I will be interested to see what the sales look like after Honda sells their more affordable hybrids. It seems like the sales numbers are coming down and the cars sold could shift to other brands and other models.

This is fantastic news from a company who built and sold/leased about 1500 EV's in the late 90's and early 00's and the in a cowardly move crushed many and was only stopped from crushing all due to public pressure. However I think the CARB move to back off the EV mandate was more cowardly.

Shifting economics have finally forced their decision to move more towards EV's and PHEV's once again, a decision which I applaud. However announcements hardly the same as a promise and even a promise from a large multinational corporation is not worth much. I'll believe it when the vehicles are in the showrooms with a sticker on them and are actually made available to the public.

There are RAV4 EV's which are claimed to have greater than 100K miles on them on the original NiMH battery pack. DOE considers NiMH a 'mature technology' and nearly 10 years ago the EV1 got a range of up to 140 miles per charge. Yet the big auto companies continue on with the claim that battery technology is not ready. It's the companies themselves who are not ready. EV's aren't for everybody...but they'll be fine for 95% of us.

Anne,
The high cost of the battery packs are a function of volume and commodity material costs. How much would an automobile engine cost if they were only built a few dozen at a time?

Toyota initially built the Prius at a loss and now sells it for a profit...smart business, I agree. They also put 1500 RAV4 EV's on the road and there was alot of demand for more. I don't know how much of a loss they took on each RAV4 EV, but I guarantee if they had built a million (like they have with the Prius) they would we making a profit, and also would have transformed the economics of the batteries through mass production. There was plenty of demand for EV's in CA when they killed the program and there still is today.

Explain to me what is not cowardly about crushing 900 nearly new EV's when people were offering to buy them. I'm guessing they didn't want a reminder of the viablity of mass produced EV's driving around the roads of CA for fear people would ask why isn't Toyota 'moving forward' like their slogan says. It was the ebarrassment of the media attention that stopped them from crushing all of them, not 'smart business' as you suggest.

Studies by EPRI estimate that volume production of Li-Ion and NiMH battery packs for EV's and PHEV's will indeed drive costs down exponentially reaching about 300/kWh at volumes on only about 100,000 units, which are pretty low volumes for companies such as Toyota.

http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/conferencesworkshops/PHEV_Forum-07-12-06/2-MarkDuvall-EPRI.pdf

Well Anne. Do we really think that sac believes that no company in the world is able to build a profitable PHEV or EV
BUT
the two who tried, and are closest, are the ones trying to bury the technology?
Incredible. No one can be .. .
I think sac must be putting us on.

I think that BYD will show us very soon whether or not battery packs have reached a sufficiently mature price point to enable mass market PHEV penetration.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/chinas-byd-unve.html

Anyone who cares about global warming should read
http://www.betterworldclub.com/articles/DC_Case_Against_Electric_Car.htm
Professor Somalwar's work shows that no one should reflexively buy a PHEV and assume that they are reducing global warming or even conventional pollution. Instead they ought to learn what are the sources of electricity in their area and buy a PHEV only if less than half of the electricity comes from coal. Far better, if they have the option available they should contract with their electric utility to deliver 100% wind or renewables power.

Right now the Washington DC area is threatened with brown outs as electricity producers try to pollute our viewsheds and reduce our property values with more transmission lines. Imagine the drain on resources as PHEVs are plugged in each evening. If we don't build more power generation plants, don't count on the supply meeting the increased demand.

Then, imagine the costs associated with increased demand on stretched supplies. Remember on average, 2/3 of electric power created is lost before it reaches that PHEV, so 3 units of power needs to be generated to give that PHEV 1 unit of power.

Do you get impatient waiting to put gas in your tank at a gas station? Think of the hours your car is unavailable as it recharges. For people who commute more than 40 miles, where will they recharge before driving home?

And cost of replacement battery packs is not even estimated--current hybrid owners get them free--now. As a speaker from GM asked at a conference last week, "Who is satisfied with the performance of their laptop or cell phone battery? That is the level of performance we can expect at this point from PHEV batteries at this point."
I'm convinced the nuclear power industry is jumping with glee with all this talk of PHEVs. Never mind the huge carbon footprint created by constructing such plants--or the question of in whose back yard rests spent nuclear waste.

So, what's a better alternative that is likely more viable a solution to personal vehicle transport (and jet fuel for military and commercial purposes)? Sustainable advanced (3rd generation) biofuels. Non-food, low input/high yield crops and agricultural residues. If the amount of financial support that is being put into developing PHEVs went into R&D, pilot programs and commercialization of the many ideas in research, we'd have designer bio gasoline providing green fuel for all types of vehicles, not just ones that live in secure suburban garages.

Lead-acid is a terrible choice for EVs - why do you think hobbyists are so desperate for Cobasys to make NiMH packs for the conversion market?

And 2/3 of electric power generated is NOT lost in transmission & distribution (T&D) - where do people get such ideas?

"Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995" (wikipedia)