Jump to content

Talk:Plug-in hybrid/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Aptera

I deleted the mention of Aptera Motors in the intro, because it was not mentioned in the body of the article as WP:LEAD requires, and the announcement is not really what most readers would think of as a production consumer automobile: it's pre-orders only, for a three-wheeler, two-seater, and there is no expected availability date.

However, I think the Aptera announcement should be mentioned in the history section (and the history sub-article.) I might not have time to get to that right now; I just don't want Aptera fans to think I was deleting and running. J T Price (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It is not for us to judge what readers think: Aptera themselves claim it is a plug-in hybrid (the title of the article), which is good enough for me. It also appears to have an earlier production date (2008) than the Fisker. I'll add it back in along with refs and more detail in the body of the article. --IanOsgood (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Complete carmaker list

The carmakers´ list and statements in the article is not complete The complete list include:

--Mac (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Honda, Hyundai, and Nissan have no plans to make PHEVs (yet.) AFS Trinity, Audi, Chrysler, DaimlerChrysler, Venture Vehicles, Volkswagen, and Volvo have concepts or prototypes, but no plans to bring anything to market (yet.) Rocky Mountain Institute doesn't make cars (yet.) The only one of the rest that we don't have current information in the article is Visionary Vehicles (Malcolm Bricklin), but while he plans to go to market in 2010, he doesn't yet have a concept or a prototype, so it's not really the kind of production announcement that deserves to be outside the history section. J T Price (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

AFS Trinity

Jan 13 2008 autoshow press release - see XH-150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.208.161 (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I added text about this product, that uses ultracapacitors to solve one of the biggers problems to mass-produce PHEV. Also this company makes flywheels to store electricity, that can be usesd in vehicles. --Mac (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I found a recent article about this. If you think it contains any info that ought to be added to the article, please add it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the recent article? Thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning

I notice an edit war in progress. Fbagatelleblack, please don't revert Zap post again, you're in breach of 3RR. Refer to me or another admin if Zap link posted without discussion again. Anon Zap person, you are also in breach. If you think can justify your posting, discuss it here. Otherwise note that Wikipedia does not accept commercial links and action such as page protection or blocking may be taken. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have pointed out the inappropriateness of some of my recent edits. Prior to receiving these warnings, I posted my concerns regarding this issue on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I shall withdraw myself from this issue until it is resolved by admins. With apologies, Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BYD F3DM hatchback!

Someone please stub that redlink! I would but I'm at work.... Dream Academy (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Chevy Volt: Thank Gods!

"the latest remake of the Volt features a slightly shorter hood, and there’s a bit more wedge to the overall stance." -- http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=1087

I was so sure they were going to make it a pathetic disfigured ... like the EV1. Dream Academy (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

At least the EV1 had some aerodynamic merit - the Volt: little, and none on the wheels (by even 1957 standards) - Leonard G. (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Energy Effectiveness

It all sounds good but what you’re really doing is just substitution petroleum for coal and natural gas used to produce the electricity, well at least they’re much cheaper and we have a 200 year domestic supply of both. --J intela (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, also you have the facts that (1) those combustion-to-energy efficiencies are greater than what you can get from something under your hood, (2) we have a 3+ billion year supply of renewables, and (3) fewer asthmatics et al. are going to breathe the smoke. Shakedown Bluff (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Stuff I saw in the news

I'm sure you wikipedians will enjoy these as much as I did:

  1. Assaulted Batteries Newsweek
  2. A Prius That Can Power Your House? USN&WR
  3. Chevy Volt May be Priced Under 30K USNR&R

That last one, kind of jumped out at me. 76.225.157.216 (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Followup: meh.... 76.225.157.216 (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed some claims regarding patent encumbrance

I removed a few claims regarding patent encumbrance. It appears to me that some of the claims are contentious and could be classified as conspiracy theories (big corps buying technologies to bury them, etc).

I am not saying the conspiracy theories are incorrect. I am, however, saying that they're given undue weight in this article, and that they're not adequately supported by the 10-Q and other financial filings which are used as references.

For example, take this sentence:

"Still other actions by Cobasys suggest that the company remains unwilling to make NiMH battery technology economically feasible for the development of automobiles that rely on electric motor technology more than currently available hybrid cars."

That statement is absolutely unsupported by the 10-Q filing which was provided as a reference. There 10-Q filing does not state that the company is trying to make its products economically unfeasible. It appears that the author of that statement inferred as much from a lawsuit listed in the 10-Q. But the inferences and hypothese of the statement's author do not belong in wikipedia.

I also changed the wording on the title. The title implied that there are patent encumbrances on NiMH batteries altogether, which is inaccurate since the patents on NiMH batteries were filed in the 1970s and expired long ago. The patents in question are for a specific kind of NiMH battery to which there are many competitors.

I also removed the paragraph dealing with Boschert's book. The paragraph presents speculations by Boschert and she is not notable enough to have a paragraph in an encyclopedia devoted to her speculations.Twerges (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Volkswagen

It's weird how Forbes doesn't say "plug-in"[1]: "during a presentation of the first Golf model fitted with such an engine, [VW CEO] Winterkorn said the system, called 'TwinDrive', has an electric engine that can also be powered by gasoline for long-distance travel."

LOL. Well, it's more good news for the people who live in 2010. Two years sure seems a long way off.

What do you want to bet that in 2011 there will be all kinds of PHEVs with 5 to 15 mile electric ranges? 76.231.188.206 (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?

Although I have not yet taken the time to peruse the revision history of this article, the introduction seems like the work of some Environmentalist think tank. Just because someone at UC Davis publishes a study indicating that "electricity" is one quarter the price of "gasoline power" does not make it so. The reality is that complex market forces dictate relative pricing of energy sources, and if demand for electricity goes up, its price will as well. Am I the only person who remembers the rolling blackouts in California in ca. 2001? Am I the only person who doesn't buy into the Leftist party line that it was exclusively Enron's fault? Dear Lord I hope not.

That this article is 'featured' among all those on Wikipedia is exacly why Wikipedia is still easily discredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.179.120.2 (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would rather have information sourced to someone at UC Davis who has studied the averages and trends, than statements which ignore the efficiency-per-carbon advantages of the electric drivetrain inserted with nothing but the appearance of a source. I have reverted. Real Estate Baron (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "NYTXH" :
    • The EAA-PHEV project was conceived by CalCars and the Electric Auto Association in October of 2005 to accelerate efforts to document existing HEVs and their potential for conversion into PHEVs.<ref>Electric Auto Association [http://www.eaa-phev.org "Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle" wiki] (2005–present)
    • Wald, M.L. ([[January 13]], [[2008]]) [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/automobiles/13ULTRA.html "Closing the Power Gap Between a Hybrid’s Supply and Demand,"] ''New York Times''

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

date mess needs your advice and action

Dear colleagues—

I ran a script a while ago to remove date autoformatting from this article (which is no longer encouraged by MOSNUM). One of the benefits of this is that it uncovers inconsistencies in the formatting. Here, the first half seems to be in international format (7 January 1996) and the last half US (January 7, 1996). The references are an unholy mixture of US, international and one or two ISO dates (one of them wrongly syntaxed.

Since our readers have been viewing all of this—they see the raw formatting, blue, which is one reason for removing DA—may I encourage you all to decide on which format you want, in both main text and in the refs. They can be different, but ideally they should be the same. (ISO is commonly used with one of the citation templates, which is tolerated by MOSNUM).

Your choice should be based on the these guidelines, primarily a balance between a strong tie to one anglophone country (is there one here?) and the choice of the first editor, back in the edit history.

If you need assistance, please buzz me at my talk page. Tony (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A mix of date formats can be neither holy or unholy, lacking a spiritual component. The current proportion is harmonious with the fact that most of the PHEVs are currently in the U.S., but that is about to change. I recommend holding off until it does change, and then converting to international format. A few ISO dates here and there could be a lot worse, too, but it's nothing like the PG&E tariff problem of the previous talk section. Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chrysler Town & Country minivan and Jeep Wrangler PHEV-40s

Well, this is interesting in a frustrating kind of way.[2][3][4]

"Chrysler LLC charged up the electric car race Tuesday, ... unveiling three electric-powered models and promising to put one of them on sale in the U.S. sometime in 2010. The company showed reporters three prototypes: a Dodge sports car, a four-door Jeep Wrangler and a Chrysler [Town and Country] minivan.... The automaker hasn't decided which one it will roll out first. The Dodge sports car is completely electric ... but the Wrangler and the Town & Country minivan will be [plug-in hybrids]."

This photo gallery states that the minivan is going to be a series powertrain, while the Wrangler is described as a series PHEV-40. Some of the other sources say the minivan has a 40 mile all-electric range, too. Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Environmental cost of battery disposal

Shouldn't soem mention be made in the disadvantages section of the massive environmental problems that disposing of large numbers of batteries would cause if these types of vehicles become mainstream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.105.146 (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence with a {{cn}} tag. Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bailed in

Good news, everyone! Look what's in Division B, Title II, Section 205-7 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, "Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles," on page 190-202 (references are to the Internal Revenue Code, U.S. Code Title 42): 

 4 SEC. 205. CREDIT FOR NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC
 5                DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLES.
 6      (a) PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLE
 7 CREDIT.—Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of chap-
 8 ter 1 (relating to other credits) is amended by adding at
 9 the end the following new section:
10 ‘‘SEC. 30D. NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE
11                MOTOR VEHICLES.
12      ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—
13            ‘‘(1) IN  GENERAL.—There   shall be allowed as a
14      credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for
15      the taxable year an amount equal to the applicable
16      amount with respect to each new qualified plug-in
17      electric drive motor vehicle placed in service by the
18      taxpayer during the taxable year.
19            ‘‘(2) APPLICABLE     AMOUNT.—For    purposes of
20      paragraph (1), the applicable amount is sum of—
21                  ‘‘(A) $2,500, plus
22                  ‘‘(B) $417 for each kilowatt hour of trac-
23            tion battery capacity in excess of 4 kilowatt
24            hours.
25      ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.—

p. 191
 1             ‘‘(1) LIMITATION BASED ON WEIGHT.—The
 2        amount of the credit allowed under subsection (a) by
 3        reason of subsection (a)(2) shall not exceed—
 4                  ‘‘(A) $7,500, in the case of any new quali-
 5             fied plug-in electric drive motor vehicle with a
 6             gross vehicle weight rating of not more than
 7             10,000 pounds,
 8                  ‘‘(B) $10,000, in the case of any new
 9             qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle
10             with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than
11             10,000 pounds but not more than 14,000
12             pounds,
13                  ‘‘(C) $12,500, in the case of any new
14             qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle
15             with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than
16             14,000 pounds but not more than 26,000
17             pounds, and
18                  ‘‘(D) $15,000, in the case of any new
19             qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle
20             with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than
21             26,000 pounds.
22             ‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF PASSENGER
23        VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS ELIGIBLE FOR CRED-
24        IT.—

p. 192
 1                  ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In   the case of a new
 2             qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle
 3             sold during the phaseout period, only the appli-
 4             cable percentage of the credit otherwise allow-
 5             able under subsection (a) shall be allowed.
 6                  ‘‘(B) PHASEOUT PERIOD.—For   purposes
 7             of this subsection, the phaseout period is the
 8             period beginning with the second calendar quar-
 9             ter following the calendar quarter which in-
10             cludes the first date on which the total number
11             of such new qualified plug-in electric drive
12             motor vehicles sold for use in the United States
13             after December 31, 2008, is at least 250,000.
14                  ‘‘(C) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For
15             purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable
16             percentage is—
17                        ‘‘(i) 50 percent for the first 2 cal-
18                  endar quarters of the phaseout period,
19                        ‘‘(ii) 25 percent for the 3d and 4th
20                  calendar quarters of the phaseout period,
21                  and
22                        ‘‘(iii) 0 percent for each calendar
23                  quarter thereafter.

p. 193
 1                    ‘‘(D) CONTROLLED GROUPS.—Rules simi-
 2              lar to the rules of section 30B(f)(4) shall apply
 3              for purposes of this subsection.
 4        ‘‘(c) NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE
 5 MOTOR VEHICLE.—For purposes of this section, the term
 6 ‘new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle’ means
 7 a motor vehicle—
 8              ‘‘(1) which draws propulsion using a traction
 9        battery with at least 4 kilowatt hours of capacity,
10              ‘‘(2) which uses an offboard source of energy to
11        recharge such battery,
12              ‘‘(3) which, in the case of a passenger vehicle
13        or light truck which has a gross vehicle weight rat-
14        ing of not more than 8,500 pounds, has received a
15        certificate of conformity under the Clean Air Act
16        and meets or exceeds the equivalent qualifying Cali-
17        fornia low emission vehicle standard under section
18        243(e)(2) of the Clean Air Act for that make and
19        model year, and
20                    ‘‘(A) in the case of a vehicle having a gross
21              vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less,
22              the Bin 5 Tier II emission standard established
23              in regulations prescribed by the Administrator
24              of the Environmental Protection Agency under

p. 194
 1              section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act for that
 2              make and model year vehicle, and
 3                    ‘‘(B) in the case of a vehicle having a gross
 4              vehicle weight rating of more than 6,000
 5              pounds but not more than 8,500 pounds, the
 6              Bin 8 Tier II emission standard which is so es-
 7              tablished,
 8              ‘‘(4) the original use of which commences with
 9        the taxpayer,
10              ‘‘(5) which is acquired for use or lease by the
11        taxpayer and not for resale, and
12              ‘‘(6) which is made by a manufacturer.
13        ‘‘(d) APPLICATION WITH OTHER CREDITS.—
14              ‘‘(1) BUSINESS     CREDIT TREATED AS PART OF
15        GENERAL BUSINESS CREDIT.—So           much of the credit
16        which would be allowed under subsection (a) for any
17        taxable year (determined without regard to this sub-
18        section) that is attributable to property of a char-
19        acter subject to an allowance for depreciation shall
20        be treated as a credit listed in section 38(b) for such
21        taxable year (and not allowed under subsection (a)).
22              ‘‘(2) PERSONAL     CREDIT.—
23                    ‘‘(A) IN  GENERAL.—For      purposes of this
24              title, the credit allowed under subsection (a) for
25              any taxable year (determined after application

p. 195
 1              of paragraph (1)) shall be treated as a credit
 2              allowable under subpart A for such taxable
 3              year.
 4                    ‘‘(B) LIMITATION    BASED ON AMOUNT OF
 5              TAX.—In     the case of a taxable year to which
 6              section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the credit al-
 7              lowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year
 8              (determined after application of paragraph (1))
 9              shall not exceed the excess of—
10                         ‘‘(i) the sum of the regular tax liabil-
11                    ity (as defined in section 26(b)) plus the
12                    tax imposed by section 55, over
13                         ‘‘(ii) the sum of the credits allowable
14                    under subpart A (other than this section
15                    and sections 23 and 25D) and section 27
16                    for the taxable year.
17        ‘‘(e) OTHER DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—
18 For purposes of this section—
19              ‘‘(1) MOTOR      VEHICLE.—The   term ‘motor vehi-
20        cle’ has the meaning given such term by section
21        30(c)(2).
22              ‘‘(2) OTHER       TERMS.—The    terms ‘passenger
23        automobile’, ‘light truck’, and ‘manufacturer’ have
24        the meanings given such terms in regulations pre-
25        scribed by the Administrator of the Environmental

p. 196
 1        Protection Agency for purposes of the administra-
 2        tion of title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521
 3        et seq.).
 4             ‘‘(3) TRACTION     BATTERY CAPACITY.—Traction
 5        battery capacity shall be measured in kilowatt hours
 6        from a 100 percent state of charge to a zero percent
 7        state of charge.
 8             ‘‘(4) REDUCTION      IN BASIS.—For    purposes of
 9        this subtitle, the basis of any property for which a
10        credit is allowable under subsection (a) shall be re-
11        duced by the amount of such credit so allowed.
12             ‘‘(5) NO    DOUBLE BENEFIT.—The        amount of
13        any deduction or other credit allowable under this
14        chapter for a new qualified plug-in electric drive
15        motor vehicle shall be reduced by the amount of
16        credit allowed under subsection (a) for such vehicle
17        for the taxable year.
18             ‘‘(6) PROPERTY      USED BY TAX-EXEMPT ENTI-
19        TY.—In    the case of a vehicle the use of which is de-
20        scribed in paragraph (3) or (4) of section 50(b) and
21        which is not subject to a lease, the person who sold
22        such vehicle to the person or entity using such vehi-
23        cle shall be treated as the taxpayer that placed such
24        vehicle in service, but only if such person clearly dis-
25        closes to such person or entity in a document the

p. 197
 1        amount of any credit allowable under subsection (a)
 2        with respect to such vehicle (determined without re-
 3        gard to subsection (b)(2)).
 4              ‘‘(7)  PROPERTY      USED    OUTSIDE     UNITED
 5        STATES, ETC., NOT QUALIFIED.—No         credit shall be
 6        allowable under subsection (a) with respect to any
 7        property referred to in section 50(b)(1) or with re-
 8        spect to the portion of the cost of any property
 9        taken into account under section 179.
10              ‘‘(8) RECAPTURE.—The Secretary shall, by reg-
11        ulations, provide for recapturing the benefit of any
12        credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to
13        any property which ceases to be property eligible for
14        such credit (including recapture in the case of a
15        lease period of less than the economic life of a vehi-
16        cle).
17              ‘‘(9) ELECTION    TO NOT TAKE CREDIT.—No
18        credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any
19        vehicle if the taxpayer elects not to have this section
20        apply to such vehicle.
21              ‘‘(10) INTERACTION     WITH AIR QUALITY AND
22        MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS.—Unless             oth-
23        erwise provided in this section, a motor vehicle shall
24        not be considered eligible for a credit under this sec-
25        tion unless such vehicle is in compliance with—

p. 198
 1                    ‘‘(A) the applicable provisions of the Clean
 2              Air Act for the applicable make and model year
 3              of the vehicle (or applicable air quality provi-
 4              sions of State law in the case of a State which
 5              has adopted such provision under a waiver
 6              under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act), and
 7                    ‘‘(B) the motor vehicle safety provisions of
 8              sections 30101 through 30169 of title 49,
 9              United States Code.
10        ‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.—
11              ‘‘(1) IN  GENERAL.—Except     as provided in para-
12        graph (2), the Secretary shall promulgate such regu-
13        lations as necessary to carry out the provisions of
14        this section.
15              ‘‘(2) COORDINATION     IN PRESCRIPTION OF CER-
16        TAIN REGULATIONS.—The          Secretary of the Treas-
17        ury, in coordination with the Secretary of Transpor-
18        tation and the Administrator of the Environmental
19        Protection Agency, shall prescribe such regulations
20        as necessary to determine whether a motor vehicle
21        meets the requirements to be eligible for a credit
22        under this section.
23        ‘‘(g) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply to
24 property purchased after December 31, 2014.’’.

p. 199
 1        (b) COORDINATION WITH ALTERNATIVE MOTOR VEHICLE
 2           CREDIT.—Section 30B(d)(3) is amended by adding
 3 at the end the following new subparagraph:
 4                   ‘‘(D) EXCLUSION   OF PLUG-IN VEHICLES.—
 5             Any vehicle with respect to which a credit is al-
 6             lowable under section 30D (determined without
 7             regard to subsection (d) thereof) shall not be
 8             taken into account under this section.’’.
 9        (c) CREDIT MADE PART OF GENERAL BUSINESS
10 CREDIT.—Section 38(b), as amended by this Act, is
11 amended by striking ‘‘plus’’ at the end of paragraph (33),
12 by striking the period at the end of paragraph (34) and
13 inserting ‘‘plus’’, and by adding at the end the following
14 new paragraph:
15             ‘‘(35) the portion of the new qualified plug-in
16        electric drive motor vehicle credit to which section
17        30D(d)(1) applies.’’.
18        (d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
19             (1)(A) Section 24(b)(3)(B), as amended by sec-
20        tion 106, is amended by striking ‘‘and 25D’’ and in-
21        serting ‘‘25D, and 30D’’.
22             (B) Section 25(e)(1)(C)(ii) is amended by in-
23        serting ‘‘30D,’’ after ‘‘25D,’’.

p. 200
 1                (C) Section 25B(g)(2), as amended by section
 2          106, is amended by striking ‘‘and 25D’’ and insert-
 3          ing ‘‘, 25D, and 30D’’.
 4                (D) Section 26(a)(1), as amended by section
 5          106, is amended by striking ‘‘and 25D’’ and insert-
 6          ing ‘‘25D, and 30D’’.
 7                (E) Section 1400C(d)(2) is amended by striking
 8          ‘‘and 25D’’ and inserting ‘‘25D, and 30D’’.
 9                (2) Section 1016(a) is amended by striking
10          ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (35), by striking the
11          period at the end of paragraph (36) and inserting ‘‘,
12          and’’, and by adding at the end the following new
13          paragraph:
14                ‘‘(37) to the extent provided in section
15          30D(e)(4).’’.
16                (3) Section 6501(m) is amended by inserting
17          ‘‘30D(e)(9),’’ after ‘‘30C(e)(5),’’.
18                (4) The table of sections for subpart B of part
19          IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by add-
20          ing at the end the following new item:
     ‘‘Sec. 30D. New qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.’’.
21          (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
22 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after
23 December 31, 2008.
24          (f)   APPLICATION  OF  EGTRRA  SUNSET.—The
25 amendment made by subsection (d)(1)(A) shall be subject

p. 201
 1 to title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Rec-
 2 onciliation Act of 2001 in the same manner as the provi-
 3 sion of such Act to which such amendment relates.

These next two sections look plug-in related, too: 

 4   SEC. 206. EXCLUSION FROM HEAVY TRUCK TAX FOR IDLING
 5                  REDUCTION UNITS AND ADVANCED INSULA-
 6                  TION.
 7        (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4053 is amended by add-
 8 ing at the end the following new paragraphs:
 9              ‘‘(9) IDLING    REDUCTION DEVICE.—Any       device
10        or system of devices which—
11                    ‘‘(A) is designed to provide to a vehicle
12              those services (such as heat, air conditioning, or
13              electricity) that would otherwise require the op-
14              eration of the main drive engine while the vehi-
15              cle is temporarily parked or remains stationary
16              using one or more devices affixed to a tractor,
17              and
18                    ‘‘(B) is determined by the Administrator of
19              the Environmental Protection Agency, in con-
20              sultation with the Secretary of Energy and the
21              Secretary of Transportation, to reduce idling of
22              such vehicle at a motor vehicle rest stop or
23              other location where such vehicles are tempo-
24              rarily parked or remain stationary.

p. 202
 1             ‘‘(10) ADVANCED      INSULATION.—Any  insulation
 2        that has an R value of not less than R35 per inch.’’.
 3        (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by
 4 this section shall apply to sales or installations after the
 5 date of the enactment of this Act.
 6   SEC. 207. ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING PROP-
 7                  ERTY CREDIT.
 8        (a) EXTENSION OF CREDIT.—Paragraph (2) of sec-
 9 tion 30C(g) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2009’’
10 and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2010’’.
11        (b) INCLUSION OF ELECTRICITY AS A CLEAN-BURNING
12       FUEL.—Section 30C(c)(2) is amended by adding at
13 the end the following new subparagraph:
14                   ‘‘(C) Electricity.’’.
15        (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
16 this section shall apply to property placed in service after
17 the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years
18 ending after such date.

That could be a whole lot worse. Section 30C(c)(2) looks pretty good with electricity in it; better than simply turning the food supply into part of the energy supply. Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Can an article in history summary style be faulted for proseline?

What exactly is the complaint that {{proseline}} is making? Does it apply to this article with a history details article in WP:SUMMARY style? If not, does anyone have any ideas about how to take it out of proseline form? Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program

To anon, sorry about the "and" and "lessen" issue, I missed your addition of the comma and see that your version is better grammatically. I do not see however how Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program would qualify as a see also. There is no mention of Hybrids at that article, and it is such a specific topic that I don't see how it merits any more than a link from the body of this article. Can you please explain your reasoning? NJGW (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it's pertinent to me. It's for auto manufacturer retooling, isn't it? 69.228.216.131 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The legislation says nothing about hybrids. The connected news stories say nothing about hybrids. A google news search for '"Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program" hybrid' returns zero hits[5]. I am removing the link as it is unrelated. NJGW (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Review (FAR) of Plug-in Hybrid

All interested parties should know that Plug-in hybrid has been nominated for a featured article review. If anyone would like to express an opinion as to whether Plug-in hybrid should retain its status as a featured article, you are encouraged to join in the discussion post your thoughts here. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the specific issues raised have been addressed to the best of my ability, but I have a handful of questions to the reviewers pending. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
69.228 has done a good job so far of addressing citation and organization issues. More help would be nice, especialy from an editor with considerable word-smithing skills, as the prose could use with some scrubbing. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Disadvantage: Cost, weight, and size of batteries (and also other components!)

I dont believe that this area is expanded upon enough. It is definitely the primary disadvantage of the PHEV compared to the standard HEV. In the PHEV, you have to have the same size ICE system as in the HEV because for long distance trips, it will still be the primary supplier of energy to the propulsion system. However, you have to have hundreds of added pounds in batteries and also a larger electric motor since the PHEV has to be able to travel at highway speeds on electric power alone. Not only are you lugging around all that added weight, but you have to pay for it upfront... with a PHEV you essentially have to be paying for 2 complete drivetrains since the ICE engine has to be able to power the car by itself on long trips while the whole point of a PHEV is that you can use the electric system only for normal daily driving.

There are (before I edit the article) three sentences of analysis about the cost, weight, and size disadvantage: the first simply explains what it is (and not very thoroughly), the second makes a clear logical fallacy in claiming that GM's idea that it might rent the batteries for the Chevy Volt somehow decreases the cost disadvantage (those batteries still have to be bought by someone, there is no free lunch). The third system notes that used PHEV batteries could be sold the electrical companies, more absurd speculation based on a single anecdote. I think I'm going to completely delete the latter 2 sentences.

I can see how you could rationalize lugging around the ICE system while you're within the electric-only range: the grid energy you're using is much cheaper than gasoline, so its not really even that expensive to carry it around. And that savings at the pump might even moves towards the additional cost of the batteries (probably not for a really long time). However, as your trip gets longer than the electric-only range, things start to go bad rapidly. If your battery is empty, you're lugging around hundreds of pounds of useless equipment. In this case, fuel efficiency should be decreased compared to a regular HEV.

I'm going to go ahead on some changes, please comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.68.108 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

SHADOWBLUFF removed my edits and reinstalled the old section. He noted that I need sources for my claims, but doesn't understand that the previous information was irrelevant to the topic. Here is this section as it has been reverted:

"Disadvantages of plug-in hybrids include the additional cost, weight, and size of a larger battery pack. General Motors may allow buyers of its Chevy Volt electric car to rent the vehicle's battery, offsetting some cost.[85] Also used PHEV batteries can be sold to electric utilities to be employed at electrical substations.[49]"

1st sentence: fine, but ignores that the cost, weight, and size of the electric motor must also be higher to facilitate much higher electric-only performance (considering that under high loads, a hybrid would run both the ICE and electric motor, whereas a plug-in hybrid would be expected to handle high loads, at least up to a much higher point, with the electric motor alone). And then an obvious corollary to this (the addition of 200 to 400+ lbs of batteries and marginal electric motor size) with regards to vehicle design is that the cost, weight, and size of components like the chassis, brakes, and even the ICE would have to also be increased in order to maintain the status quo utility (for example especially with regards to interior space, braking performance, and acceleration performance.

2nd sentence: completely irrelevent and insulting to the intelligence of readers. Most importantly its because the sentence doesnt follow logic; if GM is renting the batteries, it makes them no cheaper, lighter, or smaller. Those batteries still have to be paid for, either by the consumer or GM. SHADOWBLUFF, please look up there ain't no such thing as a free lunch for a little lesson in logic and economics.

3rd sentence: also marginally relevent. First of all, just like the fact that you supposedly possibly will be able to rent batteries from GM, this does nothing to eleviate the extra size of weight of the batteries (and other components) that must be carried around in the car. Secondly, it only reduces the real cost of the batteries by the discounted value of the money you would receive in the future when you sold the batteries. Most importantly, its an extremely speculative statement with a single source that CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CLAIMING THAT EVERONE WILL BE ABLE TO RESELL THEIR USED BATTERIES.

Sentences 2 and 3 should be removed from the article no matter how you spin it. If anyone disagrees, please argue their merits in the comment section.

In the mean time, I will attempt to go back and source my facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.68.108 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree except with your suggested deletion. Let me try and you tell me whether you like my new version. Shakedown Bluff (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't help feeling a bit annoyed at this section especially the alledged weight 'issue'. Standard HEVs are unlikely to be lighter since they have all the extra weight associated with connecting the ICE to the drivetrain, and clutches to disconnect it when not in use. Internal combustion engines used like this require heavy gearboxes/torque converters, etc to keep the engine running at speeds which will provide adequate torque. An electric motor does not require any of this heavyweight hardware. And if you think a gearbox manual or automatic is light, try getting one off the ground without a winch. This weight alone should offset any extra battery weight (and you are also trading on the perception that 'batteries' means Lead-Acid Batteries which are very heavy).
The PHEV does require a generator attached to the ICE but since the ICE is then run at it's most efficient with constant rpm, it should be very efficient and the motor does not need to be as large. There is also nothing to say that the ICE needs to provide the extra juice to overtake as this can be supplimented by draining the batteries in the short term.
I slight apology here because all the above comments apply nicely to the Toyota concept of a PHEV which is actually just a standard hybrid with a plug and maybe bigger batteries? This article should really only be discussing Series Hybrids (AKA Extended range electric vehicles) to reduce confusion. 202.154.104.194 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Bill

Tiered rate structure for electric bills

The "Tiered rate structure for electric bills" section says:

"A report revealed[112] that: households that consumed 131%–200% of baseline electricity at $0.21981 per kWh would only see benefits if gasoline was priced above $2.89 (USD/gal); households that consumed 201%–300% of baseline electricity at $0.30292 per kWh would only see benefits if gasoline was priced above $3.98 (USD/gal); households that consumed over 300% of baseline electricity at $0.34648 per kWh would only see benefits if gasoline was priced above $4.55 (USD/gal)".

Looking at table 2 of the report at [6], this doesn't seem to be quite right. The rates mentioned are for the standard residential tariff, but electric vehicle users are actually required to be on the other tariff listed (its current equivalent, anyway). See [7]:

"Pacific Gas and Electric Company offers a special, discounted rate for our EV customers, the Experimental Time-of-Use Low Emission Vehicle rate (Schedule E-9). The E-9 rate is mandatory for those customers that are currently on a residential electric rate and who plan on refueling an EV on their premises."

That tariff gives people much cheaper rates if they charge at night.

The different possibilities (summer vs. winter, peak vs. off-peak) would unfortunately make things more confusing, but the page should probably point out that the pricing is actually more complex. Perhaps something like:

"However, some utilities offer electric vehicle users a rate tariff that provides discounts for off-peak usage, such as overnight recharging. Off-peak rates can lower the break-even point (the above numbers would change to USD $1.96, $3.17 and $3.80 per gallon, respectively, for the listed PG&E electric vehicle summer tariff). Conversely, such tariffs raise prices for recharging during peak hours (to USD $5.04, $6.25, and $6.88 per gallon, respectively, in the summer, but less in winter). Customers under such tariffs could see significant savings by being careful about when the vehicle was charged, perhaps by using an automated timer to restrict charging to off-peak hours."

I also note that the table only shows costs for people using 201% or more of baseline usage, omitting the much cheaper rates for lower usage. It's true that most people with PHEVs would use more than 200% of baseline, but lower usage levels are certainly possible with a residential solar installation. I have a friend on PG&E who first zeroed out his net electricity usage with a 4 kW solar photovoltaic system on his roof (no A/C needed around here), then later bought an electric car which he charges at night. His net electricity usage is still below 130% of baseline, almost all off-peak, so he's paying the equivalent of the $0.65 per gallon rate -- much cheaper than the table implies, and not a completely uncommon situation.

Tigertech (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tariff source! Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a residential photovoltaic system that generates as much power as your electric vehicle uses, so that your electricity purchases from PG&E are the same, then the cost you're incurring is the cost of the photovoltaic system, not any cost to PG&E. In this case the PG&E rates are irrelevant. The vehicle's electricity cost would be the amortized cost of the PV generation system. --JWB (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a question on this section, so I moved it down here.

Why are we showing a subset of several rows from Table 2 on Page 4 of the Lemoine source? Shouldn't we be using "4.010 miles/kWh" over the average monthly commute distance to select one of the rows from the standard and electric vehicle tariff table?

CanExplain (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, here are some news articles that talk about economic factors: [8], [9], [10], [11]. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Range

Fuel range also would be included (i.e. PHEV-40/60, this means 40 miles in only-electric range and 60 miles in gasoline range - based in the gasoline fuel tank capacity - ). --Nopetro (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Date format

I see the US, I see China (East Asia mostly uses US format), I see US format originally inserted. Looks like Dabomb has done the right thing in harmonising to US format. Tony (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes; thanks to you, both! 69.228.201.125 (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The article does not follows the international standards for date and time. So, added globalize tag--147.84.132.44 (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ford Escape

Phipps, J.L. (1/21/2009) "Ford's Plug-In Hybrid Offered Quiet Ride, Fueled By Electricity" Investor's Business Daily

The Escape PHEV, which stands for plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, runs on lithium-ion batteries and gasoline and looks like every other car here in the Midwestern industrial zone. But Edward Kjaer, director of the electric transportation unit at Southern California Edison which for the last couple of years has partnered with Ford to put a fleet of Ford Escape PHEVs on the street, says the Escape is "not your grandfather's golf cart."
Kjaer says SoCalEd has been using the Escapes for about a year and finds they transport utility workers economically and comfortably. The vehicles get between 110 and 120 mpg on city streets when electricity can do just about all the work, but only about 40 mpg on the highway, when some gas is needed to hit the higher speeds.

I wonder why Ford's drivetrain needs to burn gas to go fast. What does the EPA think?

Here are some more links about the Escape PHESUV: from the 2008 Detroit Auto Show, from USA Today a couple weeks back, and they just this month found a way to get batteries in time for 2012. Like the 2008 article said, "Ridiculous features: We still have to wait to buy one." 69.228.216.60 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Daimler van video on relative mass

I see that this source was removed so I am copying it here for reference:

Daimler (19 February 2009) "The new Sprinter Plug-In-Hybrid" Daimler VideoCast

Is anyone challenging it's assertion that NiMH batteries weigh twice as much in this form factor for the same all-electric range? 69.228.209.174 (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. Yawn. Greglocock (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You don't like commercial vans? Clydesdales aren't as much fun as a new pony, but which brings more at auction? 69.228.209.174 (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries

Surely this rather POV, OR and anorak section belongs elsewhere, not on the PHEV article? By their nature PHEVs are LESS affected by battery technology than a normal EV. Greglocock (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved it to EV batteryGreglocock (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree, but some folks have been mighty ticklish about this section in the past. Let's see if they get grumpy about the move. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to have to object. The section is relevant to both EVs and PHEVs. If you want to copy the section into the EV article, then do it. However, it should not be deleted from the PHEV article.Xchange (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please justify why a subsection about details of batteries needs to be present in two articles (EVs, PHEVs) when it is directly relevant to a third article that already exists (EV batteries) and of excessive detail for an overview article like PHEV. As I said above, the details of battery technology are of less importance to PHEVs than EVs. I'd suggest a one sentence summary in the power storage subsection and a direct link to the subsection in EV battery. I also query why the anorak section is longer than the mention of the same issue on the Cobasys page. Greglocock (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Battery technology is critically important to both PHEVs and EVs. Neither would run without it. That is sufficient justification for including the section in both articles. If you are concerned about the length of the section relative to those in the Cobasys and EV articles, then I encourage you to increase the lengths of the related sections in those articles. Publishing costs are next to zero and readers can choose to not read them if they are not interested. This particular section has been cited or quoted in multiple online discussions and blogs. Given its impact on public discourse, deleting it or shrinking it would be counterproductive.Xchange (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. So you are unable to justify why it should not be in EV battery rather than on this page? Greglocock (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You are arguing a false alternative, Greglocock. The only question is whether the discussion should ALSO be more substantive in the EV article. Xchange (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In what way is it a false alternative? I see no reason to discuss this minor historical fact in any depth anywhere but on the EV battery article and perhaps in greater detail on cobasys. Why does an overview of PHEVs need to include this section in any detail? Greglocock (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue that has substantially influenced the development and commercialization of PHEVs over the last 8 years. The fact that this section has been directly quoted multiple times across blogs and discussion forums is sufficient indication that it is not a "minor" historical fact. Fbagatelleblack has written an article on the subject for a widely-read online publication. Sherry B. dedicated multiple pages of her book on PHEVs to the issue.

That said, I am not categorically opposed to creating a separate article IF the issue is summarized and linked properly across all relevant articles (e.g., PHEVs, EVs, NiMH, and Cobasys). I believe the summary provided by user 69.228.86.219 is a useful start, but inadequate. A summary should include the header and a concise 1-sentence summary followed by a very clear link to the article. If you want to go this direction, then let's agree on the summary before the extended section is deleted from the article. Fbagatelleblack, your help in setting up the new article and formatting the summary would be appreciated.Xchange (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can that section be converted to WP:SUMMARY style? Here's what it looked like in the version which passed FAC. 69.228.86.219 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mr. Locock, this entire patent encumbernace section isnt really relevant to scope of a PHEV article. It belongs in an an EV battery wiki perhaps, and then only after extensive editing for NPOV and non-existant reliable sources of reference.WopOnTour (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It appears someone has recently addressed this issue, using much of the language from the PHEV article, in the NiMH article. I suggest we eliminate the section from this article, but include a reference to the corresponding section in the NiMH article. Of course, all editors should edit the NiMH article boldly, if they so desire. Thoughts? Fbagatelleblack (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yup let's do it. Have you got a proposal for a one sentence summary for this rather dull subject? Mine would run along the lines of "Specific combinations of chemistry and battery format have been patented by Cobasys which may have delayed the introduction of NiMH batteries into electric and hybrid vehicles." but i don't love it and can't quite see where to neatly place the link. Greglocock (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Greglocock, I am sorry you find this section dull. I (and many others) find it tremendously interesting and important. As I previously stated, I can only be supportive of this change if a separate article is created. My summary and link suggestion is below. Everything in it is factually accurate and not misleading. Details, such as the fact that there are competing NiMH battery technologies, would be explicitly addressed in the body of the new article. I think the link should be written out. I believe the summary and link should either go at the end of the Electric Power Storage section or at the end of the article with its own header.

<Header Wording>Encumbrance of automotive NiMH battery technology<Header Wording> “Some developers have complained that the business policy of Cobasys, patent owner of the NiMH battery chemistry used in all major hybrid automobiles, has forestalled the commercial and technical development of PHEVs and EVs in favor of oil and automotive industry interests.” <Link Wording>Link to the Encumbrance of automotive NiMH battery technology article<Link Wording>Xchange (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Xchange, I think your language is very good, concise and to-the-point. I have gotten a "thumbs up"from a friendly admin with regards to creating a new article. That said, I would still prefer to keep this section in the NiMH article rather than creating an entirely new article. That would keep things more compact, to my way of thinking. I'm could be flexible on this. Thoughts? Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this, Fbagatelleblack. I have 2 concerns about putting the expanded discussion in the NiMH article. One is that it could be obscured by the general technical discussion and generic "NiMH" links. The other is that I could see a future editor of the NiMH article with a technical/engineering focus getting annoyed with expanded discussion of the business/legal issues in the same way that engineering-oriented editors of the PHEV article have. Regarding the link wording, the conventional "Further information: etc, etc..." format probably makes the most sense.Xchange (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Greglocock, for setting up the new article. Well done. Sorry I did not get to it. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Seattle and Google fleets

According to Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times, Seattle's fleet uses Hymotion cells, which are lithium ion "nanophosphate". Is that a form of lithium ion polymer, or a lithium polymer? Does anyone know where to find a side-by-side comparison of the performance of those cells against the lithium iron cells in use by BYD Auto? 69.228.209.174 (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Where does he mention hymotion? Greglocock (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Personal communication. Here's how Hymotion's cells were doing in Canada last year. It's not unheard of for production batteries to go bad, and China went with in-house talent instead of outsourcing to A123, so we ought to prepare for the onslaught of questions about which is better and how they are different. Plug-in Prius conversions have been getting panned pretty widely. I think all the editors here need to keep up with the legislation, because the introductory lead section is now out of date. 69.228.209.174 (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It occurred to me that calling conversions of HEV production models "real world" is fairly misleading. It turns out that Google.org is in fact using the same conversions as Westneat was complaining about in Seattle. Trying to conflate these results of a particular form of conversion all using the same battery as "real world" data may not be as forthright as we aspire here. 69.228.209.174 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you any WP:RS that says that the performance of these conversions is in any way unrepresentative of PHEVs? Greglocock (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
First, they're conversions with little more than a battery and who-knows-what aftermarket electronics to keep the ICE from starting under conditions which it otherwise would in HEV mode. That they aren't engineered as PHEVs alone should prevent us from making any claims that they are representative of PHEVs, let alone "real world" PHEVs which is just absurd. Consumer Reports is also complaining about Hymotion cells. I've seen a quote from someone at Toyota saying the usual sorts of things about the unadvisability of hacking your car and that doing so voids the warranty. All I remember is that was from someone who got access to a Toyota test track last summer, so I'll try to dredge it up. 69.228.87.198 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Short answer, no. Greglocock (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Have you thought it through? In what sense can a conversion be a "real world" vehicle? In what sense is a single model conversion representative of aggregate results? If you want to be taken seriously, I recommend thinking it through and stating actual reasons so that your argument is judged on its merits instead of its terseness. 69.228.87.198 (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The results are in line with engineering expectations and prior tests. So, until we see real world experience of dedicated properly designed PHEVs driven by normal drivers they are a reasonable proxy. In my opinion. Greglocock (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
By "proxy," do you mean anything substantially different than anecdotal evidence? I think we need to give the readers a side-by-side comparison of Hymotion's lithium nanophosphate and BYD's lithium-iron battery chemistry, not necessarily in that order, with a report of battery performance over time. Since the F3DMs have only been out since December, that will take several more months or some years to develop. Industrial battery cells aren't rocket science, though. There is ample experimental evidence collected by the major companies involved. The trouble seems to be the involvement of fossil fuel companies and a lack of willingness in Detroit to ramp up production. Thank goodness the federal fleet procurement is being updated. 69.228.87.198 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fast charging with LiFePO4

Kang, B. and Ceder, G. (2009) "Battery materials for ultrafast charging and discharging" Nature 458: 190-3. 1:00-6:50 (audio) NCC-8765 (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hydrogen/battery hybrid

Is a hydrogen fuel cell/electric vehicle as the Ford Edge Hyseries Drive not a plug-in hydrid aswell ? if so first lines are incorrect (no internal combustion engine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.187.13 (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Informing the reader of Li-FePO4/*/polymer/S/etc. tradeoffs

What effort should we make to the reader about the trade-offs inherent in choices of battery manufacturing and construction, such as the actual battery chemistry? Shouldn't there be a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the ferrous phosphate versus Li-ion, Li-poly, and Li-sulfur in different contexts? NCC-8765 (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

U.S. DoE Annual Energy Outlook "Issues in Focus"

Pages 31-35 of this document are packed with public domain information, charts, and graphs on PHEVs. 69.228.193.173 (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Type diagrams

Include these types and the pictures (rework to cgi).

File:Parallell hybrid ICE electric.JPG

Thanks, KVDP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.151.170 (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE betters pictures are available at the hybrid_drivetrain article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.147.210 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Plug-in EV

Can Plug-in Electric vehicle article be made? Conversions are done of EV to PEV by green gears[1]

  • It wouldn't make sense, as all electric cars recharge by pluging, that is, all EVs are PEVs by your nomenclature. See aso Neighborhood Electric Vehicle, the lead says so explicitly. Conversions are made for electric hybrids to work as plug-ins (PHEV), and that is what the souce you provided is talking about. This article already covers that kind of converson.--Mariordo (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hydrogen vehicle

Would someone please look at the Hydrogen vehicle article? The comparison with PHEVs is being destroyed by a hydrogen POV pusher. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

At no point did I push hydrogen, in fact no mention of hydrogen is made in any of my changes. I just made a few adjustments to page to accurately reflect the electric fuel-chain efficiencies. I've referenced everything in my changes. If that makes PHEVs or BEVs seem less efficient then that's your problem.

I am dismayed but not surprised that this article reads almost as one sided as the Hydrogen Vehicle article. The Disadvantages section is a joke. One line of size, cost and weight concerns and then straight into talk of renting batteries. What has that got to do with anything? The article then goes on, still in the disadvantages section, to talk about other possible but unreferenced advantages of PHEVs. As soon as I have the references to back it up, I'll have to make a start altering this one too.

"The difference is such that overall carbon emissions would decrease if all internal combustion vehicles were converted to plug-ins.[123]"

Further reference 123 is wrong. If you read through the article, Table 3-15 page 87 notes a 430m tonne Total US increase in CO2 emissions in the case of PHEVs. Also on page 80 they say that electricity generation will increase by 5.8% as a result of PHEV. Here is the summary of the report:

"In summary, the addition of PHEVs as a significant transportation option adds approximately 6% to the total national electricity demand in 2030 compared to the base case with no PHEVs. Due to the charging profile that results in most of this additional demand occurring during off-peak hours (late night/early morning) there is an increase in the need for baseload generation. The addition of coal-fired generation to meet this need for more baseload generation does not result in any significant differences in annual emissions of SO2, NOx and Hg because of the caps on those pollutants. Therefore, any reductions in emissions of SO2, NOx or Hg from non-electric generating sources would result in a net national decline in these emissions. However, it does result in an appreciable increase in CO2 and PM emissions as this analysis has not assumed any limits on CO2 or PM emissions."

I've added all of this to the report and as such it directly contradicts the other quotes in the GHG section. I think that till a scientific consensus is reached (and there doesnt seem to be one at the minute) any claims to the GHG emissions, good or bad, should be removed.

France invests $2.2 billion in charging stations

See this article: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/france-invests-2-billion-in-electric-car-charging-stations.php -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Energy resilience and petroleum displacement

The statement "Each kilowatt hour of battery capacity in use will displace up to 50 US gallons" ...fuel is pretty much nonsense. It is the same as if I would say "each 1 l bottle I carry with me when trecking can replace up to 300 l water I would have to drink from a river along the trail". Further, 50 gallons fuel hold an energy equivalent of 2200-2300 kWh. Assuming an energy efficiency of only 25 % in relation to the electrical energy efficiency, that will mean that I need about 550 - 575 kWh of electrical energy, i.e. my 1 kWh battery simply needs to be reloaded 550-575 times in one year. Quite a challenge, but why not. But if I reload the battery twice a day, my fuel savings even increase, wow! A much better value would be how much fuel can be save throughout the life-time of a battery (of course taking account of the energy used for its production). Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hybridization of electric vehicles
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plug-in_hybrid/Archive_2&oldid=1077508649"