Jump to content

Talk:Plug-in hybrid/Archive 3

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

On Sale Car List?

I want to buy a PHEV car. But after read this super long article, I just could not find any on sale models, even on an external link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.0.189 (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New article from Calcars

Here Calcars debunks the NRC report, discussing lower battery costs than previously reported: http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/1087.html -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Volt going in to production November 2010

I was surprised that Volkswagen is only planning to produce 50 TwinDrives this year, but GM is going into production with the Volt.[1][2] 99.38.150.198 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Stikiest" form of energy

Whatever it means for an energy source to be "sticky," that needs a source. This article also needs sources for it's section on Smog. There seems to be related information in "Emissions shifted to electric plants." Real Estate Baron (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The linked definition did not seem to clear things up, and, "Each kWh of battery power used will displace around 0.1 US gallons (0.38 L) of gasoline or diesel fuel," is sourced to an email, which is against Wikipedia rules. Mora Laim (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


http://www.dieselserviceandsupply.com/Diesel_Fuel_Consumption.aspx //this is a conversion table .Wdl1961 (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

BYD F3DM available in US in 2011 or as 2011 model in 2010?

After googling for a few times longer than I thought it would take to figure this out, the vagueness is overwhelming. Does anyone know whether the BYD F3DM is approved as street legal in the US yet? 99.27.203.165 (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does GM want to call the Volt an EV, not a plug-in?

See 1:30-1:45 of this video. 99.22.95.61 (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

cobasys has patents on all large-format NiMH batteries?

Cobasys does not have a patent on large-format NiMH batteries for transportation. Such a patent would be extremely broad and would never be granted by the patent office. Instead, the actual patents contain claims of extremely specific technolgoical advancements. They contain no claims like "we hereby patent NiMH batteries for any transportation use."

Furthermore, Panasonic has gained access to all cobasys patents as per a cross-licensing agreement that was signed years ago: [3]Twerges (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  • just more conspricay theorists doing some flag-waving.We've been through this before. None of their details are verifiable and they reference some book by another CT crazy.I've deleted the inappropriate links to their wiki and sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by WopOnTour (talk • contribs) 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The linked NiMH patent encumbrance article is very well balanced and well cited. The issue is relevant to PHEVs and their commercialization. The link and summary should stay.Xchange (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, spare us the "kook" conspriacy theories and your goofy little wiki.Stating that your references are "well-cited" just isnt enough when the citations are nothing more than baseless/factless statments of other like-minded kooks. Your entire "encumberances" wiki belongs in the trash as well.WopOnTour (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
WoT's exasperation is understandable. While it is might be possible that the article in question is worthwhile, spmaming it across every vehicle that uses a battery for traction is unnecessary. So, unless you have a cite that shows that PHEVs were materially affected by this conspiracy theory I support its removal. Greglocock (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the Ovonics/NiMH patent section again

Greg, does the word "mad" in this edit summary mean angry or insane, and in any case, what is the evidence for removing it? This section has been discussed before. Do you think consensus about it has changed? 99.22.95.61 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you reread the discussion on this page. Having set up a new article for this cosnspiracy theory the nearest to a consensus I can see is that there should be a one sentence summary on this page with a link to the main article. One sentence. Mad as in lunatic, not aggrieved! Greglocock (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
To which discussion do you refer? I have read the archived discussion of the section, and I can see no valid complaints with any particular language or interpretation of specific passages. If you were going to edit instead of remove that section, how would you phrase it? 99.22.95.61 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggets you reread the discussions on this page not the archive. I proposed a summary sentnece. Greglocock (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble finding it. If it's just a sentence you're proposing, can you copy and paste it?
Wait a second, you're the one who originally wanted the section moved out into a WP:SUMMARY article. And now that you have that, you want the section deleted entirely? How is that not trying to game the system? 99.22.95.61 (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It was an honest mistake. i assumed it was an unreadable paragraph because I was working from the diffs. You are right it is just a sentence. Any chance of trimming the refs down a bit ? One or two should do Greglocock (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I deleted all the SEC filings. 99.22.95.61 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This assertion, "... thereby slowing the development of new models" is debatable. Many people who are actually developing EVs and PHEVs would strongly disagree. I suggest we remove this language. Thoughts? Ebikeguy (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is very hard to disprove a negative. You are hardly likely to get a well known electric car developer saying something like "the development of our car was not affected by the loony conspiracy theory about patents", and even if he said it, the sub editors would chop it out unless they really had a lot of free space. However, speaking as someone who has developed three electric cars, I'm willing to go on record as saying that! Of course we never considered NiMH cells seriously for either. They weren't available for two, and by the time we built the most recent one they were superceded by LiPoly. They are quite a nice chemistry for domestic use, but frankly if you want both longevity and energy density they are pretty poor. Greglocock (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Li definitely has NiMH beat on energy density. I would contest a claim that Li is better than NiMH on longevity. Remember, Panasonic's version was significantly more durable than Ovonics' version before Ovonics sued the Panasonic version out of existence. The kicker is cost... NiMH is (or would be) significantly cheaper. Also, there is a big difference between the energy density requirements of PHEVs and those of EVs. The "before the 2008 Oil Crisis" also seems relevant because Li battery technology was still not completely well developed at that time (e.g., safety issues persisted).Xchange (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
"NiMH is (or would be) significantly cheaper." Why do you say that? The experts I have interviewed seem to disagree with this assertion. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Just in case, for the sake of accuracy and NPOV I added the following text at the end: "particularly before the 2008 Oil Crisis" because these issues raised by Mrs. Boschert are no longer valid (I did read her book and also others more updated), not only because of the renewed interest in EVs and PHEVs created by the 2007-2008 high gasoline prices + 2008-2009 financial crises, but also because the development of batteries using other materials for use in cell phones and laptops made the claimed patent withholding issue irrelevant. Soon I will import from the Spanish version of the article a section regarding a new issue, which relates with a potential dependence and the availability of lithium and other rare elements required for EVs and PHEVs (see Chapter 6 of Sandalow's 2009 book and see also the NYT here).-Mariordo (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

United States Council for Automotive Research

I question whether we want to include a link to this group in the PHEV article. One of the group's stated purposes is to "enable a long-term transition to a hydrogen economy." However, I acknowledge that I am not an expert on USCAR. Could someone please explain the link between this group and USABC? Is USABC now a sub-group within this larger group? Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

PHEV Emissions Related to Coal-Fired Plants

A new, anonymous editor has inserted incorrect claims into the article regarding PHEV emissions related to coal plants. I reverted once, and he reinserted. I don't want to get into an edit war, so I will hold of on further edits for now. The NAS study referenced by the new editor could be of value, if the reference were more specific and the study properly cited. In this study, the closest thing I could find to a condemnation of EVs was this language, "Electric vehicles and grid-dependent (plug-in) hybrid vehicles showed somewhat higher nonclimate damages than many other technologies.". This is a far cry from the new editor's claims that the report finds PHEVs to be the most polluting form of transportation available.

Input from other editors would be helpful. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is better practice to improve additions than delete them. In this case he needs direct quotes for two statements, which I know are exaggerations. Greglocock (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding claims in "Tiered rate structure for electric bills"

The article states:

Electric utility companies generally do not utilize flat rate pricing. For example, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) normally charges $0.10 per kilowatt hour (kW·h) for the base tier, but additional tiers are priced as high as $0.30 per kW·h to customers without electric vehicles.

While I do not dispute the accuracy of this information, is California's energy market truly representative of the country as a whole? I live in North Texas, where electricity pricing is essentially flat-rate (in fact, my provider actually assesses a surcharge if the monthly usage is below a certain level). I would hazard that neither the CA nor TX markets are truly representative of the overall USA consumer electricity market. It would be nice to have a broader, more accurate picture of the way PHEV's would affect the average American (from an electric bill standpoint).

Additionally, despite how common they may be in California, I do not believe that most of the rest of the country have the advanced electronic electric meters that are capable of separating peak and off-peak usage amounts. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please verify

Can anyone please verify whether this source says what the editor claims it says?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plug-in_hybrid&action=historysubmit&diff=394952566&oldid=391125546 Thanks! If possible, please let me know on my talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not, I already reversed it. The article has more than enough info from reliable sources showing the conditions under which is clean and when it produces more CO2 than ICE engines (almost always when electricity is generated from coal-fired power plants).-Mariordo (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Fossil fueled electric mode CO2 emissions relative to petroleum internal combustion inefficiencies

There is no source cited for the italicized portion of this statement, which I removed from the introduction:

Compared to conventional vehicles, PHEVs can reduce air pollution, dependence on petroleum and fossil fuels, and greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming unless the PHEV is charged by plugging into an electric utility where coal is the predominant fuel used to generate electricity.

furthermore it is wrong, because the efficiency of coal fired electricity transmitted to a typical consumer location combined with the far greater efficiency of the electric drive train relative to the terrible inefficiency of the internal combustion engine means that PHEVs can in fact reduce greenhouse gas emissions even when they are powered entirely by coal-fired electricity. There is no authority to the contrary of which I am aware. If there is a source for that statement, it needs to be cited. If there is no reliable source for the statement, I must insist that it stay removed. Why Other (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the correct procedure is to ask for a cite. Which is easy enough to find (the article already contains refs supporting that statement). I shall revert your revert. Your insistence means nothing. If you want the photo changed, fine, but don't pollute it with your POV edits. Greglocock (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand your sources. The Argonne study on P30 says "Furthermore, the WTW GHG emissions advantage of CD over CS operation disappears by moving from the California to the U.S. generation mix," ie there is no GHG benefit in operating a PHEV over a HEV for the USA in general. Please modify the article appropriately or I will do it for you. Greglocock (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The status quo is not HEVs, and the article is replete with careful documentation that moving from the status quo to PHEVs will improve air pollution locally and globally, greenhouse gas emissions, and petroleum dependence. What is your estimation of the average thermodynamic efficiency of an internal combustion engine? Why Other (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Greglocock is right and I will revert you also. The content already in the article is quite enough to make that point clear. Here is a summary just in case.--Mariordo (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
That summary is wrong because it does not include the difference in efficiency between coal powered electric drive and petroleum powered internal combustion. Are you familiar with the magnitude of that difference in efficiency? Furthermore, you reverted my verb tense updates without explanation. Would you please replace those? Why Other (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to revert the past and present tenses. I can restore it or go ahead and do it yourself, but please do not mess around with the content. A lot of people has worked on it and it was difficult to have a stable NPOV version considering the traffic of the article. -Mariordo (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I am prepared to accept your apology if and only if you revert your and Greglocock's edits, restoring this version. Not only have you reverted sourced verb tense changes, but you both have been assuming that internal combustion engines fueled with petroleum have similar efficiencies to coal fueled electric drivetrains, which is very wrong. Have you even read the source Greg cited or the first table in the "Greenhouse gasses" section that he just moved out of "Advantages"? The well-documented truth of the sources already cited in the article is not "OR". Why Other (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
As for the past tense, I did a more comprehensive update (and still there is plenty of outdated info throughout the article). I will review the other material, but cherry picking will not take us nowhere. Did you check this link in the PEV article?.-Mariordo (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes; it is flawed for the reasons I have already stated above. Why Other (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
If you actually read the GHG section you'll see that many of the studies indicate an INCREASE in CO2 emissions if PHEVs are used. Some studies weasel out of a fair comparison by comparing brand new PHEV fleets with current (ie older, and individually larger) IC fleets, others by sprinkling fairy dust over the means of generating electricity. A fair comparison would compare GHG emissions of a modern fleet of vehicles of the same load carrying capabilities vs a fleet of PHEVs, using electricity that is generated in the foreseeable future. The unpalatable truth is that a PHEV makes economic sense in terms of running costs, and saves some oil, but if you want to reduce carbon emissions overall then they aren't really the right solution. Greglocock (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually the two tables in that section, which by the way I produced, show that WTW emissions are highly dependent on the energy mix, in some cases is cleaner in others in dirtier, so the use of "may" or "might" is justified.-Mariordo (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
And if you have a reliable source that compares coal powered electric drive with petroleum powered internal combustion I believe it will make a good contribution to the article, since this is such complex issue and there are many variables to consider.-Mariordo (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The 2010 Argonne analysis and the Scientific American graphs upon which it is based only compare PHEVs to HEVs, but most cars today are certainly not HEVs. The 2009 Argonne analysis plainly says that PHEVs will likely reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 to 60 percent, and will reduce petroleum use by 40 to 60 percent relative to the automobiles of today; not some absurd hypothetical entirely non-plug-in HEV future. It is completely disingenuous to compare the subject of the article to anything but the status quo. Please correct your mistakes. Why Other (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The summary table from Argonne already says so, but this is no reason to make a generalization on the lead. Both tables present the facts with a NPOV, no cherry picking.-Mariordo (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
How is comparing PHEVs to some absurdly mythical future time when everyone has petroleum-thirsty HEVs not cherry picking the GHG statistics? How is comparing adoption of the subject of the article to the status quo cherry picking in any way? Why Other (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Calm down, it's only wiki. If they want low GHG emissions they'll choose HEVs or in the near future 3-4 litre/100km diesels(and save themselves a great deal of money). If they want low running costs they'll choose PHEVs if they can afford the capital cost, or an EV. The GM Volt archive includes a fair amount of discussion of this tradeoff, it is complex. The thing you are ignoring is that generating electricity from coal releases a great deal of CO2 per kWh of electrical energy generated, and the efficiency between the generator and the battery is a further, large, hit. The same argument applies anywhere where coal forms a significant source of electrical energy, places like the USA, China, Australia and Germany spring to mind. 10:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction

The Valence web site tells us that valence does not offer lithium iron manganese (Mn) phosphate but does provide lithium iron magnesium (Mg) phosphate. As both types exist, this is misleading.

Thank you for pointing this out. Please correct the article, making sure to provide a reference to your edit. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible POV issues

Hi! I think this article should remain neutral, and state things keeping all issues in mind. examples:

a) Leed section: (1)...a hybrid vehicle which utilizes rechargeable batteries, or another energy storage device ... Flywheels are energy storage devices - when they are used on hybrid vehicles, would it be a plug-in hybrid? (2)Plug-in hybrids use no fossil fuel during their all-electric range and produce lower greenhouse gas emissions if their batteries are charged from renewable electricity -> where in the world can one choose the source of electricity (i.e. renewable/nuclear/fossil-fuel based) that comes to ones home? It would be better to delete this sentence.

b) Section 4.2: ...because a more limited use of the PHEV's internal combustion engine may allow the engine to be used at closer to its maximum efficiency... This is a matter of choosing the right energy management strategy - HEVs also use this strategy, and operate only at points of maximum efficiency. In fact, the quoted source says The strategy can actually operate very similarly to present day HEVs. Hence, this is original research, and not an advantage of PHEVs over HEVs.

c) Nothing is mentioned in the article about the actual AER (all electric range) of a PHEV, which depends upon the type of driving habits, route, terrain and traffic that the vehicle encounters. In fact, all estimations of the AER by agencies, depends upon the choice of an appropriate drive cycle. The article should present this information to the reader.

d) Section 5.1 rightly says ...Disadvantages of plug-in hybrids include the additional cost, weight, and size of a larger battery pack. ... However, there is nothing about the disadvantage of additional weight and size of the larger battery pack. The weight of the additional battery increases fuel (and energy) consumption of the vehicle, as it requires a more powerful propulsion system, which consumes more energy. Second, the additional battery space necessitates enlarging the size of the vehicle, consuming more resources and energy. Third, the additional battery needs a very sophisticated cooling system, which entails addiional costs and resources. Fourth, the additional battery has never been subjected to crash tests so far. Nobody knows how dangerous it would be in case, some PHEV meets with a road accident, in which the batteries are damaged. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Responses:
a) If the flywheel can be charged ("spun up") through a plug-in connection to a power source, then "Yes" this would be a PHEV. Also, a substantial fraction of people in the developed world can now choose to get most or all of their electricity from photovoltaic panels, which generated no greenhouse gasses during operation, mounted on the roof of their home. Thus, the sentence in question should stay.
b) A parallel HEV relies to the ICE to provide direct traction force (through a transmission). Therefore, engine speed and torque output will be influenced by wheel speed, as is the case in a standard ICE car. Engine efficiency will be decreased by this coupling, in general. In a series PHEV, such as the Volt, this restriction is lifted, and the ICE efficiency is increased as a result. Language differentiating parallel vs. series hybrids could be useful in this section.
c) If you can insert well-referenced information on this subject, then please be bold.
d) Again, if you can find well-referenced details supporting your position, please feel free to add related information. I believe that your concerns about the safety of batteries in a crash will be questioned when compared to the safety of a potentially explosive fuel tank mounted inches from the passengers' seats. Of course, PHEVs are subject to both of these dangers, but the danger represented by the batteries is minimal when compared to the danger respresented by the fuel tank.
If you think you can improve the article without introducing a distinctly anti-EV bias in your edits, I encourage you to do so. However, I am quite certain that any biased and/or unsupported language you insert against PHEVs will be quickly reverted, with supporting reasons listed on this talk page. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response, Ebikeguy!
a)(1) I agree with you; theoretically, what you say is correct, but are there practical applications of the flywheel PHEV? (2) Agree with you
b) So you agree that there is no difference in the PHEV and a Series HEV as far as the engine efficiency is concerned. There are both series & parallel versions of PHEV. So I'm not sure if this advantage would carry for the parallel PHEV. Yes, it is valid for series PHEV.
c) The same source referred at 83 also deals at length about the estimation of the AER.
d) The thermal issues of lithium battery packs are well known. GM Volt has a specialised cooling system for batteries. Here is another paper. There are many papers detailing the advantages and disadvantages of PHEVs. This and this are just two.
I'm just as keen as you to make the article better - and btw, am a big fan of EVs, HEVs and PHEVs. I won't add anything unsupported. Have a nice day! Tinpisa (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Executive orders

To the 99.* anon:
I know you won't read this, but the proper way to link to the executive order is with an external link to the GPO site. Unfortunately, the US government has redone the site, and I don't know the proper link. WikiSource links are only appropriate if the material is not online or not expected to remain online. In any case, it should be generally be linked as an external link rather than as s:, as that gives the mistaken impression that there is a Wikipedia article about it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. I'm not being uppity here, just trying to broaden my knowledge base. Is your post about "s" links official Wikipedia policy, or is it simply your take on "best practices?" Because I thought the s link was clean, neat and straightforward, especially so since the related link to the GPO site has gone missing. But if it officially bad form, then I understand. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I really don't know. I think it's bad form to have a blue-link that goes out of en.Wikipedia, which doesn't obviously due so (e.g., "foo defined as"), but I'm not sure it's policy. As the anon likes to create Easter egg links, and links to other Wikipedias, such as de: and es:, which I also think inappropriate, I consider any link not obviously appropriate worthy of deletion. Also, I'm not sure that the EO should be there at all, linked or not, in some of the articles in question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Will the two children please stop reverting each other and have a civilised discussion instead. It is a relatively minor change, so the article will survive for a short while in the "wrong" state ("wrong" depending on your point of view, of course). Alternatively, think of it as taking the moral high ground and making the other guy look like an unreasonable barbarian. If one side doesn't want to talk then the consensus will be to the remaining party and the rest of us will support reverting the uncivilised barbarian.  Stepho  talk  05:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
In my quest to understand the proper way to deal with a situation like this, I have opened a discussion at the external links noticeboard. Please join the discussion and share your thoughts! Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion was not well-attended, but one editor showed me that links to sister projects, such as this, are clearly encouraged by Wikipedia policy. Therefore, I must side with the anonymous editor on this issue. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The anon's version ([[s:Executive order nnnnn|nnnnnn]]) would violate WP:EGG even if the link were to a Wikipedia article. I think you'll agree that the version I changed it to is better.
Leaving the "s" in looks a bit odd to me, and I don't entirely follow WP:EGG, but it looks generally fine now. Thanks for the clarification! Ebikeguy (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
We have 2 copies of the same executive order - one as a PDF from the US government itself and one as a copy on wikisource. The wikisource copy is not wrong but linking to separate 2 copies of the same executive order doesn't seem right and linking to the original is better than linking to the copy.  Stepho  talk  06:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the s: solution is acceptable. But actually this content is NOT relevant for this article, as it refers to alternative fuel vehicles in general. I removed it together with other similar material. The article, and this section in particular is outdated, clutter with irrelevant material, and needs more clean up. I will do some more as time allows.--Mariordo (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why were these sections removed?

The United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009,[1] $2.85 billion from 2010–2014, 39% for medium- and heavy-duty commercial vehicles for retrofitting advanced vehicle technologies to existing vehicles and to existing truck fleets.[2]

On October 5, 2009, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13514 on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance to accelerate Federal agencies' efforts.[3][relevant?] For the government's 600,00 vehicle fleet, it requires a 30% reduction in petroleum use by 2020, and for agencies with 20 or more vehicles to reduce petroleum use by 2% annually through 2020.[4]

141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but I would have removed it because those articles are relevant to energy-efficient transportation in general, not to plug-in hybrids. At least, that's why I tagged the second paragraph for consideration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It is documented "who" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plug-in_hybrid&diff=459256423&oldid=459249683
No need to plead "I didn't". 141.218.36.152 (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
As I explained in the end of the previous section, the article's section "Government support and public deployment" is a mess, with outdated content, and most important, content not specifically related to plug-in hybrids (such as the content I removed, with has to do with alternative fuel vehicles and incentives to improve energy-efficiency, but not specific about PHEVs). I take this opportunity to proposed a major clean up of the entire section, beginning by removing content related with subsidies and purchase incentives since there is an entire article for this subject, see Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles, that is much more comprehensive and relatively updated. I proposed we leave only government initiatives directly related to promote PHEVs, such as battery technology, deployment of charging stations, etc. (my guess is there is not much that is going to be left on this section and there is the problem of much of these incentives related to plug-in electric vehicles in general, so we have to deal with which content belongs here, which in the electric car article, and which in the PEVs article). Please comment below.--Mariordo (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Sounds right to me! Ebikeguy (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

US-centric?

I came to this article to get beyond a primer on PHEVs; that is to say, I'm no expert. Just reading through the article it seemed that a lot was written from a US perspective and I'm not sure if it is because the US is really leading in this field and the source of most examples or whether the contributors' experience is mostly limited to that jurisdiction.

I'm referring to things like:

"Until 2010 most PHEVs on the road in the US are conversions of conventional hybrid electric vehicles,[5] and the most prominent PHEVs are conversions of 2004 or later Toyota Prius, which have had plug-in charging and more batteries added and their electric-only range extended.[20] Several countries, including the United States and several European countries, have enacted laws to facilitate the introduction of PHEVs through grants and tax credits, emissions mandates, and by financing research and development of advanced batteries and other related technologies."

No figures on other countries?


"Ome of the largest world reserves of lithium and other rare metals are located in countries with strong resource nationalism, unstable governments or hostile to U.S. interests, raising concerns about the risk of replacing dependence on foreign oil with a new dependence on hostile countries to supply strategic materials."

Would other countries not face the same problem?

Cheers,

MiG-25 (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi MiG-25. If you feel the article could be improved, please be bold and edit! Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

On board turbogenerators to extend range

I wonder; it seems this is where the future is: with turbogenerator, on board batterry chargers:

Ref: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/turbines/moritz-presentation-galv.pdf

The 100% electrical car is simpler: requires no clutch or gearbox, is lighter, can have regenerative braking, variable speed capabilities, requires less maintenance and is cleaner. The on-board generator, powered by turbogenerators, instead of pistons, is cleaner, lighter, requires less maintenance and can use different fuels (in this scarce oil supply times). MX -- AGS -- --Dagofloreswi (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing some outdated material?

I notice a lot of mentions of 2007 and 2008 in this article. That was a long, long time ago in the world of PHEVs and makes the article seem stale or of questionable validity. Do others feel that the article needs to be updated and is there a consensus that it is okay to delete/replace information that might be six or seven years old?Tetsuo (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Tetsuo, I disagree with your proposal, that content belongs to the history section, as such, is not dated. The modern origin of PHEVs began with conversions of HEVs to proof the concept worked. Of course we now have about 15 series production models. If you check the article History of plug-in hybrids you will see that here we only have a summary, which probably could be trimmed, yes, but not because information is dated, the history section should not be only about the developments after the launch of the Volt in 2010, or the BYD F3DM in 2008, that would be biased. And by the way, I am aware that nowadays I am the most active editor for this article, but if you check the history you will see that I began editing this article in March 2009, so I am not turfing or defending content I added.--Mariordo (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Presenting key information at outset of article

For people who just want to quickly inform themselves, the key items that they are looking for at the top of the page, after a quick definition, are probably:

  1. a bar graph showing models ranked by all-electric range (descending)
  2. whether PHEVs are worth the extra money over a conventional hybrid
  3. whether PHEVs really do much for the environment, especially if the electricity is coal-generated
  4. photos of a few of the newer examples, and market leaders, especially those with top all-electric range and high fuel economy in conventional hybrid mode.

I can help with the first, doing a simple bar graph. I don't know how to answer the second question simply since it depends on the purchaser's driving patterns, the cost of electricity, whether they could take advantage of time-of-use electrical rates, the cost of gasoline, the price differential in the vehicles (net of rebates), the cost of a home charger (and for a few buyers, the possibility that they may need an upgrade to their electrical service.) Maybe a magazine like Popular Mechanics or Consumer Reports has looked at this and came up with some rules of thumb. The environmental benefit question will probably just have to link them to the relevant section of the article. For photos, I would suggest: Accord, Prius, Volt, Cadillac, plus some non-US-market examples. Tetsuo (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. First, you have to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there is a Manual of Style, so the article is structured following the recommendations of the MoS. Also, WP:AUTOMOBILE has issue guidelines, among them, articles should not be a buying guide. I believe most of the content you suggested is already in the article, but following MoS. You just need to use the index in the top to jump to the section of your interest. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Tesuo. Again, this is an encyclopedia, and as per WP:MOS the lead is just a summary of the key facts of the article, that is why you should not add new content in the lead. Your edit is very informative, please do it in the appropriate section, or create a new one to deal with AER being within the avg commuter trip. Sorry for the reversal.--Mariordo (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, for now I will move it down to a new section, but I strongly feel that this article has become a "geek" article for specialists in the field, whereas the opening paragraphs of articles on topics of mainstream interest (as opposed to scientific topics) must remain relevant to the 95% of Wikipedia readers who seek key facts and are not writing an essay for a university-level course. I'm an MBA, not an engineer, so from my perspective, when we're writing about a consumer product, the article must begin by addressing the consumer need, and then get into the technical details. The consumer need is for a vehicle that allows typical use, such as an average commute, primarily in an all-electric mode, while still allowing the owner to take longer trips with fuel efficiency similar to a conventional hybrid.Tetsuo (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC) And just a btw: We need to be careful not to scare away editors. I've been around awhile and have a pretty thick skin, so I'm not too put off if someone modifies something I've contributed. But a new editor might just figure it's not worthwhile contributing if some other editor is going to summarily undo new work and throw around some WP:This and WP:That's. Rather than undoing someone's work-in-progress, it's usually better to let the editor finish his/her contribution, and then think about how it fits in to the article. If necessary, improve it or move it later. No single editor owns an article. Wikipedia is a bit anarchistic, and that's its strength. We want to encourage, not discourage, new contributors to articles, and we want to attract new editors, including those who might not fit the mold of the typical Wikipedia editor. So I would encourage you to stand back and let people add their contributions to an article, even if their approach doesn't exactly match your vision for the article. In the long run, this will make Wikipedia better, with a broader spectrum of contributors, and articles that are relevant to a wider range of readers.Tetsuo (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Tesuo, for an experienced editor I am surprised how you blatantly ignored Wikipedia most basic policies. You must know by now that adding content without proper reliable sources is considered original research, and that is why I reverted your latest edit in the lead. Wikipedia is NOT a blog. Check also WP:MOS and WP:AUTOMOBILE guidelines. Wikipedia is not meant to promove products but rather to provide information with a neutral point of point supported by reliable sources. The article is missing the key info about the relationship between AER and avg commuter trip distances that you raised, please create a new section about it with the content you used in your first edits to the lead. Also, you will find useful content supported by RSs in the Chevrolet Volt article, since GM designed the Volt having in mind the avg commuter trip in the U.S. --Mariordo (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Tesuo, would you be so kind to keep the conversation in one place? The message you left in my talk belongs here. I am copying here your declaration of your right to do original research and advocate for a cause in Wikipedia. Your message speaks by itself, for a good cause you are entitled to be bold and ignore WP policies.--Mariordo (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE refrain from summarily undoing my contributions to this article. Please carefully read and consider my comments in the Talk section of the article. I am trying to improve the article. I respectfully suggest that you wait a day or two until I have completed what I am doing and then sit back and think, from the perspective of a reader, whether what I have added is helpful. I believe that upon consideration and reflection, you will come to appreciate that I have improved the article. Sometimes WP:Bold is more important than all the WP:this_and_that. What you are terming "Blatant Original Research" is what any layman would see as a helpful introductory sentence. Please try to take the lay reader's perspective, i.e. someone not too familiar with the subject who is trying to become informed in a general way on the subject, or maybe a VP of a company or a city manager wondering if plug-in hybrids make sense for the business or city's fleet of vehicles. In the big picture, I suggest to you that the utility and relevance of an article to a reader is a more important consideration than the creation of a "perfect" encyclopedia for the sake of creating a perfect encyclopedia. Please understand that you don't own this article. It is an evolving work that can be improved with input from various editors.Tetsuo (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Mariordo, you raise an interesting question about the Nissan Leaf. I've seen maybe two Leafs in my life other than at car shows whereas I sometimes see several Teslas in one day. However the Wikipedia article on the Leaf does state, "as of July 2014, the leading markets are the United States with almost 58,000 units delivered." So maybe you are correct that it isn't a niche player. I suspect that without incentives, which are a high percentage of its price, U.S. Leaf sales would be much, much lower, whereas Tesla sales would be only slightly lower without incentives. I'm not trying to mislead anyone on anything. I don't have any particular bias toward one or another vehicle or technology. People should choose the vehicle that best meets their needs. I believe that most multi-driver households in the US have 2 or more cars, so it really wouldn't be much of an inconvenience if one of them were all-electric. For 1-car households, all-electrics might be unacceptable even if they had a 300-mile range, because there's no charging infrastructure for long trips other than 120V outlets. Do you have a suggestion for the section title?Tetsuo (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Tesuo, you have improved the section a lot, so I removed the dubious tag, and even though the new title is better it doesn't nail it. As for a suggestion for the title, the first one that comes is something related to range anxiety, but not quite (as you can check the existing section about range anxiety). I agree with Stepho-wrs that it shouldn't be something related to market ..., but rather something related to the freedom and flexibility you get by having a PHEV, which for some models, allow the driver to achieved a significant number of electric miles (particularly for commuter trips) without the limitations of long travel distance imposed by BEVs. Nevertheless, I rather wait for you to finish the section to make a suggestions. Please let me know when you are finished.--Mariordo (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I am done for now. This chart caption isn't a huge issue for me, but the reasons I like to list the items on a chart in the caption are: 1) Search Engine Optimization, i.e. for the benefit of robots so people will easily find the chart in Google if they type in one of those car models, and 2) for the visually impaired who use a text reader. (I realize the caption won't tell them what the chart looks like, but at least they'll know what it includes. Then they can OCR the actual chart if necessary.)
Tetsuo, you said you are a MBA, not an engineer. I think this has coloured your view that everything must be in the form of market perception. The article as it stood says what hybrids are. Your changes are trying to turn it into a marketing article. The market forces that drive the development are of course something that should be in the article but not be the entire thrust of the article.  Stepho  talk  23:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe that "Why?" is the most important question, especially for a new product class. I'm a bit like a two year-old, always asking, "Why?"Tetsuo (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
As you are aware, PHEVs are not iPhones or some other cool product. They were introduced because California and several US states, Europe, Japan and China have mandates regarding CO2 emissions, and because of the high price of the batteries, subsidies are required to close the gap with the retail price of conventional cars. Of course there is some of the coolness perception in some models (McLaren P1, Porsche 918 Spyder, BMW i8, Fisker Karma, Cadillac ELR, all luxury segment or super cars), that is why the BMW i8 is selling so well (and the Model S too), but the bulk of sales are models aimed for the regular guy, only that not affordable for the middle class. In addition, since you said your editing is finish I believe you let a lot of lose ends, and the section as it is today, does not make much sense and has some pieces of info (such as total BEVs vs PHEVs sales figures - almost 50/50) that it is not obvious what is the point of that content. As you requested, I will wait for you to considered these comments, and during the weekend I could try to improve it, but you really need to make clear what is the main message that section is conveying, otherwise, with some trimming, it is just an extension of the existing range anxiety section. And finally, please check Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not, I think some content is original research by synthesis, this is, you combined reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps government regulation is why the automakers make them, but the reader/consumer may be asking, "Why should I buy one?" The consumer doesn't care what the government thinks. There's more to the "Why should I buy or not buy one?" question than just range anxiety, and it's not really the same as the advantages/disadvantages. Some consumers may be considering a conventional hybrid, but wondering if they would be better off choosing a PHEV instead. Some may like the idea of an electric car, don't think the energy cost savings justify the extra capital cost. Others may feel the range of the ones they can afford (if they cannot afford a Tesla) is not sufficient. Personally, I have a much bigger anxiety with all-electric cars than range anxiety. It's battery replacement anxiety. If the batteries lose significant capacity or die after the warranty period (or the manufacturer won't replace them under the warranty) will I have to spend $10,000 - $20,000 to replace them? At least with a conventional hybrid, the worst case scenario is around $3,000, and from what I've read, it is often possible to buy used batteries out of a wrecked vehicle for $600 or so. I expect that replacement batteries for a PHEV will be more like the conventional hybrid situation. I also have air conditioner anxiety. In Texas, the effectiveness of the air conditioner is one of the most important practical considerations in choosing a car. Is an all-electric car really going to have an adequate air conditioner? And if I am stuck in traffic and have it on at Max, will the range be cut in half? While range anxiety is part of the reason consumers aren't overly enthusiastic about all-electric cars, it's not the only concern. I put the sales growth numbers in to point out that this is the growth segment of the market at the moment. I included the all-electric sales growth to put PHEV sales in perspective, as requested. (However, if you subtract Tesla sales, which are arguably vanity/status symbol purchases, and you subtract the Leaf sales, which, in the U.S., are almost entirely due to huge incentives, there aren't many consumers choosing electric cars on their intrinsic merits.)Tetsuo (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the Chevrolet Volt distinct from others?

A comment posted in response to the Popular Mechanics article[5] prompts me to ask this question. Here's part of the comment, by David Murray of Kennedale, Texas: "The Volt is technically in a class all its own called an EREV (Extended Range Electric Vehicle) and there is a reason for that distinction. The Volt essentially operates completely as an electric vehicle during the first 38 miles (or however far you get out of the battery) That includes full power acceleration, heater, air conditioner, etc." His point is that with the other cars, you don't have full power acceleration unless the engine is running. I'm not sure he's correct about the accessories. I think, though I have not confirmed, that the air conditioning compressor is driven by an electric motor on most conventional hybrids and PHEVs, so you should have A/C even without the engine running. I don't know about heat. I'm guessing that many PHEVs have some electric heat, but that may not be enough to keep you warm in very cold temperatures. You may need additional heat off the engine. Maybe these matters are covered in the article and I didn't notice. The point about full power acceleration without the engine running seems very important, and something that should be highlighted in the article. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not particularly biased in favor of the Volt, I just think readers will want to be informed of noteworthy distinctions among the vehicles.Tetsuo (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You can find this fact with more detail in the Volt article. You can not include all the info about every car in the mother article about PHEVs. Furthermore, the BMW i3 REx is also a EREV, as per EPA definition, and CARB classifies it as BEVx. Most of the popular PHEVs operate in blended mode (they use some gasoline in EV mode), and sorry for the technicalities but there is no way around them.--Mariordo (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
White man speak with forked tongue. You yourself wrote " As Greglocock correctly edited yesterday, it is the best among car with an ICE" in the volt talk page. Greglocock (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Another technical issue the article doesn't address in sufficient detail is the charging interface (plug). Do consumers typically rely on the regular 120V, 15A (in the U.S.) wall outlet method? What about in countries that use 240V rather than 120V as their usual wall outlet voltage? Is charging time faster in those countries? Do some/most/all PHEVs also have a BEV-style higher capacity plug? If so, do they all follow a common standard that will work at all public charging stations, or are there multiple, incompatible standards? Which vehicles use onboard chargers, which use wall-mounted chargers? What do consumers typically use if there is a choice? Tetsuo (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Plug-in hybrid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Plug-in hybrid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 48 external links on Plug-in hybrid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Govtrack.us". Govtrack.us. Retrieved 2010-11-27.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference ReferenceA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "GPO.gov" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-11-27.
  4. ^ "Calcars.org". Calcars.org. 2009-11-12. Retrieved 2010-11-27.
  5. ^ Austin, Michael. "4 Top Plug-in Hybrids, Tested". Popular Mechanics. Retrieved 12 October 2014.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plug-in_hybrid/Archive_3&oldid=1028552401"