I purchased my PiP in October. So far I am averaging 258 wh/mi on electricity (charging loss included) and 54 MPG on gas.

34% of my miles are on EV and 66% on HV (gas). Since majority of my trips are short, they are driven on EV and I am getting about 12 miles per charge (3 hours).

If the current trend continues or is accelerated; 2, 3 and 4 wheels electrified vehicles (HEVs, PHEVs and BEVs) will number over 10,000,000 by 2015 and probably over 33,000,000 by 2020 and over 100,000,000 by 2025.

At 100+M and rising, they will have a net positive effect on climate change together with Wind, Solar, Hydro and other clean power plants.

Most fossil and bio-fuel burning ICEVs fans will also make the switch (a few years latter?)

Come back when a litte more than a handful of EVs have been sold...

"I sure you know this but BEV do not reduce ghg. They use electricity made from fossil fuel."

ICE energy efficiency is ~25%, so 75% is heat and greenhouse gas waste. EV motor efficiency is ~90%, so how is 75% energy waste better than 10% energy waste?

Solar/batteries/electric components keep getting cheaper, just as oil keeps getting higher.

"..art of the ICE is really hard to beat..", but the Prius, Prius family, and other autos turning part, and then full, electric drive are doing it.

Save more of the remaining expensive oil for 'high energy drain' trucks and jets.

There are many benefits/advantages that EVs provide aside from energy efficiency and emission reduction, PHEVs moreso than all-battery BEVs and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles mere niche applications.

The PHEV battery pack is 1/3 the size of BEVs, enabling a wider market demand as well as larger class of vehicle application. BEVs are compact class to minimize weight and maximize driving range. More standard drivetrain vehicles can be converted to PHEV than to BEV.

Though both BEV & PHEV plug-in to household electric utility, PHEV is a better match with rooftop photovoltiac solar panel arrays that are subsequently 1/3 the size and less costly.

In an emergency grid failure, a PHEV allows household electronics, especially communication devises - telephone, TV, radio, computer - to remain operable, a lifesaving advantage. Utility grids gain efficiency as hours of surplus electricity can be stored and afternoon hours of high demand met with PHEVs. No doubt utility company stakeholders do not want customers to even learn that such an investment gives them a say in electricity rates. A PHEV offers a choice whether to use electricity for driving or for household uses and the means for energy conservation follows. Imagine a test emergency drill grid failure: Turn water heater off, throw other circuit breakers, monitor minimal consumption, take steps to reduce waste, etc.

Possibly the most important advantage, a PHEV with a typical driving range of 10-20 miles on the battery pack, encourages shorter routine driving whereby more trips become possible without having to drive. No doubt car manufacturers, finance and insurance companies do not want customers to learn how cars could last many years longer, save lives in an emergency and reduce energy consumption.

SJC, add the energy losses to explore oil, drill oil, transport oil, refine oil, transport gasoline, pump gasoline, etc. and figure ICE about 10% energy efficient.

Mile(s) deep offshore, Arctic conditions oil may be closer to 5% energy 'to wheel' efficient vs over 60% electric efficiency, esp. with solar.

Bob Wallace embraces a purist viewpoint. All electric is not necessarily better than hybrid. The high-speed rail movement is failing in part because all-electric 200+mph rail systems are double the cost and impact of diesel/electric systems. Once completed, 200+mph systems serve fewer communities and fewer people who can afford the higher fare. Incidentally, diesel/electric locomotives can run all-electric in low-speed urban settings where emission reduction is warranted. Purists have fallen into the trap of wanting something that can't be built; a trap set by utility companies that prefer consumers remain dependent upon their monopoly. Whose side is Bob on?

I mention rail travel as an essentially fuel/energy efficient travel alternative to long-distance driving.
Purists support electric charging stations that can supposedly recharge BEVs to maintain currently excessive driving. Rail travel offers economic benefits to station areas that surpass the potential of electric cars. The more effective application of all-electric transit is inner-city light rail and streetcar rather than intra-city high speed rail.

Vehicle battery prices should decrease, but the larger the battery the higher the cost. The same principle applies to the cost of photovoltiac solar panel arrays. Conversions to PHEV offer the means to keep the battery cost down and spread the battery resource to more households.

"I am not defending oil nor internal combustion engines, I am pointing out that the efficiency that is talked about with EVs does not take into account power generation."

We are in the very early days of a transition from the 20th Century which was powered largely by fossil fuels to the 21st Century which is almost certainly going to be powered by renewable energy.

The efficiency of coal and gas plants will become less and less a factor as we move forward. Coal has already dropped from over 50% to 36% of our electricity supply and it will continue to drop.

"All electric is not necessarily better than hybrid."

In some cases hybrids may be a better option than EVs. But as batteries improve and drop in price the hybrid/PHEV niche will strink.

"The high-speed rail movement is failing in part because all-electric 200+mph rail systems are double the cost and impact of diesel/electric systems."

HSR is failing? Where do you find that data? The world is building more and more HSR and we're going forward with our first line in the US.

Double the impact? HSR run with renewable energy will have much less impact than diesel.

"200+mph systems serve fewer communities and fewer people who can afford the higher fare"

My experience with HSR in Europe is that there are high speed trains with limited stops and other trains making the local stops. Exactly how express/local trains and buses work now.

Higher fare? As compared to their alternative - flying - I don't think so.

"Rail travel offers economic benefits to station areas that surpass the potential of electric cars."

Correct, some of the time. If only one person is traveling then taking the train is likely to be cheaper. Several people, and the math changes. Especially if you would have to rent a car on the other end.

"Vehicle battery prices should decrease, but the larger the battery the higher the cost. The same principle applies to the cost of photovoltiac solar panel arrays. "

Solar panel prices have dropped for around $100/watt to well under $1/watt. There's no reason why we should not see very large decreases in battery prices.

"Whose side is Bob on?"

Um, the planet's, or more precisely ours. We've got to limit climate change or really suffer.

And on our bank account's side. Which feeds back to the climate thing. People are unlikely to give up their cars and quit using electricity in order to avoid severe climate change. Our best shot is to give people acceptable alternatives at the same or better prices.

Let people walk into their dealer's showroom and see two equally priced versions of the same car, one burning gas and costing $0.10/mile to drive and the electric and costing $0.02/mile to drive and most will pick the EV and we drastically cut our CO2 emissions.

"Wait a second my 25 year old SPECIALIZED HARDROCK MOUNTAIN BIKE runs on mussel power.", no doubt, mussel is the common name used for members of several families of clams or bivalvia mollusca, from saltwater and freshwater habitats.

Gosh Kelly thanks for correcting my spelling. I hope it makes you feel good. Would you like to explain why you think spending $500 on solar panels to charge an electric bike is not an example of wasted resources.

It takes energy to produce solar panels and batteries. Mush of the environmental impact is reflected in the cost.

If the PV panels and batteries do not result in an actual reductions in fossil use, then you are better off just burning coal.

Kit P, it is your logic and attitude, even more than your spelling, that is disconcerting.

"Would you like to explain why you think spending $500 on solar panels to charge an electric bike is not an example of wasted resources."

The electric bike reduces/eliminates my short trip cold car mileage expense and pollution. The solar energy also powers some of my workshop and den lighting, nearly for free since installation.

My small solar EV/power system works. Are you using a gasoline hand drill, diesel overhead lighting, an ICE PC, etc.? Do you start your car by hand crank?

The electric trend is clear. My link showing a cheap means of tripling solar cell output can only accelerate solar energy and EV use even further.

The trend is clear, at least to non-Republicans.

"Coal has already dropped from over 50% to 36% of our electricity supply and it will continue to drop."

That could be due to a greater use of natural gas rather than renewable energy. We will continue to use fossil fuels for many decades to come.

Yes, a lot of the coal we no longer use has been replaced with natural gas generation. (We've also grown non-hydro renewables to 3.5% and could hit 5% next year.)

But the issue under discussion was greenhouse gases? Natural gas creates roughly half as much CO2 as coal per unit electricity generated. Moving from coal to NG makes EVs cleaner.

--

We're transitioning. It will take a few decades to get off fossil fuels. If we were smart we'd get off in two decades, but humans are not as smart as they should be.