I'm sure this has been looked into somewhere (maybe here), but I wonder about the pollution created by charging a car with electricity in comparison to burning the fuel directly in the car. It's not like when you plug it in suddenly you are not creating carbon dioxide, unless you are on 100% renewable system for your power. And also, with a SULEV, the power you are using is probably not as clean as what the car uses.

Great analysis, Bruce. I'd add that one option I think we'll see a lot in the coming years is people in the suburbs who drive a PHEV installing solar panels on the roof of their garage so they'll be able to get some portion of their battery top-off from a 100% green source.

I think there will be a lot of this kind of synergy in our future--people combining technological advances in two or more areas to reduce their burden and reliance on the existing infrastructure.

Another problem that I'd be concerned about is the number of complete charge cycles that LiOn batteries can support --- and the environmental costs of disposing of the LiOn batteries after they wear out. Is paying several thousand dollars for the Valence batteries, only to have them wear out and need replacing within a few years really cost-effective? Or responsible environmentally?

I believe Valence Technology is the only company offering lithium iron phosphate batteries. Since Valence's sales are only slightly more than nil, I don't think its quite accurate to say lithium ion batteries are moving to phosphate cathodes.

The Prius conversion to PHEV by Energy CS using Valence batteries cost $15K for the batteries alone. Potential fuel cost savings amount to a few hundred $ per year. Payback period approaches 40 years. Batteries wear out in what, 2-3 years, at most?

Clearly not an economic proposition.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update37.htm
http://www.harrybraun.org

Wind electricity is close to taking off-at that point phev's pollution levels go _WAY_ down.

Why doesn't anyone talk about the big business and Government orgy that dictates what we drive? Bush can't let Toyota sell a plugin car in America, his oil pals will kill him.

Toyota said electricity companies have an agenda...who thought that up? It is obviously the only excuse they could find when they were told not to sell an "EV mode" capable car here.

One thing about the difference between burning gas in cars compared to using electricity made at a power plant. Oil used in electrical generation in the US only amounts to 2% of all the fuels used. So why do we need so much oil? I would say for fuel for vehicles. One of our problems is dependence on other countries for oil, particularly Arab countries. So eliminated the #1 need for oil cures that problem. Then there is pollution. Again I think autos etc, burning oil based fuel is the biggest cause. 51% of our electrical energy comes from coal though. But efforts to make less polluting coal powerplants are in the works. GE just got a contract from the DOE to make a better coal fired PP. It will involve a powerfull solidoxide fuel cell. Don't ask me how.

Any economic analysis that discredits this technology because the miniscule current run of batteries is "expensive" is absurd/irrational at best.

The tech for these batteries will only get cheaper and more efficient as it gets refined and as economic incentives/efficiencies of scale/mass production take hold.

Again, to project future mass production costs at the current price levels is obviously wrong.

Look at what has happened to the prices of massive LED/Plasma displays over the last 5 years as they've sold more and more units. I dare say 5 years from now CRTs will be virtualy extinct, and nice 50" LEDs will cost 700 bucks (adjusted for inflation ;-).

If the USA had real leadership in the field of ecologically sustainable transportation, we would be subsidizing the rapid expansion of this technology with the aim of virtually getting rid of internal combustion vehicles all together.

I see no practical reason why half of the US's consumer automobile fleet can't be at 100MPG or better within 10 years.

There are also building technologies that can reduce the amount of energy required to heat/cool homes by half and better.

Thinfilm, flexible, efficent and cheap solar cells are on the way. There's no reason virtually every free outdoor surface can't be integrated into the local power grid.

It's not even a matter of "becoming free of dependence on middle eastern oil"; hell, we can eventually (certainly by the end of this century!!!) become free of the need to burn hydrocarbons for fuel all together!!!

It's just a matter of the political will; the tech is here and will only get better.

The real obstacles are an entrenched set of industrial/petrochemical interests that don't want to see their profitability or their practical monopoly decline. It's all about maintaining the status quo because it's more comfortable than the perceived risks of change.

Take all the legalized bribery out of politics and incentivise policymakers to simply do what's rational and best for the general population, and this kind of tech becomes implemented on a crash program/Manhattan Project basis.

Capitalism will still make tons of money funding the transformation; but it will be free markets taking real risks and creating real value that make the innovations/profits, not the kind of global soul deadening corrupt monopolisation we now have that stifles anything creative/new as a threat to the status quo.

Hell, our really big challenge will be to develop eco friendly tech to REVERSE the climate change/global warming that the last century of ignorant/wasteful abuse has brought on us.

I didn't intend to write a mini-rant; but if you got the point, you got it.

If you didn't; another ten thousand words probably wouldn't get through, eh?

This boils down to a marketing problem. You don't have to worry about politicians or monopolistic corporations. You do have get the average purchaser to want the vehicle being sold. If we continue to rant and try to force pickup truck buyers into buying a prius or similar domestic, you can expect the same results as in the past. GM, Ford, Chrysler and the government do not manufacture the demand for pickups/SUVs/minivans, people buy what they like.

If we wait for a "perfect" transportation solution we will be waiting for a very long time. Plug in hybrids have their shortcomings, but they are available now and represent a big improvement over gasoline only. Give a pickup truck owner a pickup with a motor and an engine that plugs into the wall at night. He really won't mind that it weighs 400 lbs more. He won't mind plugging it in if it saves him a few bucks everyday. He won't like paying more up front, but if it is marketed as a few bucks extra on the car payment every month and a few bucks less in gas it will work. Same goes for the soccer mom with her minivan. Incremental change will work, force won't.

The pure electric vehicle for the masses is a pipe dream at this point in time. If you can get people to use a little electricity for transportation now, you have a very good chance of getting them to use more later.

The most interesting and viable fully electric vehicle i have seen so far for me is the electric GPR a replica race derbi. It has superb acceleration and a respectable top speed of 45-65 mph(you specify, higher top speed gives less acceleration and range). With all the possible options it has an output of about 27 electric horsepower and a practical range of 20 miles with very hard riding and up to 40 miles with very catious riding.With all the possible features it costs around 7000$-8000$ US. I want it.

After reading your blog the concept about this Plug-In is not difficult now onward.I hope you will be continue this sharing of information with your blog readers in future also.Essay Help