Standard "you're only converting one fossil fuel source to another":

Well, sort of. But, consider:
(i) coal is in tUSA, natural gas in North America. Oil is coming from Iraq, Nigeria, Russia, Venezuela, etc. In fact, there aren't a whole lot of oil exporters that tUSA is on particularly good terms with. This means a safer, more secure source for fuel.
(ii) power plants are far more efficient at converting fuel to energy. Now, there are all sorts of various resistances in the system, so the net change is tough.
(iii) most people will charge at night, when there just so happens to be tremendous excess capacity. This means that new power plants won't have to be built to accommodate the new demand for electricity.
(iv) this is another step in the path of moving around vehicles with renewable energy. Biodiesel and ethanol are making inroads on the liquid fuel side. Hybrids are stretching that fuel. Plug ins would be one more source for fuel which could be renewable.
(v) allowing for a mix of different fuel supplies helps to stabalize prices, much the way natural gas and home heating oil helped reduce massive swings in prices: as one got more expensive, people were installing the other system. This balanced demand and supply more smoothly.

Plug in hybrids will help tUSA progress toward energy stability, carbon stability, and cost stability. Those are all good things.

Well stormv, we import more oil from Canada then any other country.

Great Cervus, thanks for letting us know!

Maybe they should sell a PHEV muscle car. Then peole will be like "Wow! I can burn rubber and not pay much more for fuel!" It'd work here in Alabama. :)

Tim Russell, Patrick,
The problem is that:
a) Mexico is a developing nation with declining fields. As Mexicans get richer, they might want cars too.
b) Canada is relying ever more on their tar sand/syncrude sources, which is energy and natural gas intensive. Looking at their natural gas reserves, this is not sustainable beyond 2025, unless they use waste heat from a 4th gen nuke power plant for some of the processes.
_
___I generally agree with the idea of plugins, they will diversify and increase flexibility to our energy needs/demands. However, we will need more transmission lines. If you look at recent power load profiles, there are 2 peaks during a 24 hour period summertime. One is 2-4 PM (daytime workplace/AC use), the other is 7-11 PM (nightime residential AC).
_
___I suspect they will also force a confrontation between the NIMBYs and consumer demand. There are many who do not want them even within sight of their property, even if the transmission line owner/operator buys the land (and a buffer zone) to which the air rights the towers, lines, and transformers are located.

When a large portion of our imported oils can be dismissed from unfriendly territories I think there is no reason to stop importing from Canada and Mexico. I say this because we won't get change overnight but if we can modify all the variables such that we only need oil from those two countries we would be much better off. Oil is not just used for gasoline & diesel you know.

Dear Tim, that survey in Autoextremist is based on members of the Auto Industry. It expresses that blocs goal: little change except for further diesel penetration. I would guess the automaker push for ethanol, while not making technical sense, helps them by adding confusion, ensuring a clear winner does not emerge too soon (hybrid or PI hybrid). Largely the same as the hydrogen fuel cell. Both are presently non-viable but have future development paths that can be made to appear attractive through marketing.

Put photovoltaics on the roof of that plug-in hybrid and now you are really talking cool. Drive to work and park car outside in the sun. Get into car at end of day with fully charged battery.

Buh-bye Detroit.

Dear Ron, cool out, don't shoot the messenger. I thought it was an interesting survey. Think about it, many of the people in the auto industry don't think hybrids are the answer, that means something! BTW only about 51.6% were in the auto industry according to the part of the survey that showed the respondants. I'm in the "I know more than your avarage citizen" when it comes to cars. I found the Best Solution part of the survey very interesting, 26.8% say fuel cells are the best solution. That beats "much more efficent gas vehicles" (AE's words from the survey) and diesel combined. 4.6% said Plugable hybrids, 3.8 hybrids and 3.1 electric. Good thing only 0.4% said gas vehicles with todays mileage as that would be a bad thing.
Since flex fuel and H2 burning vehicles were higher on the list than diesel and much more efficent gas that's a good hint of what the industry might be looking at.

One little rant: So many people get an idea that X is the answer and anyone who says or even hints it's not is jumped on. No one technology is going to be the answer. Hybrids have their place and many companies are investing in them. It will be a wait and see how much they penatrate the market in the next decade. If you like them buy one, every one sold is a vote for the tech.

Paron Tim. Ending my comment with a strong opinion made it appear to 'attack'. That wasn't the intent. What I agree is that we should eliminate or equalize subsidies and let the market decide. It's the Venture Caps & Auto Companies' 'job' to seek winners. Let a thousand flowers bloom (I worked at startups in Silicon Valley). However, what's confusing about H2 and biofuels are the deeply negative technical impressions one finds digging just under the surface, and how biased our subsidy structures are. Imagine how strong and forward-looking the GOP would appear if they put forward an honestly neutral, market-based plan to solve this.

Ron,

In spite of all the "free market" and "market driven" rhetoric, neither the GOP or the Docrats have any clue of how to use the Government to promote economic development -- only economic interests.

Ron I agree that the subsidies should stop. I think most can see corn ethonol isn't the answer. Except for MB Bluetech clean diesel cars are a couple of years from being available in large numbers. Be interesting to see how those sales go.

I try not to get political but here's my take. Don't look for the GOP or the Dems to give a ballanced neutral plan. The Dems are a bit more on the green side so that might help move things along for environmental reasons but both parties are more and more in big businesses pocket. Throw in the farm lobby keeping subsidies in place and you have a formula for government inaction.

I agree with a comment I heard in the news that we need an Apollo mission scale effort to really come up with some answers. It also will take a sea change in the people of the developed world in how we use energy.

Sorry to get long here but one other point. Fuel costs are already being seen in peoples vehicle buying choices. SUV sales are slumping, car sales are going up. Sure the market forces can move slower than some would like but look for more and more fuel efficent choices from all the automakers in the coming years

From CNN money the other day they said Honda is a big winner, they didn't jump into the SUV thing with both feet. They kept building and researching 4 and 6 cyl engines. Sure they built some SUV and even a truck, any company would be foolish to ignore what was a huge growth segment but they didn't stop car developement. While Ford and GM are in trouble due to slumping truck sales because they threw too many eggs in that basket and ingnored their cars. I'm not a fan of any one brand that was just the basis of the article.

Finding ways to make automobiles more efficient is great, but why can't the US also work on better mass transit systems? The more cars we get off the road the less oil dependent we become.