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

I'm amazed at how something happening so amazing fast (EV car adoption) is being seen as very slow. Discussions about EV contribution to CO2 levels must always sidestep the obvious. Sustainable transportation can be fully achieved with EVs and can never be achieved with ICE vehicles, Prius included. The only issue left is how to efficiently make this transition, not whether it makes sense. I'm also not worried about mass motivation to move to EVs. Fuel prices will accomplish that. Only the timeline is unknown, not the end result. So the really great news is most (foresighted) automakers and key technology suppliers will be somewhat prepared when the real economic push occurs.

Unless there is an economic incentive. Cell Phones, Smart Phones and Internet connections certainly were not slowly accepted.

 

I wouldn't say never in regards to ICEs. Sustainable liquid fuels may be possible. I don't see them meeting our fuel needs, but when plugins and efficient hybrids start reaching mass adoption, they could meet the needs then.

Right now hybrids are only available in few market segments. It's really small and midsize cars with a wide selection. There isn't any minivan or crossover hybrid for a family of five. Well, there is, but the cost for the mpg improvement is too high for most to justify. It's there for the cars, but the higher fuel economy rating makes it more acceptable to pay. There was a bump in hybrid sales when the selection widen, now they have to move into other segments with an acceptable price or big enough improvement to efficiency. Even some small diesels in the bigger vehicles would be nice.

 

+1

We had cell phones for awhile... Then huge rapid adoption of smart phones. The leaders of cell phones nokia and motorola, where quickly over run by apple (iphone), samsung(galaxy), and google (android, even bought and sold motorola cellular). Smart phones haven't killed regular cell phones, but now apple market cap based mainly on iphone is truly stunning, as is the profit margin). Iphone was only released in 2007, and when I bought one people were sure it was too expensive and would never catch on. Apple made ipods not phones. Besides it was only on at&t. I was amazed when the 3 came out how many of the doubters bought one.

cars move slower than phones, and are much more expensive.
+1

There are a lot of groups against adoption, which is slowing it, but its like holding back a tidal wave. 320K plug-ins sold last year, and rapid growth expected in the future. These groups put out the fud, and the press just parrots it. Luckily the DOE and the Chinese government are supporting the tech.

I do disagree with the sustainable. Biofuels especially cellulistic methanol and ethanol, and algea based bio diesel could be susteatinable, but having part electric makes it much easier.

 

Actually you (and AG) are quite correct. A proper comment would have stated a fossil fuel ICE.

 

That's true. I think it's probably about fear and risk.

Fear about having a large battery pack charging while they sleep in the garage -- will it catch fire? Cell phones are a lot smaller. If they catch fire people imagine they can put out the fire or at least pick up the phone with some BBQ tongs and put it outside the house.

Risk as in spending $30,000 for a car with an unusual powertrain -- will it fail after the warranty runs out and cost lots of money? Will it be unreliable and leave me stranded on the road? Etc.

Wealthier people are better prepared to handle any financial risks involved in buying something expensive that doesn't work out or needs repairs. That's partially why Tesla's strategy of initially selling high end cars largely to the wealthier crowd has worked so well for them.

Cell phone models are not as risky financially because people buy them assuming they trade up to the next generation in a couple of year and the phone hardware is heavily subsidized as the cost is hidden behind long-term customer contracts.

Big electric cars are scary. Note that this kind of thing applies to fuel cell cars also.

That's my theory anyway.

 

And there in lies the rub:

In the USA, CAFE is a high bar to meet but it is a law that can be changed. Capture the governmental body that sets CAFE and the fiscal motivation for efficient cars can evaporate ... like CARB support for anything that is not a hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle. Regardless, the experiment continues.

Bob Wilson

 

I agree it is about fear and risk.
I don't, however, believe that it is fear of the particulars of the drivetrain and fire (I also don't think that is a factor for cell phone buyers).

It is about convenience and cost.
People that don't know their driving habits fear that they will run out of charge during the day. That finding a way to charge away from home will be difficult.

Most everyone I have spoken to at car events that doesn't believe an EV will work for them mention the range and charging. None (and I have spoken with thousands) have mentioned fires as being the reason they are not looking for an EV.

I have spoken with some people that simply thought EVs in general are a bad idea, and mentioned fires. These people were either quite surprised at the actual stats, or continued to move from negative to negative argument without discussing.

 

A familiar pattern on just about any subject.

Bob Wilson

 

Luckily in person it tends to happen a bit less.
The quality of discussions I have had a various Car, Alternative Fuel, Environmental events has been amazingly good overall.

I have to say I have been in a number of discussions with people that started very skeptical, repeating many of the old, long debunked, points, who walked away quite interested in plugin vehicles.

 

Today is the official PR announcement of various new cars at the New York Auto Show media event. GM made their official Malibu hybrid reveal and released new EPA estimates. The old number was "will exceed" 45 mpg combined. The new numbers are:

48 mpg city, 47 mpg combined, 45 mpg highway

More details on the Malibu hybrid thread:
Malibu hybrid

 

You said: "Someone doing that has legitimate bragging rights that their car is effectively driving on sunshine.

This is incorrect. You cannot claim so. The reason is below.

The problem lies in individual vs. collective.

When your PV system interconnect to the grid, you become a borg (best to put it in Star Trek term). There is no more "I" concept. You've become part of the "collective".

The problem is, you are trying to claim individual effort and discrediting the collective effort.

If you say your are effectively driving on sunshine but charging at night from a fossil power plant, how about the guy that actually used your solar kWh during the day? He paid extra to use cleaner electricity and night time dirtier electricity is discounted.

Not only you pocket the difference but also get to claim to use solar electricity? The problem is rooted in individual claim of a group collective effort.

The best you can do is claim the collective effort (grid average) or go off-grid. Micro-grids are coming and I think it'll solve this problem by creating smaller collective group.

 

People aren't ants or kobolds. If you don't let them, or businesses, claim to be using renewable energy when they paid for it, or when their individual clean power generator produces more than the dirty electric they use, they just might not bother with the green energy and just go back to whatever the grid provides.

Collective efforts don't work if you can't get the individuals to go along with it.

 

SREC market exists for that individual claims. If PV owner sell their SREC, they have zero right to claim solar power usage.

For places where there is no SREC market, it is invalid to claim individually.

 

It's so sad when PHEV owner argues against grid-tied solar panels.
Any added solar panels are a wonderful thing for the home owner, the geographic area and the planet.
Grid-tied or not. The net result is less fossil fuels burned.

Who cares about 'bragging rights' with Off-Grid versus Grid-tied?

Off-Grid is much more expensive to install and the inefficiency of storing energy in a home bank of batteries makes for less power available from a set of solar panels.

 

Views differ....

I've run into other smart people who share your philosophical perspective. As I've stated, I myself find that perspective deeply unconvincing.

 

My system is getting installed in a few weeks.

I am not going to claim my EV miles are 100% solar.

If the grid is 100% solar, you can claim you run on solar power that you deposited earlier.

The fact is, you need fossil fuel for you to consume kWh after the sun is down.

 

And the fact is that if you do something different from an ordinary grid user and inject carbon-free power at a later time during the day that action will have the effect of inhibiting fossil generation that would have otherwise occurred. That inhibited fossil-generation would then negate your earlier fossil-based grid usage leaving your personal contribution to the overall grid carbon emission as a net zero.

 

So Cal utilities see to it that legislation prohibits selling credits here, so we aren't part of that game.
I don't know about Jeff - but I charge right when I get home, @ 1:45pm. Drawing 3.5kW's during chargeing, our meter is still spinning backwards even during charging. I need a 2.5 hour charge cycle (or less) required to replenish the 8kWh's it takes to go to & from work.
Charge completed, the utility meter spins backwards even faster ... so much so, that the surplus pushed back on to the grid doesn't get used up during the night time.
Does that meet your "solar usage" criteria?

.

 

Wait, if a plugin owner buys the SREC paper they can claim to charge their car with renewable energy?
Then those paying extra for renewable, should be getting the SREC. Unless the power company is deceitful. So they can claim to be using renewable for the car.
A homeowner with a PV installation in SREC area can claim to be green if they don't sell their SRECs. If they aren't in a market with SREC, they then can't claim to be using renewable energy, even if their system produces more than they use in a given time frame?

 

I started a new thread so maybe we can take the talk about the grid off the news section.
Net effects of green energy and old coal on new electrical demand | PriusChat
This would be a great post there.

My own utility heavily subsidies PV installation as it is cheaper than building solar themselves. They take the credit, and give the homeowner money. The homeowner's greenhouse gas footprint becomes the footprint of the local grid, and a tesla or volt produces less greenhouse gas on this local grid than a prius, but much more than a greenchoice customer. The utility builds new wind or solar for green choice customers, who pay extra, and keep the credit. The utility credits them 0 ghg emissions, which they have to use in averaging out for all their customers. To me its all accounting to try to clean the local grid. Our local grid is used as an example to clean the regional one ;-)

OK back to the OPs question?
The bmw i3-rex does use an EREV PHV design like the original volt design. ;-)