Talk:Plug-in hybrid

Hybrid What?

Please see Hybrid What?. --D0li0 10:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A similar article named Petroleum electric hybrid vehicle appears to exist with substantial content, I'm wondering if we should consider trying to merge the two... --D0li0 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

For the intro section, what do you see as useful that is PHEV-specific? The Ronning reference might be good for a history section, once it's verified with the actual SAE paper in hand. Motorized bicycle: no. The battery consipracy idea would, I think need its own page and some documentation - it's too speculative to be material to definition of a PHEV, IMHO. Wish I could be more positive. Jack Rosebro 23:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I need to look more closely at the Petroleum electric hybrid vehicle article, but at first glance it appeared to be talking about Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Perhaps I am mistaken and it more closely paralles the Hybrid Vehicles page and should be considered for merging with that article? I just hate to see good work going into two seperate articles that are describing the same thing, one should become a redirect if that is in fact the case... --D0li0 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Source for advantages?

From the article:

A 70-mile range HEV-70 may annually require only about 25% as much gasoline as a similarly designed HEV-0, depending on how it will be driven and the trips for which will be used.

Is there a source for such statement? I'm going to change to something more verifiable if not. Daniel.Cardenas 16:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Reply by J. Ronning:

I wrote an SAE paper in 1997 on the topic (SAE # 971629) where I researched the the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey and found the distribution of daily travel. As engineers on the GM EV1 program, we used the same basic data to justify EV range on the order of 70 miles as being enough range to cover 9 out of 10 days for the average american driver, and about 3 of 4 annual miles for a "Plug-In" HEV (which I termed "Unlimited EV" at the time). I became an advocate for this architecture in my industry over those years, but it is an industry that is resistant to fundamental change. My colleague, Andy Frank, advocated more successfully from the academic world and Felix Kramer has done a Yeoman's job of raising awareness, especially with the media.

Another colleague of mine, Greg Grant, co-authored a following SAE paper in 1999 where we studied the economics of this architecture versus other HEVs over time and around the globe. EPRI has since done a much more exhaustive study on the same topic.

A PHEV-20 does not enjoy nearly as high of petroleum independence as a PHEV-70, but the battery system is a whole lot cheaper, so the answer is not crystal clear as to what will be optimum. There may very well be a range of choices based on consumer preference, as lithium battery prices fall significantly in the future.

Regards, Jeff Ronning

---

Jeff, thanks for the reply. Your credentials are impressive.  :-)

Some thoughts to consider: The first people who buy plug-in hybrids aren't going to be average american drivers. They will be drivers who know they can take advantage of the range. For example the next gen plug-in Prius may have a 9 mile range. For some people this will fit in their daily commute and therefor they will save much more on gas then your statement suggests.

Follow on years, because of increase production and improved technology we will get to PHEV-20 in mass production. So the immediate need for PHEV-70 seems unnecessary to me. Although I suspect unintended, the statistic you are using suggests people will get less of an improvement with smaller ranges.

Just my 2 cents, Daniel.Cardenas 04:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

---

J. Ronning reply: Daniel, thanks for the reply as well. Since it is impossible to predict how the buyer pool will be skewed in terms of daily travel (many owners of PHEVs may be attracted for general environmental or other reasons while their daily driving exceeds the particular ZEV range), I prefer to use average US driving statistics. This also helps to aggregate the societal benefits. If it can be proven one day that the PHEV market segments somewhat neatly along the lines of individual driving habits, it will then be fair to use the improved numbers in my opinion. I suspect you may be right that early PHEVs would have only 9 miles or so and later versions increase to 20 and higher ranges, but that does not preclude the possibility of versions with much higher ranges. Often battery pack power requirements drive the pack size giving more energy than might have been required. Nevertheless, if PHEVS eventually become mainstream and there is not a substantial market "grouping" effect, then the higher-range PHEV will clearly displace a greater percentage of its petroleum consumption than the lower-range version. You make a good point about market segmentation and we'll see one day just how much discretion consumers can bring to bear in their decision about PHEV range.

---

Quote from the article: "While a Prius is likely to convert fuel to motive energy on average at about 30% efficiency (well below the engine's 38% peak efficiency)" I would like to know the source of these figures please 83.245.48.112 00:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Arnaud

Also, this seems to contradict a statement from the article about the Prius: "The Prius minimizes the pumping loss by running the gasoline engine at high torque range with throttle fully open". Something is wrong ! or unclear ... 83.245.48.112 00:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Arnaud

---

Sources for Prius' fuel conversion efficiency are both a Toyota presentation as well as computer simulations using industry standard software. Vehicle efficiency is a multi-faceted topic, making it easy to compare apples to oranges. Efficiency depends heavily on driving schedule. The statements above do not detract from the the fact that the Prius engine is well-conditioned to operate often at near peak efficiency. Also, the Prius engine thermodynamic cycle is superior to a standard SI engine in terms of efficiency. The confusion is probably due to the suggestion that there is yet room for improvement, primarily in the first area, percent operation at peak efficiency. In a PHEV, where engine operation is relatively rare given substantial battery energy, the role of the IC engine becomes rather mundane - to mainly provide cruise power - something which can be accomplished at very near peak efficiency with a much smaller engine. Jeff Ronning 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Motorized bicycle

A motorized bicycle is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle that needs to be carefully placed in the article. The problem is this information seems to contradict the first line of this article. This article is totally biased and need a serious look into redevelopping non-pov attributes. CyclePat May 30th 2006

Perhaps you should take a whack at making the article more NPOV. Alternatively the article could be split up in to plug-in hybrid car or something like that. Daniel.Cardenas 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the point about neutrality as there have been dozens of contributors to this page and as the document has developed over the last year or so it has been growing into a fairly well understood topic. As far as motorized bicycles go, that is another topic altogether and I believe there is a section in Wikipedia for it. Plug-in hybrids is a huge growing movement in the US and is commonly understood to mean passenger cars primarily. There was a major meeting on the topic earlier this month at the DoE to discuss how these passenger vehicles can help reduce US dependence on imported oil. Major manufacturers of cars and trucks are being asked to consider how to make these vehicles in a cost effective way because of the potential they offer. That does not take away from the beauty of motorized bicycles - more power to you on that, but it's a different topic.Jeff Ronning 22:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Claim Refutation

I think the NPOV comment made by CyclePat is not sufficiently detailed. No specific suggestions are offered to make the article more neutral other than to add information about motorized bicycles.

I am a reporter for the National Public Radio affiliate in Austin, Texas (KUT-FM) and have covered PHEV stories. Austin Mayor Will Wynn (Chairman, Energy Committee, US Conference of Mayors) started the "National Plug-in Partners Campaign" along with the director of Austin's electric utility. Some credit this campaign with Ford's recent announcement of PHEV development. This wikipedia article on PHEVs is less tilted in favor of PHEVs than the National Plug-in Partners would like. I think this strongly indicates that the article is, in fact, balanced.

Motorized bicycles could be a subsection of this article or a different topic entirely. But the neutrality of this article is not, in my opinion, in legitimate dispute.

WRHowellJr 18:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you should have attributed that to CyclePat. Daniel.Cardenas 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Corrected. Apologize for the oversight. WRHowellJr 15:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Plug-ins not viable yet?

According to this: [1] Plug-ins aren't yet viable. What I was wondering is what it will take to make them work? Could the system simply not allow the batteries to get up to a full charge or for there to be some kind of advanced cooling system for the batteries? As much as I want plug-ins to work, wishful thinking isn't going to do it and I would like to see this article make current or future viability seem more realistic.

There have been several reports of mass produced plug-ins in the works. The guardian web site had a link that said the next version of the Prius will have plug-in capability with 9 mile range, but then removed this information from the article. I also saw a link to Ford article that said they are working on one too. The first ones will have short ranges and perhaps low top speed, but will improve as battery technology improves.

Look for the new Prius with Li-on battery at the end of next year. http://vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=553701

Daniel.Cardenas 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

- GM is in fact creating a plug-in hybrid for their Equinox LOOSELY based on the UC Davis version that the students designed under the supervision of Dr. Andy Frank, the reputed father of modern PHEVs. Only a few will be made, and they will most likely be leased with no option to purchase.

It is likely a true statement that Plug-In HEVs are not commercially viable today nor QUITE technologically viable, but I believe the Forbes article is off-target in comparing how cell phone batteries "get warm" to how a battery system is thermally managed. Proper pack engineering includes sufficient air cooling for the cells. In fact, some lithium batteries are about the most efficient available with ultra-low internal resistance. It would not be thermal management per se that hinders lithium powered plug-ins, but safety under abnormal conditions like severe overcharge. And on the commercial front, the cost of the batteries is still way too high, needing reduction by 2X or more.

- Correct, thermal management is easy. A BMS (Battery Monitoring System) like the smart chargers for your AA nimh batteries is required to prevent the overcharge. And the cost of batteries is high because of volume manufacturing.

The strange thing is that the domestic industry is bent on pursuing the H2 fuel cell vehicle (a system that Forbes devoted a cover page article to criticizing and worth reading) but its commercial and technical UNviability today is off the charts. Yet the industry complains about how plug-ins are not viable today. It will be very hard to compete with batteries in round trip efficient storage of renewable electricity. Batteries can give you 90 to 98% of the original energy back to the vehicle drive motor. If your storage media is compressed hydrogen, expect around 30% of the electrical energy back to the drive of a fuel cell vehicle. It is important for the public to understand that hydrogen is not a primary fuel, but simply a way to store energy that has been generated from primary fuels like coal, or from renewable sources, all of which ultimately come from solar energy. The energy required to generate H2 and store it (normally in compressed form) is often ignored and it can be substantial, typically 50% efficient. Jeff Ronning 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

- Which is why the auto industry is pursuing hydrogen as a hobby project. It is not viable in the near future, thus, it will not change the status quo of fossil fuel vehicles.

CO2 emissions

"Finally, if the local source of electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, the benefits in terms of reduced CO₂ emissions could be lost." - I deleted that sentence. The CO2 emissions will still be lower even if all the electricity is produced from fossil fuels because of the higher efficiency of the electric motor compared to an internal combustion engine. --cassini83 03:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

True. And it would be worth citing some Well-to-Wheel studies and facts comparing BEVs and PHEVs to ICE vehicules to support this fact. I will dig some and add references when I find the time. Feel free to do it too. - Vcote, 21 July 2006

I researched the "well to drivetrain" efficiency of a PHEV running off of stored electric power...the results were not encouraging...about 25% (see article section on "disadvanatges"). This 25% will be reduced even further by the power train of the vehicle, but such losses are likely comparable to other vehicles, and defintely comparable to non plug-in hybrid vehicles. All efficiencies cited are linked to other articles or referenced to a thermodynamics text. ~D.Clippinger 138.29.80.220 18:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your research seems to contradict most other research I have heard of on the subject (one could start with Ovshinsky's piece on the CalCars website, http://www.calcars.org/history.html, and go from there). The section you added to the page did not reference your sources, and it only discussed inefficiencies of the PHEV wheel-to-well chain without comparing them to the corresponding inefficiencies in the wheel-to-well chain of ICE-powered cars or non plug-in hybrids, rendering your assumed comparisons invalid. Therefore, I deleted the section you had added. Fbagatelleblack 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I cited a standard thermodynamics text. If you read this textbook you will see that my analysis is sound. Specifically, page 643 of this text describes second law efficiency of a system. My calculations follow exactly from this and should be second nature for any undergraduate engineer. I also caution your reliance on the article you found at calcars.org. This article was written to specifically address the emissions of the vehicle only . If you look at the whole system (generation of energy to its actual use) the efficiency is what I posted. The number I posted can be obtained quite easily by multiplying the various efficiencies of the system together. Also, I question reliance on the article at calcars.org as a source of authoritative information on this topic. The author of the article is president of a company that makes Ni-MH batteries that are used in such vehicles. While this fact does not in and of itself invalidate his claims, it means that such articles should be read with caution. If you read the calcars.org article more carefully, you will see that it is merely the petroleum consumption of the plug-in hybrid that is reduced--not the total energy consumption of the vehicle as a component of the transportation system. But reducing petroleum consumption in the car while increasing fossil fuel consumption at the power generation facility is the result of the engineering trade-off. Please let me know where the fault is in my analysis, otherwise I will re-post. Also, the efficiency that I cited was for "well-to-powertrain." Any efficiency improvements beyond the prime mover (i.e. regenerative braking) are not specific to the plug-in hybrid and hence cannot be claimed to be included as a result of "plug in" technology. D.Clippinger138.29.80.220 22:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing standard thermodynamics equations in this instance is insufficient. In order to be credible, you would have to show the details of your models and/or data analysis, demonstrating which specific energy sources were considered, how the values were calculated, and what the analysis showed. You would need to take into consideration the varied sources of power generation contributing to the grid (hydro, nukes, natural gas, coal, etc.) and show the CO2 emmsissions/Megawatt generated by each source as a percentage of total grid capacity. Additionally, you would have to consider CO2 emitted in the distribution of gasoline, including transportation to gas stations, etc. (very large) versus CO2 emitted in the distribution of electricity (very small). It is likely that the innefficiencies associated with gasoline distribution would more than make up for any innefficiencies in electrical generation, even if all electrical power were generated by burning fossil fuels, which is not the case.

In other words, for your claims to be credible, you will have to compare the "wheel-to-well" CO2 emissions of PHEVs against those of other vehicles, creating a substantial, all-encompassing list of all such inefficiencies in all cases, before you can claim that PHEVs generate more CO2 than do other vehicles. You will have to disprove the sizable body of work to date that supports claims that the wheel-to-well CO2 generation of PHEVs (and BEVs) is significantly less than that of other vehicles.

FYI: You will find that Ovshinsky's large format NiMH batteries are specifically NOT used in PHEVs, much to the dismay of many EV enthusiasts. Many feel that the lack of availability of these batteries has been created by some oil-company conspiracy. Others feel that these batteries are simply not suited for the task because nickel in expensive and lithium ion batteries have much better energy density. The only large-format NiMH batteries currently used in PHEV R&D are those from Electro Energy, whose bipolar design is strikingly different from Ovshinsky's design. EnergyCS and other conversion-oriented companies are using lithium. EAA's DIY plans call for lead-acid.Fbagatelleblack 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are making the same mistake that Cassini83 made in deleting the statement about increased CO2 production that begin this discussion. I have read the Argonne labs' reports extensively and they don't substantiate the claim that (in Cassini83's words) "[t]he CO2 emissions will still be lower even if all the electricity is produced from fossil fuels because of the higher efficiency of the electric motor compared to an internal combustion engine." In contrast, even the calcars.org website qualifies its statements by claiming "reduced emissions...even on a 50% coal grid."

Please re-read what I originally posted more carefully. I think the best statement is what you wrote yourself..."[i]t is likely that the innefficiencies associated with gasoline distribution would more than make up for any innefficiencies in electrical generation, even if all electrical power were generated by burning fossil fuels. (emphasis added)" Note that your use of the word likely is exactly my point...even you admit that there is a possiblity that emissions would increase on a 100% fossil grid. If that same grid is not simply a 100% fossil grid but is more and more a coal grid then the math works less and less in the PHEV's favor. To give a fair and complete picture of PHEV's and their potential role in reducing emissions, it must be understood that driving a PHEV alone will not reduce emissions, but rather it is the continual cleaning of the electric grid that will really be doing the "work" of reducing net global emissions. (Note that in CA much of this has been done by obtaining about 30% of electricity from natural gas...whether or not this is sustainable and what will replace it if it isn't are other questions...see the discusion on the natural gas crisis here at Wikipedia).

Regarding the batteries, I would prefer not to cite anything from someone who has a financial interest in the adaptation of the final technology. That said, in all fairness, even the Argonne lab reports have a heavy automotive and oil industry input. Some of this is unavoidable because the very sources of the information are those with a financial interest. If you want me to concede that that particular author's batteries aren't used in the PHEV's that have been built to date, I will. However, I believe such discussion is a distraction from the larger issue of obtaining reliable information about a technology from individuals who have or may obtain financial benefit from the adaptation of the technology. The apparent non-use of these specific batteries in PHEV's is one thing...lack of financial interest is another. I agree to the former, but can you confirm the latter? D.Clippinger 138.29.80.220 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have extensively revised and re-posted my original post, citing studies and news reports rather than a text and efficiency analysis to more closely adhere to the NOR guidelines. Please let me know what you think. D.Clippinger138.29.80.220 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

People tend to care more about the bottom line to their wallet than CO2 emissions. If the political process decides that C02 emissions are important then it is easier to clean up relatively few power stations, rather than millions of cars. Good post otherwise. Thx, Daniel.Cardenas 04:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

D.Clippinger's research shows that CO2 emmissions would likely decrease by 15% for the average American driver switching from a HEV to a PHEV. So why would this phenomenon be published as a disadvantage? Clearly, this is a benefit, not a disadvantage, given the global nature of problems associated with CO2 emissions. There is no localized danger created by increased local CO2 emissions. Therefore, I have reclassified the results of D.Clippinger's research as an advantage, not a disadvantage. I have reworded the associated text to remove misleading verbiage and highlight the benefits of PHEVs with regards to CO2 emissions.Fbagatelleblack 21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, but I believe the current wording presents the results of the study in an uneven manner. Specifically, the use of a phrase such as “certain studies have suggested” greatly downplays one of the main conclusions of the original work. The use of this phrase is particularly questionable considering that other information from the same study (information more flattering to the PHEV) is cited without such a phrase.

Let me know what you think of the additional edits I made to try to correct this. D.Clippinger138.29.80.220 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Noting potential increases in localized CO2 emissions might give readers the impression that there are localized problems associated with such emissions, which is not the case, so I re-inserted a note pointing out that CO2 emissions are primarily a global concern. Also, I included a link to the "clean coal" entry to show that power plants using coal can be made to emit less sulfur, mercury, etc. Otherwise, everything looked good. Fbagatelleblack 21:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, but for completeness, there really should be a reference for this sentence..."However, given the global nature of problems associated with CO2 emissions, specifically those related to global warming, localized increases in CO2 emissions are not considered a significant problem if global CO2 emissions are decreased." I don't think it's in the original work. The same should be done for the clean coal sentence. I moved the citations to before the sentences you added to remove any ambiguity about what is in the original source and what's not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.29.80.220 (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for cleaning up. I think the internal link to the clean coal entry should be enough of a reference for that issue. I also added an internal link to the global warming entry to back up the statement that CO2 emissions are a global concern.Fbagatelleblack 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

GM PHEV remote?

Although the possibility is fairly remote, General Motors or DaimlerChrysler could potentially effect a marketing coup by producing a markedly more versatile and fuel-efficient hybrid; a PHEV.

Isn't this less than remote, now likely (via unconfirmed info) in the case of GM? (Of course the possibliity of a significantly useful PHEV from GM, rather than Green Window Dressing, ala flex fuel, remains remote.) - Leonard G. 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you but wikipedia doesn't like to take action on rumors. Also the unencylopedic comment you are referring to should be removed or changed. Daniel.Cardenas 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Now appearing slightly less remote, a GM produced Saturn PHEV[2] (What it would look like if they make it.)- Leonard G. 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I tossed a similar article into the news section a few weeks ago. Daniel.Cardenas 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Electric with generator approach

It appears that an entire approach to PHEVs is neglected by this article. This approach is the electric vehicle with an internal combustion generator. This is the approach of the Mitsubishi MIEV concept, which seems to be the most likely to hit the market first, at least in the US. This is an old and tested technology, being used in trains for over 50 years.

You're right. Actually, the "Battery Electric vehicule" section of the article touches this subject but it is well worth expanding. Actually, one of the EV1 prototypes had this precise configuration (see EV1 article). However, one of the characeristics of today's hybrid drivetrains is that the power of both the ICE and the electric motor can be applied to the wheels together. Not the case with the approach you mention. This and other facts can be part of an interesting discussion in the article. - Vcote, 21 July 2006

Here is tech paper [[3]] that describes similar approach, with the difference of using continuosly variable transmission (CVT). It states: It is now possible to use this concept ( Charge Depletion HEV ) in a system which is much simpler mechanically and lower in manufacturing cost while providing higher performance and much better fuel efficiency and lower emissions. Two cars designed and constructed with this concept will be described with measured fuel economy, energy efficiency and emissions obtained. The objective of this paper is to describe the design of a medium size car with a mass of 1400 kg, a 6 passenger capability, and good performance with a fuel consumption of less than 3 liter per 100km on gasoline and emissions only slightly above clean electric power. In addition, the manufacturing costs will be comparable to a conventional vehicle and running costs will also be lower by 50% in most countries. Stated fuel consumption is for running on gasoline, while running on batteries consumption is 10-15 kW Hrs per 100km. However, it's a pity not to see Mitsubishi MIEV concept (4 motors) vs "CVT + one motor" concept comparison, as todays AC motors claimed to produce high enough torque (for example).--Skuzmin 10:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

GM / Toyota in race for first wide scale plug-in

It appears from reading the news that Toyota and GM are in a race to produce the first wide scale plug-in. Should this be plugged into the main article somewhere?
Here are two news sources, but there is much more of the same:

• http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aB.YH1WLpQgo - GM
• http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060728/BUSINESS/607280343 - Toyota

Judging from reading the varied news sources the optimistic date for release of plug-in is end of 2007 as a 2008 model. The pessimistic date is end of 2008 as a 2009 model. GM is said to show their plug-in prototype in January 2007.
The Prius plug-in will most likely be based on the new corolla platform. I suspect the delay in the redesign of the corolla has something to do with making it more plug-in friendly. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=116076

Issues for wide-scale commercialisation

Gerfriedc has entered the below text:

1. Costs: Increasing demand will raise prices before parts producers ramp up their production (for example shortage of electric motors is expected), also shortages with some metals in the short run will raise prices. Economy of scale and reengineering will solve this problem with beginning market penetration.

I don't believe this fits in this section. This section is about what is stopping plug-ins from being successful. Not what is going to slow them down once they are successful. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas 19:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Google.org to develop plug-in hybrid car engine

These are the first four paragraphs of a New York Times article requiring registration:

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 13 — The ambitious founders of Google, the popular search engine company, have set up a philanthropy, giving it seed money of about $1 billion and a mandate to tackle poverty, disease and global warming.

But unlike most charities, this one will be for-profit, allowing it to fund start-up companies, form partnerships with venture capitalists and even lobby Congress. It will also pay taxes.

One of its maiden projects reflects the philanthropy’s nontraditional approach. According to people briefed on the program, the organization, called Google.org, plans to develop an ultra-fuel-efficient plug-in hybrid car engine that runs on ethanol, electricity and gasoline.

The philanthropy is consulting with hybrid-engine scientists and automakers, and has arranged for the purchase of a small fleet of cars with plans to convert the engines so that their gas mileage exceeds 100 miles per gallon. The goal of the project is to reduce dependence on oil while alleviating the effects of global warming.

No concrete mention of this at http://www.google.org/ yet, though. 66.159.220.115 02:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

...and where does the electricity come from?

This article seriously needs at least a mention of the fact that the extra electrical supply PHEVs require will place additional strain on electrical grids which are already running at pretty much full capacity.

Natural gas has become the main source of electrical power-generating capacity in North America, and in general, fossil fuels are the #1 feedstock for production of electrical power around the world. Thus, while PHEVs may be more efficient and less air-polluting at the local level, their use results mostly in displacement of pollution towards power-generating facilities, and does not reduce dependence on fossil fuels by as large a proportion as this article seems to imply.

What also remains to be addressed in this article is the lifespan of the electrical batteries required to make PHEVs possible, as well as the environmental impacts of used battery disposal.

For the sake of NPOV, I strongly suggest the inclusion of a 'criticism' section mentioning the above concerns.

65.92.214.51 22:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC) px79

Recharging will mostly come at night when there is excess capacity in the electrical grid. I'm not sure what your natural gas statement is saying. Coal is the largest producer of electricity in North America. It is easier to clean a few power stations than it is to clean a few million cars. Toyota warranties their batteries for 10 years in California. Next generation li-ion batteries do not pose a significant environmental impact.

I'll add a concerns section with counter pointers to my to-do list. It would be good if someone else wants to do it.

Daniel.Cardenas 23:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This article talks about the excess capacity of the electrical grid at night. Enough to power 84% of the nations 220 million cars: http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20179&hed=U.S.+Could+Plug+In+Most+of+Cars&sector=Industries&subsector=Energy

50% of our electricity comes from coal, 19% from nuclear, and another 19% from natural gas: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html . See Electricity generation

Daniel.Cardenas 00:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read the article you posted but it makes reference to a DOE study. Do you have a link to the study? I would like to read the original work. Regards. D. Clippinger 138.29.80.220 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

GM's concept "Volt"

Once again, GM has screwed up in chassis design. The text below looks great, until you see the photos at [4] and [5] Look at the angle the driver gets to see the road in front of the car. The first thing a consumer is going to think is, "what if I can't see a toddler out in front." What a pathetic and transparent attempt to remain in bed with OPEC.

Maybe the Saturn Vue, Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Malibu will also eventually be PHEV; maybe at the same time and they can drop the ugly "concept." AnAccount2 21:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

GM goes electric with new concept car at auto show

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/autoshow_volt_dc

By Jui Chakravorty
Sun Jan 7, 8:39 AM ET

DETROIT (Reuters) - Struggling auto giant General Motors Corp. (NYSE:GM - news) on Sunday revived its once-failed idea of a mass-market electric car, unveiling a new "concept" car called the Volt designed to use little or no gasoline.

Introduced at the North American International Auto Show here, the Chevrolet Volt will draw power exclusively from a next-generation battery pack recharged by a small onboard engine -- if the technology is ready in two or three years.

"We have a thoroughly studied concept, but further battery development will define the critical path to start of production," said Jon Lauckner, a GM vice president for product development....

Lauckner said the Volt should be ready for production around the same time the lithium-ion batteries will be, which GM expects to be in two to three years.

Automakers have been cautious that lithium-ion batteries, which are now used in consumer electronics such as laptop computers, have a tendency to overheat.

But GM also plans to introduce hybrid systems in its Saturn Vue, Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Malibu cars and in its Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks.

Last week, GM awarded lithium-ion battery development contracts for its Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid to Johnson Controls Inc. (NYSE:JCI) affiliate Johnson Controls-Saft Advanced Power Solutions and Cobasys, a venture of Chevron Corp. (NYSE:CVX) and Energy Conversion Devices Inc. (Nasdaq:ENER). Cobasys will work with privately held A123Systems to develop the technology.

---

Here is another article from Forbes.[6]

AnAccount2 21:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Often chassis for concept vehicles aren't practical. They are designed that way to grab attention and not necessarily to meet the needs of drivers. I doubt the 2010? production vehicle will have that problem. I agree GM has a problem. They should come out with a production vehicle today and not make battery excuses, even if it has a 5 mile range and the generator needs to kick in at 35mph. Daniel.Cardenas 21:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! AnAccount2 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Honda, Toyota, Daimler, Renault, etc.

This is apparently autoshow news weekend.

Reuters: AUTOSHOW-UPDATE 1-Honda mulling plug-in hybrids for development

"We are studying what kind of conditions would enable a plug-in," [sic] Motoatsu Shiraishi, president of Honda Research and Development, told Reuters....

Daimler repeated their 2004 Sprinter van plug-in option. (a/k/a Mercedes-Benz Sprinter)

Toyota made their announcement last summer. They aren't toying with "concept marketing," they probably will start selling their own Prius "conversion" within a year, I'd guess. AnAccount2 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In 2003, Renault produced "Elect'Road," a PHEV variant of its "Electri'cite" Kangoo battery electric van (50-80 km range) with a small gasoline "limp-home" engine able to drive 100 km before refueling. Renault discontinued the Elect'Road after selling about 500, mainly in France, Norway and a few in the UK, for about 25,000 euros. -- http://www.calcars.org/history.html AnAccount2 22:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Stranglehold on battery technology?

This section appears to be conspiracy theory nonsense. The Cobasys website has several news items about selling its batteries for automotive purposes. Can anyone even give the patent numbers for these patents? Even if they exist, they may have already expired. Paul Studier 04:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, until recently. Sherry Boschert's book, Plug-in Hybrids - the Cars that Will Recharge America makes a convincing case that there is some truth to the issue. I am working on an article on the subject, which should appear on EVWorld.com in the next few weeks. Fbagatelleblack 05:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The controversy surrounding NiMH batteries is a complicated issue without any straightforward, obvious answers. The recent rash of name-calling and unreferenced claims does nothing to shed light on the matter. I have tried to clean up the section, leaving referenced arguments for both sides, but removing the name-calling and other nonsense.Fbagatelleblack 17:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This section is quite out of place here.

1. It's not exclusively related to plug-in hybrids - the claim used to be that corporations were doing this because of the elecric vehicles.

2. The Boschert book does not add any new information to the theories or information previously floating around the net.

3. I see no source references other than the book and the EV1 website. Not exactly unbiased.

4. Go the the ev1.org website and read the statements on the subject. Do they sound like a proper source for an encyclopedia?

5. And so on...

Regardless of one's opinion on the subject, the presentation here is not befitting Wikipedia or any reference source. I'm worried that a reporter will see this and think it's proven gospel Jack Rosebro 21:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The article references the book and its claims, without making any direct declarations, so there's no real issue with a reporter assuming this as a primary source (they'll just look up the references). The subject merits inclusion as it directly relates to one of the most important aspects of a PHEV. --Skyemoor 00:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but by that token, anything about a Ni-MH or Li-Ion battery would be fair game for the PHEV article. Remember that this claim first surfaced about EVs. Now it has been switched to PHEVs. If the claim is made in relation to fuel cell hyrbids, does this go in there?

Please review point 1, 2, and 4, above. Will this make an interesting story? Maybe someday, but it's not close to encylopedia material, IMHO. The Ni-MH article might be a marginally acceptable home. This is not PHEV-specific. Jack Rosebro 23:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to video presentation on of

I believe that the following video of Sherry Boschert, president of the San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association disussing Plug-in Hybrids is useful to the article and should be included in the external links section.

• Sherry Boschert, president of the San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association, speaks about Plug-in Hybrids —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uschris (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Great idea. Sherry does a great presentation in this video, and her question and answer session is worthwhile as well. I went ahead and added the link. Fbagatelleblack 22:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

PG&E endorses plug-in Prius

• PG&E Unveils Hybrid Car That Can Power Your House -- CBS5.com
• PG&E says hybrids could help power grid -- Central Vally Business Times
• PG&E sees plug-in hybrids as potential profit centers -- News.com
• PG&E Unveils Prototype Hybrid Car -- ABC
• PG&E Unveils High-Powered Hybrid -- KTVU

James S. 02:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

PIA Rewrite

Plug In America, CalCars, and friends will be attempting a major overhaul of this article here --D0li0 09:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro & Definition - Draft

DRAFT - DEFINITION - PHEV for Wikipedia article on "Plug-in hybrid vehicle"

This section is intended to replace the present introductory language in the article.

Original Draft date: March 29, 2007

A plug-in hybrid electrical vehicle (PHEV) is any vehicle powered by a combination of internal combustion engine and electric motor whose storage batteries or capacitors can be recharged by connecting the vehicle by plug to an external electrical power source. Plug-in hybrids typically have characteristics of both conventional hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) and of battery electric vehicles (BEV).

A plug-in hybrid may be capable of Charge-depleting, Charge-sustaining, and Blended modes of opperation. They may drive for an extended range in all-electric mode, either only at low speeds or at all speeds, with the internal combustion engine used secondarily for power-assist, and/or for longer range travel. Although there is no technically mandated minimum all-electric range (AER), future state and/or federal legislation may address this for policy purposes.

While the term "PHEV" most commonly refers to passenger vehicles, plug-in hybrid technology has been implemented or proposed in delivery vans, trucks, buses, military vehicles, and other medium to heavy-duty vehicles for on- or off-road use. Plug-in hybrid passenger vehicles are presently not in mass production, although some manufacturers have indicated that they are developing PHEVs Prototypes have been built to demonstrate the technology and to encourage its widespread adaptation. Conversions of production model hybrids may be possible through conversion kits or conversion services pending commercial production.

Some PHEVs are adaptations of Toyota Prius hybrid cars. These prototypes retain the Prius's "idle-off" capability and regenerative braking, among other characteristics, while adding extended electric-only drive capability, and electrical grid-charging. Some of these vehicles have demonstrated fuel economy exceeding 100 miles per gallon of gasoline (plus electricity) in day-to-day driving with electric recharging each night.

Plug-in hybrids have been identified as having significant potential as alternative fuel vehicles. If their battery packs are charged from renewable energy such as solar, wind and/or hydropower, and if their engines can use fuels such as biodiesel or ethanol, then they can operate on minimal amounts of fossil fuel during engine operation.

I trimmed this way down and replaced the existing intro with it. 75.35.74.5 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

References

These references will simply appear in the main articles references section, included here to see how they will look:

Section Notes

Notes from Greg:

1. It is assumed that the text will be footnoted and will have various internal and external links as is typical in a Wikipedia article. Once the draft language is commented on and finalized, I would like to add such details with your help.
2. The bar graph at the top of the current Wikipedia article will be removed. In its place will be a better graphic or none at all. Please comment on this. Do we need a new graphic or not? If you think we need one, please suggest the graphic you recommend.

Notes from D0li0 01:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC):

• I would like to retain PHEVs are commonly called "grid-connected hybrids" or "gas-optional hybrids" (GO-HEVs) from the current intro paragraphs.

Re: "commonly called "grid-connected hybrids" or "gas-optional hybrids" (GO-HEVs)": please provide documentation. I have many, many PHEV articles and papers archived. The term "gas-optional hybrid" (GO-HEV) is waning in usage, probably because of its misleading nature: even with E95 ethanol, there is still some gas in the tank. "Grid-connected" hybrids is STARTING to get a little more common, but it's not yet there. A quick Google search confirms my observations: Plug-in hybrid 754,000, PHEV 242,000, GO-HEV 1,410, gas-optional hybrid 1,410, grid-connected hybrid 1,180. --Jack Rosebro 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am not personally attached to gas-optional, rather perhaps combustion-optional... I sorta like grid-connected or gridable as it implies plugging into the grid. Just didn't want to toss our other nicknames that people have been using, such folks can always add them back into the article if they so choose. --D0li0 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Two other names used by a major U.S. automotive supplier and in a 1999 SAE paper are "energy hybrids" and "true hybrids". from the current intro paragraphs. I would like to find a link to the mentioned 1999 SAE paper.

As for the 1999 SAE technical paper, what's the title and the significance, please? There have been many PHEV technical papers in the eight years since. --Jack Rosebro 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the title nor significance is, I just happen to agree very much with the two terms "energy hybrids" and "true hybrids". Energy Hybrid is quite simply one of the most clear and concise way to describe these PHEVs, I take energy to mean energy source or Fuel, Plug-in Fuel specifically. True Hybrids seems ironic as it takes on the tone of mild-, full-, partial-, hybrid and many of the other truly meaningless descriptors since none yet are True energy hybrids. --D0li0 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

While I can sympathize with your preference for "energy hybrids" or "true hybrids", they aren't in common usage, and aren't technically based. Other cultural terms like strong hybrid, mild hbrid, etc. have the same problem. And as this is a defining section, we have to stick to comman usage. --Jack Rosebro 22:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, perhaps they can be used elsewhere in the article but not in this intro paragraph and definitions section. --D0li0 07:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to retain a link to battery electric vehicles in the intro paragraphs as PHEVs are a combination of HEV and BEV.

• I would like to combine a few of the existing paragraphs into fewer larger paragraphs.

Add BEV and HEV makes sense so the links will be there. And I'm sure the section will be condensed into less (but bigger) paragraphs; here, it's just a data dump. I think I'll adjust that now, come to think of it. --Jack Rosebro 22:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the links to be less ambiguous. --D0li0 07:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack, thank you for getting started with the definitions for Charge-depleting and Charge-sustaining modes. I have renamed an older Mixed-mode article to Blended mode which is a more accurate title. I then reverted much of this header such that it mentiones these topics briefly as we do not need to get bogged down with technical details in the new introduction paragraph. This way other articles can also use these specific topics. I also wanted to mention that it is not nessecary to link multiple instances of a word such as battery, I generally link the first instance of it in an article. --D0li0 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the work yourself, and for the tip! Jack Rosebro 11:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Patent protection section

Can we get links to actual patent numbers in the patent protection section, please? James S. 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Politicians?

Are there any politicians who specifically refer to plug-in hybrids in their campaign platforms? James S. 08:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See Bush´s photo in the article, as President. --HybridBoy 13:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a campaigm platform. Jack Rosebro 15:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why was this article moved from PHEV to PH?

I'm not sure why this article was moved from it's original name to Plug-in hybrid? The article is about PHEVs or Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, it's not about Plug-in hybrid bagel toasters. I for one feel that the Electric and the Vehicle portions of it's name are rather important. The Electric part asserts that one of it's fuel sources options is electricity. This is key to clarifying the Plug-in portion of the title, as opposed to plugging into a gas pump, or plugging into a hydrogen filling station, etc. The Vehicle portion tends to match the naming convention for other vehicular articles, aswell as being part of it's most common abbreviation. I intend to revert this move if there aren't any very good reasons to keep this shorter name. I also think it may have been inappropriate to rename it without discussing it first... --D0li0 11:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit history, there are three reasons:

• ghits;

"plug-in hybrid" has more Google hits referring to PHEVs, 492,000 than "plug-in hybrid electric vehicle" does, 37,300. See WP:SET.

• optionality of removed terms; and

There are no plug-in hybrid "bagel toasters" or any other plug-in hybrids which are not electric vehicles of any significance that I have been able to find.

• existing redirect

Before the move, there was already a redirect from "Plug-in hybrid" to the article.

There can be no "naming convention for vehicular articles" because all of our article names must reflect the most popular usage. See WP:NC. BenB4 05:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding on your edit summary, btw "PHEV" has 328,000. I can see how the terms electric vehicle are optional, I suppose I should read up on WP:NC. I'm still a little torn on this renaming, thank goodness for redirects. So, it it still appropriate to begin the article with "A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) is a..."? --D0li0 12:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, due to the overwhelming number of hits alone. --Skyemoor 10:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Battery electric vehicle and battery trailer

This section was removed from the articel, thought I think that there are parts which should remain included somehow in the article. —The preceding and following unsigned comment was added by D0li0 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

• For battery electric vehicles. These trailers are called hybrid adapters and might also be considered a part of a plug-in hybrid. The pusher trailers or genset trailers are two working examples of this concept. About 15 kW of power is required to maintain freeway speeds in a lightweight EV. This is about one third the power output of the Honda Insight's 1 L three cylinder ICE. One advantage of this configuration is that the ICE or other energy conversion device can be tuned to maximize efficiency by running at an ideal constant power level.
• For hybrid electric vehicles. They are called baset trailers.

How about a couple of see-also links to genset trailer, and baset trailer? BenB4 05:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose, except that pusher trailers consume gas, while baset trailers do not, so I adjusted the links in the article. I still think the see-also solution is lacking something. This paragraph pointed out that the ideal PHEV is built like the chevy volt, which is primarily a BEV with the additional confidence of having unlimited range via traditional fuels. A BEV with range extending capabilities which are easily added by such trailers. As opposed to the Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive and other similar PHEV solutions which could be, but are not currently built to run primarily as a BEV. I happen to have tricked my Prius into running like a BEV for somewhat longer than it's supposed to, but It would be far better as a simple electric S-10 with a genset in the bed... I suppose I'll have to sit down and rewrite such a paragraph someday and see how that goes over, I mostly wanted to have the removed paragraph available for that here on the talk page in the future... --D0li0 11:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are battery trailers. They can be re-placed by other trailers, when the batteries are discharged. A similar system is the Battery Range Extender Module. They are in the spare tire well and the removable battery could be replaced when discharged (for example, in a shop). The idea of renting is good, because the user has no worry about sizes, standards and maintenance... and they could be offered by battery makers or other companies --Nopetro 13:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

They are battery trailers? What are? Are you trying to say there are or that they exist, do you have links to such devices? I'm aware that BREMs exist as I've built one for my Prius, but they are hardly the kind of thing you would want to swap out simply because they are discharged. Perhaps if they were on a trailer you might consider swapping one out, but again I'm not aware of any that exist or are in the works. Battery swapping is a topic that is often discussed with regards to EV's and may actually be done in industrial settings such as a warehouse with fork lifts. If you are passionate about this topic I would start with such a Battery swapping article or whatever the term is that's used if the practice is actually used in real life. I don't have the time nor inclination to do that research at this time. Perhaps someday once BEVs and PHEVs are common place and companies are willing to offer battery leasing contracts and swapping service stations, but that's all speculation at this point. --D0li0 16:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Conversion and Patents sections need to be improved

The bullet items in the 2006-present section need to be converted to paragraph (at least two sentences each) and reference citation format. James S. 22:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Done. James S. 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also many if not most of the external links and see alsos need to be moved up into the article. James S. 14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Done. James S. 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

the intro's whitespace needs to be removed ... intro consolidated J. D. Redding 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at WP:LEAD, an article of more than 30 kB is supposed to have three or four paragraphs for the intro. Thank you for your great help otherwise. James S. 03:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And the Conversion and Patent sections need to be converted to standard reference format. James S. 01:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we have the PHEV-(miles) designation in the intro?

I think so. James S. 21:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, with the effort you put into the article today who am I to argue? Great job! You too Jack! The only sticky point is whether the designation represents miles or kilometers... One might assume that any vehicles in the states without a m/km were in miles while vehicles from elsewhere would use km by default. Perhaps we should head that issue off right now by using, especially in the introduction for example, PHEV-20m which would be equal to PHEV-32km? I imagine that the All-electric range article can go into more details and perhaps describe future regulations as they come into effect. --D0li0 10:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've only ever seen PHEV-x referring to miles, and never with m or km suffixes. However, Google led me to this report which suggests to me that PHEV(x)km means kilometers and PHEV-(x) means miles. James S. 11:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The only example I saw in that pdf was PHEV30km, but no equivalent PHEV-18, PHEV18, PHEV-18m, or PHEV18m. I have only ever seen this designation with a dash, which I think improves readability. How might we treat this if it were any other standard (metric) measurement, I think it would be PHEV-10m (PHEV-16km), I can live with the miles being optional since that's how it's often used but would rather see it there or else enforce mentioning the (km) equivalent after. --D0li0 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

News is history

I've fully integrated all of the news items into the History and other sections. If you want to add more news quickly, please add links as bullet items to the end of the 2006-present section like this:

* [http://URL Title] -- Source, date

Thanks! James S. 13:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1899?

Hybrid vehicles were produced in 1899 by Lohner-Porsche. What were they plugged into? Corvus cornix 16:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dynamos. James S. 04:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And although James is right, the article does not specifically state the Lohner-Porsches were plugged into anything - just early hybrids. The grid came pretty quickly, at any rate.

Stuff to add

I was looking at the UC Davis "Team Fate" news page and found all of these:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/upda-070223.html
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1860309.htm
http://www.team-fate.net/media/American_Scientist2007-03FrankJanuary161.pdf
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/119753/article.html
video: http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/67
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/DOE_Plug-In_Nation_a_Possibility.S196.A11577.html

The last one cites a "soon-to-be-published Department of Energy study" -- can anyone find it? James S. 04:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/phev_rd_plan_02-28-07.pdf Jack Rosebro 13:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Addendum: I've added that, with references. I have a bunch of other 2006-2007 stuff to add as time permits. Jack Rosebro 13:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment about CO₂ emissions from grid sources being less than from petroleum for the same number of miles driven in the KQED video should probably figure prominently. James S. 17:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

First Sentence

A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) is a vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine or hydrogen fuel cell, as well as an electric motor with onboard energy via storage batteries or capacitors that can be recharged by connecting a plug to an electrical power source.

The emphasis by placement order implies that the internal combustion engine (or fuel cell) is the primary motivating energy source. In local travel, the opposite is true, and arguably local travel would predominate for the vast majority of the population. These are enhancements to current hybrid vehicles, with the difference primarily being higher capacity batteries that can be recharged via an outlet. I propose a rewording as follows;

A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) is a hybrid vehicle where higher capacity onboard energy storage can be recharged by connection to an electrical power source. The electric motor is augmented by a liquid fuel (gasoline, diesel, ethanol) internal combustion engine or by a hydrogen fuel cell. --Skyemoor 13:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A sentence that mentions two things, one after the other, does not automatically imply that one is more important than the other. Furthermore, it is not necessarily true that electric drive is dominant in blended mode. The proposed sentence is awkward, as well.Jack Rosebro 20:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made refinements. --Skyemoor 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Modes of operation

I'd like to delete the "Modes of operation" section, because it doesn't seem to add any useful information, it doesn't have any sources, and parts of it don't seem particular to PHEVs. But I'm not sure. Do other people think this section adds useful or important information to the article? James S. 00:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the only area of the article that links to the various modes, which I feel are really at the core of what diferenciates a PHEV from a HEV (or standard ICE vehicle) and a BEV. A PHEV can opperate in both HEV and BEV modes, so has the advantages of both without their disadvantages. Perhaps this section simply needs some work to better convey what the descrete modes are and why combining them in a PHEV makes such vehicles superious. (without the POV ;)... See the Charge-depleting and Charge-sustaining articles talk pages for their widespread use WP:SET. If we do decide to loose this section then we should probably improve those articles it links to and be sure to include such links elsewhere within other areas of the article. I would say keep it for now. My opologies for not helping as much as I would like on some of the more technical oriented portion of this article... --D0li0 03:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done some work on this section, but it really still needs some more help from others. I just hope that I've been able to clarify/explain the various modes enough that others will understand them and be able to help fix up the clumsy examples and paragraphs... --D0li0 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Understanding modes of operation are key to understanding PHEVs. Many people think making a PHEV is simply a matter of adding a bigger battery and a plug. The section has only been around for a few days, and I haven't yet had enough time to add sources. As PHEV operating strategies often weave in and out of conventional HEV operating strategies, it's important to descirbe the strategies in full in order to provide context.

As these ARE the operating strategies that PHEVs use, we wouldn't be able to use anything else to replace them. Jack Rosebro 21:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I've added a couple of references and done a bit of cleanup; more to follow. Thanks. Jack Rosebro 22:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Toyota and GM in 2009?

From the intro:

Toyota and General Motors have both announced plans to introduce production PHEVs as early as 2009.

The reference only mentions GM. Has Toyota also announced 2009? 64.9.235.200 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"As early as." References added. Jack Rosebro 23:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Lutz says Chevy Volt is going into production

On NPR's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me as the "Not My Job" guest (RealAudio) at the end, GM Vice Chairman Robert Lutz said that GM intends to take the PHEV-40 Chevrolet Volt into production. How reliable is this in terms for inclusion in the article? 75.18.208.222 11:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Its going to be taken into production in 2010. Not very news worthy since they have already said the same thing since the beginning. Also GM can change their minds several times before then. Other companies may come out with more interesting products before then. Daniel.Cardenas 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Complete history, new article?

I just wanted to preserve a link to the version of the article prior to the pruning on the history section. I think that a number of these items are worth mentioning, in particular the introduction of two of the Prius converters, Andy Franks projects, and the news that A123 will be producing EV/PHEV batteries (countering the industry mantra that batteries are not yet ready). Perhaps a new Plug-in hybrid history article could be started containing the complete history timeline, then we could further reduce the history section of the main article to only the most important items, such as mention of Andy, CalCars first Prius, the Sprinter Van, and which ever manufacturer gets a PHEV to the dealer showroom first! --D0li0 10:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how those projects counter the industry. They don't make sense on a cost basis. And there are other battery companies besides A123 doing the same thing. Why the preference for a123? Daniel.Cardenas 15:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "counter the industry" nor why you view such projects as attempts or examples to do so. The folks converting Prius (including the two that were removed) are currently one of the groups moving forward and placing this technology in the public view while applying pressure on the auto makers, the manufacturers are not IMHO embracing these vehicles while they are the ones who need to be. Andy Frank has build some outstanding vehicle, and is another major player in raising awareness. A123 seems to be leading the way with their battery technology and has even investment in a conversion company. None are more important than the others and I don't have a preference for A123 batteries. These are all very worth their mention in the time line and were removed prior to the history migration to it's separate article. I've gone ahead and restored those which were removed, thank you for creating the new History of plug-in hybrids article with space to keep them all. --D0li0 11:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the event, not the company. A123 is the first company to announce that it will produce PHEV battery packs for retrofit. Jack Rosebro 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure they weren't the last? Edrive is/was earlier I believe. Calcars also has a do it yourself kit. Daniel.Cardenas 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A123 is a lithium ion battery manufacturer, EDrive/EnergyCS is an automotive technology company converting vehicles with Valance batteries, CalCars was the first to convert a Prius using generic PbA batteries and is a non-profit PHEV advocate organization trying to developed DIY instructions. So, A123 is in fact the first battery company to acquire a converter, Hymotion, with the intent to produce battery packs for these applications. In the end this entire discussion thread has run astray as I only mentioned it because that section of the article was removed though it was notable, and has since been added back into the new history page. --D0li0 08:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so it sounds like they were the last. Not notable in my opinion. Sounds like football statistics they give on the TV. The first person on tuesday who crossed the finish line sideways. Who cares. Daniel.Cardenas 14:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point that A123 is a battery manufacturer, their batteries have been used in a number of electric vehicle and PHEV applications. The other companies and organizations are not battery manufacturers, they are advocacy groups and systems integrators who have used many different types of batteries such as Valence, A123, standard lead-acid, whatever happens to be available. So the fact that A123, a manufacturer of advanced Lithium batteries, has made a commitment to these vehicles and has gone so far as to acquire one of the systems integrator companies is very notable, and a first for a battery manufacturer. I'm not sure if we're simply arguing over semantics here or what. Only the very first, Porsche perhaps, can be called to first to have created a PHEV, CalCars was the first to convert a Prius, A123 was the first battery manufacturer to commit to producing PHEV conversion battery modules, no other battery manufacturers is doing this. Am I mistaken, what am I missing? --D0li0 04:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

D0li0 is correct: EDrive has not announced plans to sell a conversion kit. CalCars does NOT have a commercial kit. Most folks who follow PHEV developments know this. There is at least one company that I know of that plans to introduce such a kit, but they have made no announcement, and thus I defer from mentioning them.

And the "last company to announce a PHEV conversion kit" is bizarre, to say the least. This is an evolving technology, and none of us can predict the future. It takes just a few keystrokes to make this article shorter, and requires no knowledge of the subject. Let's work to make it better. 212.190.88.121 09:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The history section is still too long, and don't want to make anyone mad by trimming it further, so I created the separate article as suggested. Needs plenty of tidying up. Daniel.Cardenas 23:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the idea was good, but as for the need for tidying, that's pretty much because you had cut many entries out prior to doing this, which was somewhat subjective and arbitrary, before you separated the article. Can you go back and put them back in the new article? That will save those of us who took time to build the history section the trouble of fixing that. We had 75 references with no problems before this. Hint: using a version that existed before your cuts will make it relatively painless.

And you may want to wait more than a couple of days after putting something in the discussion section to get feedback. Deleting is easy, contributions are better. Appreciate it. Jack Rosebro 19:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I have already recovered the entries that were removed prior to the migration of the section. --D0li0 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'll double-check within the next few days. I don't see any problem with letting the 2007 seciton of the "history" article run long; at the end of the year, it will be easy to look back and see what was truly notable. Thanks again. Jack Rosebro 16:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with making a new article, as this one is too long for good article standards. I believe it should be named History of plug-in hybrids and am moving it. Although WP:NAME is silent on this topic, all the other history article forks I could find followed that pattern, e.g. History of coins. BenB4 00:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, when you do this sort of split, please watch for named refs, which are now missing on both articles. I'm attempting to fix.... BenB4 00:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Powertrains section needs references

A FAC reviewer asked that the powertrains section have more sources, please. BenB4 09:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the featured article nomination until that section gets at least another couple of sources. BenB4 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I found some for each paragraph/type. 75.35.79.57 00:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cost of electricity

The cost of electricity in California is greater than than the $.10 cited in the article for California. [7]

Baseline Usage	$0.11430
101% - 130% of Baseline	$0.12989
131% - 200% of Baseline	$0.22722 (R)
201% - 300% of Baseline	$0.31719
Over 300% of Baseline	$0.36434 (R)
Total Minimum Charge Rate ($ per meter per day)	$0.14784

Baseline is set to be fairly low. My usage is not excessive and is always at least in the 201% bracket. Few households with an electric car are likely to be paying a marginal rate below the 131% bracket.

--JWB 02:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you would probably make sure that you charged your vehicle during the evening under the Baseline usage rates. I'm going to have to assume that the baseline rate is at night just about the time you would head for bed, when there is excess grid power usually. If you had a 5kWh battery in a PHEV then perhaps you would find out when these various rates take effect and only charge when power costs $0.11 ($0.55 to recharge) rather than unwittingly happening to charge during the $0.22 ($1.10) or $0.32 ($1.60) times, right? I mean if you could choose to air condition your home with cheap power at night and somehow save that cool air to use during the day you would. --D0li0 03:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseline is a monthly total quantity, not time of day. This is the default service. PG&E also offers time-of-day metering, which you have to specially request. The rate schedules for those services are also at [8]. From a quick look, they do not look much better - even the off-peak price escalates to similar levels as you exceed monthly quantities. There is even a special schedule for low emission vehicle owners [9] and it suffers from the same problem - even off-peak you pay up to $.28. --JWB 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps investing on PV and net-metering as a replacement for transportation fuel would be a good idea in your situation? I believe the payback is substantially quicker that way. Anyway, I'm not sure exactly where the $0.10/kWh came from, but but apparently it's inappropriate to use any single households rate, You pay $0.11 to $0.26, I pay $0.06, and others in my area pay as little as $0.02/kWh, so we need to reference a national off-peak average price. --D0li0 08:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into PV and with the amount of tree cover I have, it is not feasible. In any case, the article should not give the impression that it is simply a no-brainer to plug in and start saving most of your gasoline costs. I think the article should do the numbers for 3 or so sample electricity prices. Your 6 or 2 cents sounds excellent (where do you live??) but 10 or 6 or 2 cents all come out saving most of gas costs. I would suggest including analyses for 10, 20, and 30 cent electricity. --JWB

Google puts $10 million up

Google plugs in to hybrid car development with $10M

Internet search giant Google hopes to speed the development of plug-in hybrid cars by giving away millions of dollars to people and companies that have what appear to be practical ways to get plug-ins to market faster. But the money, announced Monday afternoon at Google headquarters in Mountain Valley, Calif., totals just $1 million so far with another $10 million pledged, which might not be enough to move the needle.[10]

75.35.79.57 00:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)