Hum, I wonder if these bi-polar NIMH will have a higher or lower recharge cycle life?

BTW if the battery last 5 years the cost would be less than $800/year. Not too bad.

The reason for a high EV range for plug-in hybrids is that the average commuter drives 40miles/day.
Being able to drive most of your days on 100% electric would greatly reduce fuel consumption.

And while yes, this would shift the burden of power to the electric infrastructure, it is easier to use alternative fuels in infrastructure, because the weight and power density is not as important as in transportation.

Well, there certainly has been a lot of progress on the battery front. $500-$600 per kWh is a fraction of what you had to pay just a few years ago. Of course, adding 250-300 lbs of weight for 40 miles range (at what speed?) will yield a very substatial performance penalty once you have to switch from (H)EV to ICE-only operation.

Would it not make more sense to use a 150 lb battery with a high power rating and pair it with a seriously downsized ICE and a dual clutch transmission in a regular parallel HEV? A cheap three-cylinder turbocharged unit rated at ~65kW (e.g. Opel family 0)would do. Turbo lag can be masked by the powerful electric motor.

$800 per year isn't a good deal assuming gas will be $3/gallon....

Right. Gas isn't going to be $3/gallon in a few years. In fact, gas isn't $3/gallon right now. How about promoting an infastructure that isn't entirely dependent upon the most unstable part of the world that also hates us?

I often see critiques like this on this site. "It's still not a good deal" or "it still emits some amount of CO2". Yes, and that's too bad. But am I the only one that thinks the most pressing issue in all of this is that our food system, medical system, school system, and pretty much our entire economy is based on a declining resource located in countries that openly pledge our destruction?

Is it perfect? No. But I highly doubt that a "wonderfuel" that's dirt cheap and has no emissions is going to come along. So in the meantime how about we stop putting off these very important advancements and get working with what we have.

Jeez! Sorry for the rant but my lord, let's get it started here people.

Good to see some more competition in this very important technology.

These predictable and misguided comments by the vision impaired will be irrelevant in a few short years.

Jan,
I drove a EV-1 and it would blow the doors off most cars of the era, it was designed in early 1990's. I witnessed the T Zero do 0-60 in about 3.5 secs two years ago. It has a range of over 200 miles on Battery (lithium).
Take these cars make the batteries smaller, reduce the range to 40 miles and use the saved Mass to add a Serial Hybrid arrangement. Turbo Engine runs at constant speed, narrow band load to optimise pollution. No turbo lag problems.
I also used a RAV-4 EV as a work car. It was wonderful.

The MPG "equilivent" number you quote are based on "assuming" the mix in the grid for the US as a whole.
If you lived in Washington State, where hydro provides most of the electricity, they are non-polluting. If you charge from solar panels or windmills they are non polluting. When we lived in texas all our power was from windmills.
If a powerplant makes a mistake and puts out too much pollution, the CEM system lets them know immediately(and the State). In a car you could be out of tune for years before your next inspection. Should cars get the same fines industry does when it exceeds standards?
When you buy a ICE car the emmisions regulations freeze when you buy it. Powerplants upgrade constantly and the grid as a whole displaces older plants with newer technology. Would you like to Have to buy the Microsoft style "upgrade " to your 2008 when the emmision rules change.
Electric cars get cleaner every day as the grid does. With all the risk and regulation complience done by utilities.
The serial hybrid plug in electric car is the future. Initially with a Turbocharged engine, much later with fuel cells.
The options should be larger battery( more battery only range), larger engine smaller battery, better performance shorter electric range.
The largest mistake I see amoung posters on this board is the fail to take into account the externalities of air pollution.

I just saw a story about Venezulas Orinoco region. Oil there was considered too thick and costly to refine at $20 a barrel, but at more than $50 a barrel it makes business sense, just like the Canadian oil sands.

T. Boone Pickens was quoted on 60 minutes saying about the Canadian oil sands that he is now invested in, "30 years ago we said oil would have to be over $5 a barrel to make that profitable"..

A veteran exporation executive from Shell said years ago "we will still be able to find oil, it will just cost a lot more."

Combine that with India and China using more oil and you have a probable outlook of higher oil prices going forward. This is a good case for developing any and every alternative that we can.

"It's all about the battery"

Yes, precisely Tony...(sigh)...

And THAT is why PHEVs are the critical transition technology.

Got it?

Another advantage of increased battery capacity, and one which will be much appreciated by those living in mountainous areas, is that much of the energy which goes to waste on downgrades will be saved by the battery. In my situation, after reaching the summit of the Rocky Mountain region which I traverse weekly, the battery is discharged and then is fully recharged after only about 3-4 miles of downhill coasting. The potential energy of the remaining 6-7 miles of downgrade is wasted. The larger battery would store that otherwise wasted energy and would ultimately increase the MPGs.