energy sources" is best. Failing that, just leaving it the way it originally was ("charged from renewable energy sources") would be acceptable. Sunray 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've adjusted the wording, accordingly. I also re-worded the previous sentence which stated that PHEVs "mitigate global warming..." They may have lower greenhouse gas emissions, but they still emit greenhouse gases and thus contribute to global warming. Sunray 08:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What does on-grid or off-grid have to do with whether it uses fossil fuel? ←BenB4 12:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... you're right. Your revision, removing that, is probably the best way to go, all things considered.Sunray 02:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I note that we have removed all reference to nuclear power. This is not a real problem for me, but I believe that removing the nuclear power reference is what Sunray wanted in the first place.Fbagatelleblack 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"GM Fast Tracks Plug-In Hybrid Development"

Bob Lutz is saying 2010 for GM -- or 2009 for the Saturn VUE plug-in; bad reporting. ←BenB4 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, seems like an error by either Lutz or the magazine. -Agyle 19:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It was much clearer in the original Detroit News article, added. ←BenB4 13:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Battery section - remove HEV info?

Current text: "The price premium for early 2007 hybrids is about US$5000, some US$3000 of which is for their NiMH battery packs. At early 2007 gasoline and electricity prices, that would break even after six to ten years of operation. The hybrid premium could fall to US$2000 in five years, with US$1200 or more of that being cost of lithium-ion batteries, providing a three-year payback.[23]"

The figures concern current HEVs, and future batteries for HEVs, not PHEVs. The source cited indicates that PHEVs will use larger, costlier batteries, and that payback could be longer, but is difficult to calculate given the costs of different power sources. I suggest removing the text. -Agyle 19:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but why not just include the next sentence from the source, "The payback period could be longer for a plug-in hybrid, because it would have larger, costlier batteries"? ←BenB4 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It's fairly baseless speculation. It's technically true, payback could be longer than current HEVs, or it could be shorter, but it implies longer is likelier for an unspecified period into the future. IEEE Spectrum is color glossy pop media for engineers, not a scientific journal. The IEEE article didn't cite sources, so numbers can't be checked, and even today's numbers ($5k hybrid premium in 2007?) seem dubious. (usa today put the premium at $3500 in 2006; that would cut payback time by ~30%.)
Facts not in contention: Li-ion batteries anticipated in many early mass-produced PHEVs are expected to have higher power densities than NiMH batteries in today's HEVs, but will typically need to be physically larger and heavier, as higher battery capacity is required. Prices are expected to drop substantially for Li-ion batteries over time. Prices for gasoline are volatile. Energy efficiency in PHEVs is highly sensitive to driving habits and the energy control system[24], and operating costs are sensitive to both energy efficiency as well as battery life...which in turn could be subject to climate. So PHEV payback in the near or extended future is anybody's guess. I'll look for a reliable source to back that up. It's an important issue and I don't think the article should use a non-authoritative source. -Agyle 12:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


What Happened to "Today's Featured Article" on August 22, 2007

I thought we were supposed to be the featured article yesterday. What happened? Anybody know? Thanks. Fbagatelleblack

Two apparently independent Japanese automobile industry press stories have said that Toyota is going to introduce their PHEV-8 Prius at the Tokyo Auto Show in October, and that certainly fits with their testing schedule that we know about from government filings. So I originally asked for October 26, the first day of the show. There is no guarantee that the announcement will be made then (they are usually made a few weeks in advance) but there is likely to be some coincident press coverage that day. The Featured Article director overlooked this request when scheduling it for the 22nd, and agreed on October when asked. ←BenB4 19:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ultracapacitors

I like the idea of making reference to ultracapacitors within the PHEV entry, but I do not think that the battery section is the right place, or at least not right in the main body of the battery section. Batteries are far more mature than ultracapacitors, and none of the major PHEV production plans I have seen involve extensive use of ultracapacitors during initial production. Perhaps a quick note about ultracaps at the end of the battery section or somewhere else in the "Technology" section. Does anyone have a link to a major PHEV project in which ultracaps will play a major role? Fbagatelleblack 17:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

I agree to the ultracapacitor information in the article. --HybridBoy 12:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There had been 2006 a BMW Mini conversion around, with 4 * 160 PS wheel hub engines, 21 kWh Lithium batteries, 11 Farrad 370V ultracapacitor.
As I was at the IAA 2007, I did not find this car on the fair. Instead, I found a Volvo concept car with 4 wheel hub engines and no brakes.
Volvo developer Ichiro Sugioka Ph.D told me, that they have a new Lithium battery chemestry where they do not need the capacitators any more, even at an emergency stop.
--Pege.founder 09:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless there is a credible announcement that it will go in to production, we have been putting the concept cars in History of plug-in hybrids. Is this the "ReCharge" concept vehicle? I have added that to the history sub-article. I see that someone has already added Volvo to Category:Plug-in hybrid vehicles. ←BenB4 10:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

HybridBoy 22:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In which section can one put ...?

Information about recharging points for PHEV (i.e. EDF is installing them in France for Toyota Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle. --HybridBoy 12:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

When was the Toyota plug-in announced? Source? If there's a good source, but a new "Recharging" section under "Technology". ←BenB4 17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
See http://www.edf.fr/105819i/Accueil-com/presse/communiques-et-dossiers-de-presse/Noeud-Communiques-et-Dossier-de-presse/EDF-et-Toyota-annoncent-un-partenariat-technologique-en-Europe-relatif-aux-vehicules-hybrides-rechargeables.html HybridBoy 22:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Renault Kangoo Plug-in-Hybrid

The Kangoo line is not discontinued, but much improved with Lithium based batteries. I have myself opportunity for a short test drive during the EVER Monaco 2007: Renault Kangoo Plug in Hybrid

They have a complete new engine unit combining serial and paralell hybrid: Electric dominated drive unit. Below 80km/h, the ICE propells a generator, above 80km/h, the ICE has direct mechanical contact to propell the front wheels.

The consumption according to European driving cycle is:

  • 14,4 kWh/100km in town
  • 19,6 kWh/100km out of town

This is so high efficient, that it reduces carbon dioxide even with electric power from lignite. CO2 emissions in city traffic

10.000 cars had been ordered by the French post.

--Pege.founder 09:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic news! Is there a press release or any other source for the French Post purchase? Thank you. ←BenB4 11:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing Supercategories

Hi Ben and All. What is the rational for removing the "Hybrid Vehicle" supercategory. No worries... just curious.Fbagatelleblack 17:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If A is a subcategory of B, and the article is in A, then usually there is no need to add it to B. But this is not always the case and I would be grateful if you would check WP:SUBCAT and see what you think. ←BenB4 20:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Threshold for including news items

We have the History of plug-in hybrids to catch lesser events. My opinion is that at this point, we should refrain from adding news items to this main article unless they relate to the introduction or sale of production vehicles and have firm dates or sales figures attached respectively, or represent major technology breakthroughs. Is that too restrictive? ←BenB4 13:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The value of news changes with time. Recent news is more valuable than old news. I would be less restrictive, but quicker to delete, than you suggest. Daniel.Cardenas 17:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Toyota

This journalist test-drive of the plug-in Prius is very interesting. Whether the glitches described are actually significant, or if this is an exercise in reduced expectations, we shall see what they unveil next week. CME94 11:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Renault Kangoo

I know the redesigned Renault Kangoo plug-in is not available in the U.S., but is it actually in production selling to fleets in Europe? CME94 12:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Operating Cost

Under the "Operating Cost" sub-section, in regards to:

  • In California, as of 2006, the cost to plug in at night is equivalent to US$0.75 per U.S. gallon (3.8 L) of gasoline
  • US$1.00 worth of electricity from household power outlet (at 9 US cents per kW·h) is sufficient to drive the same distance as a gallon (3.8 L) of gasoline.

Both of these are sourced to Footnote #1. However, footnote #1 doesn't seem to say any of this. I think the question "how many miles does a PHEV get per Kwh" is very basic and important. Do we have any good, reliable sources? Since energy costs vary widely, the article should just give some basic "Kwh's per mile" examples ie. "the Prius gets 2 miles per Kwh" (or whatever it is). -- 71.191.47.120 04:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me, from the page history, like the second of the two statements is just plain unsourced. I added an archive.org link to the earlier version of the first. CME94 11:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Disadvantages (section)

Funny how you editors so quickly accepted the idea of quoting someone that has a very obvious financial incentive to market his vehicles, so long as it promoted the premise of the electric car. Additionally, this section fails, deliberately I suspect, to discusses the massive amount of greenhouse gases and outright pollution generated in the mining of the metals needed for the massive batteries required for such vehicles. Another crock article exposed. My work is done. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lithium "mining" is not particularly energy-intensive -- it's mostly recovered from mineral brines and igneous rocks, neither of which need to be dug for. Compared to the energy expended while driving over an average car's lifetime, the total energy used to manufacture a car is tiny. CME94 11:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"the massive amount of greenhouse gases and outright pollution generated in the mining of the metals needed for the massive batteries required for such vehicles." - do you have a source for that, or are you just making this up as you go along? Raul654 14:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised such an unbalanced article (and poorly laid out article) ever made it to featured status. It reads like a catalog at first and a lobbyist piece at the end. What a mess. The advantages section has 11 paragraphs while the disadvantages has 2, and of the two, 6 of the 10 sentences are actually rebutals of the claims of disadvantage! Rmhermen 14:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a big disadvantage. What others are there? An article on sliced bread might appear similarly "unbalanced" even when accurately and neutrally representing the pros and cons (if any). CME94 15:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the debate surrounding the metal mining, it's fraudulent to have a token "Disadvantages" section that then goes on to claim an advantage by quoting the co-founder of Tesla as an expert opinion without motives. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 17:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, continue to ignore this point and eventually the section will get a tag. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I would take this user's commentary with a grain of salt; he's been blocked several times for attacks and been brought to ANI for political trolling in the past, and unfortunately seems unwilling to stop. • Lawrence Cohen 16:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a personal attack. All blocks, save for one, were lifted; and the weaponized ANI reports were fruitless. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion, but I detach now. I have no interest in sparring, as it does not benefit the article. To clarify a mistatement:
Not "all blocks, save for one, were lifted". An additional 4 blocks were issued by other admins. Let's leave our personal opinions on hybrid cars and battery production at the door, as our views and political stances are absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia. Facts, only, from sources, with links to those sources. • Lawrence Cohen 19:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
More personal attacks irrelevant to the facts at hand. Maybe I should start an ANI so I can reference it every time I disagree with you? --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to bury your heads in the sand, then my position on this article is only strengthened. I suggest you do a little research on nickel mining, the "dead zone" surrounding the primary nickel processing facility in Canada, the trip across the Pacific to China that the nickel then takes, then the trip to Japan, then the trip back to the US. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 17:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the problem of outlets for people with only on-street parking, but none of the announced PHEV production models use nickel. CME94 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Damage of Producing Batteries

Here is some input regarding the environmental cost of manufacturing and operating a Toyota Prius. There may be advantages to PHEV's but, as with any newer technology still in development, there are drawbacks. I recommend such a section, especially since Wikipedia's policy is maintaining an opinion-neutral site.

"...the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg."

"...the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

"The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

"'The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,' said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

"All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis."

"Through a study by CNW Marketing called Dust to Dust, the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it."

Source: "Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage"; Central Connecticut State University Recorder, 07 March 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.72.210 (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this information. Test moon rovers? Not exactly, and the area is no longer a wasteland; see Greater Sudbury#Geography. Also, if the energy in a Prius really cost $325,000 then the car would cost more. CME94 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You can't just "doubt the information" simply because you don't like the conclusions that can be drawn from it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it because it is completely wrong, as is your comment about Sudbury above, as you would have seen if you had clicked on Greater Sudbury#Geography. CME94 17:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I see. So long as the surrounding landscape is pleasing to the eye, a nickel factory is magically carbon neutral. Inco Superstack. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 17:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The amount of carbon isn't the issue; again, on a per-vehicle basis it's dwarfed by expected emissions from gasoline. The problem at Sudbury has been sulphur. But this whole discussion is pointless because the lithium batteries that the three largest announced PHEV manufacturers plan to use don't contain any nickel. And the fourth largest wants to use iron-based batteries which don't contain any nickel either. CME94 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Why let "facts" and "evidence" get in the way of a good anti-environmental screed? Raul654 17:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe Wikipedia should be pro-logic before it is pro/anti-environmental. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, some discussion of the relative construction and disposal problems and associated costs for the different classes of vehicles would be a valuable addition to the article. I doubt PHEVs currently take advantage of many of the economies of scale that manufacturers of conventional vehicles enjoy. There is some mention in the article of the possibility of reusing batteries but little else. Andplus 16:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Name

Why is this not Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle as that is what the abbreviation stands for... ? (And person who moved this in April, were you referreing to Google hits?)

Simply south 16:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Because "Plug in hybrid" is far more common than "Plug in hybrid electric vehicle", and the common name is what we are supposed to use. Raul654 16:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PHEV edits without dialogue is wrong.

I can only assume that due to the popularity of the PHEV entry there is intense scrutiny of any edits, which is welcome. However, attempts to censor edits without reasonable justification is malapropos and defeats the spirit of Wikipedia.

My entry on Fisker Automotive has been repeatedly tampered with and the closest resemblance to a decent explanation was that since Fisker wasn't a 'major' automobile producer that a mention of it didn't belong in the introductory paragraphs. It appears that the BYD Auto edit met a similar fate. My contention with these removals is that in the realm of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles there are no 'majors,' and that the reader should be presented with the facts, that there are more companies besides Toyota, besides GM and Ford, that are employing significant time and effort towards the success of their own PHEVs. To negate any company from the equation is misrepresentation of the complete story.

If one insinuates that a smaller company doesn't present the same merit as their larger contemporaries and uses that as justification of removal, I argue that as well. In the case of Fisker Automotive, one can use a small amount of diligence to see that the company is well-founded and not a 'flash-in-the-pan,' so to speak. Quantum Technologies is a NASDAQ-traded public company that provides OEM and manufacturing solutions for the automotive industry; in fact, Quantum manufactures vehicles for Ford and GM, not to mention that General Motors has a significant ownership interest in the company. The namesake of Fisker Automotive, Henrik Fisker, designed vehicles such as the Aston Martin DB9, Aston Martin V8 Vantage, and the BMW Z8 and has since continued his passion for automobile design with Fisker Coachbuild and now in the joint-venture Fisker Automotive.

We shall see within the next few years how the PHEV market will play out, and perhaps plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will be a suitable solution to share the road and potentially replace the ICE vehicle. Since this a burgeoning industry that many view as a way to mitigate carbon-output and our dependence on foreign oil, it is essential that unbiased facts are presented to the public from the sources that we've come to rely on for trustworthy information, such as Wikipedia. Any attempt to skew the information without open discussion can inevitably be harmful towards the progress of such worthy goals. I welcome your feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94gf301 (talk • contribs)

Part of the intense scrutiny is because the article is on the main page, where it will be for another five hours or so. Companies like Fisker and Tesla just don't have any sales yet. There are a lot of similar announcements in History of plug-in hybrids where I put the Fisker announcement you added. BYD is an established automaker, with several high-volume production lines. CME94 17:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I can accept that, but why was the BYD Auto entry stricken from the intro as well, if it's an established automaker, like you say? 94gf301 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It's back; the person who removed it wasn't familiar with the company and apologized for removing it. CME94 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough; thanks for the explanation! 94gf301 17:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
As you say "PHEV edits without dialogue is wrong." This is why many of us are limiting the number of edits which have not been previously discussed today. I think Fisker deserves a significant mention in this article, and I encourage you to propose edits and additions such that Fisker gets the attention it deserves. On the other hand, including Fisker in the introductory area on the day that Wikipedia makes this the featured article seems a bit too commercial to several of us who have worked long and hard to get this article into its current form. That said, I look forward to hearing more about Fisker as their development efforts progress.Fbagatelleblack 17:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We Made It!

Goodness! It was open warfare out there today (today being 10/30/2007, the day that the PHEV article was "Today's Feature Article" on Wikipedia). Thanks to everyone who fought from the trenches preventing vandalism, etc.! Fbagatelleblack 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"that contribute to" vs. "that may contribute to"

I don't understand the problem with my insertion of the word "may" into the second paragraph of the article. The link between man made CO2 emissions and global warming has significant dissenters. There is no reason for this article to state this link as fact (especially without reference) when this is still up for debate. Adding the word "may" allows that not all agree that there is a definitive link. Even the graphs used by Al Gore in his film showed the CO2 rise FOLLOWING the increasing in temperatures, not preceding them. How does something that occurs as much as 800 years later cause the preceding event? How does taking a position on a still-debated issue qualify as a NPOV?

  1. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350746/posts
  2. http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history
  3. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji9.html
  4. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548
  5. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf
  6. http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/15.html
  7. http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/070313goodprint.html

208.54.15.50 (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to fight about it. Take your complaint to Greenhouse gas or Global warming, and leave the understanding of those topics represented here alone, okay? What they will tell you is that even though there are still a group of people who believe the Earth is flat, you can't put that in the Satellite articles, etc. J T Price (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, this is not the place to flight about it. That is why this article should have a NPOV instead of presenting as fact a point of view which is debatable.208.54.15.50 (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
So I looked through some of your sources, and not a single one claims that greenhouse gases don't cause global warming! The first explicitly says that increased carbon dioxide in the geologic past caused warming; 2 doesn't even mention GHGs or CO2 except in the blog comments; 3 says global climate isn't understood but doesn't mention GHGs or CO2; 4 questions only "catastrophic heating" and not heating in general. And they are all op-eds! Not a single one is from a reputable scientific publication and none of them would qualify under WP:RS as reliable sources. There is not a single peer-reviewed source which agrees with you. If you can find one I will eat my words and insert the "may" myself, but all of the peer-reviewed scientific literature disagrees with you and the oil industry-funded agitprop you rode in on. J T Price (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
At this point, the link between CO2 emissions and global warming has been agreed upon by the vast majority of the scientific community. A few well-financed, well-publicized dissenters do exist, but they are a minuscule minority compared to those who acknowledge the phenomenon. They cannot be considered significant from a statistical perspective.

Since you have brought this matter up in the discussion page, I will hold off on reporting the matter to admins. Be advised that you are in violation of WP:3RR with your continued reverts. If you revert again, I will escalate the matter to admins and request that you be banned from further edits on this page. If the same revert is made by other anonymous editors, I will request that the page be semi-protected. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The evidence continues to build disproving any link between CO2 emissions and global warming. New articles are out weekly. Here's the latest.
* http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf
As I said earlier, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere came AFTER the increase in temperature, not the other way around. The earlier ice core measurements were not accurate enough to show which came first but new studies show that the warming occurred first. The reference to global warming should be removed in it's entirety.
68.52.145.23 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is not the place to argue for or against the pseudo-science/propaganda being foisted upon us by various forces who stand to lose profits if we take measures to fight global warming. Attempts to insert references to such propaganda into this article will be undone by myself and others. Continued attempts revert such actions are prohibited by WP:3RR and will be reported to Wikipedia administrators. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/mind_games_of_the_big_green_sc_1.html
Nobody's yet explained why the increase in CO2 levels have always come AFTER the increase in temperature. You use an ad hominem against the sources instead of addressing the issue. This is only "settled" to those who refuse to look at the new data. 68.52.145.23 (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You are urinating into an oncoming air stream; the argument does not belong on this page. See Scientific opinion on climate change. --Skyemoor (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
And it won't be settled in this article. Balance of authoritative sources support "contribute to." Battle this out elsewhere, like in the articles on greenhouse gas or global warming.--Gregalton (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
From the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
The argument may not belong on this page but neither does an uncited statement that the link is established fact. 208.54.15.66 (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

More information out this week refuting the link... http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html 68.52.145.23 (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war in the NiMH section

I read most of the discussion above in the old section about deleting the NiMH section, which we clearly all do not believe is the correct course of action.

I reverted Xchange's edits, for one reason and one reason alone:

Due to the high costs of alternative technologies, NiMH batteries are the only commercially viable technology for mass market PHEVs.

Given that the ABD models going into production do not use lithium NiMH batteries, that statement is clearly false.

I will support changes which cite reliable sources, and don't contradict current information. J T Price (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that part. MilesAgain (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, J T Price. I have altered the sentence beginning, "Due to the high costs...," in order to make it indisputable. It now reads, "Due to high costs and technical challenges of alternative technologies, NiMH battery technology has been an important determinant of the commercial viability of mass market PHEVs." This is supported by the conclusions of Boschert's discussion on the subject (pp.82-88) and the fact that CalCars selected NiMH technology for the second PRIUS+ after considering the alternatives. Xchange (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have studied Xchange's new verbiage, and I acknowledge that he/she has a point about the GM/Cobasys contracts not involving PHEVs. I have re-inserted information on these contracts, but I have included a note explaining that these are not PHEV contracts and that the information is present to show that Cobasys is willing to use the technology for automotive applications.

Unfortunately, the rest of his/her edits are so riddled with inaccuracies, unverified claims, and speculation that I felt the most appropriate action was to undo his/her recent changes.

Examples:

  • Xchange claims that the Cobasys NiMHax battery line is not made in large format sizes, which he/she defines as being >10Ah. In fact, Cobasys makes battery modules in the NiMHax line up to 86Ah. Furthermore, Xchange claims that "Cobasys does not license or sell NiMH technology to any manufacturers of batteries that are ideally sized for commercially viable PHEVs (25-50 Ah)," but does not acknowledge that Cobasys actively markets these 86Ah battery modules, and several other battery lines, specifically as solutions for Electric Transportation Products including HEVs, and BEVs.
  • Xchange does not properly or fully define the ownership status of Cobasys in the introductory paragraph. He/she refers to it as "Chevron's joint venture" without acknowledging that the other party in the joint venture is Ovonics, one of the leading energy storage companies on the planet. He/she did mention Ovonics in the final paragraph, but I moved that information back to the introductory paragraph.
  • Xchange references his/her claim that "Panasonic, Toyota's primary battery supplier, removed large format NiMH batteries (>10Ah) from its catalog after being sued by Cobasys in 2001" with a footnote pointing simply to Boschert's book. I have read this book quite carefully, and do not remember seeing this exact information. I acknowledge that it could be in the book somewhere, but the reference should be more precise or it should involve a direct quote from Boschert's book or another source.
  • Xchange has not justified his/her deletion of pre-existing verbiage which has been worked out through long consensus building with much input from Sherry Boschert, whose book serves as the primary reference source.

I strongly encourage Xchange to continue his/her input into this article. He/she clearly is knowledgeable and passionate about the subject matter. However, I also urge Xchange to respect the work that many editors have put into this article and to edit through consensus building rather than sweeping, undiscussed changes to existing verbiage. Thanks very much. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I've been asked to intervene in a near edit-war situation. I have little knowledge of the article topic, but that at least means that I am unlikely to be accused of breaching WP:OWN, which I think more than one contributor comes close to, so I'll confine myself to whether Wikipedia policies have been breached. I've read through the last few pages of edit history and the current revision.

  1. In an article which is so contentious, it seems to me that careful use of language is important to avoid POV. As a very minor example, insisting on "reveals" rather than neutral "says" or "reports" seems to have implications that may or may not be justified, but are surely unnecessarily inflammatory
  2. The last sentence of the current edit is effectively transferring talk page arguments to the main article, which has to be unacceptable.
  3. Partly because of ongoing edit wars, this article is well-reference. All contributors need to bear in mind that if they say anything contentious it must be fully and accurately referenced, including page numbers. It should also be clear whether the source is expressing an opinion or scientifically verifiable fact. So X says in her book that battery technology is being deliberately controlled is reporting a relevant published opinion, which can be countered by quoting other published sources. Incidentally, edits based on discussions with X, since they can not be verified, are WP:OR.
  4. Although on the whole WP:CIVIL has thankfully been observed, I'm not sure that applies to WP:Assume good faith. If someone makes an edit which is accurately referenced and not expressed in a POV way, then imoh it has to be given the benefit of the doubt. For example, if an editor added, unsourced, this technology will save the planet, it should go. On the other hand X in her book says this technology will save the planet (ref) is fine. I think removing/reverting edits because you don't think they are relevant is inflammatory if another editor clearly thinks that they are relevant, any such move should be discussed on the talk page.

All of this is obvious, but committed editors need to step back a bit. I hope that issues can be resolved between editors, but my intention is to monitor this page, especially with regard to WP:3RR. The last sentence must be changed, but doing edits myself is a last resort, since I have no expertise in this subject - basically I would just go through and chop everything which is contentious and doesn't have a reference. Hope this helps Jimfbleak (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input. I have reworded the final paragraph to eliminate direct reference to the talk page issues while clarifying the relevance of the ideas expressed.
I am sure you will let me know if I cross any lines vis-a-vis WP:OWN, and I thank you for that as well. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Patents Section Edits

Xchange, I see that you have removed the word "controlling" in the sentence describing Chevron's ownership position at Cobasys. Thanks for doing so. However, your edits still imply that 50% ownership of Cobasys plus 19.99% ownership of ECD equals 60% ownership of Cobasys, which is not true. It would, however, be correct to state that "Chevron's overall influence over Cobasys goes beyond a strict 50/50 ownership split with ECD due to the 19.99% ownership stake Chevron holds in ECD." ... Or something along those lines. Please ponder it and offer any alternatives which seem proper to you. Thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! Nice work. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)