We're forgetting the most obvious (non-monetary) benefits of a plug-in: Freedom from price spikes in times of scarcity like hurricane katrina. More of this coming down the line.

I'm thinking all it would take is one single commercial aired during the superbowl:
Scene 1:
Camera pans across a huge line of cars waiting for gas, some guys fighting and shouting at each other. Gas price says $4.50. There are guys turning people away at the end of the line saying "not enough gas, try again later".

A couple youngish guys drive past slowly in their plug-in, flip the bird to the guys in the line and say "suckers!"

Voice over: Plug-in Freedom Car does not NEED gasoline.

The demand would be enormous.

$600 per kWh certainly makes economic sense for a PHEV right now in the UK (and Europe) market.

If you were to use a small Altair battery, say 5 kWh, which can cycle from 100% to 0% and back in 10 minutes with no ill effects, you would get the following benefits:

* Battery cost $3,000 = £1,500

* You can charge it in under 10 minutes while shopping (or at one end of your commute) so many more miles can be done under electric than with a slow-charge battery

* At 5 miles per kWh and 10 pence per kWh, it's only 2 pence per mile electric vs 9 pence per mile for gasoline (in UK or Europe at least)

* Over 12,000 miles that could save as much as £840 per year in fuel costs

* Cost of battery could be repaid in under two years (if using electricity at every opportunity!)

My point is, a small PHEV battery can be economically viable for the consumer if it is fast charge and there are opportunities to charge it in many places.

I think many of those advocating HEVs over PHEVs are making some basic assumptions about the future. They're assuming that the future will just be a linear continuation of the present. While it may very well be as simple as that, it's never been a straight line. While HEVs are a great improvement, and I'd like to see many more on the road, they have one basic limitation. They still rely on oil for all of their motive power. That still leaves the owners vulnerable to supply disruptions (Katrina, Chavez, OPEC, Putin and geology). If there are any supply disruptions between now and the introduction of the PHEV, then they will sell like hotcakes to those who can afford a little security. I think Tom Turrentine has a very valid point. People choose their vehicles for a number of reasons, both intellectual and emotional, economic payback of technology is just one factor.

Roger: Why do I get the feeling that you'll say anything to slow the advancement of EVs? Do you work for a fuel cell company or the hydrogen lobby?

This is Toyota’s first salvo in the disinformation on plug-ins. The reason they are saying these things is they have invested heavily in a technology that is coming to an end. Parallel hybrid has seen its day and it’s time for the next step. Their kind of hybrid will evaporate when the E-REV becomes available.

Just think about your personal use and ask yourself if 40 miles on pure electric will save you gas. Think how many days a year you drive under 40 miles a day. Just THINK! Don’t let them fool you with a chart. There are plenty of charts to prove anything you want to prove. Even if you go the whole tank on a GM plug in you’ll have 50 mpg.

Don’t forget… Any improvement you do on a HEV can be done on any car, i.e. lighter weight bodies and components, low rolling resistant tires and aerodynamic shaping.

The only way to ramp up to the pure electric car is to start building electric cars. I wonder if they’ll make a movie about Toyota and how they “KILLED” the electric car or are at least trying to.

Don’t let them fool you! Plug-ins are coming. They will free you from foreign oil. They will lower you carbon foot print. If we build new electric power plants they will all be low/no carbon emissions

More evidence that BEV are MIA and PHEV are DOA. Unless green washing bragging rights count as a social benefit, there are no social benefits.

There are a whole lot of reasons that the ICE engine is bad news for our environment, so getting rid of them, or most of them would be a great idea.

If we had home Electric charging stations, and a "pay for plug" charging station at each major shopping mall, then our Battery Electric Car would be usable for 98% of our driving. There are very very few times when you truly NEED to drive across country with virtually no stops. I know I stop every three or four hours for a good rest and meal when driving. This range is available in a well designed BEV using today's technology, and will improve if we begin making them in quantity.

Tomorrows roads could have only a few ICE drivers if we only let the infrastructure *(pay-for plugs) be installed, and encourage BEV's to become viable.

Guys and Gals, this is nothing more than a stall tactic. We are all being taken for a ride, Ha Ha. This sounds like excuses why there won't be a Volt or 99mpg Prius.

This thread reminds me of all the 'Prius/TDI' threads over the past decade. Guess What...... they both get about 46mpg and they both have good/bad aspects.

Build them both already. I would most likely lean toward a plug-in because my commute is pretty standard and my car sits in my garage 10 hours a night anyway. My suburb runs on Hydro and there is about 500K households on the exact same schedule as me.

NiMH has a energy density of 60Wh/Kg definitiiely too low for a decent PHEV where you need at least 100Wh/kg

TreeHugger, 60 Wh/kg is not necessarily a show-stopper if the battery is cheap enough and has high cycle life at 80% DoD and high power density throughout the DoD envelope. Unfortunately today's NiMH falls short on power density and cost.

If Firefly lead-acid can deliver $100/kWh and meets the power density and cycle life specs they'll win even at 60 Wh/kg. At 80% DoD a 12 kWh pack a provides at least as much range as the existing Volt design. Even if lithium packs also downsize to 12 kWh, as is likely, the 80kg weight penalty (200 vs. 120) is more than offset by the $4800 cost savings (1200 vs. 6000). Firefly wins that fight every time, if they can deliver. Still a very big if, of course.

Don't forget auto loans will be severely crimped. The affluent deep greens and wealthy who want the security will be first in line. After that, who is paying a $15,000 premium over a similarly equipped car for the 1st-gen Volt? PHEVs wont amount to much of anything until the cost increment is not so large...and it is easier for Toyota to position it upmarket of an existing dedicated HEV that consumers comparing the Volt to what, the Saturn Astra, etc.? Additionally, Toyota has high-end hybrids to absorb the cost and retain a healthy profit margin, and they could make PHEVs with a spectrum of EV ranges for different tastes to broaden the appeal on the low-end and soften the sticker shock rather than trying to compete with a $35-40K Volt using the 16kWh battery pack.

KitP: "More evidence that BEV are MIA and PHEV are DOA." You've been spouting the same line for a couple of years now. The evidence is very much against you.

Unfortunately, seidl's statement seems to reflect a common industry attitude, i.e., telling the public what they want with billions in advertising, then taking no responsibility for the forced choices. It is about corporate ethics, or the absence thereof.

And, such ethical positions extend to the political arena. Maybe, you have noticed that the truth-telling candidates have fallen by the wayside and from now to November it will be image and the swift-boating thereof.

I heartily agree with the first part of his statement, "relatively small improvements in fuel economy applied to a very large number of vehicles will deliver greater aggregate environmental benefits". It would seem that transportation, energy, and environmental policy could effect such improvements.

Yes, the absence of such policy is about public responsibility and corporate responsibility. It's the Seven Generations thing, folks. Quite ironic that engineers, who want to build things that people admire, would desist in such responsibility.

@hal

I would agree with you that Big Eddie is pushing plug-ins out of self-interest. OTOH, in this day and age, on the academic freedom front, or lack thereof, I wonder if you are speaking from ignorance as to how much money the automobile manufacturers pour into Sloan, or whether it is more spin.

You know, UNLEASH THE CAR SALESMEN AND the SAE!

All this is tremendously short-sighted. The difference between an HEV and a PHEV is the battery, which happens to be the most expensive part of the car, so PHEV's are more expensive. Other than that the technology is the same. So some are advocating going all HEV into the foreseeable future, because the environmental advantage of PHEV's is slim (it's only slim because it costs more money for those batteries). Does that mean you'll never see plug-in architecture develop? Well, some vested interests would like it to mean that, but it doesn't mean that.

Toyota is already designing a PHEV. All that needs to happen is for batteries to become cheap and the entire equation changes drastically. That's going to happen, most likely due to battery demand in the non-automotive sector. Can't wait.

All this is tremendously short-sighted. The difference between an HEV and a PHEV is the battery, which happens to be the most expensive part of the car, so PHEV's are more expensive. Other than that the technology is the same. So some are advocating going all HEV into the foreseeable future, because the environmental advantage of PHEV's is slim (it's only slim because it costs more money for those batteries). Does that mean you'll never see plug-in architecture develop? Well, some vested interests would like it to mean that, but it doesn't mean that.

Toyota is already designing a PHEV. All that needs to happen is for batteries to become cheap and the entire equation changes drastically. That's going to happen, most likely due to battery demand in the non-automotive sector. Can't wait.

Kit,

CA Girl gets it. She knows she could put a 300 sq. ft. solar PV sunshade over her driveway or cover her garage and produce as much energy as her PHEV will use in one year. During the day she'll be reducing the utility's peak and at night she'll be putting the utility's off-peak power to use.

Your statement, "More evidence that BEV are MIA and PHEV are DOA" is without merit. Andeman's chart has NO imperical evidence and lacks credibility. If you want real evidence, read the peer-reviewed articles written by Mark Duvall, the Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI) lead researcher on PHEV's.

Jim,

I think there is a good bit more that goes into managing the thermodynamics of lithium chemistry than nihm chemistry, so the vehicles are not simply the same minus the battery.

Managing the thermodynamics of lithium in every single possible scenario, such as 100 mph through the mojave desert in 120 degree weather with the AC blasting, must be 100 percent guaranteed in order for automakers to move forward with this technology. Without such a guarantee there isn't a single major automaker that would risk putting PHEVs on the road.

Also, why will Americans buy PHEVs?

Until the government starts making Americans pay for the transport and security costs of foreign oil at the gas pump, relatively cheap gas - even $4.00 gas - will ensure that Americans will keep valuing cupholders more than fuel economy.

PHEVs aren't going to help America achieve anything until Americans are willing to pay extra money for fuel economy. Today Americans are FAR, FAR away from putting any real value on ending foreign oil dependency.

@sjc

True, and at the same time, it does make some sort of sense, does it not? If you reduce emissions and energy consumption, it will have less negative impact upon life as we know it on the the planet, a.k.a., Das Konsumer.

And, there are the aesthetics employed by the graphic artist. In the background there is a very large arrow to exhort the SAE (in the flickering torch light) to eschew electric cars and stay the course toward positive environmental and societal benefits. On it are the faint letters BETTER to lead the way. Meanwhile the bright colors of the objects in the foreground call you attention to those going to the GOOD PLACE and those doing otherwise.

@ the SAE

To quote from the Tao of Lutz, "Do the right thing or not. And, if you are going to spend all that very precious time building a rationale for avoiding the right thing, at least be honest and admit that it is a circle jerk."

Whoops, misquote, I think it was from the Tao of Pooh.

The American way is to do BOTH and more. And we will. There is no one single substitute for limited quantities, and cartelistic pricing, of liquid fossil fuels.

We will build both HEVs, PHEVs, and also BEVs, T2B5 Diesels, FFVs, biodiesels, CTLs, electricity, intelligent highways, some more antiquated Mass Transit and many other solutions, as a means of substitution.

The more the doomsayers wander about predicting disaster, the more some people will purchase PHEVs to "avoid future gas lines", just like they now purchase SUVs, for when they might need to "tow a boat" that they don't even own.

CA Girl will find that if too many people do as she proposes, the Utility will not buy her power,as they won't need it, and will sell her nighttime power at a premium as that would then be the Utility's Peak Demand.

At the same time she could have contributed more to Global Warming with her Solar array than her ICE auto would ever do. Solar is not pollution free.

Because it isn't used much, people think it is "clean" but it has worse warts than many other generation sources, if you truly worry about Global Warming.

Trying to harness Solar insolation alters the Albedo, increasing the absorption of Solar Insolation (hence warming the Earth), much more than it produces useful energy as the usable enthalpy is so low.

CA girl

Please don't believe Stan Peterson when he asserts that solar energy creates more global warming than petroleum and when he says that solar panels increase albedo significantly. These are false statements just as all statement he keeps posting on this site. The truth is that Solar panels reduce albedo compares to the black tiles of usual roofs so it is just the opposite to what he says. Solar panel of polycristalline Si creates 3 times less Green House Effect, for the same amount of energy generated,than petroleum. And it will be much less for thin film solar like CuInSe2 or CdTe.

So don't consider his negative views

Shortest rebuttal to Kromer & Heywood, also to Anderman:

www.aptera.com
EV version, over 100 mile range, 90 mph, $27,000. It will be shipping by end of this year.
PHEV (E-REV) version to be available in another year with same all-electric range and over 200 mpg in hybrid mode after that for $30,000.

I think gas savings might pay for added cost!
How about that Europeans out there?

This company is already showing that PHEVs (E-REVs) will be WAY more economical than HEVs.
I just went and saw this vehicle in the flesh, but there is a short video clip on their site now.
Dudes, dummies, catch up with the technology!
This is GM's competition, not Toyota.

CA girl -
Aptera may be what you are looking for right next door in Carlsbad, CA.

dale - RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

John Taylor - Sure and E-REV type PHEVs are transitional to BEVs. The later will be in ever greater proportion as charging infrastructure and BEV range/cost improve.

Neil, if you are looking for more evidence try Hal's link to the MIT report. Try starting with Section 5.7 Electricity Fuel Cycle to answer my question 'where is the electricity going to come from?'

James White, EPRI is a better source of information than California valley girl (duh!!). I have no problem with EPRI promoting PHEV particularly if they can teach her plug her car in without breaking a nail. However, increasing demand and profits of the the electricity generating is a really good thing (disclosure, my industry) but I did not consider increasing my job security a social benefits.

The MIT report also explains why California valley girl will get distracted by a new shade of lip gloss on the way to buy her MIA PHEV. This would be a good economic choice and much better than her solar panel that do not work.

This answers my question why no one will buy them and if they do it will not make a difference.

"The plug-in hybrid offers a striking opportunity to reduce petroleum consumption to a level half of that offered by the hybrid vehicle. In addition, while the plug-in hybrid’s business-as-usual GHG emissions do not project a significant benefit, they offer a continuous path for incremental improvement through decreased carbonization of the power sector—an opportunity that does not exist for the hybrid vehicle."

This says it in a nutshell, except E-REV type PHEVs can already provide significant GHG reductions, as indicated here:

http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/twentyfirstcenturycar.pdf

There are a number of other basic falsehoods above:

1. "plug-in hybrid still requires significant improvements in battery technology to meet the rigors of an automotive duty cycle" - Not true. There are at least a half dozen Li Ion battery manufactures that claim batteries with 3,000 deep cycle life or better. (Toshiba claims this for their SCiB battery, but I don't know the chemistry.)
FireFly has data showing over 1,800 deep cycles for there improved Lead Acid batteries, that could sell for much lower cost than Li Ion batteries.
Nilar is now claiming 2,000 charge/discharge cycles and 7-10 year life for their improved NiMH battery.
Is this enough from an industry outsider who surfs the internet some?

2. "deploying the plug-in hybrid at scale will require regulation to ensure that off-peak generation capacity is used; depending on geography, it could also require capacity expansion" - Initially, no changes will be needed at all for a very large volume of PHEVs, as several studies have shown. Smart charging at off-peak times is not difficult or costly to implement with current internet technology. Later, radical increases in the use of PV will reduce the need for some of the electric distribution requirements, particulary in the southern USA states and high sun countries. Finally, where distribution changes are required they will be cheaper than continuing to deliver ever increasing quantities of oil.

3. "the technical challenges will delay the time-to-market for the plug-in hybrid" - Not much. Again see www.aptera.com. Also, check out the Volt. In fact, every large autocompany is working on a PHEV, a BEV, or both ...including two-faced Toyota. (Toyota is the big dog in the HEV market who made a bad bet on fixing the cobalt problem in older Li Ion batteries that explode. It must not have worked out for them because now they say there is problems while everybody else, including GM, charges ahead. Don't beleive me? How come the same guy at Toyota who say Li Ion is not safe just admitted they are wokring on a Li Ion based PHEV? Smoke screen, that's why.)

4. "the long time to market penetration and the lower cost-effectiveness of the plug-in hybrid" - Let's see, take out the ICE and transmission then replace with small generator, batteries are getting cheaper and better, lower maintenance for an E-REV type PHEV, and almost no gasoline use required during normal daily use by E-REV type PHEV. (75% of USA drivers travel less than 40 miles per day. 90% of Isreali drivers. How about Hawaii?) Seems quickly apparent that E-REV type PHEV will become more far more cost effective and will, as result, penetrate the market faster.

5. "HEV offers a higher leverage, lower-cost path to reducing petroleum and GHG emissions in the near-term" -
As already observed above, we're already making HEVs. This will not stop suddenly. On the other hand E-REV type PHEVs offer far greater reduction in fossil fuel use. It will take something like 25 years to change over the cars the USA now has on the road. The bigger bang for the buck will come from starting the change over to E-REV type PHEVs as soon as possible ...and it's possible now. (The bigger dollar for auto companies, particularly Toyota, will be to do this in two phases, HEV then E-REV type PHEVs. What about BEVs? No problem, just take generator off of E-REV type PHEV when you're ready to do this. No cost.)

6. "The lithium-ion battery market, by contrast, is much more volatile, and still faces a technology shake-out in terms of cathode and anode chemistries, cell design and packaging, manufacturing, safety and cost. There are more than 20 providers who say they expect to be in the market in 5 years, according to Anderman." - The Li Ion battery market is more stable, not less, because there is multiple manufactures with multiple chemistries. Shakeout sure, but with this many alternatives one is bound to work fine. It is more likely that several will work out, especially when you consider that a few are already going to full scale-up on their manufacturing, not in five years. (How are GM's two suppliers going to build batteries for the 2010 Volt if they don't scale up for five years?) At least two Li Ion manufactures have been building safe Li Ion batteries for power tools for several years.

7. "The environmental and societal benefit in moving from HEVs to PHEVs is smaller than that of moving from conventional vehicles to HEVs" - This is my favorite mis-direction statement and the most fun to defuse.
First it is just flat out false. ICE to HEV like Prius doubles your gas mileage. This will be triple with future improvements to HEV technology, as pointed out above. BUT any improvements to HEV technology ARE IMPROVEMENTS TO PHEV TECHNOLOGY. So you have the BEV advantage of all-electric range (with no fuel use most of the time) at short ranges and then the HEV advantage at longer ranges, when using an E-REV type PHEV.
Second, we're not talking about ICE-to-HEV verses HEV-to-PHEV. What we are talking about is ICE-to-HEV verses ICE-to-PHEV. There's still a majority of ICE cars out there and conversion directly to E-REV type PHEV will provide far greater fuel savings and GHG improvements.
This sentence used by Anderman is false, misleading, and just stupid.

7. "For the sake of the PHEV, car and battery companies dilute their efforts to expand conventional HEVs and to introduce li-ion batteries into the market" - Nope. Clearly the push for PHEV batteries has led to huge improvements to HEV batteries. It is not slowing them down. Both Ener1 (Li Ion) and CSIRO (Supercap + Lead Acid) are marketing HEV batteries that are: (a) less than 1/3 the cost, (b) 1/2 the size, (c) 1/3 the weight, (d) better performance, and (e) longer life. Iner1 has been working on Li Ion batteries for PHEVs and the CSIRO supercap+lead acid is right off a page of Trinity's PHEV hypercar concept.
Anderman needs to have his head examined for suggesting that work on, or investment money spent, on PHEV technology is some kind of detour. It's just the opposite, HEVs are the detour.

The reader should realize the arguments and study data presented by Kromer, Heywood, and Anderman are the same as presented to argue against moving from the ICE to the HEV only a few years ago. I don't care what their cridentials are. They are stuck in a paradigm of the past. E-REV type PHEVs are a short-cut forward. Technology has moved forward and HEVs are the detour now. I don't care if USA government representatives subsidises HEVs, but they had better subsidise PHEVs if they want my vote.
The E-REV type PHEV is the clear path forward for now!