Why Can't Other Plug-In Hybrids Copy Chevy Volt's All-Electric Running?

Not for hybrids.
For electrics, it will still happen, although it may not happen as quickly.

 

+ that again.
Some post really ramble. I like to use the Earnest Hemingway approach to forum posts.
Edit down your first draft by HALF. Less words are better. And WAY more understandable.

btw, I'm not a fanboi of any particular sports team or car manufacturer. I don't know either line up.
I do know that driving a Full Featured EV is habit forming. (3 season, <13 - <65 is not full featured.)
And having an EV that can do an airport run or take off on a vacation at a moments notice is the best kind of EV!

 

But from the legal view for getting credit for cleaner the grid, the amount of green electrons purchased will cancel out the other electrons the purchaser used. So a BEV owner buyer green electric has cancelled out the impact of the electrons used in the car. If it didn't work this way, a tool for actually getting clean electrons into the grid, no matter where they go, would be invalidated, and the businesses buying clean energy would just go back to buying whatever is cheaper, and likely dirtier.

The current Malibu is on the smaller side of the midsize sedans. The new one is getting bigger.

The higher salaries of the design team and *sigh* higher management stay in the US with the American brand. Assuming the car and parts was designed here, of course.

 

the thing about the horse to car was like a punch in the face. gas to electric isn't even appealing on the face of it. it's going to be slow. really slow.

 

That means you used fossil fuel kWh while someone else used your renewable kWh.

Net effect is irrelevant. What you claim you used, is in question.

Take an example. You robbed the bank for $1,000 but then donated $1,000 to the church. You cannot claim you did not rob the bank because your net is zero.

 

You're actually agreeing with me.

The reason they viewed them as better was because there became a replacement they found acceptable.

The horses began to disappear as a result of that.

Again, you agree.

The value comes from a replacement which matches their requirements, while also offering an improvement at similar price.

We've seen countless examples of that in the computer world... of which there was no interest in the high-end tech. It was simply an upgrade to what they were already familiar with.

 

Carbon emissions go into the Earth's atmosphere. We all share the same atmosphere. Net effect matters.

 

Especially when you have people here with plugin hybrids that can't seem to grasp the concept of a "Grid-Tied Solar" installation.

Bring on 'Net Metering' and educate the masses about both ideas and the clean future will get here sooner!

 

Benz created the first production car in 1886. It took the model T's price reduction and years of people getting used to it, 1913 for engined vehicle sales to get ovr 100,000/year. That was a lot of improvements and cost reductions in a 27 year period. I don't think it will take plug-in cars nearly as long to get a foot hold angainst gasoline only vehicles. It is much closer to a gasoline car than a benz was to a horse.

 

good idea, but it's an uphill slog vs the oil and electric conglomerates, and their bozo buddies in d.c.

 

You are saying, the end justifies the means. That's fine but don't lie about your means to achieve the end. That is my point.

Then there is another topic if it really justifies the end due to the inefficiency caused at fossil fuel power plants due to fluctuation of renewable power, to fill the balance.

To keep the stability of the grid, you cannot have more than 30% of solar electricity in the grid. That's probably the highest you can claim, in theory. California, I believe has reached 5% in solar power.

 

My apologies, I misunderstood you.
When you said

I took that to mean that advancement required sunset of the older technology.
What you meant was that advancement results in the sunset of the older technology.

 

May be due to corporate "flip-flopping".

DBCassidy

 

I obviously did not understand john the first couple of times, and I know he was trying to make a point. I think he did on his last reply. The rambling as you call it was to elicit a more full, less cryptic reply.

+1

 

The means are self-justifying. Emit some carbon overnight, inhibit an equivalent amount of carbon during the day -- what's evil about that? Why does that need to be "justified"?

Where's the lie?

So, you're saying there isn't a problem then?

Actually, there is no arbitrary maximum level of solar or renewable energy on the grid before it de-stabilizes. Eventually there will be challenges that will be met with solutions.

During some parts of spring and fall in California we are going to quickly run into "excessive" mid-day solar generation that will need to be mitigated but we still need all the solar we can get during the summer and winter is not yet a "problem" either. We need more "problems" like this! Actually, we may soon see partial-peak rates during afternoon hours to encourage energy use Time of Day shifting (including EV charging at work) to absorb future large-scale solar generation.

Increasing renewable variability is addressed today with new combined-cycle natural gas plants that are more efficient than the older fossil plants that would have otherwise have been operated plus they can quickly "load-balance" variability of output from renewable generation. Grid operators are also being smarter about forecasting renewable generation.

Very soon now, utilities will be installing additional stationary energy storage to additionally smooth out renewable power integration. Much of this is likely to be in the form of lithium or sodium sulphur batteries but there will be smaller experimental systems as well. Texas and California are already discussing or planning the rollout of GW-level energy storage throughout their regional grids. California is initially planning 1.3 GW and Texas is studying 3-5 GW. This is what it is going to take to adapt the grid to massively reduce man-made carbon emissions. This is a good thing.

Bring it on!

 

Yes, but that's too far away of a view. Closer up, you'll see that a proactive posture must be taken. People must see actions as a clear effort to discontinue.

Remember how fuel-injection and front-wheel-drive and disc-brakes were all accepted as replacements for the older technology?

We need to have clarity on the low-end so well understood that it becomes obvious... that adding a battery-pack to their existing vehicle of choice is a no-brainer choice when replacement time comes.... which is where FULL hybrids play a major role in our move toward plugging in.

A paradigm-shift to EV is simply not realistic. There are far to many fighting against it. Battery proliferation is quite different though. Again, that's where FULL hybrids contribute.

In other words, skipping a chapter isn't possible. The masses won't allow it. Acceptance on that scale with a single enormous step won't happen. Evidence verifying that is all over the place.

We must work both ends at the same time to actually achieve change.

 

I don't think I heard anyone say plugins would be the end of hybrids ore even ICEVs.

 

Interesting position.
I disagree, as "full hybrids" have peaked out at about 3% market share.
I agree that we need to work at both ends.
As long as that doesn't mean slowing down EV adoption waiting for hybrids to grow its marketshare.

 

That's because I'm aware of the potential new lithium chemistries and the expired NiMH patents have to offer.

 

I largely agree with this. We will need lots more full hybrids along with PHEVs, and EVs. Some folks seem to think full hybrids have peaked at 3% of the market. I think it will get much higher than that. Not everyone can plug-in for one reason or another and full hybrids will fit some driving patterns more effectively

All car makers will need to meet ever increasing CAFE numbers over time so conventional gas and diesel cars will gradually be driven out of the product portfolio and will largely linger at the very high and low end of the market. The actual mix of full hybrids vs plugins of various types will depend to some degree on how rapidly the battery technology evolves and how quickly prices drop.

Full hybrids will remain cheaper to buy up-front for many years. EV and EREV adoption will likely be spurred by the "fun to drive" aspect which will lure owners into seats for reasons beyond cost optimization.

To some degree, owners will self-select which technology works best in their climate, driving pattern, and electrical price and grid emissions so PHEVs and EVs may be more popular along the coastal regions as full hybrids push out of those areas and into new markets.