I think "zero emissions" is a relative term... besides, electricity from power plants is still much cleaner than an ICE... and who's to stop you from setting up a solar generator? not that there aren't emissions produced from the manufacture of the car, the solar panel, your computer, your body, and everything else... just tired of hearing a bunch of negativity whenever anyone is makes a step forward... and this IS a step forward. Now if it would only be affordable....

By that definition making a box of corn flakes pollutes. But people need food and hence our existence pollutes. I guess you can not have everything the way ya want it all the time...

Everyone was waiting for a major auto manufacturer to step up to the plate and produce an all-electric since GM killed off the EV1.

Here we have it. Hopefully Mitsubishi is still strong enough to pull it off because I'd like to see BEV vs FCEV and find out which one "wins". At the very least this electric vehicle should have the same market size as their niche vehicle the "Lancer Evolution".

Sid -

when carmakers refer to zero emissions, they mean zero tailpipe emissions because those are the only ones that are being regulated. It's not yet clear if California will win the pending lawsuit about adding CO2 to the list of restricted compounds - most likely, that would refer to tailpipe emissions also.

The European carmakers' association ACEA has made a voluntary commitment to reduce fleet average CO2 emissions to 140 g/km by MY2008. If they are perceived to have missed this target, the EU commission is likely to push for a mandatory limit of just 120 g/km by MY 2012 and 90 g/km by MY2020. Again, these numbers refer to tailpipe emissions.

The present regulatory framework for vehicle emissions regulation does not account for the environmental damage caused by vehicle manufacturing nor for that caused by fuel production. The CO2 sinks inherent in biofuel manufacturing are also ignored. Clearly, this is conceptually inadequate and will become more so as carmakers are pushed into hydrogen-powered and/or battery electric vehicles.

One technology-neutral approach is to tax every actor in the chain based on the environmental damage he/she causes while simultaneously cutting taxes based on wealth creation. The idea is to tax asset degradation rather than income, but to do so in a way that is revenue-neutral and doesn't upset the balance between rich and poor (if you want to do that, please address it in a separate measure).

In practical terms, drivers would indeed be charged for any CO2 emitted by their vehicles' tailpipes via prices at the pump and/or vehicle license fees based on official fuel economy estimates. If they fill up on electricity instead, the utility would charge them for the CO2 emitted in its production, in order to cover its own carbon tax bill. Same for oil refiners and hydrogen producers.

One important aspect is how CO2 emissions would be weighted against other forms of environmental damage, such as the production of radioactive waste, land use, reduced property values (wind farms) etc. Choosing too narrow a scope for carbon taxes could have negative side effects.

Note that biofuel feedstocks are not permanent CO2 sinks, they merely recycle CO2 already in the atmosphere. Therefore, the tax levied on biofuels should be low or zero, making them competitive with those derived from fossil sources. Especially in Europe and Japan, this would imply a significant loss of revenue for the taxman from the transportation sector. Compensating income would be derived from refineries and utilities, via carbon taxes and/or tariffs. Certain public expenditures (e.g. protection of crude oil transports) could eventually be scaled back.

All this is subtly different from biofuel produced by passing the flue gases of a coal- or gas-fired power station of bioreactors filled with algae. That setup would directly increase the operator's revenue per unit of "fresh" CO2 emitted.

Mitsubishi should be applauded. It seems that some people are just never satisfied though. My electric provider has a renewable plan with 100% wind and there are several competitors with renewable electric plans as well.

I've been saying for some time over on The Cost of Energy (http://www.grinzo.com/energy/) that Mitsubishi was an excellent candidate for taking the EV leap in the US. They're getting hammered in the US market and they're an enormous company with the resources to engineer something like this and get it right.

The only question was which mainstream company would be desperate enough to embrace this disruptive technology first in the US. Looks like it will be Mitsu, unless things get truly ugly for Ford or GM, or Chrysler starts bringing Chinese EV's here as part of their pending deal.

Which will the average consumer embrace more? The I need to be able to fill up in 5 minutes hydrogen FCV crowd or the I can fill up for pennies on the mile BEV crowd?

In wheel motors should make ABS, traction and stability control more precise. I like the series hybrid 1 liter genset option. You can buy it with or without, depending on your needs. The weight of the transmission and drive train are not part of what you are carrying around town.

Is "ingenuitive" even a word?

Well, the 4G92 MIVEC DOHC 1.6L mitsubishi engine is around 250lbs with manifolds and accessories. I'd imagine a 1.0L version would probably be 200lbs at the least unless it is a 3 cylinder motor. You'd have to deal with the cooling system as well when you pull it but if you were adamant about doing it buy a "cherry picker" and after the first few times you'd probably be quite good at pulling the generator.

Question:

How much of a difference does the extra weight of the genset make to performance/efficiency of the car when compared to the weight of the entire car? Is it enough for its incorporation to make a difference.

What do you do if you only drive far enough to need the genset once a year? There would have to be some way to mothball the genset so that the gas doesn't go bad.

It would be nice to have the genset as an option, rather than standard. You could have it in a rented trailer for those once a year long trips.

Slightly off topic: If an electric car starts off at the top of a hill with a full charge and goes down the hill and tries to stop using regenerative breaking. Where do you put the extra charge?

If you only take a longer trip once a year (or even 3 or 4 times), Then RENT a car!
A removable ICE is not feasable, safe, smart, whatever.
A BEV meets 95% of the transportation needs of most people. They can then have a 2nd ICE car or rent one for trips.