« DOE Awards Diversified Energy Corporation Phase II SBIR Award for HydroMax Gasification Technology | Main | NREL Solar Cell Sets World Efficiency Record at 40.8% »
Study: All New Vehicles By 2020 Will Have Some Level of Hybridization
13 August 2008
 |
| Anticipated change in importance of external forces impacting the automotive industry in 2020. Click to enlarge. |
While technological progress will continue to top the list of automotive priorities in 2020, sustainability shoots up to a close number two, according to a new study on the automotive industry by the IBM Institute for Business Value. The report, based on interviews with 125 executives in 15 countries from automotive OEMs, suppliers, and other thought leaders, finds that sustainability concerns will drive investments, product categories, and performance and convenience packaging decisions well into the next decades. Eight-five percent of the top auto companies worldwide participated in the study, including all of the top 10.
Alternative power will see continued innovation that extends far beyond 2020, with hybridization and battery technology leading the drive toward environmentally sustainable transportation, according to the report. Micro-, mild- and full-hybridization are currently undergoing extensive development today, and study participants believe strongly that by 2020 all new vehicles will have some level of hybridization.
The report, Automotive 2020: Clarity Beyond the Chaos, was unveiled at the Center for Automotive Research’s Management Briefing Seminars conference in Traverse City, Michigan.
Executives we interviewed project an unambiguous picture of the vehicle powertrain by 2020. Alternative power will see continued innovation for years beyond 2020. Battery technology will be ubiquitous. Lithium-ion technology holds the most promise and will see considerable investment and growth.
...The all-electric, plug-in battery-powered vehicle will be a reality by 2020. A range of 100 miles is already within reach, enough to satisfy needs of large population sections. OEMs are investing sizeable resources to making these a reality.
—“Automotive 2020”
Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles will remain a viable alternative, but projections put only a small fraction of vehicle production migrating to this technology by 2020, due to cost-prohibitive processes and new infrastructures.
Our respondents were uniformly skeptical on this front. But success for this still-emerging technology will depend on generating, transporting, storing and distributing fuel efficiently. This will be no small task for an element with the properties of hydrogen. The added challenge of building an entirely new infrastructure may be cost prohibitive, at least by 2020.
—“Automotive 2020”
 |
| Executive ratings of the global portfolio of new vehicle production in 2020 with regard to producing environmentally friendly vehicles. Click to enlarge. |
Biofuels will also see their share of investments, and use of non-food-based biofuels will grow. The study found that traditional fossil fuel-based vehicles are anticipated to make up 65% of new vehicle production by 2020, with average levels of CO2 emissions are expected to reach 97 g/km and vehicle recyclability estimated to be at 88%.
The concept of total carbon footprint is increasingly the focus and will drive key decisions between now and 2020. Sustainability will be defined and broadly understood as a reflection of total carbon used in manufacturing and distributing across the entire value chain. This will pose some challenging choices. Satisfying consumer demand for electric power in certain geographies, as an example, is a high-carbon proposition (power generation based on coal).
—“Automotive 2020”
Consumers. Consumers continue to become better informed and more demanding and they will drive transformation in the current purchasing model for vehicles, the study found. The study concludes that consumers will expect to purchase or lease a vehicle that comes with flexible access to a diverse “garage” of vehicles. In the current model, consumers are often restricted by finances and buy a compromise vehicle, or they buy a car with features that don’t get used.
In the new model, consumers will drive a primary vehicle that best meets their daily needs, and have the option to change to a different model, as needed. For example, someone may drive a small, fuel-efficient vehicle during the week, but have access to a sport utility vehicle for a weekend ski trip or a luxury sedan to attend a wedding.
As these consumers seek out a comprehensive mobility experience, industry experts predict that flexible transportation services will replace the purchase of personal vehicles for multiple uses, and intelligent vehicles will cater to consumer demands for greater information, safety, and environmental responsibility.
The Intelligent Vehicle. Consumers are demanding more information and entertainment from their vehicles, as well as increased safety, economy, and environmental responsibility. This is spurring the manufacturing of “intelligent” vehicles—cars and trucks that use electronics to provide greater assistance with navigation, and provide more information about the vehicle, its environment, and connectivity. Technologies that will have a growing presence in vehicles by 2020 include telematics, including remote vehicle prognostics and active safety (capabilities that sense and respond to driving behaviors and road conditions); a wide array of entertainment choices such as data downloads and streaming media; and powertrain innovations.
Consumers will benefit from connectivity between their vehicles and other vehicles as well as road infrastructure. Information captured from breaking patterns—for example, from vehicles approaching a recent accident—will be transmitted to other vehicles. Alternate routing options delivered dynamically will help consumers avoid congestion and delays, and active safety features will enable crash avoidance.
Five Imperatives for the Automotive Industry. Based on the Automotive 2020 study and related research, IBM has defined five imperatives that are likely to distinguish the outperformers in the automotive world of 2020:
Advance mobility. Auto companies must embrace new mobility models, such as new ownership and usage models and integration of other modes of transportation; e.g., when you arrive at the train station your car is waiting for you.
Transform retail. Auto companies and dealers will need to find new ways to connect with sophisticated consumers and develop a new value proposition for dealerships.
Simplify complexity. As vehicles become more connected and intelligent, their electronics and embedded software become more complex. IBM recommends that OEMs establish common processes, and standards so to enable innovations from traditional and non-traditional suppliers to be rapidly integrated.
Partner extensively. To address the increasing cost of innovation, companies need to widen their enterprise innovation networks and extend the partnering concept to go beyond the current suppliers. Close relationships with companies in other industries, especially electronics, energy, and utilities, will become a necessity.
Execute globally. OEMs and suppliers should create balanced, flexible operations aligned with local economies while having a positive social impact wherever business is done.
In the face of such significant and chaotic change, finding clarity will require the automotive industry to take sweeping and rapid action. Two of the greatest areas of opportunity are meeting consumer demands for environmental accountability and using technology to transform the way the industry develops products and goes to market.
—Sanjay Rishi, Vice President and Global Automotive Industry Leader for IBM
Resources
August 13, 2008 in Electric (Battery), Hybrids, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/32329142
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Study: All New Vehicles By 2020 Will Have Some Level of Hybridization:
Comments
There are no reasons not to equip all new cars with advanced lead batteries of the largest standard automotive sizes and integrated starter alternators and electric motor operated coolant, brake, steering, fans and air-conditioning systems. All of these systems can be battery operated from the battery that is fully charged from the grid. Except when regenerating when slowing or braking, and except when there is danger of no power for starting is the alternator permitted to charge the battery. All car systems normally powered by belts are more efficiient when powered by electric motors. Integrated flywheel-starter-alternators can eliminate the use of belts and allow for no idling at stops. Electric air pumps, electric heaters and fuel injectors can keep the catalysts always ready. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | Aug 13, 2008 1:04:05 PM
In other words, what has been known by the home theater and electronics industry for DECADES, that solid-state is better, is finally piercing the minds of automotive engineers?
Posted by: The Scoot | Aug 13, 2008 1:24:59 PM
I think the most interesting point from this article was the prediction for:
"... vehicle recyclability estimated to be at 88%..."
As someone who scans this blog regularly, I seldom come across technologies, innovations, and articles that refer to how much and how effectively the whole vehicle can be recycled or made from recycled materials. Though, fuel questions will always be crucial to the success of the auto industry, the minimizing of the need for new material extraction or increased landfilling/down-cycling of car parts has been under-reported or is simply ignored by the press or industry.
As far as predictions go, much of the future will likely depend on regulations and industry politics - as much by technology and consumer choices. Technology sectors are littered with failed or delayed technologies because companies could not agree on a standard or protocol -or- could not find a sufficient rate-of-return on developing a 'good-for-the-world' industry. Can the same be said of the battery industry? If vehicles can be fueled (charged) at home (no stations) - will the fuel industries/utilities delay/litigate/lobby? Will we be swamped with long contracts/brutal leases/subscription models or other consumer-unfriendly pay schemes? The next generation of transport will seriously determine whether transportation becomes a hobby for the rich or rare vacation for the lucky.
Posted by: Jer | Aug 13, 2008 1:34:44 PM
I amazed at the lack of creativity in the thinking here, basically they see evolution only, with no dynamic breakthroughs, a bit like saying 6 years ago that hybrids were a waste of money and would never catch on.
I think the real problem with this industry is that there is no radical thinking and experimentation going on.
Lets face it GM had to wait until they got slapped in the face with a wet fish before they started on the Volt concept, now it is a company saver. I wonder if anyone in GM is figuring out what to do after the Volt, in terms of broadening the platform (a volt commuter car Aveo) and the next phase of development
Not really bashing GM, they are all as bad
Posted by: Kevin | Aug 13, 2008 2:23:09 PM
There is a revolution in personal transport taking place as cars become more and more electric.
Current battery technology does not allow the transformation to take place in one simple leap, so it is happening piecemeal.
Also, there is no affordable replacement for an ICE if you want much more than 80 mile range, so we have all these complicated hybrid schemes eking as much as possible from ICEs.
Henry's comments illustrate this clearly - it would be much simpler to build a pure electric car, but the range and performance would be poor - and V expensive.
Anyway, the industry is learning a lot and will be very different by 2020.
So roll on the "perfect" battery, or be prepared to innovate!
Posted by: mahonj | Aug 13, 2008 2:46:18 PM
But Kevin, HEV are still a waste of money and have not caught on. There are always a few suckers who will pay more money if they are told they are saving money in the long run. I am still waiting for the study that shows a Corolla is less economical than a Pious. I did the Toyota dealer when I bought my Corolla.
Caveat emptor
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 13, 2008 2:54:55 PM
Kit P: You "did" the Toyota dealer?!? Did that make the car more or less expensive ;)
p.s. some people would pay the extra to cut down on pollution (not to mention piece of mind that you won't run out of gas in stop and go traffic)
p.p.s. The economic analysis also depends on where you think the price of gas is likely to go in the future
Posted by: Henry P | Aug 13, 2008 3:25:48 PM
People need communities that allow them to walk/bicycle/take public transit. We need to step back and see the big picture, then imagine a different and better world that we could build. Using a higher-mileage car is good for the earth. Not needing to drive every day would be better.
Posted by: | Aug 13, 2008 3:36:18 PM
Once again, Kit P, you should compare the prius to a Matrix - not the corolla. Matrix and Prius are close in space, size and equipment.
Posted by: | Aug 13, 2008 3:57:00 PM
"...is finally piercing the minds of automotive engineers?"
I think the engineers know what to design and develop, it is the so called "decision makers" that keep making the wrong decisions...management. Lutz at GM said that hybrids were just a fad a few years ago. With management like that it is no wonder they are in the mess they are now.
Posted by: sjc | Aug 13, 2008 4:00:05 PM
@Henry
My air is clean and I do not drive a lot. So you think I need to buy some piece of mind but you are not going to provide a report that shows the Pious is greener.
I did not coin the name Pious but it sure fits those with a belief system that thinks hauling extra weight around is good for the planet.
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 13, 2008 4:36:51 PM
Lead acid batteries are a DEAD technology. Unless you have forgotten, lead is a heavy metal that is inimical to health. It is hardly the material you seek for a light battery either.
Getting lead out of plumbing, then paint, and then out of gasoline has reduced the levels of lead in people's blood, in every western society by a few magnitudes to where it is now only traceable by advanced measurement equipment. We want to keep it that way. When lead acid batteries go the way of the buggy whip, so much the better.
Hybrids will surely expand market share, and then be replaced by PHEVs, which will rule for a long time. All those pining for pure BEVs, please spend a few minutes with a pencil and a back of an envelope and compute the electricity that is needed to "fast charge" a BEV. Then translate that into required current flows; and what kind of wiring is needed to flow that electricity.
It is eye opening. Cables the size of fire hoses. Cable that that must be lifted by forklifts. It won't happen. BEVs will therefore remain a runabout niche market, until BEV electric ranges are up to several hundred miles. That is not happening any time soon.
And probably won't be possible with even the most advanced Li-Ion chemistry. Nor with the successor to Li-Ion battery, whatever that proves to be.
Posted by: stas peterson | Aug 13, 2008 4:51:08 PM
For the same reason that projected improvements over the next 6 years cant be included in 'official reports'
(boy I wish the clean coal ccs crowd played to these rules)
Henry uses the coservative approach in advocating or at least assurng us that lead acid batteries are a viable technology.
He then goes on to point out what the industry already knows That is that direct drive , electric power assist etc rather than the present proliferation of rubber belt drives is a more efficient system that is the future. Look around the future is closer than you think.
So disagree,complain - take shortcuts pat yousrlf on the back all you like. Or listen and recognise good advice when it comes your way for nothing.
You can then be informed in your criticism.
Posted by: arnold | Aug 13, 2008 5:58:13 PM
If all materials and items that are inimical to health were eliminated, then this site and all its comments, along with all cars and automobile accidents, would not exist. Risks must be balanced. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | Aug 13, 2008 6:37:56 PM
Kit, you said that you bought a Corolla over a Prius because the TCO is lower.
Why didn't you also compare the Corolla to the Yaris or xA? Both of those also have lower TCO than the Corolla.
Since TCO is your only criteria when choosing a vehicle, I am a bit baffled at your choice to bash the Prius and their owners when it has the lowest overall fuel consumption and energy consumption over it's entire lifetime when compared to any other mass produced vehicle on the market today.
Is using the term "Pious" your best argument? This is like substituting Ks in words when one suspects socialism or communistic views. Designed to flare tempers but lacking in any real substance.
Posted by: Dave | Aug 13, 2008 6:52:01 PM
There is a titanic gulf between new tech and money savings..
All this hybrid tech INCREASES costs to own a car. End of discussion.
So if the target driver already has no extra money they cant move up.
To get hybrid tech out there en mass they need to reverse the balance.. they need a cheap system that saves more fuel then it costs to make the gizmo.
Thats where all the mild hybrid and stop start come in. A cheap .8 kwh voltage boosted compact lith ion pack under a seat connected to a cheap compact motor and paid for partialy in reduces engine size reduced other thingums AND in cafe swing allowing more leeway for suvs and sports thingies... can make the car cheap enough it actualy saves people money... But that needs fed money and likely state money AND cheap small lith packs and motors and compact cheap hybrid systems...
Now what WILL take this all off big time is when they can FINALY replace the lead acid battery all cars have with this compact lith battery pack AND can use the standard car computer to control the hybrid system AND can use standard cheap motors and whatzits to make the entire system bog standard and cheap.
And that will take time.
Posted by: wintermane | Aug 13, 2008 8:10:26 PM
Wow, all the emotion over a simple premis.
“Study: All New Vehicles By 2020 Will Have Some Level of Hybridization .”
It is just a prediction.
Why do all these naysayers like Kit P, Stas and Wintermain seem to think the hydrid is not cost effective?
Well, maybe the title is a clue. If even all the hybrids, including the most mild, is not able to push the non-hybrids off the show room floor until 2020, maybe 2020 is when the hybrid becomes the cost effective choice.
I am not sure that the auto "decision makers" are making the wrong decisions. They aren’t the ones paying extra for a hybrid with a 7+ year payback.
I try to conserve and reduce my impact on the planet – but that does not include walking or biking 10 miles to/from work or paying 6 to 12k$ to drag some heavy extra batteries and electric motors around in my car.
Posted by: ToppaTom | Aug 13, 2008 9:47:20 PM
First of all, please allow me to correct one small technicality: The report states that all vehicles will be hybridized to some extent, and that the all-electric car will be a reality. This is a contradiction, since all-electric cars are not hybrids.
Secondly, some commenters have forgotten that most people don't buy the most economical car possible, and they don't want to. Most car buyers choose to pay extra for extra room, comfort, safety, reliability, prestige, fuel economy, performance, features, aesthetics, etc. Many of these things can be improved with hybrid technology.
Thirdly, for certain buyers with certain requirements, certain hybrids are more economical than comparable non hybrids. And, for certain other buyers with certain other requirements, certain non hybrids are more economical than comparable hybrids. Those commenters who generalize that hybrids/non-hybrids are better/worse are wrong.
Posted by: Fred H | Aug 14, 2008 4:23:37 AM
QUOTE -- will have some level of hybridization -- UNQUOTE
It is so sorry to see that institutions and universities that claim to do all efforts in such a complicated manner.
What is happening hidden from the public eye are the wrongdoings that go on behind the scene of new technologies just like this one.
Pioniers like Paul Pantone are sufferring from a burden untold because he decides instead of saling his patent to large corporations he gave his plasma technologie for free for home (experimental) use. However, what he offers is ready made and full functional without any need of higher technologies which pretend to need millions of dollars of so-called R&D.
Here is the principle explaned and plans to construct your own with local hardware thanks to panacea-bocaf.org -- save this on your computer -- let a car-mechanic know about this -- the more people know the better for future generations :
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/GEET%20fuel%20procesor.pdf
It is really not that complicated as how the media and universities and institutions pretend. It's simple and any car-mechanic can do it. Of course you understand what is happening once viewing www.geetfriends.net
Good luck!
Posted by: Sjolman | Aug 14, 2008 5:28:58 AM
@Dave
“Kit, you said that you bought a Corolla over a Prius because the TCO is lower.”
No Dave, this is not what I said. Not even close. There is no document evidence that hauling extra batteries around in a car is good for the environment. If Dave wants to pay a significantly higher price for a car, without anything more than green washing claims by the manufacture, to show that he cares about the environment; then I will call his car a Pious.
For those who want to make a difference, choose to like close to work, shopping, and schools. Choose everyday not to drive aggressively. You will use less fossil fuel and will not need a Pious. Of course, no one will notice.
I am open to the idea that hybrid vehicle are a good choice for taxis, light delivery, or garbage trucks. For the POV, HEV are rarely a good environmental choice. Every time I see a HEV I wonder what the owner is compensating for, like a big screen TV in the 4000 square foot house 50 miles from work.
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 14, 2008 10:21:11 AM
I've stopped reading Kit P. - I just skip over his/her comments.
I appreciate those who take the time and effort to answer his/her gross misinformation and negative tone - it's needed for those who are reading this for the first time. For those who do, some advice: 1) remember not to take him/her seriously - don't get offended, and don't exchange "flame" - just answer the misinformation calmly and methodically, and 2) it may be worthwhile to warn others that this person isn't really serious.
Posted by: N | Aug 14, 2008 11:44:36 AM
I gave up reading Kit and Stan a long time ago.
Posted by: sjc | Aug 14, 2008 11:56:32 AM
Kit,
Here is a 2004 EPRI report that compares the life cycle cost of a conventional vehicle and various types of EVs. When it was written, gas was $1.75 a gallon and NiMH was the assumed EV battery chemistry.
http://www.evworld.com/library/EPRI_adv_batteries.pdf
Posted by: NorthernPiker | Aug 14, 2008 12:14:03 PM
Where did I say that the hypothesis that hybridization would be common in 2020 is wrong? I agree withthe assesment and confirm it, by proving some pet ideas opposing it are daft.
It is certisnly true. I said that lead acid batteries are a dead technology even more obsolecent then the ICE. In fact they lost out in the 1910-1920 era to the ICE.
I also said the "quick charge" is a a figment of overactive imagination. The only thing you can "quick charge " is too small to get you anywhere. BEVs based on the concept of acceptance due to "quick charge" is a wish as valid as "Scotty Beam me up." Practically, it just can't happen.
Tokyo Elctric announced a some plans for "quick charge" facilities. It turns out that the current flow is "only 20KW" and it still requires a Chevy Volt to spend 45-60 minutes to recieve a charge to let it move down the road for forty miles. While presumeably the driver looks for another charging facility to spend yet another hour recharging.
Even then the facility "only" draws 90 Amperes @ 220 volts or so. So the entire service for a typical subruban house is dedicated to giving a "quick charge" that stil takes 45+ minutes to go 40 miles in a small "C segment" car like the Volt. It turns out to be ridiculous concept, in practice.
This fact more than likely means that PHEV hybrids will dominate for an awfully long time, and that is quite acceptable, as fossil consumption wil drop by 60-80% with their widespread adoption.
Posted by: stas peterson | Aug 14, 2008 4:43:02 PM
2020? Why not 2030 or 2040? Give me a break. You me to tell me that we can't be well beyond a Hybrid and will still be 65% dependendent on fossile fuels in 12 years? If you ask the automotive and oil industry as you have, of course you will be told about all the hardships and milestones that need to be achieved. I'm really tired of the naysayers, and those of you with the half empty glass mentalities. Where are the innovative Americans who put a man on the moon in short order, and put our factories to work in masses to build an army during WW II to defeat the Germans and Japanese. American needs to step up to the plate, grab the bull by the horns, get us off of this stupid dependancy of oil now! If we set goals for 2020 they should be for only electric, hydrogen, cultra capacitors, alternative fuels, etc. whatever works to get us off oil, and clean up our planet. We need visionary politicians with guts not the half hearted approaches I keep hearing about. I'm not a Gore fan, but at least he has the cajones to step up to the plate and set a challenge.
Posted by: G. Miller | Aug 14, 2008 7:41:53 PM
@ NorthernPiker
Thanks for the link but I read the report at the time. Working in the electricity generating industry I think that PHEV are a great idea. Maybe it will be a practical idea someday.
So NorthernPiker, go back and read your report and critique it.
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 14, 2008 7:56:20 PM
@G. Miller,
A hybrid does not need to run on petroleum. It can run on NG or H2 just as well. In fact, all viable FCV's will be hybrid of battery and FC in order to increase efficiency and reduce wear on the FC.
@Kit P,
Buying a Prius instead of a Corolla or Matrix is a much more sensible personal statement than spending $40,000 buying a Lexus 300 when a $20,000-Camry will do just fine, yet, far too many people are buying Lexus, BMW, Cadillac, MB etc. when a less pricy brand will offer similar utility.
Prius carrying extra battery weight? Not. The Prius is not heavier than any non-hybrid cars having comparable internal space and load capacity.
The 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid promises to cut the hybrid price premium in half, while offering even better MPG. With maturing technology, expect that the price differential of hybrid and non-hybrid will be lower and lower.
A hybrid car is how one can overcome the deficiencies of both the ICE and the Battery.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 14, 2008 8:21:53 PM
The EPRI says " .. life cycle cost parity is possible. " $60/bbl oil is also possible.
Buying a Prius instead of a Lexus is sensible, if you don't need the room.
Buying a Accord instead of a Prius is more sensible ...
Posted by: ToppaTom | Aug 14, 2008 9:34:33 PM
Quick Charging for EVs:
1) For home charging, it doesn't matter how quick it is, as long as the car is fully charged when you are ready to leave in the morning. Just like your cell phone.
2) To extend range with commerical charging stations at restraunts, stores, etc. 1 hour chargers can be used. These chargers can use 3 phase power and convert to DC to charge the battery directly, by-passing the car's slower on-board charger. The key concept is to target 1 hr, instead of 10 min for the fast charge. This takes 1/6 the power, and still is quick enough to fully charge your battery when you stop for lunch or shopping. Most of the time your battery won't be fully discharged, so the actual charge time will be less. Mitsubhi's iMIEV is using this approach.
GSP
Posted by: GSP | Aug 15, 2008 5:57:00 AM
@Roger
“promises”
Apparently many here to not understand the difference between virtual projects and hard data. A number of years ago, I inserted into a business plant an engine that was about $1M more than buying a refurbished engine that was the common practice for such a project. Making a renewable energy project $1M more expensive. However, I had hard data for the heat rate and capacity factor from this utility's landfill gas project. The ROI on investment was significantly improved as well as the environmental impact document by a LCA.
I understand the decision making process of my customer. So does the automakers. When I start seeing electric utilities buying fleets PHEV based on hard data, you will know it is time to consider them.
It is very clear that Toyota markets the Pious to the pious.
It always amazes me that folks will buy a $50K car because it handles better. Ask them about the stopping distance compared to the functionally comparable $15K car and they do not know. If fact they never compared. It is important to some to display their wealth. It is important to some to display on their sleeve that they care about the environment.
Posted by: Kit P | Aug 15, 2008 8:21:35 AM
Progressive electrification (HEV, PHEV and BEV) of most, if not all, vehicles is coming. The technology mix will vary with battery-supercaps evolution and mass production cost.
Tomorrow's mix will swing from HEV (2000 - 2010) to PHEV (2010 - 2020) and than to BEV (post 2020) when batteries and supercaps progressively become more performant and cheaper. There will be some limited unavoidable but positive technology overlaps.
However, one thing is certain, pure ICE vehicles are on their way out. The soonest the better.
Honda will have a new 60 mpg HEV on the market in mid-2009. The new Prius HEV will do over 54 mpg. By 2010-11, about half a dozen + optimized HEVs will be capable of close to 60 mpg.
By 2012-13, we should have close to ten new 100 + mpg PHEVs on the market.
A very interesting five years ahead.
Posted by: HarveyD | Aug 18, 2008 12:07:11 PM
