Plug-In Hybrids Aren't Coming — They're Here
Everything about Alison Gannett is green, from her straw-bale house to her solar-powered appliances. But when you're as serious about curbing carbon as she is, a mere hybrid won't do. That's why she spent $35,000 to install an extension cord on her Ford Escape Hybrid.
She is among a small but vocal — and growing — number of people who aren't waiting for automakers to deliver plug-in hybrids. These early adopters are shelling out big money to have already thrifty cars like the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape Hybrid converted into full-on plug-in hybrids capable of triple-digit fuel economy. "I love watching the mileage go up," says Gannett, a world champion extreme skier and dedicated eco-evangelist. "The highest I have gotten is 232 mpg. I average around 80-100 mpg."
Several automakers are scrambling to develop plug-in hybrids, with the Chevrolet Volt and Toyota Prius plug-in expected within two years. But a growing number of start-ups are leap-frogging Detroit and Japan, offering plug-and-play conversion kits you can buy right now. Enterprising mechanics are opening shops to install them, and they're finding plenty of customers sick of waiting for automakers to build truly fuel-efficient cars.
“Business is good and we are shipping a lot of product,” says Rob Protheroe of Plug In Supply, a Northern California company that sells a $4,995 conversion kit for the Prius. "Plug-ins are here to stay."
The conversions aren't cheap, and top-of-the-line kits with lithium-ion batteries can set you back as much as $35,000. Even a kit with lead-acid batteries — the type under the hood of the car you drive now — starts at five grand. That explains why most converted plug-ins are in the motor pools of places like Southern California Edison and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. No more than 150 or so belong to people like Gannett, who had her $30,000 Ford Escape converted in December. Yes, that's right. The conversion cost more than the truck.
"They are crazy expensive right now," Gannett says of conversions, "but the goal is to inspire people by showing them what's actually possible. People have had enough preaching. They need real live examples."
Advocates expect more people to jump on the plug-in bandwagon as the cost of the kits come down. They argue there will be loads of used hybrids just waiting to be plugged in once the Volt and plug-in Prius push the technology into the mainstream. "The combination of gas and electric technology is a happy medium for getting us off of oil and appeasing those who need to travel long distances," says Protheroe. "Until batteries get good enough where you don't need the assistance of an internal combustion engine, plug-ins will become the dominant mode of technology for pushing cars around.”
For all their high-tech allure, conversions are straightforward and a decent shop can do the job in an afternoon. In many cases, it's a relatively simple matter of swapping the car's nickel-metal hydride battery for a lead acid or lithium-ion pack and installing the electronics needed to charge it from a wall socket. The kits add anywhere from 75 to 360 pounds to the car, depending on battery type, and some of them require ditching the spare tire.
The second-gen Prius is by far the most common car for the switch, but companies like Hybrids Plus will do the job on Ford Escape hybrids, and ConVerdant Vehicles has a kit for many of the pickups and SUVs Detroit's been cranking out for the better part of 20 years.
It wasn't all that long ago that converting your car meant rolling up your sleeves and setting to work, a task made somewhat easier with the help of California non profit CalCars (credited with the very first conversion) and the PriusPlus open-source wiki. But theses days shops like Advanced Vehicle Research Center or Luscious Garage will do the job for you. What's more, you don't have to worry about frying your car — or yourself — because many of the safety concerns have been addressed. The $9,995 kit from Hymotion, for example, has been crashed-tested and comes with a three-year warranty. The California Air Resources Board wants to take things a step further with a rule that would, among other things, require kits be warrantied for seven to 10 years.
Although the plug-ins burn less gas and emit a whole lot less CO2 — even when drawing their juice from coal-fired powerplants — than cars running on dino juice, you'll probably never save enough money to recoup the cost of the conversion. Uncle Sam so far hasn't been inclined to cut early adopters any slack. Although the Senate has approved a bill that includes some serious tax credits for plug-in hybrids built by the automakers, there's no word on whether it'll cover converted cars. But EV evangelists say money isn't the point. "If you're using payback to justify buying these systems, forget it," Protheroe says. "Ride a bicycle."
Photo by Alison Gannett.
Be sure to check out Wired.com's How-To Wiki for a rundown on converting your hybrid.
Posted by: Ed | Oct 5, 2008 9:54:30 AM
It is meaningless to include distance driven on electricity when computing mpg. It gets x miles per kwh and y miles per gallon of gas. Combining the two and attributing it only to gallons of gas ignores the electricity and its cost. A meaningful combined efficiency metric would be to measure electricity in gallons of gas equivalent or measure gas by its energy content.
Posted by: Neal | Oct 5, 2008 10:33:44 AM
i like the fact that they make it possible to do this, but she made her car look fucking stupid
Posted by: Michael Lang | Oct 5, 2008 11:19:43 AM
Great story--last Friday, Congress passed and the President signed a bill providing up to $7,500 in tax credits for new plug-i hybrid passenger vehicles and more for larger vehicles. Next year we hope they'll extend to conversions.
Comment questions: It makes the most sense to put solar panels on the roof of a building instead of a vehicle. And in terms of MPG it's 100+ MPG of gasoline plus a penny or two a mile of electricity. An electric mile is 2-4 cents versus 10-40+ for gasoline (depending on many factors.
The MPG Equivalent of my converted Prius is about 85 for my driving mix. For others who drive more or less daily distances or highs speed miles it will vary.
-- Felix Kramer, Founder, CalCars.org
Posted by: Felix Kramer | Oct 5, 2008 11:24:10 AM
"Question: If my car is parked out in the sunlight for eight hours a day, could a solar cell installed to be a part of the roof-rack of my car fully charge the batteries on a hybrid? Or is it not worth the added weight and air drag?"
You won't get a full 8 hours of peak power a day, and the amount of space on a car roof (even an SUV or van) is too small to add much range.
Leave the panels on the roof of the house.
The laws of physics will always make a smaller, lighter and lower coefficient of drag car more energy efficient, regardless of gas, hybrid, or electric, or even hydrogen powered.
(Actually, it's low Cd*A product, coefficient of drag times frontal area)
Posted by: JC | Oct 5, 2008 11:39:53 AM
"it's a relatively simple matter of swapping the car's nickel-metal hydride battery for a lead acid or lithium-ion pack"
Shouldn't that be: "it's a relatively simple matter of swapping the car's lead acid battery for a nickel-metal hydride or lithium-ion pack"
..?
Posted by: D | Oct 5, 2008 11:45:04 AM
Like Neal mentioned: it's a weird way to calculate how much a car uses.
As if electricity is free and clean.
I guess this is the reason that Californians uses more electricity than all Chinese together.
Posted by: Onno ter Wisscha | Oct 5, 2008 12:09:56 PM
I would like to know what the actual mpg of her converted SUV hybrid really is.
However, it should be pointed out that electricity here in the US is generated by coal, natural gas, wind, water, and nuclear - virtually none of which has to be imported with our dollars being exported.
A large percentage of gasoline is imported directly or as crude oil that is then refined with a corresponding exportig of our dollars to pay for it.
.
So, plug-in vehicles that do most of their mileage on battery power means that much less money being exported.
Posted by: TR Bob | Oct 5, 2008 12:58:35 PM
Pay attention knucklehead! Electricity per mile is A LOT CHEAPER than gas per mile. Electricity can be generated by entirely clean technology and GAS IS GAS and it stinks. Imagine .... if all the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the WAR FOR OIL IN IRAQ was instead spent on developing and installing the next generation of high efficiency solar panels ..... imagine! Thanks Bush and Cheney and Republicans everywhere for driving America as fast as you can in the exactly wrong direction.
Posted by: mike tar | Oct 5, 2008 1:03:32 PM
I read a bit of the liked report (OK, the executive summary) and remain a little confused. Their apparent claim is that coal-fired electric generation running PHEVs would generate (roughly) one third the CO2 that conventioinal vehicles would. My guesstimate for the long chain of power generation, long distance transmission, conversion, battery internal resistance, drive control electronics and motor efficiencies is somewhere in the 60-70% range. And coal's energy almost exclusively comes from forming CO2, where as gasoline yields a combination of CO2 and H2O. Maybe I'm being a bit too simplistic, but that would mean either refining and transportation of gas must be abysmally inefficient, or that ICEs would have to be less than 20% efficient. I thought they were closer to 35%.
The report goes on to indicate that technology injections will improve CFE PHEV's lead over ICE's by 50% in the next 40 years.
If anyone could provide additional (quantitative) insight into this paradox, it would be much appreciated.
Posted by: Older Engineer | Oct 5, 2008 1:16:14 PM
It is meaningless to include distance driven on electricity when computing mpg....A meaningful combined efficiency metric would be to...measure gas by its energy content.
Your general point is well-taken from an engineering perspective but I think you missed the point a bit. What she's actually interested in is distance per unit of pollution so leave the efficiency and energy content behind and do something with a standardized pollution unit.
Posted by: BC | Oct 5, 2008 1:38:20 PM
Sorry for the above hard-to-read post....I tried to quote an earlier post by Neal and it failed. My point started with "Your general point...". All prior to that is excerpted from his post.
Posted by: BC | Oct 5, 2008 1:40:06 PM
I live in the Seattle area where plug-ins make even more sense. 72% of our power comes from hydroelectric dams. Power here is really cheap and really clean. Unfortunately we don't get enough sun to bother with solar panels.
Posted by: S T | Oct 5, 2008 2:01:05 PM
This is the type of aggressive grass roots attitude is what it takes to get the major auto manufacturers heads out of their butts. The ONLY reason they are not offering more of these is because they are trying to sell their existing level of technological development at a higher profit level. We need to send the message loud and clear that we don't want yesterday's outdated garbage.
Posted by: Michael Kennedy | Oct 5, 2008 2:07:04 PM
Besides being thoroughly green, the woman is obviously an attention whore....
Posted by: Herb | Oct 5, 2008 2:37:25 PM
now all the bitch needs is some fashion sense.
rimshot
Posted by: Ben | Oct 5, 2008 2:44:53 PM
It's at least three times cheaper to run your car off electricity.
...And that's figuring peak hour residential rates!
Posted by: Anonymous Hollywood blacklist dodger | Oct 5, 2008 2:45:09 PM
She apparently has more money than brains. You eco-freaks should just walk everywhere... probably still think your killing your Earth Mother.
Posted by: Obama | Oct 5, 2008 3:10:13 PM
Must be the new math.
Posted by: Barnacle Bob | Oct 5, 2008 3:47:19 PM
I would say the whole MPG thing is nonsense. I could have a hybrid car that did 1,000,000,000 MPG, was a 4x4, and emitted nothing but the smell of roses. But if every time you charged it you sent a small town down the road into a blackout, then whats the point of all the MPG crap?
We need to change the focus. Distance over Energy in general, whether it be fuel, electricity, etc. I'd even say that should include the energy that went into making it.
Posted by: michael | Oct 5, 2008 4:15:34 PM
MPG, MPKWH, should be MP impact on environment . . . taking into account the impact to generate the electricity, make and replace the batteries . . etc. Generally a great thing to see the awareness this is all generating (generating . ha - get it!?) hmmmm... ok you get it . . but not laughing . . ok - I'm going to convert my diesel 1.9 audi to a plug-in hybrid . . watch me get a trillion MPH . . !
Posted by: Ben | Oct 5, 2008 4:29:08 PM
I at one time was a strong supporter of electric vehicles. I think air powered (Tata Motors) may be a better answer. Do some research and decide for yourself.
Posted by: zaz | Oct 5, 2008 4:38:03 PM
Jesus, way to waste some money. Some hippies are just taking this being green trend too far.
Posted by: Gumby | Oct 5, 2008 4:53:14 PM
Jesus, way to waste some money. Some hippies are just taking this being green trend too far.
Posted by: Gumby | Oct 5, 2008 4:54:00 PM
Jesus, way to waste some money. Some hippies are just taking this being green trend too far.
Posted by: Gumby | Oct 5, 2008 4:54:11 PM
(i like the fact that they make it possible to do this, but she made her car look fucking stupid
Posted by: Michael Lang | Oct 5, 2008 11:19:43 AM)
Ummm... to Michael Lang ....
She's a World Champion extreme skier. Her car is adorned with her sponsor logos.
All she added was the wording across the bottom saying that she gets 100+ Mpg.
No offense (ok maybe a little) but your comment makes YOU sound 'fucking stupid'
Posted by: gw | Oct 5, 2008 5:44:51 PM
Damn It?! Gumby is your keyboard stuck or are you trying to increase your carbon footprint?
Posted by: gw | Oct 5, 2008 5:45:49 PM
Clearly the MPG/MKW debate can be solved by simply taking the number of miles you drive each day and dividing by the number of bird droppings added to surface of car each day. Wasn't that easy?
Posted by: gw | Oct 5, 2008 5:47:41 PM
"I at one time was a strong supporter of electric vehicles. I think air powered (Tata Motors) may be a better answer. Do some research and decide for yourself."
It takes electricity to compress the air, so in terms of energy usage it is the same as an electric car. I would rather have a battery pack than 5000psi of compressed air in my car.
Posted by: Matt | Oct 5, 2008 6:02:19 PM
I agree that the "MPG" figure becomes pointless in the context of a plugin hybrid, but the fact is there isn't a simple standard metric that explains to the common person what the capabilities are. Obviously, over time the general public is going to have to become accustomed with the kilowatt and the kilowatt-hour.
And to address the concerns brought up by the "you're only shifting the source of pollution" crowd, there is definitely a net benefit when you are replacing thousands of individual, inefficient gasoline engines with centralized electricity production facilities, even ones using coal.
1) Industrial scale power plants can use specialized materials, techniques, and infrastructure that enhances electricity production efficiency. Directly related to that point, internal combustion engines in vehicles are unbelievably inefficient; most of the energy stored in the chemical bonds of petroleum is lost to the environment as heat. Conversely, large facilities can use advanced modern technology, materials, and processes that are too expensive or impractical to have in a vehicle, but which can dramatically increase the efficiency of traditional sources of carbon-based fuel, from simply recapturing waste heat that is injected back into the system to other newer, much more complex techniques of increasing conversion efficiency.
2) Centralization of power production also has many environmental benefits. Similar to the benefits of production, large facilities can also use specialized emissions and pollution control technology that is too expensive, too large, or just impractical to use in individual vehicles. Also, having all the carbon emissions centralized into a relatively small number of facilities makes regulation and oversight much simpler than managing individual vehicle emissions standards. And when new environmental and pollution control technology becomes available, it is much simpler to retrofit a few dozen power plants than 30 million vehicles.
3) The environmental (and geo-political/national security) impact of hybrid-electric vehicles is a function of the power sources that run the electrical grid. As new renewable energy and clean energy production technology comes online in the form of solar-thermal plants, offshore wind, on-shore wind, geothermal, tidal energy, carbon-sequestering coal, natural gas, etc, the plugin hybrid vehicles continue to get "greener" and more environmentally friendly, while gasoline ICE vehicles only get less efficient.
4) Over the next two decades, analysts expect an explosion in the distributed energy market through future small-scale renewable energy sources such as home and business solar-voltaic panels and small wind turbines, among other future technology. Many people will be able to provide for a large amount of their home and vehicle energy needs through these systems. Obviously, this power cannot be harnessed for use with a conventional gasoline or diesel vehicle.
As a current benefit, if you live in one of the few "clean states" (like Hydropower-driven Idaho - where I live) that generate the majority of their electricity from clean/renewable means, then plug-in hybrid vehicles are even better.
Posted by: loosely_coupled | Oct 5, 2008 6:07:22 PM
ANSWER to Q1: Ed, the roof of a car is large enough for a 200 watt solar panel so it can 'top up' a battery and this will be common in the future.
MY QUESTION: If the 50kw/hr Li-ion battery pack in the Tesla costs $20,000 why is $35,000 quoted for a plug-in hybrid battery pack that would be no larger than 10-15kw/hr? The cost for 10-15kw/hr worth of 18650 Li-ion cells @ $3.00 per cell minus charger and BMS would be closer to $4-6000.00
Posted by: Paul | Oct 5, 2008 6:46:40 PM
From a real world electric vehicle user:
One of the many, many ways to measure miles per gallon equivalent (mpge), such as energy/heat content is on a cost basis, so you can directly compare different vehicles' miles per dollar regardless of potentially different energy sources behind the miles. That means that your mileage would also vary based on your choice of energy sources as you will get higher mpge for choosing a cheaper power source. On this basis, electric drive rules - it's pretty much always way cheaper to get miles out of electric. I use 100% wind power in my 100% electric drive lithium power pack commuting (26 mile) fully street legal vehicle, thanks to a subscription plan with my statewide power utility, at a cost less than coal power is in some states and way lower cost than any liquid fuel (such as gasoline from imported oil). My mpge is so high, I won't post it, as people would be shocked. They should be shocked that current gas vehicles get such horribly low mpge by comparison, I think. Ok, I changed my mind - I get 822 mpge on a cost basis, a method I think that conservative economists might like.
Any other real full time commuting electric drive vehicle owners, feel free to add anything that I've missed. Others, feel free to keep your completely uninformed opinions to yourself.
Posted by: Zero X Owner | Oct 5, 2008 6:57:40 PM
if she really wanted to help the environment, why didn't she take the 35,000 and buy two half state subsidized solar systems to help her neighbors not use electricity.... oh that's right, she's an attention whore(as evidenced in photograph).
Posted by: shes a dumbass | Oct 5, 2008 6:58:39 PM
Let me revise that. After a couple minutes research it would seem most Plug-in kits are only 5kw/hr. At open market Li-ion cell prices that's $2,000 minus BMS, charger and packaging. Where the hell does $35,000 come from??
Posted by: Paul | Oct 5, 2008 7:06:22 PM
Price of functional electric drive, when designed as such:
My fully electric drive lithium power pack fully street legal daily commuter vehicle cost me less new than the current discount(!) on a Hummer.
It cost less up front, cost less to operate and cost less to maintain and has better performance than the closest gas equivalent.
Posted by: Zero X Owner | Oct 5, 2008 7:07:01 PM
Jealousy often leads to changes in consumer behavior (see Veblen and beaver top hats). On the basis of the comments of many of these bloggers, plug in hybrids are the next huge thing.
Posted by: Economist | Oct 5, 2008 7:10:23 PM
@ Older-Engineer: An ICE IS_only 15% energy efficient at the wheels! (you're getting confusing by 30% efficiency at the flywheel) As for gasoline/oil distribution, it's a bulky liquid transported almost exclusively by large ICE powered sea and land vehicles, I can't imagine how that can be compared on an efficiency/cost basis against electrical distribution which is 100% via static infrastructure.
Posted by: Paul | Oct 5, 2008 7:21:25 PM
@Paul
So you're saying that a modern drivetrain wastes HALF the energy consumed by an ICE??? That would make the figures a lot more consistent, but I thought these losses were more like 15% and were included in the 35% I thought represented the overall efficiency. Could you provide a reference? And I knew at one time what transmission line losses were for the grid, but have lost it amongst the clutter. Let me just say, 100% static does not mean anywhere near 100% efficient.
An earlier commenter noted that a lot of the energy in the fuel used by ICEs is wasted as heat, but I would point out those large towers near every coal-fired central power generation facility. They are called cooling towers.
Posted by: Older Engineer | Oct 5, 2008 7:46:11 PM
@Paul, Wikipedia estimates US transmission line losses at 7.4%, which I will admit is better than I would have expected.
Posted by: Older Engineer | Oct 5, 2008 8:00:58 PM
WOW~ using 100% wind power to charge a 100% electric car is closer to heaven than I can imagine. Scale this shit up people! Hippies will save the planet after all ... I knew it!
Interesting how the little fascists around here try to "Rove" the chick with insults about her person and motivation. You know you are doing something right when the jr.righties start pissing everything.
Posted by: mike tar | Oct 5, 2008 8:29:52 PM
Over 80% of the energy of a gasoline or diesel internal-combustion engine is WASTED AS HEAT.
That's at maximum efficiency. When you're idling at a stop light. you're wasting maybe 98% of the energy in your running gasoline engine.
Electric motors are a lot more efficient. Electric cars make a lot of sense. The only issue so far is the batteries: the weight-to-energy ratios in lead/acid batteries and cost-to-energy ratios in LION and NIMH batteries.
Compressed air in a carbon fiber tank is still dangerous, but its weight-to-energy ratio might be better than batteries.
My point is that internal combustion of fossil fuels is a dead end. The future belongs to public transportation, urban redesign, walking, bicycling... and some kind of alternative-engine cars and trucks.
Posted by: goatchowder | Oct 5, 2008 8:32:36 PM
Not sure about all the equations , all i know is it would be awesome to have a plug in car cause every house store motel umm prolly several other places have exterior outlets, i would keep long drop cord in trunk and not worry about MPG cause i would be charging my batteries for FREE
Posted by: Laser | Oct 5, 2008 8:34:02 PM
With all this talk about wasting energy, I wonder how much energy has been wasted by everyone posting stupid comments. At least enough to rob some poor sap 1 electric mile from their plug in car. Civilization will run out long before we run out of oil or any of the other "necessities" of life. If you can call the excuse for human existence, civilization.
Posted by: Chris | Oct 5, 2008 10:35:47 PM
My question is: Why are we still dealing with hybrids at all? Why can't someone start building a knock-off of the EV-1... those wonderful, proven, purely electric vehicles from the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" With today's improved technology, one could probably go 500 miles or more on a single charge (the originals, built over a decade ago only went 250 miles on a single charge). The EV-1 is fast and powerful, with plenty of torque? Why mess with gas and retrofit systems? Just build a newer, better version of the EV-1. Virtually ALL of the folks fortunate enough to lease them LOVED them. What are we waiting for?
Posted by: KiteBoarder | Oct 5, 2008 10:37:49 PM
It's a little amusing, but pitiful, to read the few pissed-off, anti-alternative energy people on here... they have the same tone as the irritable anti-auto/pro-horse movement of the 1890s, while also managing to channel the same sort of fuming, paranoid, us-versus-them mentality of anti-segregationists of the 1960s: "MY WORLD MUST NOT CHANGE!" Well, guess what? It's going to change. And, God willing, in ten years you'll all be driving yer beloved vintage SUV or Toyota truck around looking for the last remaining gas station for 5 miles, to buy it's bargain basement sale of $19.45/gas per gallon. Goood luck.
Posted by: Ulysses_Battery | Oct 5, 2008 10:42:38 PM
Do people really think plugging in a 2,000 lb vehicle is "green" or will save the environment?
People need to quit being ignorant. The probability of of plugging into an electrical distribution point transmitted from a "green" source is extremely low. Consider that over ~45%+ of US electricity is from coal and ~20% natural gas for a combined of ~65% electricity generated from fossil fuels (eia.doe.gov). Nuclear electricity generation accounts for ~19%+ is from nuclear, while ~7%+ is cited to be from "other" sources. This can be conservatively be assumed to be "green" sources. The chance of a plug-in hybrid using "green" source power based on the location of "green" electrical generation sources and it can be assumed that that the probability of a "green" source plugging into a plug-in hybrid is low.
Also, consider that it takes the same amount of power, whether from gas or fossil fuel electricity to move an average sized US vehicle. Okay, electric motors or efficient. If they weren't then they require even more power that gasoline energy can provide, which means more fossil fuel burning...
Coal burns dirtier, i.e. more CO2, NOx, SOx, and Hg. Natural gas still emits pollution, maybe half or a third as much as coal. Factor in transmission friction losses and power plant generation inefficiency and it is very clear that plug-in hybrid "green" power is not realistically "green" after all. Also include the other environmental impacts from mining coal and natural gas. "Green," eh?
The next thing to consider is nuclear power. This by far has the least environmental impact, the least impact on global warming. Toxic waste is still a problem, but at least we won't be fouling Earth's atmosphere.
It doesn't matter if you have super batteries. Plug-in hybrids are only shifting the energy problem to fossil fuel burning and nuclear power generation.
Yes, electricity is cheaper, but hybrid technology adds 50-100% more to the cost of a vehicle. Will hybrids help break oil dependence? In theory, yes. In practice, not for another 20+ years. Good luck America and world.
Posted by: We're screwed. | Oct 5, 2008 11:47:25 PM
uh huh, great, you drive a hybrid. so while you drive, rainbows and unicorns come out your arse. fantastic. however, the carbon cost of CREATING your hybrid, with its toxic chemical box fuel storage, and then DISPOSING of said chemical box when you're done with it - or hey, swap it out for a more toxic one, is probably more than the prodution and running cost (in carbon) of my 16 year old jag.
and another thing. how the fuck did american manufacuters (looking at you cadilac) get away with producing 350ci/5.7l V8's that only produce 103hp while burning a gallon for every 12 miles boggles my mind. i mean gezzuss.
anyway. its not like these hybrid owners crushed/recycled their old cars to 'neutralise its carbon output' while being replaced with the pius? so net-net, the old car is probably still running somewhere, and the purchased hybrid is an *additional* carbon cost to the earth as a whole.
while i do agree with green thing, having my face rubbed in how much i am not doing to save the earth by smug bastards in shitty hybrids doesn't really sell it to me. plus if she wants more MPG, maybe attention whore shouldn't drive a fucking SUV. oh, no, wait, she needs a big car for her "look at me!" stickers. sorry, i got that wrong.
Posted by: god dammit | Oct 6, 2008 2:56:28 AM
You want to be green, get horses & a carriage. Yes, journeys that take hours in a car will take days. But its that, bicycles or walking if you're serious about eliminating dependence on oil and cutting CO2. Anything else is plain green-washing and lip-service...
Posted by: Chris | Oct 6, 2008 3:15:19 AM
Question - How many bikes could she buy for the cost of the SUV and the conversion?? Around 350. Having that many more people not drive cars would be more energy efficient.
Posted by: Matt | Oct 6, 2008 3:35:47 AM
It is astounding to me how many hateful posts there are here on this article. Throughout history there has been a contingency of people who vehemently oppose progress. They will go to any length to impose their fear and hate on others.
If you don't want progress for yourself, then no problem, don't buy it. But, if you spend your time espousing hatred and lies at others progress, it is time for you to seek help.
It is time for the world to move forward. Like the bumper stickers say:"lead, follow or get out of the way".
Posted by: Michael Kennedy | Oct 6, 2008 3:41:14 AM
@god dammit
Dead batteries usually end up in third world countries eager to cash in on your waste so rest easy.
Posted by: Greenpeace | Oct 6, 2008 4:23:30 AM
For the rest of us bike sales are UP. As long as I can hear my tunes and get to my destination... all is well! http://www.spymac.com/details/?2382731
Posted by: Diggers | Oct 6, 2008 4:30:13 AM
Extreme skier? I hope she hikes to the top of the mountain. Her carbon footprint from all the helicopters she probably uses way exceeds any savings she gets from her toy.
Posted by: BarryW | Oct 6, 2008 5:14:38 AM
It amazes me how stupid these green lemmings have become. The premise that carbon emissions are bad is suspect by itself. The earth doesn't need saving people. Nature nazi's should go hug a tree and leave the rest of us alone.
Posted by: Dwimmer | Oct 6, 2008 5:16:50 AM
I hate, and I mean hate this whole global warming guilt. People will only do things for the environment when it benefits them. It's either them saving money or self masturbation through GIANT HYBRID stickers and decals all over their vehicles.
FYI: 90% of green house gases are non-man made.
Posted by: Lorenzo T | Oct 6, 2008 7:24:06 AM
Geez ! for cost of the SUV plus conversion . . . she is an idiot ! Now Im all for saving $$ on gas and helping out the environment but I'm not STUPID ! Must be nice to have tons of sponsers and FWBs to help pay for her crap.
Posted by: John | Oct 6, 2008 7:29:38 AM
Mike tar said:
"Electricity can be generated by entirely clean technology and GAS IS GAS and it stinks."
Mike does "tar" stand for tard? Here you go:
The nation's fleet of over 100 coal plants is responsible for generating more electricity than any other single electricity fuel source. Coal power plants are responsible for 93 percent of the sulfur dioxide and 80 percent of the nitrogen oxide emissions generated by the electric utility industry.
source: http://www.powerscorecard.org/tech_detail.cfm?resource_id=2
Wow coal is clean? I guess not.
Posted by: Lorenzo T | Oct 6, 2008 7:31:14 AM
Dwimmer, funny how your comment looks more like nazi propaganda than the article does.
Posted by: Regan | Oct 6, 2008 8:02:39 AM
@ Lorenzo
Now welcome to the real world, where I actually own and use daily a lithium powered electric vehicle for my commute (I already made arrangements to sell my used battery at a profit several years from now to get an upgrade).
I guess you failed to read my comments that I use 100% wind power for my 100% electric drive vehicle that I bought for less money than the closest comparable gas vehicle.
And yes, coal controlled at a few thousand point sources to power much more efficient electrics is WAY cleaner than gasoline at millions of inefficient point sources.
Feel free to get a clue some day.
I'm not any closer to heaven for having a wind powered electric vehicle, but I can race a Lamborghini Diablo and tie or beat it at 0-60, which feels like heaven, straight through my throttle.
@ we're screwed:
What electric vehicle do you own and use? Oh, none? Then shut up with your incorrect information and let those who actually have real world information share it. "The probability of of plugging into an electrical distribution point transmitted from a "green" source" is 100% in the real world for me, every time I do it (such as today), not "extremely low", as I have a wind power subscription plan from my statewide power utility.
Posted by: Zero X owner | Oct 6, 2008 8:18:05 AM
One of the least expensive conversion companies is 3Prong Power in Berkeley, www.3prongpower.com
Posted by: Jules | Oct 6, 2008 9:34:33 AM
I would like to see her electric bill after charging it all night. You're not saving money or the environment if you're sucking it down from your local power company.
Posted by: josh | Oct 6, 2008 9:36:11 AM
@ josh
It's probably similar to mine - a complete charge from when my power pack is at its lowest costs me less than 20 cents. Since I use wind power, provided by a subscription plan from my local power company, yes that's saving money (compared to a similar vehicle run off of gas) and the environment.
Feel free to be wrong some more at your convenience, josh. Perhaps you are confused if you don't own an electric vehicle, like I do. You do own one, so you have any basis whatsoever for your opinions, right?
Posted by: Zero X owner | Oct 6, 2008 10:01:35 AM
Plugging in to recharge may not be a good idea beyond the initial few cars doing this. Imagine if we all switched from gasoline to battery driven cars- The laws of supply and demand will kick in and cause the price of electricity to jump,also the grid might not handle the additional load, although admittedly most charging might be done off peak at night.
Posted by: Keith | Oct 6, 2008 10:12:10 AM
@ Keith
Where did you get your Ph.D. in economics, a garbage can? Outward shifts in off-peak demand are easily matched by existing peak supply. We could switch over almost all vehicles instantly, today, to plug in hybrids with no impact on the grid, according to the Deprtment of Energy and a national laboratory. There is also more flexibility in long term electricity supply and demand than in gasoline, due to better and easier substitution of energy sources (renewable gases, wind power, hydroelectric, solar, etc., etc.). That means that electricity prices are less volatile than gasoline prices, for you non-economists.
All right, enough moronic FUD. Everyone, please look at http://www.calcars.org before you make another uninformed comment that's been discredited thousands of times before, (yes, it's an advocacy group, but they do conveniently collect lots of quality relevant research on one site). Please read ALL the studies, bother to understand them and maybe then we can have adult conversations.
Electric drive is such a total non-brainer at this point that we're now left with ridiculous non-arguments like Keith's.
Posted by: Economist | Oct 6, 2008 10:32:28 AM
josh: "You're not saving money or the environment if you're sucking it down from your local power company."
Yes, you are, actually. The power company's generator runs at optimum efficiency nearly 100% of the time. Your vehicle's engine seldom operates at its greatest efficiency, even with a multi-speed transmission. Gas also costs pretty much the same regardless of the time of day you purchase it, whereas recharging during off-peak hours is much cheaper.
The advantages are there. We just don't have the proper infrastructure... yet.
Posted by: Tim B | Oct 6, 2008 10:34:18 AM
Only a tree-hugger would pay $35,000 to save $5,000 at the pump. Jeez, that's border-line retarded!
Posted by: ikaruga | Oct 6, 2008 10:41:21 AM
@ ikaruga
Remind me again when the payback is on leather seats or sun roofs?
Posted by: Knows how to do math. | Oct 6, 2008 10:50:04 AM
ikaruga: and only a modern day conservative is both arrogant and obtuse enough to say her goal is saving money when she clearly states otherwise:
"They are crazy expensive right now," Gannett says of conversions, "but the goal is to inspire people by showing them what's actually possible. People have had enough preaching. They need real live examples."
Knee-jerk anti-environmentalism is dead. Times have changed and this is the 12st century. Now, are you with us or against us?
Posted by: Tim B | Oct 6, 2008 10:54:56 AM
Everyone's comments here about efficiency are wrong. Understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics!
*******
"Green" people: plugging into an electrical grid with a fuel basis of 69% (coal + natural gas) means your combusting more pollution into the air than gasoline!
********
Any kind of "green" technology powered by electricity, must cover it's own carbon emitting footprint, i.e. carbon neutral.
********
If the technology can move beyond the carbon neutral state, then it can be considered green.
********
This includes the manufacturing of the mechanism. Factor in the coal/natural gas based electricity consumed by the factory to assemble the product, and the coal/natural gas based electricity that the components of the mechanism used.
********
It's highly doubtful that multi-million dollar corporations are willing to pay a premium for nuclear/"green" based electricity.)
Posted by: QW=dE | Oct 6, 2008 10:58:29 AM
There is nothing green about an SUV. Consumers need to learn that "green" means an end of mindless consumption, not a shift toward purchasing trendy mass-market goods that make us feel good.
Posted by: james | Oct 6, 2008 11:00:03 AM
It doesn't matter how many miles per gallon this little piece of crap gets. That chick has taken more heli rides than most marines and driving that thing is not going to make up for it. Ask her how she gets to the top of a peak in Alaska -- car to bus to plane to bus to car to heli. I live in BC and the hippies around here have seen less than 10% of what I've seen with my gas guzzling 4x4. Wanna take your two week vacation and walk to some new hot springs, be my guest, I'd rather go on a day trip and go somewhere else the next day. Would I trust that Escape to get me 300km into the bush and back? Not a chance. I will not be driving any hybrid or electric vehicles until the price for the parts comes down and I can refit my bush truck.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 6, 2008 11:24:08 AM
Umm, why not just get a bike if you want to be green? If you need room to carry things, by a baby carriage attachment or a collapsable basket...Geez, these hippy people are dumb
Posted by: common sense | Oct 6, 2008 11:35:33 AM
The big thing about all-electric vehicles is that their fuel is predominantly domestic - coal being the most prevalent. That means that more of the money that is spent to fuel the car will circulate domestically, bringing overall costs down and adding jobs to the econom
Whether the fuel is coal/gas/wind/solar/etc, it's environmentally safer to produce it domestically because most other countries do not follow the same standards as are practiced in the united states of america. Indeed, companies often go overseas because it's cheaper, precisely because that country does not have the same standards and expectations that we do. This should be morally offensive, and discussed publicly more often. Further, those other countries, like saudi arabia, do not have the same level of human rights as we do. This gives us more reasons to drill for oil and to produce other necessary products domestically, until those countries can meet acceptable standards and treat their people with the same respect that we do.
In summary, we should not be importing as much as we do, considering that a lot of imported goods are coming from countries with substantially lower standards and gross human rights violations. The right thing to do is to push for a domestic agenda, and to educate the public about why importing goods from these other countries is not moral or good for our economy. When those other countries are responsible enough and knowledable enough, we will work on improving our economic ties with them. Until then, we will work to educate them, especially the developing countries, about what is right and acceptable in the modern world.
Posted by: Jon Svensons | Oct 6, 2008 11:40:43 AM
I said, enough moronic FUD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
Posted by: Economist | Oct 6, 2008 11:47:15 AM
Looks like the humble bicycling commuter is finally getting some federal acknowledgement!
$20/month tax credit reimbursement to/from employer.
Posted by: Z | Oct 6, 2008 12:11:29 PM
I have to say that anyone who says you can't recoup the cost of conversion hasn't looked at the price of fuel. I drive 130mi/day. The diff between my 35mpg and 130mpg is 2800/year. I own vehicles about 10 years. That is 28000 in fuel cost savings. The conversion pays for itself as my conversion wouldn't be 35k like hers. Plus the vast majority of the hardware for the conversion can be moved to a new vehicle in ten years as a well built electric motor can last many decades.
Posted by: Me | Oct 6, 2008 12:28:19 PM
(Ignoring the hate speech on both sides of this argument...)
And I fell for the headline thinking this was actually finally a practical reasonable alternative... only to be disappointed yet again...
Until I can buy one at payments someone who doesn't have corporate sponsorship can afford, then its useless. I'd love a vehicle that won't cost me a $200+ a month for it's fuel. That's good beer money, dammit! But the constant belittling, degrading, elitist, I'm better and greener you attitude from the left is nauseating. I think mother earth can take care of herself just fine. Take a hint green people, back off! We'll get there when we get there!
Posted by: papajon | Oct 6, 2008 12:34:14 PM
I think she is helping things move towards the right direction. I think our first challenge is to get everybody into plug-in hybrids, then move towards eco-friendly electric. I agree current ways of obtaining electricity is not good enough, but when the public gets into green via these cars, they are gonna demand green electric as well. If people are not going to get it via public pipes, other solutions are/will be available to generate your own electricity. So, I think this is all heading towards a greener future.
Posted by: RickT | Oct 6, 2008 12:38:11 PM
@ papjon
But the constant belittling, degrading, defeatist, I'm dumber and more violent you attitude from the right is nauseating.
Enough gibberish.
Ding! I think the thread is done. (checking) Nope, we overcooked it and burnt it.
Posted by: Rove disciple | Oct 6, 2008 12:49:00 PM
Straw bale homes with solar panels and $35,000 conversions are great for those who can afford it. But as fuel prices soar and the economy falters, fewer of us will have that kind of buying power. What we really need is functional public transit.
Including a rail system that works.
Posted by: Jim | Oct 6, 2008 1:01:33 PM
@ Jim
That's a logical fallacy. You argue that:
1. I admit that this behavior works for some people.
2. This behavior does not work for absolutely everyone at all times.
3. Therefore, we must reject this behavior entirely and adopt some other behavior that also doesn't work for absolutely everyone at all times.
Do you see the flaws in your argument? If not, I suggest:
Posted by: Logician | Oct 6, 2008 1:18:40 PM
So, I have a question. Does a world class skier ski on ski slopes the world over? Doesn't the carbon emitted by all the air planes she would need to fly on to get to all these ski slopes more then compensate for the slight reduction in carbon emitted by her SUV? Depending on how much she flew for these competitions, wouldn't the flights compensate for her straw bale house and solar power? Unless they have some new hybrid airplanes I haven't heard about...
Posted by: Jordan | Oct 6, 2008 1:31:40 PM
"Knee-jerk anti-environmentalism is dead. Times have changed and this is the 12st century. Now, are you with us or against us?
Posted by: Tim B"
I'm against you. Knee-jerk environmentalism and pretending that CO2 is harmful to the earth isn't getting us anywhere. Before we can convert all vehicles to electric, greater capacity will have to be built (I don't care what the previous posters say about "off-peak"), and they can't be coal-fired plants. I'll take CO2 emissions any day over sulfur emissions. We need nuclear plants and construction needs to start now.
Posted by: Whitney | Oct 6, 2008 1:45:37 PM
@ Jordan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_airplane
Apparently, there's a lot you haven't heard about. Also, this kind of non-point has already been raised and dismissed thousands of times previously in other blogs. Feel free to learn something before you broadcast your ignorance. Her other behavior doesn't change with or without a hybrid, so it's a non-issue.
You've just committed a red herring fallacy -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
There seems to be no substantive content to this blog thread.
Posted by: Please think before opening mouth. | Oct 6, 2008 1:46:55 PM
@ Whitney - same to you. Not caring about truth doesn't make it go away. You are factually incorrect.
Posted by: Please think before opening mouth. | Oct 6, 2008 1:50:12 PM
@ Please think before opening mouth: Please think before opening Wikipedia again, for the love of Allah. Are you implying that this lady uses that thing to fly? Thanks for making me that much more stupid for following your Wiki-logic.
Posted by: Sean | Oct 6, 2008 2:24:41 PM
@Sean
You miss the point - planes are a red herring. Her other behavior doesn't change with or without a hybrid, so it's a non-issue.
You've just committed a red herring fallacy -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
There still seems to be no substantive content to this blog thread.
Posted by: Please think before opening mouth. | Oct 6, 2008 2:28:28 PM
Well, if her local utility burns coal for electricity, then I don't know if she'll be daving Gaia, but she's likely costing the Saudis a few bucks, so good on her.
Of course, that's why "ending our dependence on foreign oil" (absolutely a good thing) is not the same as "fighting climate change" - at least, not without more nuclear plants plus an upgraded electrical grid to carry power from nuke, wind, tide and solar over long distances.
Posted by: Holdfast | Oct 6, 2008 2:34:22 PM
Hadcrut and UAH satillite data says EARTH is now as cool as it has been in over 70 years and that temps have been going down for 10 years. Nobel laureates write to the IPCC showing that despite 50 percent changes in co2 over baseline, the temperature is below baseline and there is no correlation of c02 and temp.
NY state starts charging people who cant afford their mortgages more money for elctricity because they just sold 20 million dollars of carbon credits.
We are living in the age of unreason.
32,000 could stop a few foreclosures
Posted by: peerviewer | Oct 6, 2008 3:05:34 PM
The most compelling reasons to stop burning oil for transportation in the U.S. are that it fuels terrorism and forces the U.S. to fight costly wars in nasty places.
That is enough reason to switch to alternative energy sources for our transportation (nukes, coal, wind, solar, etc.). Things like pollution and possible global warming are on the list too. Lung cancer hits hundreds of thousands of people a year, half of whom die. Global warming--well, whether real or not, it can't be good to add so much more CO2 and more noxious gases into the atmosphere.
Sen. Obama, if you're reading this blog, since you have promised to "fix" the economy (and health care and foreign policy and just about every other problem known to man), I would ask you to ban the use of gasoline for civilian transport, and give substantial tax credits to hybrid conversions, new hybrid and other alternative fuel vehicles, and extend the tax credits for home solar energy installations. Also, windmills. Encourage the construction of 40 or 50 new nuclear power plants that use modern technology versus the 1960s tech in our current outdated facilities.
Posted by: Terry Traub | Oct 6, 2008 4:08:39 PM
you people in california are still getting screwed on power from when gov davis let enron pok you in the booty here in az we are only payin $.08 to $.10 per kilowatt so i'm convertiing my truck to 100% electric
so i'll be using 0% OPEC[ the real terrorists] oil how many MPG is that?
Posted by: aldo watts | Oct 6, 2008 4:43:19 PM
"Some hippies are just taking this being green trend too far."
Some people will just never understand that they are completely a part of the environment they eat, breathe and breed in.
Posted by: TJ | Oct 6, 2008 4:48:30 PM
We are buy virtual currency gold. If you want sell it. you can choose us. we will give you a suitable price. Welcome to http://www.mmofly.com
Posted by: wow gold | Oct 6, 2008 6:53:41 PM
What will it take 100 years to get that money back in savings? LOL.
Wake me up when Green=Sane.
Posted by: deek | Oct 6, 2008 6:59:40 PM
So, does anyone else find it a tad ironic for a "global warming expert" to be flying all around the world on an airplane?
How many miles would she have to drive in a gas guzzling Hummer to equal the CO2 generated by one US to Europe round trip? (Let alone the 12+ she lists...)
Posted by: Rob C | Oct 6, 2008 7:21:46 PM
why can't we all just ride bikes, use the bus, take the train? or just because some people have the money, they don't want to be near people who don't have the cash? is this whole going green making smart people smoke the "green" which causes them to spend money to build/buy crap that they don't need? why not use that money to build like giant windmills to power a whole city like New York? or use the money to go old school and use steam engines...?
Posted by: Kikyou_the_evil_Miko | Oct 6, 2008 8:02:08 PM
ok..so what about the cost of creating all of these batteries? Where do they go once they're spent? Don't forget, you will also have to replace the batteries every 5-10 years. All you end up doing is replacing the carbon emissions from the exhaust pipe with an entirely different kind of waste in the form of spent batteries in landfills which can cause soil toxification and water table pollution when they leak. Also, nearly all plastics are a derivative of oil so while you're using less fuel, cars these days have a much more plastic in them for fixtures and trim "to keep costs down". My point is, oil has been much more incideously ingrained into our everyday lives than just the MPG reading on your car. All fronts need to be focused on.
Posted by: Will | Oct 6, 2008 8:03:41 PM
Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling nickel-metal hydride batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information and dealers are paid a $200 "bounty" for each battery.
Posted by: Phil | Oct 6, 2008 8:22:19 PM
as I've said before - the terrorists have won - easily and freely interpreted from the from the level of ignorance expressed here on this comment thread.
america used to be about getting shit done - men on the moon, atomic bomb in three years, make a plane that can fly in hours the same distance that took months on the ground by horse.
positive, energetic, proactive, preemptive.
now we have all you redstate rednecks whining about how much you'd rather waste the planet by wasting gas.
you're a bunch of boiling bullfrogs, sitting in the hot pot, croaking about how much you love wasting the environment and yourselves.
whenever the positive proactive crowd looks for a better way to accomplish something and make a positive difference (which used to be celebrated, not mocked) all you can do is criticize.
oh, sorry, i forgot, we're 'elitists'. why don't the rest of you dumb-fucks move to moose jaw, alaska and secede from the union altogether?
Posted by: vaporland | Oct 6, 2008 9:14:19 PM
So it's plugged in... And what makes the electricity to charge it, burning coal?
Posted by: kylis | Oct 7, 2008 4:57:08 AM
Key statistic is missing. How far can it go on a full charge? That always seems to be the limitation. Most of the ones I've heard of are only good for short trips around town.
Posted by: Tom | Oct 7, 2008 5:58:02 AM
The 2008 benefit for cyclist commuting has to be set up through your employer (who also gets a benefit) to receive a benefit for your cycling. The benefit comes in the form of a reimbursement for expenses 'for the purchase of a bicycle and bicycle improvements, repair, and storage, if the bicycle is regularly used for travel between the employee’s residence and place of employment. Sooooooo does anyone know where to find these forms before Dec 31st?
Posted by: Diggers | Oct 7, 2008 7:40:38 AM
The 2008 benefit for cyclist commuting has to be set up through your employer (who also gets a benefit) to receive a benefit for your cycling. The benefit comes in the form of a reimbursement for expenses 'for the purchase of a bicycle and bicycle improvements, repair, and storage, if the bicycle is regularly used for travel between the employee’s residence and place of employment. Sooooooo does anyone know where to find these forms before Dec 31st?
Posted by: Diggers | Oct 7, 2008 7:42:26 AM
It's funny that the article didn't mention what Alison did to the interior of the vehicles. She had the rear seats removed and the cargo area/rear passenger area converted into a Tempur-pedic mattress so that she can live out of her car. It also makes our lunch-hour quickies ten-fold more convenient. Go, Alison!
Posted by: Matt Herbz | Oct 7, 2008 8:57:38 AM
@ Tom
There are many studies that report that at least 75% of all US residential transportation is short trips around town (less than 40 miles). So you're saying "most of the one's I've heard of are only good for" at least 75% of all US residential transportation needs. That sounds pretty good to me, but you characterize that success as a negative limitation. Why?
I use my 100% electric drive vehicle (100% wind powered) for my 26 mile commute to work daily, as I posted here previously, but apparently some folks here don't bother to read the posts with factual, real world information. My vehicle goes as fast as I want to scare myself and accelerates as fast as a Lamborghini Diablo, so no-one tells me to get out the way and it costs less new than the closest comparable gas powered vehicle (and less than the current discount(!) on a Hummer).
Note that I'm not being elistist or preachy here, I'm just reporting real world facts on a real world electric vehicle that gets daily use. It works. Get over it.
Many folks on this thread seem content to pull made up negative assumptions out of their rear ends and twist positive outcomes into negative sounding comments instead of deal with the real world improving.
On the bright side, nice comment, Diggers. There are many, many solutions and they can all coexist without fighting. That leaves more time and energy for having fun in life.
Posted by: Zero X owner | Oct 7, 2008 9:15:44 AM
Wow, people are just really misinformed.
Early posters were correct; measuring the "gas mileage" of an electric vehicle is almost as useless as talking about how the new Escalade consumes "ZERO penguins per mile!" It's a mostly meaningless (but impressive-sounding) figure. Until we can get some sort of environmental equivalence equation for, say, KwH/gallons of gas conversion, there's simply no way to compare a plugin to a purely internal-combustion engine. There's no HONEST way.
That being said, there's some truth to the opposing position. It's not simply a matter of the energy expended. Each source of energy has benefits and drawbacks. Crude oil is an INCREDIBLY geopolitically costly source of energy. It relies upon large supplies mostly controlled by states that are NOT friendly to US interests. Also, economies of scale mean that electricity CAN be produced far more "clean" than gasoline. Of course, this doesn't mean that electricity IS "cleaner" than oil, just that it CAN be. Note that most electricity IS produced by coal plants (hydro and especially solar account for almost no real electricity production in the US, nuclear is a small amount, IIRC), which DO pollute -- but far less than a billion smoking tailpipes do. And, centralized reclamation and scrubbing technologies can, again, make coal electricity more environmentally friendly than oil.
Right now, there's a real problem when talking about the "environment" and how to protect it: we don't really understand the full network costs of almost anything. That "organic," home-grown produce may CLAIM to be more environmentally friendly, but some studies show that a thousand farmers all driving their exhaust-belching F150 pickups actually produce MORE pollution than one or two semis full of produce from two states over.
The point is NOT that we should give up on trying to protect the environment; that is a good and laudable goal. But the fact is that many times we simply don't KNOW what the impact is.
And still I find it interesting that the "reduce" portion of the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra is almost always ignored. Some studies show that we could cut down on fuel consumption in our daily driving by 30-40% (far more than any hybrid technology) simply by driving more carefully: not accelerating so hard, not driving so fast, cutting down on unnecessary trips, turning off our engines when stopped. But just about NOBODY is interested in this very cheap, low cost way to "save the environment." I wonder why...
Posted by: Tom C | Oct 7, 2008 1:34:24 PM
@ Tom C
from an earlier post that you apparently didn't read, just use miles/$ to compare, easy (gallons of gas and electricity can both be measured in $/mile):
"One of the many, many ways to measure miles per gallon equivalent (mpge), such as energy/heat content is on a cost basis, so you can directly compare different vehicles' miles per dollar regardless of potentially different energy sources behind the miles. That means that your mileage would also vary based on your choice of energy sources as you will get higher mpge for choosing a cheaper power source. On this basis, electric drive rules - it's pretty much always way cheaper to get miles out of electric."
This cost method works for me. Using a cost basis for mpge, internal combustion engines get an unfair advantage as their fuel costs do not incorporate their actual economic costs (including pollution, investment diversion and weaker national security, yet internal comustion engines still get horrible mpge compared to electric drive, mostly from better electric drive efficiency and cheaper electricity than gasoline (per mile) in part due to to more flexible (domestic) original energy inputs (renewable gas, hydro, wind, solar, etc. etc.) to electricity.
I hope you were not trying to say that the concepts of miles or dollars could somehow be manipulated against gasoline, which is both silly and wrong.
Your last point that there are easier ways to save the environment is correct, but first, some people are interested in that point, and second, that's not the main topic of this article. Making electric drive more integrated to the electric grid is. As you note, that does reduce fuel consumption. Don't make perfect be the enemy of the good.
Posted by: Economist | Oct 7, 2008 2:18:07 PM
One big problem about these plug ins, especially in California is that they do not want any new coal or nuclear power. When all those people in southern California come home from work and plug in thier cars they are going to put a huge stress on the power grid if not knock it off line. They will have to put solar panels and wind generators every where possible. Id buy one once they are affordable, but what most dont know is that to get anywhere near the MPG promised you have to drive these cars differnetly. You have to plan ahead about when to brake and coast to get the benefits.
Posted by: Not anytime soon | Oct 8, 2008 6:07:10 AM
Maybe Alison ought to walk and bicycle more to get around. It certainly would do her fat ass some good.
Posted by: Sean | Oct 8, 2008 4:39:41 PM
People making comments should realize they are talking to real people through these messages. Rudeness is an abuse of freedom of speech, especially when it is deliberate, contrived, and meaningless use of words.
That said, the use of "100 MPG+" is very misleading. Many think it means something. It does not. It is entirely arbitrary. The statement could just as well be "1000 MPG+". It just depends on the electric to gasoline operation ratio.
After we work through this slimy practice (I mean to say it because it is my considered judgment that it is a fact.)we would need to get to a separate statement of MPG for gasoline operation and electric operation per some unit of energy. Then we have to find a definition of "MPGe" that accounts for the thermodynamic efficiencies of the central power plants producing the electricity. Then we have to realize that economic reality of most of the added load from plug in cars will be taken up by additional burning of coal. In the end, it is not as good as it sounds.
Such misleading practices are harmful because they allow trickery and deceit to stand in the way of real efforts to solve serious problems.
I am sorry that well meaning folks are being so deceived.
Posted by: Jim Bullis | Oct 11, 2008 10:16:23 PM
Re Older Engineer,
I working on the efficiency questions for some time. From fairly solid US national data from the US DOE the efficiency of coal fired power plants is about 32%, meaning that the electric energy in kWh that is produced is 32% of the heat energy in kWh of heat produced by burning the coal. Data, references and calculations can be seen at www.miastrada.com/analyses.
It is also well documented, Argonne National Laboratory reports, that the Prius engine converts heat into kinetic energy at an efficiency of 36% to 38%. This is much higher than typical cars on gasoline engines, and not so much, but still higher than most diesel engines in cars.
For any particular car and engine the analysis is somewhat complicated, but if arguments proceed on the basis of these numbers, rather different conclusions will result. For example, sticking batteries in a Prius has a net negative effect as far as CO2 goes.
Re Loosely Coupled, the situation with central power plants is not as you imagine though some of the advantages you cite are possible. The fact that these are located for the purpose of dumping heat rather than using it means they are themselves dinosaurs. It was a calamity that this arrangement prevailed in the early days of electrical power. A better system is where cogeneration is possible and most of the heat can be put to good use in industrial processes or in heating of residences.
But of course, if we all had a surplus of hydroelectric power, electric cars would be the only appropriate answer.
Posted by: Jim Bullis | Oct 11, 2008 10:46:55 PM
What hybrid? Air power? Electric.
I don't need that stinking low tech.
I have nuclear powered car. Fuel lasts for 15 years. Top that morons!
Posted by: Fu | Oct 19, 2008 12:37:47 PM
ROFL nucleaur powered car? Are you serious? Just what we need , a car creck and a small mushroom cloud. Now WHO is the moron?
Posted by: James | Oct 19, 2008 12:39:43 PM
I really don't need a car. I can get by on my looks alone.
Posted by: Avril Lavinge | Oct 19, 2008 12:42:36 PM




EDITOR: Joe Brown |
Question: If my car is parked out in the sunlight for eight hours a day, could a solar cell installed to be a part of the roof-rack of my car fully charge the batteries on a hybrid? Or is it not worth the added weight and air drag?