ICRC Wins Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Research and Testing Contract with Air Force
San José (California) Airport Gets Funding to Expand CNG Fueling and Conversions

To PHEV or Not To PHEV (At Least in the Near-Term)

Menahem Anderman’s value analysis for advanced vehicles. Anderman argues that because the benefit delta between HEVs and conventional vehicles is larger than that of the jump between HEVs and PHEVs, and because PHEVs carry a much larger negative impact, the appropriate near- to medium-term focus is on building the HEV market. Click to enlarge.

Two of the consistent threads in the discussions and presentations of the 2008 SAE Hybrid Vehicle Technology Symposium last week in San Diego were (a) explorations of the near- to -medium-term technical viability of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)—which mainly (although not entirely) means the viability of the lithium-ion battery technology—and (b) the desirability of pursuing PHEVs now, versus alternatives such as focusing on broadening the conventional HEV market and treating PHEVs as a longer range solution.

Looming over both threads was the question of market demand and behavior: would a sufficient number of consumers buy PHEVs to make the effort required to develop and to produce them financially and environmentally worthwhile?

On the OEM side, the most forceful proponent of a plug-in approach was GM, as Pete Savagian, Engineering Director, Hybrid Powertrain Systems Organization, outlined some of the market rationale driving GM’s decision to push hard on the Volt Extended Range Electric Vehicle (E-REV), as well as describing some of the company’s recent analysis of real-world benefits. (Earlier post.)

Although both Chrysler and Ford have PHEV trial projects underway (the Sprinter PHEV for Chrysler and a plug-in version of the Escape hybrid for Ford), their presentations reflected the lower level of shorter-term commercialization commitment those companies currently have made to the plug-in platform, compared to GM.

In his presentation outlining Ford’s next-generation hybrids (earlier post), Sherif Marakby, Ford’s Chief Engineer for Sustainable Mobility Technologies, said that PHEVs represent a potential opportunity to reduce petroleum fuel consumption, essentially buying society time by closing the gap until more advanced technologies and renewable fuels become readily available.

Ford is collaborating with Southern California Edison a set of research Escape PHEVs. The Escape PHEV is based on a 10kWh Li-ion battery pack developed in partnership with Johnson Controls-Saft (earlier post), and are getting as much as 120 mpg in testing, according to Marakby. The Escape PHEV powertrain operates in three distinct modes: electric drive (ED) mode, blended mode (a combination of engine operation and charge-depleting electric drive), and conventional hybrid mode. Ford and SCE are also exploring V2G applications of the PHEV platform.

Chrysler’s Gary Oshnock, Environmental and Energy Planning, while spending more time describing his company’s upcoming two-mode hybrid, noted that the test fleet of Sprinter PHEVs will give Chrysler the opportunity to develop lithium-ion battery technology which will complement its future hybrid, fuel cell and pure electric systems.

In his presentation describing Nissan’s work with its next-generation lithium-ion batteries (earlier post), Toshio Hirota noted that the company sees plug-in hybrids as a potential mechanism to reduce CO2 output in the shorter term, but that it has concerns that include battery cost, market demand, and the CO2 intensity of electricity.

None of the three more engineering-oriented presentations from Honda or Toyota dealt with the PHEV topic. Toyota described the evolution of its motor design as implemented in the Lexus LS600h and LS600hL luxury hybrid transmission. Honda described its model-based approach to hybrid-electric vehicle design, as well as a concept Rankine-cycle system coupled with a hybrid drive. (Earlier post.)

However, John German, Manager of Environmental and Energy Analysis for Honda and one of the organizers of the SAE symposium, took an unscheduled opportunity to present a few slides calling into question the near-term benefit of plug-ins.

While acknowledging that “plug-ins are likely to be one of the alternatives to fossil fuels,” German said that given the projected near-term economics, a premature focus on plug-ins might deliver less benefit than focusing on expanding the market share of conventional hybrids. In his remarks, German referenced economic payback analysis from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), as well as a detailed May 2007 study by Matthew Kromer and John B. Heywood at MIT on the prospects for electric powertrains in the US.

The plug-in hybrid offers a striking opportunity to reduce petroleum consumption to a level half of that offered by the hybrid vehicle. In addition, while the plug-in hybrid’s business-as-usual GHG emissions do not project a significant benefit, they offer a continuous path for incremental improvement through decreased carbonization of the power sector—an opportunity that does not exist for the hybrid vehicle.

...At the same time, the PHEV is a less cost-effective way to reduce petroleum and greenhouse gas emissions than the hybrid (particularly in the near-term); and, due to its higher upfront cost, it will have a harder time penetrating the market. The plug-in hybrid also faces greater technical and infrastructure risk than the HEV: while the hybrid has already enjoyed market success, the plug-in hybrid still requires significant improvements in battery technology to meet the rigors of an automotive duty cycle. And while the infrastructure for supporting hybrid vehicles is already mature, deploying the plug-in hybrid at scale will require regulation to ensure that off-peak generation capacity is used; depending on geography, it could also require capacity expansion. While the infrastructure issues represent a relatively low barrier to deployment, the technical challenges will delay the time-to-market for the plug-in hybrid.

Taken together, the long time to market penetration and the lower cost-effectiveness of the plug-in hybrid suggest that the HEV offers a higher leverage, lower-cost path to reducing petroleum and GHG emissions in the near-term. However, given the upper bound on the HEV’s effectiveness, the plug-in hybrid offers a mid- to long-term path to continued reductions.

—Kromer and Heywood (2007)

At the conference, Menahem Anderman of Total Battery Consulting would develop aspects of that argument more fully in his presentation on prospects for the lithium-ion battery market.

Anderman, a consultant to the automotive energy storage industry who also organizes the annual Advanced Automotive Battery and Ultracapacitor Conference, publishes an annual report on the industry. The 2008 report will be published later this year, but Anderman presented some updated results on the 2007 report.

Based on his interviews with automakers, integrators and cell and battery pack developers, he anticipates the entire market for hybrids to hit about 1.1 million units in 2010, with about 750,000 of those being from Toyota. Those HEVs will predominantly use NiMH packs, with Panasonic EV being the dominant provider, and Sanyo in the number two position.

The lithium-ion battery market, by contrast, is much more volatile, and still faces a technology shake-out in terms of cathode and anode chemistries, cell design and packaging, manufacturing, safety and cost. There are more than 20 providers who say they expect to be in the market in 5 years, according to Anderman.

If I believed what everyone says about the viability of other cathodes [than their own], there would never be a lithium-ion automotive battery.

—Menahem Anderman

Anderman projects that lithium-ion cells batteries will represent a market of about $300M by 2012, and begin their ramp-up in 2013. That means, he noted, a major shift to Li-ion for hybrid platforms around 2014. Lithium-ion will be the preferred technology for hybrids “at some point in the future,” he said.

However, a PHEV, he said, due to the requirements of battery size, drive system and vehicle design, is too expensive for the value. Anderman projected a cost of $600/kWh for the pack. (In an earlier presentation, Ric Fulop from A123Systems projected $500/kWh.) “I don’t like it, but it is. Not liking it will not solve the problem.

The environmental and societal benefit in moving from HEVs to PHEVs is smaller than that of moving from conventional vehicles to HEVs, but there is a much larger negative impact on consumer value. In moving from a PHEV to fuel cell HEVs, there is no additional benefit—and maybe even less. But the negative impact on consumer value is much higher. With battery electric vehicles, there is more benefit, but also more negative impact. The PHEV may be a long term solution.

—Menahem Anderman

Anderman’s current take is that PHEVs are unlikely to reach commercial volumes in the next seven years, and that while it is not ready for commercial introduction now, the business risk in pursuing the platform now is “tremendous”.

PHEVs are, however, he noted, considerably more realistic than fuel cell vehicles in the 10-20 year timeframe. In the longer term—assuming much higher cost of fuel or government policies—a PHEV in a blended control strategy could become attractive.

PHEVs are a detour and not a step forward, Anderman said, if:

  • For the sake of the PHEV, car and battery companies dilute their efforts to expand conventional HEVs and to introduce li-ion batteries into the market;

  • If governments miss the opportunity to provide incentives for conventional HEVs, “the only electrified vehicle technology that can make an impact on the environment in the next 10 years” and

  • If the PHEV is rushed to market by bypassing prudent automotive engineering design, verification, qualification and supplier management standards.

PHEVs are a step forward, he said, if fuel cell vehicle development resources are redirected toward PHEVS.

Anderman’s conclusions about the economic viability of PHEVs were vigorously questioned by Dr. Mark Duvall from EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), who had just preceded Anderman on the dais with a presentation on the impact of PHEVs on emissions and on the utility industry.

I’m gratified to see $600/kWh cost figure. At $600/kWh there are many highly likely near-term scenarios where PHEVs can pay back. What I’m saying is that we did a cost study, we think it’s credible...and it disagrees dramatically with you...There is greater leeway to discuss this. We can’t assume the negative impact on consumer value. We have to look at entire value equation of the vehicle.

—Mark Duvall

The transportation sector has to do much more than plug-ins, Duvall noted. His most optimistic projections show plug-ins pulling up to 500 million tons of GHG out of the sector. “The transportation sector has to do way more.” Noting that HEVs would only deliver a very small portion of the total reduction required, Duvall said that to say we should develop the HEV market fully and then pursue other avenues wasn’t viable.

In one of the opening presentations of the symposium, Tom Turrentine, an anthropologist with the PHEV Research Center at the University of California Davis presented his research that indicates that contrary to what some in the auto industry may think, consumers tend not to calculate paybacks.

Consumers don’t calculate paybacks, but they want better mpg. The dual fuel nature of the PHEV is a primary market feature for consumers...they can choose. It’s the meanings which motivate buyers. Motivation is driven by emotions.

—Tom Turrentine

For its part, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has a number of initiatives under way to support a more rapid development and deployment of PHEVs, as ARB’s Craig Childers described in his presentation:

  • In the more immediate term, the $1.6M Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentive Program (AFVIP) provides grants of up to $5,000 to qualified individuals, businesses, public agencies and entities, and non-profit organizations that purchase or lease an eligible AFV. PHEV drivers will receive the full $5,000, although the PHEV must be ARB-certified and have at least a 10-mile equivalent all-electric range. PHEVs are the only flexible-fuel vehicle that qualify; conventional hybrids do not.

  • California’s AB 118, signed into law in October 2007, is a seven-year program funded by vehicle license fees that will provide around $205 million each year to be applied in clean air, fuel and vehicle technology.

  • And ARB staff has proposed amending the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulations to create a “New Path” that would provide a strong incentive for the development and deployment of PHEVs in the period from 2012-2017). (Earlier post.)

After a presentation by Lee Slezak from the Department of Energy that outlined the breadth of the DOE support activities for the development of PHEVs—development research on power electronics and electric machines (PEEM), research on energy storage, modeling & simulation, and testing & validation—Michael Duoba from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) provided a more detailed update on the development of revised SAE J1711 test procedures—used to measure the exhaust emissions and fuel economy of HEVs—to accommodate PHEVs.

Test procedures are not something you think about at the end of a development project. You need to think about it in the beginning. PHEVs are significantly different from the conventional and hybrid vehicles and thus require a new testing paradigm. Since OEMs have announced production PHEV plans, the need for a revised J1711 has become urgent.

—Michael Duoba

ANL PHEV testing is supporting the J1711 development—and also helps the fine-tuning of PHEV systems development as well. A slide used by Ric Fulop in his presentation used data provided by Duoba and his lab showing the progression of three-generations of the Hymotion PHEV conversion pack as it went through successive tweaks to address successfully the emissions issue caused by the conversion. (Earlier post.)

Duoba also noted that ANL has made public basic data from the dynamometer testing of hybrids and PHEVs via the Downloadable Dynamometer Database “D3”.




I see alot of tunnel vision and tookus shielding here.

1 Gm is on the right track going erev as it chopped out the massively spendy trans of the hybrid and downsized and thus made cheaper the engine thus offsetting a good bit of the 48000 6000 battery.

2 On fuel cells... as all the metrics of fuel cells are leaping forward every gen and as a titanic industry is fertively pushing it and pushing tech to cost reduce EVERY aspect of it its nuts to rule it out in the 20 year timeframe specialy as it looks increasingly likely that h2 will be the only way to make work trucks and suvs past 2024. Combine this with the fact they just stated LOUD AND CLEAR that batteries wont fill the market or even a small part of it even in 2014 and you have auyomakers scrambling to find every alternative they can possibly push forward bwfore oil realy gooes to bleppity bleep.


I'm not sure if this is an economic argument or a emissions argument.

If we're arguing pure economics, then larger implementation of diesels in the US is perhaps the easiest next step.

If we're arguing for the emissions argument. Sure it's gonna take a while to get Electric-anything up to speed. And putting it off for as long as possible isn't going to make it happen any sooner.

Hell if we really want to argue economics, Oil should be priced at about $15 or more if we want the "unsubsidized total" cost.

By that same measure, there's a $4000 tax credit coming down the pike for plugins.


When a chief in Honda says that the near term future is HEV, which is led by their main rival Toyota, rather than PHEV then you should believe him.

My argument would be that we are better off with a large HEV market than a small PHEV market, but even the former is looking unlikely within the next 5 years.



I am not sure GM is on the right track with the Volts, the Volts being very heaving it will require a uge pack of battery of 15Khrs for less than 40miles all electric range. As this article point out nicely, this is a very risky approach at this point given the cost of the batteries.

I think the right approach is the Aptera : reduce the weight, reduce the drag, reduce the size, then you hit 120MPG on HEV only. Put a 5KHh battery and you hit 200MPG. Here I see a scenario for a oil free transportation.

H2 economy is a fraud it will never happen, you don't make h2 out of thin air, you think we will build a park of nuke reactors to produce H2 massively, well there is not enough Uranium in the world to support that in the first place, plutonium gen4 reactor won't be available before 2040 and anyway an H2 infrastructure is such a technical challenge and incredible investment upfront that given the level of debt we will be in 20 years from now, will not happen.

Truck will run on multi-fuel Diesel Hybrid engine, or multifuel steam engine (like the cyclone)with hydraulic regenerative braking in ultra-streamlined trucks and transportation will be rationalized, re-localisation with a massive return to railway after 2024 to reduce our oil dependency, like it or not. H2 is not a solution, it creates more problem than it solves.

Rafael Seidl

What the graph shows you is that relatively small improvements in fuel economy applied to a very large number of vehicles will deliver greater aggregate environmental benefits than producing a few very green cars will.

The market shows that US consumers either do not understand or do not care about the aggregate environmental benefits. They want the bragging rights that come with choosing a very green car.


Simple math

Prius to day : 47MPG
add direct injection = 47MG/0.85=55MPG
add stramlined design (Mercedes bio-concept type): 55/0.85=64MPG
reduce weight by 30% using composite =64/0.85=75MG
some other improvement through supercacitor, low rolling tire, reduction of friction in engine and transmission can also be achieved and not mentionning recovery through thermo-electric material (more speculative though)

so you will be in the 80MPG but I have used very conservative number here. Toyota 1X concept is much more agressive. You can hit 100MPG with simple HEV on small car not need for PHEV in the first place.

Don't get me wrong I firmely believe PHEV is the future but it will only work if we improve the efficiency of cars in the first place. As they point out in this report, going too fast can be a killer of the technology, puting too fast a vehicle on the market that fail to return the performances you expect will make customer who paid 40K very disapointed.


If the US consumers don't have an understanding about the aggregate environmental benefits then pass legislation that requires automakers to make all vehicles with HEV technology. A better proposal would be to make stringent mgp/cafe requirements (stop the ffv and other loopholes) and ghg requirements. Allow the technology used be decide by the individual automaker. That way goals are met but no pet technology of a certain government official/lobbyist is propagated by the legislation.



I agree with your comment that if the next trend in car marketing is "the greener the better" instead of "the bigger the safer" "V6 better than V4 and V8 better than V6" or the worse : "SUV is cool look dude.." then we can expect to see people rushing on PHEV even at 40K$ just like they did on SUVs.

The success of the Prius with its differentiated look against the market failure of the Honda civic hybrid (with very similar performances) support that hypothesis.

Today Nissan and Ford are baffled by the success of the Prius and recognize that based on economic fact only (HEV only make sense if you drive more the 20K miles a year etc...), they failed to anticipate the success of the Prius.

A CA Girl

You can argue all you want, but I'm not buying a new car until I can get a PHEV, or a hydrogen with a home refueling set up. There is Solar on the roof, so I can green power either Until then, save money for my next car from my utility bills. I'm thinking a Volvo Recharge, unless someone shows me a car that's safer, cleaner and better designed.


CA Girl

That's an interesting strategy indeed, and would probably speed up the development of PHEV if widely applied, but keep in mind that to re-fill a PHEV you need at least 3KW of Solar panels (so 180 sqfeet) working full power during 5hrs (the balance sheet will be worse by a factor 2 with the H2 refuelling station). As you might no be at home when the sun is bright, but rather at work, your solar panel won't really help.

But Volvo Recharge is probably a good choice given the serious that Sweeden is puttting in getting rid of oil dependency we can expect Volvo to be competitive on this.

Tom Street

Making the HEV better and better with bigger electric motor and making batteries more energy dense over time as technology and economics permits evolves the concept to the point where it naturally crosses over into PHEV.

Those who choose to jump directly to the PHEV with current technology and economics will probably be meeting a very limited niche market which doesn't mind spending an extra $10,000 without commensurate savings in overall fuel costs. That's where Rafael's concept kicks in but still doesn't really do much substantive for the market, greenhouse gases, and oil shortages.

Personally, I'd be quite happy with a next generation Prius that kicked up the mpg by 10 mpg.

The other question is whether a viable commuter HEV with a 100 mile range will make the PHEV a niche product rather than the other way around. The plurality has 3 cars as it is; they just may choose to mix their vehicles differently than they do now.

Now, I've neglected the needs of the monster truck and SUV segment but I'll let them sort out what they want to do with rising gas prics.


I think HEvs will blend into PHEvs as the batteries get larger and we understand more about them.

The trick is to offload all stop/start driving to the EV bit and bring the switchover speed up as the battery size increases.

If you could "plug" at both ends, it would get better.

You could have a machine learning system which would analyze your commute and optimize the power usage based on the actual journey traveled (and a GPS) over a week or two.

Thus, you could get more electric driving from a smaller battery, if you knew what to expect.

[ Obviously this would work best for predictable daily commutes - it wouldn't help a taxi much ]

But, to reiterate, I believe the line between PHEV and HEVs will blur (except that you will have to plug them in! ) as the batteries get larger.

the start of the plug in revolution will come with 12,000 - 15,000 for a OEMtek conversion or another company similiar to it.


Interesting graph, Benefits versus Value. I am not quite sure how to interpret that. I do not think that it is all that hard a decision. We are already on our way to having quite a few HEVs on the road.

Come out with a PHEV option that people can purchase on new HEVs and allow them to upgrade over time. It is not like you have to have an either or.

Economics could probably make the decision for us. The battery packs for PHEV will be expensive and in short supply. Over time, the HEV bought with PHEV option can be retrofitted as batteries become more available and affordable.


"The market shows that US consumers either do not understand or do not care about the aggregate environmental benefits. They want the bragging rights that come with choosing a very green car."

i think that's a harsh interpretation to be honest. you could alternatively say that the vast majority of Americans have zero environmental awareness, and a small minority have a very strong awareness, hence the desire for "deep green" cars.

Tom Street

Bragging rights implies that others would be "green with envy". That's a good thing.

Roger Pham

The article states: "Taken together, the long time to market penetration and the lower cost-effectiveness of the plug-in hybrid suggest that the HEV offers a higher leverage, lower-cost path to reducing petroleum and GHG emissions in the near-term. However, given the upper bound on the HEV’s effectiveness, the plug-in hybrid offers a mid- to long-term path to continued reductions."

Surprising there was no mention about the fact that PHEV's will take away battery-making resources from making more battery for HEV. Until all the cars in the street will be HEV's, one should not promote widespread proliferation of PHEV's. However, future HEV's should be designed such that it can be easily retrofitted into a PHEV if and when large-size car battery will be come cheap and plentiful.

Meanwhile, the surest path to petroleum independence will be to make super-fuel-efficient cars (full HEV's)and make them run solely on methane (monovalent) that can be bio-methane or synthetic methane. A car engine optimized to run on methane will be more fuel efficient and cheaper than a bi-valent gasoline and methane vehicle. Larger gas stations should be mandated to make compressed methane available for rapid fillup.


This article has caused me to reconsider the practicality of the PHEV concept. It sounds like it makes more sense to work with regular hybrids and do as much as possible to improve mileage with those vehicles (and conventional non-hybrids as well) in terms of payoff for the social investment.

I found the Kromer and Heywood MIT study online at:
To me, their comments are more credible than the EPRI guy, because his job is to promote electricity use, and PHEVs are a good way to do that. The MIT people would be much less likely to have an axe to grind.

a CA Girl

Electric rates at night are lower than during the day. My 11-16 hours of sun/day pays at a higher rate than night time energy costs, and I did say panels, not a panel. The Solar panels currently used to convert H20 to H, in the Quantum Refueler are smaller than your expectation. Solar seems to be making improvements in generating power. Mine are in the front of the house and no one seems to see them.

If I had an electric car and shopped at the local Costco, or the nearest mall, electric rechargers are available. The estimated cost is 70 cents of electric costs vs $3 gas/ same driving distance, and I'd hope many employers would provide power-plugs even if I were charged to recharge during the day.

Our information might be different, but I know how well my house is working on solar. I'd like to take the next step....if only I could!
"As you might no be at home when the sun is bright, but rather at work, your solar panel won't really help......But Volvo Recharge is probably a good choice given the serious that Sweeden is puttting in getting rid of oil dependency we can expect Volvo to be competitive on this. "


I was thinking that EVs might work better in a place like Japan. In the western U.S. you can drive all day in Texas or California and still not leave the state.

Certainly urban settings or places where people do not drive long distances would be good. Around here in Southern California, people routinely commute 50-60 miles each way 5 days a week.

The comment about resources occurred to me as well. If initially, you only have to many batteries to meet demand, it might be smarter to put them in the HEVs with the plug option for later on.


We are talking hev or phev's? not ev's right?

In the simplest (schematic) interpretation a plug in is just an extra plug and voltage matcher.
There is no more to it than that. The software weighs nothing. If that challenges your viewpoint that's good.

All batteries will benefit from top up charging and maybe conditioning.
Assuming vehicles are not on the road 24/7 solar or grid will provide useful inputs.
The objective with any of these vehicles is to reduce fossil fuel use and to use that fossil which is used to be utilised as efficiently as possible.
Off peak grid is an example of this, does it matter that it isn't burned in the vehicle? is it more "efficient" than used 'in situ'? Is it more sensible to uphydro with grid surplus? cement?
The answer will be sometimes' or yes and no.

Ok so driver 1 may only get to the letterbox, Mine being some 10klm's, Driver 2 needs to travel 30klm's round trip. 3 to the nearest doctor say 150klm's.

All these needs may be met more usefully by specified options ie bigger battery packs, Higher rated output ice or other.

As batteries become more efficient, so either reduce volume/weight or add secondary pack for ext range.
When my ideal phev needs an engine service, repair, I'll still be able to drive to work. Dream on.

All too hard? the average consumer who may have an account with the local garage that supplied battery packs for the day like rental gas bottles, would probably not see it as that hard at all.

There is more incentive than ever to provide the custom or personalised approach at a time when new technology is being introduced.
When efficiency is the driver of the technology, then restrictions that hinder the potential for realising that efficiency ie by locking redundancy in is fair game for serious criticism,


@ Roger Pham

Supercapacitor could be an alternative to battery for simple HEV, 0.5 KWh supercapacitor could be sifficient for an even better efficiency in regenerative braking.

Hal, other altenative could provide similar performances than HEV at a lower cost, a Cyclone Power type engine with a Torotrack system could be a perfectly clean ultra efficient multi-fuel technology for half the price of HEV.


The chart is too short. The environmental impacts are far from properly delineated.

So many people thought we'd solved pollution related lung diseases with the advent of the 3-way catalytic converter. I was often chastised (& still am) for whining about auto pollution deaths & NOT being up to speed with LACK of auto pollution deaths after the 70s through the 90s.

First, reports of heart attacks to drivers during heavy stop & go traffic situations started dribbling out. Then studies started mounting, detailing the excess lung diseases & deaths to children, the closer they lived to freeways. Following were bio-fuel studies stating they were no better environmentally than gasoline & diesel products. Later, fine diesel particulates were attributed to heart disease & deaths.

People started defending diesels, saying European diesel filters were protecting the population. But the protections were iffy at best, & at worst, were nearly totally ineffective.

Now the latest slam at internal combustion engines indicate that nano particles are great contributors to heart disease & deaths. AND no measures have been taken to reduce nano particle diseases.

At this time, no detailed studies link auto emissions with disease to body organs other than lung & heart because no such studies were ever done.

Also, no studies detailing what percentage of the incredible numbers of heart disease & deaths are due to traffic emissions.

Yes, that chart is too short...way too short...waaaaay toooooo sssshhhhoooorrrtttt.


I am supportive of PHEV and EV development in an aggressive fashion and am inclined to disbelieve those who say we are not on an development path in that direction. In particular, it is curious that NiMH chemistries are never mentioned in these discussions. We have the RAV 4 EV that with NiMH batteries has a 110 mile range, enough for most people.

If people are serious about emissions reductions, they may buy NEVs or demand, if they are available 80-100 mile range EVs.

The curious absence of NiMH from these discussions stokes discussion that we are dealing with automakers and patent holders that are not eager to utilize their IP and capital on EVs until they've wrung more profits from ICEs



NiMH has a energy density of 60Wh/Kg definitiiely too low for a decent PHEV where you need at least 100Wh/kg otherwise you would face a severe weight penalty, given that an HEV is already relativly heavy because of electric + ICE engine.

The comments to this entry are closed.