According to an analysis conducted by the National Research Council and partly funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, the roll-out of plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) to the U.S. market will be too slow to have any real effect on our greenhouse gas emissions or oil addiction until at least the 2030s.
The report says that even with huge amounts of federal funding in the form of incentives, subsidies and tax breaks, battery costs will stay too high for the start of widespread PHEV adoption before 2020. The report also concludes that the added cost of manufacturing a PHEV over a conventional vehicle in 2010 will range from a $6,300 premium for a 10 mile all-electric range (PHEV-10) to an $18,000 premium for a 40 mile all-electric range (PHEV-40). Those numbers seem to make sense considering the Chevy Volt is expected to retail for $40,000 before tax breaks.
If gasoline prices stay below $4.00 per gallon, the analysis indicates that PHEV-40s won’t be cost-competitive before 2040 while PHEV-10s may reach cost competitiveness by 2030. Indeed, this seems to be the conventional wisdom within the automotive sector right now, with GMs Vice Chairman for Global Product Development, Bob Lutz, remarking at the LA Auto Show just a couple of weeks ago that without increasing the gas tax to artificially raise fuel prices, there will be no pressure on the consumer to buy plug-in vehicles.
Of course, the report points out that all of their conclusions are in lieu of some kind of unexpected battery technology development or some kind of unexpected market pressure. In the end, the report concludes that PHEVs will have very little effect on consumption of oil before 2030 because there will be too few of them in the national fleet—even at the report’s best case growth scenario of 40 million PHEVs on the road by then.
“A PHEV-10 is expected to use about 20 percent less gasoline than an equivalent hybrid electric vehicle, saving about 70 gallons in 15,000 miles. Forty million PHEV-10s would save a total of about 0.2 million barrels of oil per day. The current light-duty vehicle fleet uses about 9 million barrels per day. PHEV-40s will consume about 55 percent less gasoline than equivalent HEVs, saving more than 200 gallons of gasoline per year per vehicle.”
-TRANSITIONS TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES—PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES, National Research Council, 2009
The report also concludes, as I’ve said in the past, that “It is not clear what technology or combination of technologies⎯batteries, hydrogen, or biofuels—will be most effective in reducing the nation’s oil dependency to levels that may be necessary in the long run. It is clear, however, that a portfolio approach will enable the greatest reduction in oil use.”
While I’m ultimately a firm believer in all-electric personal transportation, this unprecedneted extraction from our singular dependence on oil we’re currently at the start of will need all the help it can get—which means diversifying our transportation portfolio as much as possible in the beginning. If this means helping these fledgling technologies to compete against the established order, then I’m all for that as well. And even if plug-ins don’t have a huge impact for a couple of decades, we have to start somewhere. The time for hedging has long since passed.
Image Credit: Nick Chambers
PDF 
Going to have to look at the report myself, but did it:
- take into account what is almost certain to be a radical rise in gas prices between now and 2040
- account for much lower maintenance costs for EVs over gas-cars?
- account much lower fueling costs for EVs over gas cars — especially if gasoline spikes as oil supplies dry up?
Maybe that’s all in there, but if it’s not, seems like yet another example of how simplistically — and incorrectly — our society, even its ‘experts’ calculate cost.
Going to have to look at the report myself, but did it:
- take into account what is almost certain to be a radical rise in gas prices between now and 2040
- account for much lower maintenance costs for EVs over gas-cars?
- account much lower fueling costs for EVs over gas cars — especially if gasoline spikes as oil supplies dry up?
Maybe that’s all in there, but if it’s not, seems like yet another example of how simplistically — and incorrectly — our society, even its ‘experts’ calculate cost.
Will have to check this report out too, but there is enough evidence out there already that this is too pessimistic for EVs and far too optimistic for gas and ignores peak oil.
Over at Treehugger, Robert Llewellyn takes a drive with Tesla VP of biz Diarmuid O’Connell and during the drive DC mentions that Li Ion chemistry is already seeing 8% storage improvement annually. So 1.08 compounded over 9 years or 1.07 over 10 years is about 2x. So battery pack storage is already doubling about every decade and there are loads of other chemistries on the horizon. Nissan already announced 2x density for the 2015 Leaf. The other issue is cost, that falls with volume as well as with new breakthroughs.
I think if all BEVs or PHEVs are sold without battery and the battery is leased (as Nissan Leaf will do), then the reduced monthly cost of battery charge vs fuel costs can offset the battery cost over 10years of use. The user sees the same overall drive per mile costs with much lower maintenance costs, but the country sees much lower oil imports.
And imagining gas at only $4 by 2040 is just ludicrous. EVs can’t be introduced fast enough to make any dent in the upward cost of gas since ICE cars will be growing fast for a long time with China, India coming along.
Will have to check this report out too, but there is enough evidence out there already that this is too pessimistic for EVs and far too optimistic for gas and ignores peak oil.
Over at Treehugger, Robert Llewellyn takes a drive with Tesla VP of biz Diarmuid O’Connell and during the drive DC mentions that Li Ion chemistry is already seeing 8% storage improvement annually. So 1.08 compounded over 9 years or 1.07 over 10 years is about 2x. So battery pack storage is already doubling about every decade and there are loads of other chemistries on the horizon. Nissan already announced 2x density for the 2015 Leaf. The other issue is cost, that falls with volume as well as with new breakthroughs.
I think if all BEVs or PHEVs are sold without battery and the battery is leased (as Nissan Leaf will do), then the reduced monthly cost of battery charge vs fuel costs can offset the battery cost over 10years of use. The user sees the same overall drive per mile costs with much lower maintenance costs, but the country sees much lower oil imports.
And imagining gas at only $4 by 2040 is just ludicrous. EVs can’t be introduced fast enough to make any dent in the upward cost of gas since ICE cars will be growing fast for a long time with China, India coming along.
I read the pdf summary and I think it is already dated. It draws a large part of its content from the 2008 Hydrogen report which to me taints it. HFCVs are even considered as an alternative to PHEV for eliminating gasoline by the fleet, see p12 graph. We already know that HFCV are 3x less efficient than BEVs and they are still part of the CO2 emitting oil cycle.
It also says Lithium battery costs will fall some 30% by 2020 but not much after that. The Tesla VP of biz O’Connell already pointed out the storage improvement is closer to 8% annually or 2x per decade. One can take that as cost reduction instead for a constant capacity.
Batteries only need to get about 4x cheaper and have 4x more capacity so that is 4 decades of improvement away. However that can be offset by the counter increases in oil prices and the pressure to decarbonize driving. If oil were to include a large CO2 tax and oil also doubles in price every decade, the crossover point will occur much sooner.
The report summary never really ever explores the exponential demand for oil being added by China and India so oil stays at $4 even to 2040 or the requirement to really cut CO2, so not very useful.
I read the pdf summary and I think it is already dated. It draws a large part of its content from the 2008 Hydrogen report which to me taints it. HFCVs are even considered as an alternative to PHEV for eliminating gasoline by the fleet, see p12 graph. We already know that HFCV are 3x less efficient than BEVs and they are still part of the CO2 emitting oil cycle.
It also says Lithium battery costs will fall some 30% by 2020 but not much after that. The Tesla VP of biz O’Connell already pointed out the storage improvement is closer to 8% annually or 2x per decade. One can take that as cost reduction instead for a constant capacity.
Batteries only need to get about 4x cheaper and have 4x more capacity so that is 4 decades of improvement away. However that can be offset by the counter increases in oil prices and the pressure to decarbonize driving. If oil were to include a large CO2 tax and oil also doubles in price every decade, the crossover point will occur much sooner.
The report summary never really ever explores the exponential demand for oil being added by China and India so oil stays at $4 even to 2040 or the requirement to really cut CO2, so not very useful.
This report is laughable and its authors should be ashamed to have their names on it. Clearly, the H2/oil industry paid these “researchers” to be shills.
30 years ago, I bought gas at less than $1/gallon. At that rate, gas will be over $9/gallon 30 years hence. And that’s probably going to happen much quicker than 30 years.
The experience of driving on cleaner, cheaper, domestic energy in a vehicle that’s more powerful, and quieter than internal combustion, and that doesn’t need maintenance to speak of, is so vastly superior to anything on the road today that the adoption rate of this technology will only be limited by the ability of the battery manufacturers to make cells.
This report is laughable and its authors should be ashamed to have their names on it. Clearly, the H2/oil industry paid these “researchers” to be shills.
30 years ago, I bought gas at less than $1/gallon. At that rate, gas will be over $9/gallon 30 years hence. And that’s probably going to happen much quicker than 30 years.
The experience of driving on cleaner, cheaper, domestic energy in a vehicle that’s more powerful, and quieter than internal combustion, and that doesn’t need maintenance to speak of, is so vastly superior to anything on the road today that the adoption rate of this technology will only be limited by the ability of the battery manufacturers to make cells.
JJ,
Go back and restudy your high school chemistry. The burn formula for hydrogen is:
2(H2) + O2 = 2 (H2O)
There is NO carbon involved.
JJ,
Go back and restudy your high school chemistry. The burn formula for hydrogen is:
2(H2) + O2 = 2 (H2O)
There is NO carbon involved.
ChuckL
The carbon emissions come from the production of energy used in the manufacture of hydrogen whether by splitting water or steam reforming hydrocarbons.
Most of our electrical energy supplies are carbon emitting and will be for a long time. In an entirely nuclear or renewable power gen economy, then no carbon would be involved but this would still be wasteful using hydrogen as the energy carrier.
Even when the hydrogen recombines with oxygen, the energy released is mostly heat. Burning H in an ICE gives <30% efficiency. Using a FC, only half of the energy is released as electricity. Either way the hydrogen economy is wasteful at both ends. With the BEV economy, much less energy is needed hence less CO2 emitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png
ChuckL
The carbon emissions come from the production of energy used in the manufacture of hydrogen whether by splitting water or steam reforming hydrocarbons.
Most of our electrical energy supplies are carbon emitting and will be for a long time. In an entirely nuclear or renewable power gen economy, then no carbon would be involved but this would still be wasteful using hydrogen as the energy carrier.
Even when the hydrogen recombines with oxygen, the energy released is mostly heat. Burning H in an ICE gives <30% efficiency. Using a FC, only half of the energy is released as electricity. Either way the hydrogen economy is wasteful at both ends. With the BEV economy, much less energy is needed hence less CO2 emitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png
For Europe, Japan, South East Asia and South America gasoline prices are over $4 per gallon and in some cases have been for some time. In all of these places at least, I think you (or maybe not you but bureaucrats) will be surprised by how quickly the PHEV take up will occur.
The US goes on about its need for driving long distances, farm requirements and so on but the average annual mileage is not that different to Europe. The US has to start pricing gasoline with a view to to the cost of the next gallon, not the last one.
But the most powerful effect ( and it may not look very pretty) is that hordes of people want to get out from under the middle east. I believe this will be the deciding pressure for the move to better gas mileage. The CO2 issue is not a big impact on most people but when biomass gets going that will solve itself by taking in CO2 for the biomass cycle.
For Europe, Japan, South East Asia and South America gasoline prices are over $4 per gallon and in some cases have been for some time. In all of these places at least, I think you (or maybe not you but bureaucrats) will be surprised by how quickly the PHEV take up will occur.
The US goes on about its need for driving long distances, farm requirements and so on but the average annual mileage is not that different to Europe. The US has to start pricing gasoline with a view to to the cost of the next gallon, not the last one.
But the most powerful effect ( and it may not look very pretty) is that hordes of people want to get out from under the middle east. I believe this will be the deciding pressure for the move to better gas mileage. The CO2 issue is not a big impact on most people but when biomass gets going that will solve itself by taking in CO2 for the biomass cycle.
Nick, I disagree. The NRC report makes it crystal clear that the American taxpayer is getting raked over the coals yet again.
Yes, we need to find a way to break our dependence on oil, particularly imported oil. It is in our national interest to do so and as quickly as possible.
But throwing billions and billions of tax dollars at the problem is NOT the answer. Yes, government should support basic scientific research. But I don’t remember any federal subsidies to build gas stations across the land 60 years ago. Why does the government have to build a web of electric recharging stations at taxpayer expense?
Why should my tax dollars be used to help you buy a new car? That’s just goofy.
Your own website ran a story last month on a Ford Fusion hybrid that got 82 mpg on a test drive. Yes, it may not simulate actual real world driving, but what if every car in America got 40 mpg or more? The oil tankers would have to turn around and pump all that excess oil back under the sands in the Middle East. And they would have to give back the money we paid for it.
In Europe, they have a host of choices among cars that routinely get 50 mpg or more. Sometimes much more. We can do that TODAY at NO COST TO THE TAXPAYER. Isn’t that the smarter way to go?
I liked your article. I really did. It opened my eyes. I liked it right up until the final paragraph. That’s where you and I part company. All this hoopla over plug-in hybrids is a lot of hooey. And very expensive hooey at that. I oppose throwing massive amounts of federal dollars at problems. The NRC says its mission is to improve government decision making. I hope I live long enough to see it.
Nick, I disagree. The NRC report makes it crystal clear that the American taxpayer is getting raked over the coals yet again.
Yes, we need to find a way to break our dependence on oil, particularly imported oil. It is in our national interest to do so and as quickly as possible.
But throwing billions and billions of tax dollars at the problem is NOT the answer. Yes, government should support basic scientific research. But I don’t remember any federal subsidies to build gas stations across the land 60 years ago. Why does the government have to build a web of electric recharging stations at taxpayer expense?
Why should my tax dollars be used to help you buy a new car? That’s just goofy.
Your own website ran a story last month on a Ford Fusion hybrid that got 82 mpg on a test drive. Yes, it may not simulate actual real world driving, but what if every car in America got 40 mpg or more? The oil tankers would have to turn around and pump all that excess oil back under the sands in the Middle East. And they would have to give back the money we paid for it.
In Europe, they have a host of choices among cars that routinely get 50 mpg or more. Sometimes much more. We can do that TODAY at NO COST TO THE TAXPAYER. Isn’t that the smarter way to go?
I liked your article. I really did. It opened my eyes. I liked it right up until the final paragraph. That’s where you and I part company. All this hoopla over plug-in hybrids is a lot of hooey. And very expensive hooey at that. I oppose throwing massive amounts of federal dollars at problems. The NRC says its mission is to improve government decision making. I hope I live long enough to see it.
Make a difference, own a Hybrid. The Personal Computer biz had a similar take off. At 3 million installed units, enabeling advances quickeened their births.
Hybrids are following, KOA campgrounds are 75% wired for high current. RV owners are conditioned to battery charging. RV owners by the numbers are higher than the “PC geeks” that ushered in the PC revolution.
I own a Prius with 51 MPG regularly. A trip through the mountains and it will average 58 MPG. The new wave is real. General Motors can not compete due to internal high costs of conducting biz.
In fact travel trips cost so little, we drive with abandon to fuel prices. No issue here. Freedom rolls!
Make a difference, own a Hybrid. The Personal Computer biz had a similar take off. At 3 million installed units, enabeling advances quickeened their births.
Hybrids are following, KOA campgrounds are 75% wired for high current. RV owners are conditioned to battery charging. RV owners by the numbers are higher than the “PC geeks” that ushered in the PC revolution.
I own a Prius with 51 MPG regularly. A trip through the mountains and it will average 58 MPG. The new wave is real. General Motors can not compete due to internal high costs of conducting biz.
In fact travel trips cost so little, we drive with abandon to fuel prices. No issue here. Freedom rolls!
Plug-in Hybrids will Make a Big Impact
The referenced National Research Council study on PHEVs is based on numerous false assumptions:
New technologies are rapidly developing for alternative vehicles. Realistically, why bother analyzing EV-10. That will quickly be replaced by EV-25 and above. And since the average person drives 25 miles or less per day, with a PHEV or an EV, a much higher percentage of their driving will be all electric. The study way underestimates this, just as it way underestimates what petroleum based gasoline and diesel fuel will cost down the road.
My view is – The very first plug-in hybrid that rolls off the show room floor will have an impact. Every PHEV will take tons of annual carbon out of the air – mostly urban air. And in electric mode most of the time, the power source will shift from 60% imported oil and 40% domestic oil – to totally domestic fuel, such as coal, natural gas, biogas, biomass, wind, solar, and alternatives. 20-30 years from now, or less, we are going to have biofuels, algae and cheap solar coming out of our ears. Solar will be integrated into the roofs, walls and windows of buildings and also integrated into the entire bodies of PHEVs and EVs. The pristine example is people charging their vehicles with their own solar roof panels. Just 10% of the population doing this will have a huge impact.
Even when you buy power from the grid, and operate in electric mode, the fuel cost of a PHEV is 5-6 times cheaper per mile than a same size and weight gasoline powered vehicle. Also, it is much easier to scrub coal or natural gas exhaust at a central location – than to scrub millions of tail pipes. With an electric car in front of you, you are not sucking-up toxic fossil fuel exhaust. What exhaust is produced to make electricity for a PHEV, is outside of urban centers. You are not directly exposed to it. So urban air will become cleaner and cleaner as PHEVs and EVs gradually replace conventional vehicles. This will improve urban health, reduce respiratory disease, and lower health care costs.
Chances are, 10-20 years from now, the extended range e-vehicle will have a compact multi-fueled turbocharged engine or turbine, that won’t rely exclusively on imported or domestic oil. It’ll burn bio oil, biodiesel, ethanol, 50-50 ethanol-water, natural gas, propane, butanol, synthetic fuel – you name it. Take the emerging Cyclone Green Revolution Engine, for example. That’ll run on just about anything, even raw algae. GEET may also be perfected, so you may be burning water with all your fuels. Either that or directly splitting the water (mixed with a surfactant such as ethanol) into hydrogen and oxygen onboard your vehicle. That could alternately be mated with a small, 75% efficient fuel cell, just large enough to recharge the batteries.
There are numerous other movements that will put PHEVs and EVs on the map: Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G), solar paint, advanced battery chargers (see John Bedini), more efficient electric motors and generators, advanced batteries and ultra-capacitors, lighter weight materials and bonding methods, and many other advancements in the works.
The study also makes the false assumption that PHEVs have to be priced the same as conventional vehicles, before they become competitive. There are millions of people who will buy alternative vehicles – And Pay More – in order to serve the clean air cause. Then there are many others who will want to use domestic fuel in their vehicles, in order to displace foreign oil. Then there’s the added benefit of the money you’ll save – by cutting your fuel cost to about 20% of a conventional vehicle. That offsets the higher price of alternative vehicles, until they’re mass produced and further refined.
The defective study put out by the National Research Council is obviously done by unqualified and under-informed government officials, who are being puppetted by a hidden agenda to maintain the cash cow of the status quo. Technology is pushing the envelope a lot faster than the study predicts.
Plug-in Hybrids will Make a Big Impact
The referenced National Research Council study on PHEVs is based on numerous false assumptions:
New technologies are rapidly developing for alternative vehicles. Realistically, why bother analyzing EV-10. That will quickly be replaced by EV-25 and above. And since the average person drives 25 miles or less per day, with a PHEV or an EV, a much higher percentage of their driving will be all electric. The study way underestimates this, just as it way underestimates what petroleum based gasoline and diesel fuel will cost down the road.
My view is – The very first plug-in hybrid that rolls off the show room floor will have an impact. Every PHEV will take tons of annual carbon out of the air – mostly urban air. And in electric mode most of the time, the power source will shift from 60% imported oil and 40% domestic oil – to totally domestic fuel, such as coal, natural gas, biogas, biomass, wind, solar, and alternatives. 20-30 years from now, or less, we are going to have biofuels, algae and cheap solar coming out of our ears. Solar will be integrated into the roofs, walls and windows of buildings and also integrated into the entire bodies of PHEVs and EVs. The pristine example is people charging their vehicles with their own solar roof panels. Just 10% of the population doing this will have a huge impact.
Even when you buy power from the grid, and operate in electric mode, the fuel cost of a PHEV is 5-6 times cheaper per mile than a same size and weight gasoline powered vehicle. Also, it is much easier to scrub coal or natural gas exhaust at a central location – than to scrub millions of tail pipes. With an electric car in front of you, you are not sucking-up toxic fossil fuel exhaust. What exhaust is produced to make electricity for a PHEV, is outside of urban centers. You are not directly exposed to it. So urban air will become cleaner and cleaner as PHEVs and EVs gradually replace conventional vehicles. This will improve urban health, reduce respiratory disease, and lower health care costs.
Chances are, 10-20 years from now, the extended range e-vehicle will have a compact multi-fueled turbocharged engine or turbine, that won’t rely exclusively on imported or domestic oil. It’ll burn bio oil, biodiesel, ethanol, 50-50 ethanol-water, natural gas, propane, butanol, synthetic fuel – you name it. Take the emerging Cyclone Green Revolution Engine, for example. That’ll run on just about anything, even raw algae. GEET may also be perfected, so you may be burning water with all your fuels. Either that or directly splitting the water (mixed with a surfactant such as ethanol) into hydrogen and oxygen onboard your vehicle. That could alternately be mated with a small, 75% efficient fuel cell, just large enough to recharge the batteries.
There are numerous other movements that will put PHEVs and EVs on the map: Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G), solar paint, advanced battery chargers (see John Bedini), more efficient electric motors and generators, advanced batteries and ultra-capacitors, lighter weight materials and bonding methods, and many other advancements in the works.
The study also makes the false assumption that PHEVs have to be priced the same as conventional vehicles, before they become competitive. There are millions of people who will buy alternative vehicles – And Pay More – in order to serve the clean air cause. Then there are many others who will want to use domestic fuel in their vehicles, in order to displace foreign oil. Then there’s the added benefit of the money you’ll save – by cutting your fuel cost to about 20% of a conventional vehicle. That offsets the higher price of alternative vehicles, until they’re mass produced and further refined.
The defective study put out by the National Research Council is obviously done by unqualified and under-informed government officials, who are being puppetted by a hidden agenda to maintain the cash cow of the status quo. Technology is pushing the envelope a lot faster than the study predicts.
Steve, Fossil fuels, and their infrastructure, are — and have always been heavily subsidized by the Federal Government –>
“Tax credits constitute the largest source of federal assistance to the energy sector. According to a 2006 study prepared by Washington D.C. consulting group Management Information Services Inc. (MISI), tax credits accounted for an estimated 45 percent of all federal energy support between 1950 and 2003. An analysis by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts put this number at 65 percent for 2006. Tax treatment also comprises one of the earliest ways by which the federal government subsidized energy development and production, dating to 1917, when income tax credits were established to encourage oil drilling.”
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/11/the-federal-energy-subsidy-scorecard-how-renewables-stack-up
Steve, Fossil fuels, and their infrastructure, are — and have always been heavily subsidized by the Federal Government –>
“Tax credits constitute the largest source of federal assistance to the energy sector. According to a 2006 study prepared by Washington D.C. consulting group Management Information Services Inc. (MISI), tax credits accounted for an estimated 45 percent of all federal energy support between 1950 and 2003. An analysis by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts put this number at 65 percent for 2006. Tax treatment also comprises one of the earliest ways by which the federal government subsidized energy development and production, dating to 1917, when income tax credits were established to encourage oil drilling.”
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/11/the-federal-energy-subsidy-scorecard-how-renewables-stack-up
I don’t have the time to study that report, but I’m not surprised. We all know that hybrid technology has been around for more than 10 years, right? Still, when we look at the numbers, I mean the actual number of hybrid cars in use, versus the total number of cars in the country, hybrid cars represent less than one percent of that total.
Now, find the proportion of CO2 emissions coming from automotive use, and you will find that you can put 10 millions plug-in hybrid cars on the road, and that the country emissions would hardly change…
I don’t have the time to study that report, but I’m not surprised. We all know that hybrid technology has been around for more than 10 years, right? Still, when we look at the numbers, I mean the actual number of hybrid cars in use, versus the total number of cars in the country, hybrid cars represent less than one percent of that total.
Now, find the proportion of CO2 emissions coming from automotive use, and you will find that you can put 10 millions plug-in hybrid cars on the road, and that the country emissions would hardly change…
The US National Research Council Report is also wrong on something else. It falsely claims that Plug-in Hybrids have higher emissions than plain Hybrids, after accounting for emissions at generating stations supplying their electrical power.
Since the average person drives 25 miles or less a day, and PHEVs have a range of 25 or more miles, they will be operating most of the time in electric mode. In contrast, plain Hybrids operate most of the time on fossil fuels.
A PHEV running on electric most of the time is more than twice as efficient as a plain Hybrid burning fossil fuel most of the time. The ICE in the hybrid is 20-25% efficient running on gasoline, with energy loss going out the tailpipe in the form of heat. The PHEV operating mostly in electric mode is twice as efficient, even if you use coal to charge the batteries. Coal accounts for about 45-50% of the energy mix and that is decreasing, as coal plants are being displaced by cleaner energy sources.
The Report is definitely not true when you charge the PHEV with your own solar roof panels, or when you charge your PHEV off the grid supplied by wind, wave, solar, or nuclear. You will have a zero emission vehicle, that is, until you take an occasional trip and have to fire up the range extender engine. Even that range extender engine could be running on renewable fuel, and you would still have a zero emission PHEV, because it would be recycling CO2 not emitting new CO2.
The fuel cost per mile for a PHEV, operating most of the time in electric mode, is about 1/6 that of a conventional gasoline vehicle, and less than 1/3 the cost of a plain Hybrid.
The US National Research Council Report is also wrong on something else. It falsely claims that Plug-in Hybrids have higher emissions than plain Hybrids, after accounting for emissions at generating stations supplying their electrical power.
Since the average person drives 25 miles or less a day, and PHEVs have a range of 25 or more miles, they will be operating most of the time in electric mode. In contrast, plain Hybrids operate most of the time on fossil fuels.
A PHEV running on electric most of the time is more than twice as efficient as a plain Hybrid burning fossil fuel most of the time. The ICE in the hybrid is 20-25% efficient running on gasoline, with energy loss going out the tailpipe in the form of heat. The PHEV operating mostly in electric mode is twice as efficient, even if you use coal to charge the batteries. Coal accounts for about 45-50% of the energy mix and that is decreasing, as coal plants are being displaced by cleaner energy sources.
The Report is definitely not true when you charge the PHEV with your own solar roof panels, or when you charge your PHEV off the grid supplied by wind, wave, solar, or nuclear. You will have a zero emission vehicle, that is, until you take an occasional trip and have to fire up the range extender engine. Even that range extender engine could be running on renewable fuel, and you would still have a zero emission PHEV, because it would be recycling CO2 not emitting new CO2.
The fuel cost per mile for a PHEV, operating most of the time in electric mode, is about 1/6 that of a conventional gasoline vehicle, and less than 1/3 the cost of a plain Hybrid.
If you never get started, you will never get there. The beauty of predictions is that they often self-mollify, and are always wrong, varying only in how wrong.
Few people have a grasp of the magnitude of GHG emissions and what it will take to curb them:
http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/10/wwf-study-puts-global-warming-into.html
If everyone in America drove a Prius we would reduce global emissions needed about 1 percent.
If you never get started, you will never get there. The beauty of predictions is that they often self-mollify, and are always wrong, varying only in how wrong.
Few people have a grasp of the magnitude of GHG emissions and what it will take to curb them:
http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/10/wwf-study-puts-global-warming-into.html
If everyone in America drove a Prius we would reduce global emissions needed about 1 percent.
The gov should stop subsidizing this right now. $6300 to save 70 gallons of gas per year. Yikes! What a boondoggle.
Just buy your hybrids until batteries are ready for prime time. That may happen in 10 years… or it may never happen. I don’t even care about charge capacity. Charge CYCLES is the real hurdle. Rechargeable batts have about 1000 charge cycles before they massively lose efficiency. Then you dump the whole thing in the land fill.
The gov should stop subsidizing this right now. $6300 to save 70 gallons of gas per year. Yikes! What a boondoggle.
Just buy your hybrids until batteries are ready for prime time. That may happen in 10 years… or it may never happen. I don’t even care about charge capacity. Charge CYCLES is the real hurdle. Rechargeable batts have about 1000 charge cycles before they massively lose efficiency. Then you dump the whole thing in the land fill.