yeah there has to be technological breakthrough to lower the cost of batteries...Look at NiMH battery. They are widely used now and mass produced yet failed lower the price...

All this assumes the NIMBYs will let all these coal power plants be built- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02s494q72&continuous=1 -or that any newly built fossil fuel power plants wont have CCS.

this is bull! it assumes that burning coal is the only way to meet baseload power needs. If the increased demand at nighttime can be met without increasing the combustion of coal, his argument is bogus.

Rich: the generation of and capacity built for electricity in the last 30 years would provide strong support for this "bogus" argument.

I am for HEV over PHEV for the reasons stated: more cost effective CO2 reduction, hence it will have quicker market penetration and a bigger effect. But the analysis is perhaps overly harsh on PHEV: petrol will become more carbon intensive when it is sourced from CTL plants.

For energy security, plug-in Natural gas or Biomethane HEV may be a more practical alternative. A flexible fuel vehicle with a single tank for both methane and gasoline will fit the bill. The tank may be of lower pressures of 500-1000 psi to reduce weight and cost, and to allow form-fitting instead of a cylindrical tank, which is less space-efficient. The NG range may not be great, but it can be plugged in the the home NG compressor once every few nights, just like a PHEV. Again, low-pressure NG home compressor to reduce cost. Once NG pressures drop close to atmospheric, then the vehicle will run on gasoline, and can be refilled with gasoline for long trips. The tank will contain a few gallons of gasoline for backing up the low NG content. Biomethane will make it a renewable form of energy.

Biodiesel with Algae oil is another option for energy security, and don't forget H2 vehicles also.

Batteries need to get better and cheaper...yep. There's so much activity going on with Lithium chemistries, novel cathodes and annodes, novel membranes, and such, it just seems like the pieces have to come together in the next couple years.

The trick, as always, has been that batteries have to leapfrog a very mature, price-optimized product in petrol. The batteries we know should be possible can be more than adequate for BEV and HEV, and need not be inherently expensive at economies of scale. If we're making long term plans about modes of transportation, we should compare where each technology should be by 2012, since that's when most of the innovations under discussion would ramp up production, anyway.

This is getting complicated. Some outfit I think called the Whole Earth Institute or similar concluded PHEVs were a mile in front. Personally I think cars like this will have more appeal than PHEVs. Of course if NG was diverted to car fuel there would be less available for peak load electrical generation.

Couple more points. What if the 'Car Czar' to be appointed by Obama thinks PHEVs are a winner despite this study? That's where the bailout money will go. Finally who will be able to afford $40k PHEVs with tight credit and a dismal job market that will drive down salaries?

lulu:

I agree with you. Modular (4 KWh?) battery packs could achieve what you mentioned.

Todays electronic battery controls could easily manage 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 modules.

Buyers would only buy as many modules as they need or can afford.

This common sense approach will come sooner or latter.

The main utility of PHEVs is not about carbon mitigation. It is about displacing oil use with some other energy source, be it coal or nuclear or solar or wind.

This is yet another one of those stupid studies that asks a stupid question and gets a stupid answer.

Peak Oil will hit us before global warming will. In fact, it already has; oil spiked due to production limits and crashed the world economy. It will keep doing that again and again until we can displace much of its use with something else.

"Peak Oil will hit us before global warming will."

Sweet crude may be running out but if we maintain our dependence on gasoline global warming will continue. We'll only switch to more carbon intense sources [like tarsands, oilshale and CTL] to get our fix.

And what about the benefits of Smart Grid? Wait, ignore that since it would render study STUPID.

This study is correct only if one is considering the reduction of GHGs per unit cost because a HEV would produce more GHGs than a PHEV, except for a rather contrived scenario.

A PHEV in charge-sustaining mode is essentially a HEV, with a bit more weight but with a larger motor to recover energy during braking, i.e., essentially, it gives the same mpg (and produces the same amount of GHG emissions) as a HEV. In charge-depletion mode, a PHEV would produce far less GHGs than a HEV, except perhaps for the pathological case where the PHEV receives all its electrical charge from inefficient coal fired power plants that should be replaced soon anyway.

Coal accounts for about 1/2 of the electricity generated nationwide in the US, with higher proportions in the mid-west, which is ideal wind country.

The unresolved problems with intermittent power sources (Sun & Wind) is still a major deterrent for power distribution networks.

Europe is studying the possiblity of using a huge multinational DCHV power grid to use more Wind & Sun (and existing Nuke, NG and clean coal plants) to supply base loads and Northern Europe Hydro plants for peak loads and periods with lesser wind and sun power.

The same approach, if used in USA/Canada, could use the huge wind potential to a much higher percentage of total power.

Some 50 000+ very large wind turbines + existing and future Hydro + combined-cycle NG power (with peaking capacity), coupled to a transborder DVHV grid could supply much cleaner reliable power for our future PHEVs and BEVs.

Note: Most NG power plants can be reactivated (cold start) in less than 3 hours. Power ramp up is about 7% per minute.