1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Plug-In hybrids to replace hybrids

Discussion in 'Gen 2 Prius Main Forum' started by outoftown, Dec 18, 2004.

  1. outoftown

    outoftown Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    125
    66
    5
    Location:
    Cary, NC
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Advanced
    http://www.economist.com/printedition/disp...tory_id=3422941

    If the link doesn't work, the entire text of the story without graphics is posted below.

    WHY THE FUTURE IS HYBRID
    Dec 2nd 2004

    Automotive technology: Hybrid petrol-electric cars such as the Toyota
    Prius are becoming increasingly popular. But are they any more than a
    rest-stop on the road to the hydrogen car?

    WHY has the Toyota Prius become the car industry's most talked about
    product? Since 1997, only about 250,000 have been sold, a paltry number
    by the industry's standards. The Prius is hardly big, fast or
    beautiful--the attributes that usually appeal to commentators,
    aficionados or, for that matter, buyers. And yet it is significant
    because it is the world's first mass-produced petrol-electric hybrid
    car, powered by both an internal-combustion engine and an electric
    motor. The second-generation Prius, launched in 2003, won some of the
    industry's most prestigious awards--it has just been named European Car
    of the Year 2005--and generated a buzz out of all proportion to the
    car's prevalence on the roads.

    By choosing to drive a Prius, buyers can demonstrate how green they are
    without paying any penalty other than a slightly higher purchase price.
    Compared with a new American car of the same size, the Prius consumes
    roughly half as much petrol, and so releases half as much
    climate-changing carbon dioxide. Moreover, its emissions of
    smog-forming pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, are
    90% lower. Yet the Prius still manages to deliver the comfort and
    performance of a conventional car.

    The success of the Prius has taken Toyota by surprise. The average wait
    at American dealerships is currently six months, even though the
    company increased its sales target for North America from its initial
    estimate of 36,000 units to 47,000 for 2004. To meet demand, Toyota
    announced another increase in August, saying it would push monthly
    global production up next year by 50% to 15,000 cars, and double its
    allotment for America to 100,000 units. While that number is still only
    one-quarter of last year's sales for America's most popular Toyota
    model, the Camry, it shows that consumers are willing to pay a premium
    for clean, environmentally friendly cars--as long as there is no need
    to compromise on performance.

    Other carmakers are scurrying to catch up. CSM Worldwide, an automotive
    research firm, reckons that at least 20 new hybrid models will appear
    in America by 2007. Besides this year's new Ford Escape and Honda
    Accord hybrids, Toyota will add two sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) to
    its hybrid line-up early next year. DaimlerChrysler recently announced
    that it will introduce a Mercedes hybrid within the next five years,
    and Porsche is considering a hybrid version of its Cayenne SUV. Even
    General Motors, one of the strongest proponents of hydrogen fuel-cell
    cars, has jumped on the hybrid bandwagon with two pick-up trucks, a
    sedan and several SUVs to follow. Thanks to the convergence of
    geopolitics, technology and fashion, hybrids are picking up speed.

    AN OLD NEW IDEA
    While the arrival of mass-produced hybrids is new, the idea itself is
    not. Indeed, it dates back to early automotive history when cars
    powered by electric motors, steam or internal-combustion engines all
    accounted for significant shares of the market. Why hybrids failed then
    is best illustrated by the example of an American engineer named H.
    Piper, who filed a patent for a petrol-electric hybrid vehicle in 1905.
    His idea was to use an electric motor to assist an internal-combustion
    engine, enabling it to achieve a thrilling 40kph (25mph). Unfortunately
    for Mr Piper, petrol-powered internal-combustion engines achieved those
    speeds on their own just a few years later, undermining the more
    complex and expensive hybrid approach. Petrol engines soon ruled the
    roost.

    Priorities began to change in the early 1970s, when the oil crisis
    increased demand for less fuel-thirsty cars. As a result, the overall
    fuel efficiency of cars and trucks improved dramatically (though it
    stalled in America in the late 1980s as cheap petrol and a regulatory
    loophole encouraged sales of SUVs and light trucks). Moreover, in the
    1990s, concern began to grow over the impact of fossil-fuel consumption
    on climate change.

    During the 1990s, all of the big three American carmakers developed
    diesel-electric hybrid concept cars, though none made it into
    production. Instead, the focus shifted to pure-electric vehicles, which
    are technologically simpler than hybrids. But their high cost and
    limited range deterred consumers. Even the most advanced models could
    only go about 100 miles before they needed to be plugged in and
    recharged for several hours. By 2000, most electric cars had been taken
    out of production.

    Meanwhile, Toyota released its first Earth Charter in 1992, setting the
    goal of minimising its overall environmental impact. In September 1993,
    the company began to plan the development of a car for the next
    century, dubbed Globe 21st Century, or G21. Originally, the plan was to
    produce a car with 50% better fuel economy than existing vehicles. But
    over the course of the project this target was raised to 100%, at which
    point it became clear that tweaking a petrol engine would not suffice.
    Instead, a more radical solution would be needed: a hybrid.

    Despite the higher cost and complexity of a hybrid system, Toyota
    decided to press ahead with a massive research and development effort.
    Improved technology--such as better batteries and cheaper, more
    powerful control electronics to co-ordinate the two propulsion
    systems--meant that a mass-produced hybrid was now feasible. In 1997,
    the Prius was launched in Japan. It was followed by Honda's Insight
    hybrid in 1999.

    When the Prius went on sale in America in 2000, it did not cause much
    of a stir. Indeed, even last year, Honda and Toyota sold about the same
    number of hybrids in America. This year, however, Toyota will sell
    about twice as many as Honda. The Prius took off thanks to the
    combination of rising petrol prices, celebrity endorsements and a
    futuristic redesign. (There is no petrol version of the Prius, so the
    car makes a statement in a way that the Honda Civic, which is available
    in both petrol and hybrid versions, does not.) It is the first hybrid
    to become a hit.

    HYBRID ANATOMY
    There is more to the Prius than clever marketing, however. To
    understand why, it is necessary to look under the bonnet at the way
    different kinds of hybrids work--for not all hybrids are the same. The
    simplest kind is the "stop-start" or "micro" hybrid, which is not
    generally regarded as a true hybrid because it relies solely on an
    internal-combustion engine for propulsion. As the "stop-start" name
    implies, the engine shuts off when the vehicle comes to a halt. An
    integrated starter-generator restarts the engine instantly when the
    driver steps on the accelerator. All of this increases fuel efficiency
    only slightly, typically by around 10%. But few modifications to a
    conventional design are required, so it costs very little. In Europe,
    PSA Peugeot Citroen has just introduced a stop-start version of the
    Citroen C3, which sells for roughly the same price as a similarly
    equipped conventional C3.

    Next come so-called "mild" hybrid designs, such as Honda's Integrated
    Motor Assist (IMA)--the hybrid configuration found in the Insight, the
    Civic and the new Accord. In addition to a stop-start function, an
    electric motor gives the engine a boost during acceleration. During
    braking, the same motor doubles up as a generator, capturing energy
    that would otherwise be lost as heat and using it to recharge the car's
    batteries. Since the electric motor is coupled to the engine, it never
    drives the wheels by itself. That is why this system is called a mild
    hybrid, much to Honda's dismay. The design is less expensive than
    Toyota's more elaborate approach, but can provide many of the same
    benefits, says Dan Benjamin of ABI Research, a consultancy based in
    Oyster Bay, New York. The hybrid version of the Civic achieves 48 miles
    per gallon, a 37% improvement over a comparable conventional Civic.

    Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive, a "full" hybrid system, is much more
    complex. (The Ford Escape hybrid uses a similar system; Ford licenses a
    number of patents from Toyota.) Using a "power split" device, the
    output from the petrol engine is divided and used both to drive the
    wheels directly and to turn the generator, which in turn drives the
    electric motor and also drives the wheels. The distribution of power is
    continuously variable, explains David Hermance of Toyota, allowing the
    engine to run efficiently at all times. When its full power is not
    needed to drive the wheels, it can spin the generator to recharge the
    batteries. The batteries also get replenished when the car is coasting
    or braking. During stop-and-go traffic and at low speeds, when the
    petrol engine would be most inefficient, it shuts off and the electric
    motor, powered by the battery, takes over. That explains why the Prius
    has a better fuel economy rating for urban driving (60 miles per
    gallon) than for motorway driving (51 miles per gallon)--the opposite
    of a conventional vehicle.

    The next step may be the "plug-in" hybrid, which is not the backwards
    step its name suggests. Unlike the electric cars of the 1990s, none of
    today's hybrids needs to be plugged in--but if plugging were an option
    it would be a good idea. Andrew Frank and his team at the University of
    California Davis' Hybrid Electric Vehicle Centre are working
    exclusively on plug-in hybrids, which can operate as pure-electric
    vehicles over short distances (up to 60 miles, with a large enough
    battery pack) but can switch to a hybrid system when needed. Since the
    average American driver travels about 30 miles a day, plug-in hybrids
    could be recharged overnight, when electricity is cheaper to produce,
    and need never use petrol at all, except on longer trips.

    According to studies carried out by the Electric Power Research
    Institute (EPRI), a non-profit organisation based in Palo Alto,
    California, plug-in hybrids could be one of the cleanest and most
    efficient kinds of car. In 2002, the EPRI teamed up with
    DaimlerChrysler to build five plug-in hybrid vans, the first of which
    was unveiled at a trade show in September. The larger battery packs
    make the upfront costs for plug-ins higher than for other hybrids. But
    Bob Graham of the EPRI says the added costs could be more than recouped
    over the vehicle's life.

    Not everyone is bothered by high fuel consumption, however, as the
    current enthusiasm for enormous SUVs demonstrates. So hybrids seem
    likely to remain a niche: ABI Research predicts that by 2010, less than
    5% of all cars sold in America will be hybrids, assuming current petrol
    prices persist. But if Alan Lloyd has his way, hybrids and other
    low-emission vehicles will become far more commonplace. Dr Lloyd is
    head of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), a state agency that
    enforces arguably the most stringent air quality rules in the world.
    California recently passed landmark legislation to curb the emissions
    of greenhouse gases by 30% beginning in 2009. Since carbon-dioxide
    emissions are directly linked to a car's fuel consumption, critics
    charge that the new rules are in effect a way to legislate fuel
    economy, which is supposed to be regulated by the federal government,
    not the states. As a result, carmakers are expected to challenge the
    new rules in court.

    Sales of hybrids in Europe are a fraction of those in America. Instead,
    diesel cars have become Europe's answer to reduce fuel consumption,
    curb greenhouse emissions and save money at the pump. Because diesel
    fuel contains more energy per unit, the fuel economy of diesel cars is
    roughly 30% better than that of petrol-powered cars. Moreover, diesel
    cars are not as loud or dirty as they once were, thanks to technologies
    such as electronically controlled "common rail" fuel-injection systems.
    Diesels now make up about 45% of all newly registered cars in Europe.

    Even so, they still lag behind petrol engines in terms of cleanliness.
    In the process of combustion, diesels create a lot of pollution,
    including nitrogen oxides which cause smog, and particulate matter that
    can cause respiratory problems. That said, some carmakers have begun to
    equip their cars with particulate filters, notably PSA Peugeot Citroen.
    Together with two British firms, Ricardo and QinetiQ, the company is
    building a diesel-hybrid based on the family-sized Citroen Berlingo.
    The aim is to achieve a combined fuel economy of 70 miles per gallon
    with carbon-dioxide emissions of only 90 grams per kilometre. (In
    comparison, the Prius delivers 55 miles per gallon with carbon-dioxide
    emissions of 104 grams per kilometre.)

    While it is uncertain whether the car will be mass produced, it is
    clear that a diesel-electric hybrid would make for an extremely frugal
    vehicle. A study by the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment at
    the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which looked at energy use
    over the course of a vehicle's life, predicts that by 2020, diesel
    hybrids could achieve the same energy-efficiency and greenhouse-gas
    emissions as fuel-cell cars powered by hydrogen made from natural gas.
    The difference is that diesel-hybrid technology is available today.

    So why are diesel hybrids taking so long to appear on the roads? Hybrid
    diesels impose a double price premium, explains Lindsay Brooke, an
    analyst at CSM Worldwide. Combining a diesel engine, (which costs
    around $2,000 more than a petrol engine) with a hybrid powertrain
    (which adds another $3,000 or so) would make for an expensive
    proposition. Systems to treat the exhaust would impose further costs.
    The prospects for diesels and diesel hybrids are particularly dim in
    America, where regulations in California (and, from 2007, nationwide)
    require diesels to be as clean as petrol-driven cars. Some progress has
    been made: particulate filters can now eliminate more than 90% of
    diesel soot. But traps for nitrogen oxides remain a challenge.

    THE CAR OF THE FUTURE, TODAY
    Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles promise to be the cleanest mode of
    transportation, eliminating harmful tailpipe emissions altogether. But
    despite much publicity, and the fact that most carmakers are working on
    the technology, fuel-cell cars will not appear in significant
    quantities any time soon. America's National Academy of Sciences, which
    advises the government on new technologies, recently estimated that the
    transition to a "hydrogen economy" will probably take decades, since
    many challenges remain--in particular, how to produce, store and
    distribute hydrogen in sufficient quantities.

    Hybrid cars, however, offer many of the benefits of fuel-cell vehicles,
    with the huge advantage that they are available now. Moreover, as the
    success of the Prius shows, people will actually buy them. The beauty
    of petrol-electric hybrids is that they do not require any changes in
    driver behaviour or the fuel-delivery infrastructure.

    Rather than being mere stepping-stones on the way to the hydrogen cars
    of the future, petrol-electric hybrids are likely to be around for
    years, if not decades, to come. When and if fuel-cell cars become
    available down the road, they may not replace hybrids, but instead are
    likely to be descended from them, since they require many of the same
    components, from control systems to motors. As Joseph Romm, director of
    the Centre for Energy & Climate Solutions, a non-profit organisation
    based in Arlington, Virginia, puts it, "hybrids are almost certainly
    the platform from which all future clean vehicles will evolve."
     
  2. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Excellent article. Thanks.
     
  3. TonyPSchaefer

    TonyPSchaefer Your Friendly Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    14,816
    2,498
    66
    Location:
    Far-North Chicagoland
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Advanced
    It makes a little sense to use the ICE as a back-up when the batteries run dry. This would, of course, reduce the driving population's overall reliance on gasoline.

    The article says: "plug-in hybrids could be recharged overnight, when electricity is cheaper to produce". Electricity is cheaper for the consumer to purchase during non-peak hours but the utility still has to burn fuel to generate the electricity. It's just a question of offsetting the burning of fossil fuels from one point to another.
     
  4. Ms. Piggy

    Ms. Piggy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    54
    0
    0
    Location:
    Honolulu, HI
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer\";p=\"58518)</div>
    Well, not always...what about hydroelectric or nuclear plants? ;-)
     
  5. ceric

    ceric New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    1,114
    53
    0
    Location:
    Fremont, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    I personal think a plug-in hybrid is a great idea with extra weight and cost as the down side.

    Tony, not all electricity comes from fuel burning. For one, the Sterling engines that utilize solar energy is gaining momentum.
     
  6. GreenSteve

    GreenSteve Web Hosting Provider

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    89
    0
    0
    Location:
    Palm Springs, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Model:
    II
    If a chargeable electric hybrid is to be charged at home, the home might conceivably get power from solar panels, or wind generators. With enough solar panels a homeowner might be able to generate all the electricity need to power both their home and their daily commute.

    Less than 5 miles from my home there is a mountain pass that separates the greater LA basin from the Sonoran desert, there must be 5,000 wind turbines in the area.

    This idea of a rechargeable electric-gas hybrid sounds great.

    I wonder if Coastal Tech has a kit for that yet?

    GreenSteve
     
  7. Ken Cooper

    Ken Cooper New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    339
    5
    0
    Also, keep in mind that our cars require highly refined gasoline, where power plants (with scrubbers) that aren't hydro-electric or wind sourced can use coal or lightly refined fuel oil, thus the lower cost.

    Great article though. Thanks!
     
  8. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer\";p=\"58518)</div>
    Not quite. The cost of producing electricity has two components: the energy source (oil, coal, wind, solar, etc.) and the capital cost of the physical plant (wind turbine, solar panel, generator, etc.). Electricity produced at peak times requires building more plant to meet the increased demand. Electricity produced at off-peak times makes more efficient use of the existing plant, and does not require building more plant. Thus, electricity consumed at off-peak times is cheaper to produce, even though it uses the same amount of fuel, because it places less demand on the physical plant.

    This would change if we were getting enough of our energy from solar, which would increase daytime electrical production.
     
  9. wildplaces

    wildplaces Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    37
    0
    0
    Thank you for bringing this excellent article to our attention!

    Most of the proposed new power plants near or in New York City are natural gas fueled power plants...while I am not a proponent of new plants and took note of Daniel's point on off-peak power generation, this is the same fuel noted as the probable starting point for hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles, in a distributed power source via the electric transmission lines. Not as efficient in terms of utilization of the energy, but much more efficient in terms of distribution?

    wildplaces
     
  10. jchu

    jchu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    1,063
    0
    0
    Location:
    Nampa, ID
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer\";p=\"58518)</div>
    I think that the other point that Tony was making that seem to have been generally missed is that during off peak hours, power plant turbines can not and are not just shut down. They must be run at some minimum level at all times. Again why off-peak electricity is less expensive. And it represents energy that is otherwise being wasted.
     
  11. TonyPSchaefer

    TonyPSchaefer Your Friendly Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    14,816
    2,498
    66
    Location:
    Far-North Chicagoland
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Advanced
    [soapbox]
    et al,
    I was making a generality. In the same vein that if someone said automobiles emit particulates and pollutants, I would not spend an hour explaining that I drive a Prius. I wouldn't bother because I understand that ultra-low emission and zero emission vehicles constitute only a very small portion of the entire global population of vehicles currently in service. And God I hope this changes in my lifetime.

    I actually know quite a bit about utility companies and power plants. This is because I work for a building automation corporation and specialize in promoting energy management in large-scale residential and commercial structures. I have spent many hours explaining how utility companies generate and distribute electrical power. From from coal to nuclear, from primary plants to peaker plants, I have studied and taught them all. On occasions I have sat with CFOs to explain how their utility company has set up their rachet structure and how to address their peaking issues.

    I truly did not intend to detract from the main point of the thread. Though I have to admit that I'm pleased with the responses you have all provided. It is good to see people clambering for the promotion of cleaner power plants and alternative fuel sources. And if I am responsible for initiating this discussion, I'm somewhat proud. However, every fuel source has its proponents and critics: some people don't like spent nuclear fuel rods being buried in their state while others argue that hydroelectric dams dramatically alter entire ecosystems.

    Here was the crux of my point. And perhaps I should have been more clear in the first place. If the average power plant produces an average 1,500 pounds of carbon dioxide pollution for every megawatt produced (Scientific American, Dec. 2004, pg 52), the charging of an electric car is just as responsible for producing the pollution as is leaving all your house lights on when you're not home. Electricity leads to demand for mW which leads to an average 1,500 pounds of carbon dioxide pollution.

    Studies have well established that the amount of energy you retrieve from batteries is less than that amount of energy plus the energy spent charging the batteries plus the energy spent drawing the energy from he batteries. So, in fact, its possible that electric lights (with a near 100% efficiency) would draw less power than the battery-operated vehicle. Especially if you are going to be charging the car every 2 or 3 nights.

    It's just that I get bothered when I hear people proclaiming that you are getting something for nothing. People think that you can create electricity without burning fuels, or damming rivers, or killing bats (yes, I swear). I was just attempting to keep things into perspective.

    [/soapbox]
     
  12. pepa

    pepa New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    102
    0
    0
    Location:
    Rockford, Illinois
    There is a problem with the theory of driving on battery for 30 or so miles and then switching to hybrid system - and recharging overnight.

    If fully discharged, the batteries allow for significantly lower amount of charging cycles. That's why Prius charge / discharge is confined to pretty small window of total battery capacity, I think it's less than 10%.

    Then and only then can Toyota guarantee longevity of the expensive battery pack.
     
  13. ml194152

    ml194152 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    135
    2
    0
    Location:
    Katy, TX
    Charging a hybrid battery from the grid is NOT the same thing as leaving a light burning when someone is not at home. The charging goes toward a good use. The burning light when nobody is home does NOT go toward a good use.

    Futhermore, 50% of the power from plants comes from clean-burning natural gas. It is a lot less polluting than coal or oil. Or gasoline in a car engine. So I have no problem with charging a hybrid from a power plant using natural gas as a significant component.
     
  14. wildplaces

    wildplaces Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    37
    0
    0
    I our neck of the woods, much of the power generated originates in coal or nuclear fired plants...natural gas does not come close to 50%, perhaps 20 to 30% at most on a standard energy supply program. I will be subscribing to a 100% green plan for approximately $1.50 more per KWh, 40% regional wind, 30% small regional hydro and 30% regional green biomass (landfill methane, otherwise unused wood chips, etc.)

    wildplaces
     
  15. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Tony: I was responding to your use of the word "cost." I agree with you that energy is consumed either way and that batteries are inefficient. If there was even one ounce of total combined brain matter in our national policy makers' heads, we would cut the military budget by 90% and invest all the savings in a National Security Energy Independence project to move to clean renewable energy in the minimum possible time.

    Our leaders are either complete morons, or criminal psychopaths, or both. Personally, I suspect both.
     
  16. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    I think it's more like 20%, but your point is valid regardless. However, does anyone know if this is generally true of all batteries? Or is it just the NiMH batteries used in the Prius? Is the same true of lithium batteries? Lots of folks seem to think that the next generation will be lithium. Some even advocate capacitors, which presumably have no such issue.
     
  17. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Was that a typo? I think I pay around 6 cents per kwh for regular electricity. A premium of $1.50 per kwh would boost my monthly electric bill from $30 to $610 per month.

    And I don't think I'd trust my electric utility. Since all the electricity goes onto the same lines, and my neighbors and I are fed from the same lines, the utility could easily sell the same kwh of green electricity to a thousand different people. The only way to know would be for an accountant to see their books and verify that for every customer who subscribes to the green plan they had actually added that much green capacity. And the green and dirty electricity is still all mixed together and distributed mixed to everyone, unless you are on a totally separate grid.
     
  18. wildplaces

    wildplaces Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    37
    0
    0
    Daniel, Thanks for pointing out that my "added cost" for green energy is off by only a couple orders of magnitude!;>) <ooops> Yes, it is +1.5 cents (NOT dollars) per KwH!

    I agree with you about accounting for it, BUT I pay an additional 1.5 cents per KwH to show that consumers are willing to pay for it, even if it means an increase of a penny or two per KwH on my electric bill. Apparently they are audited by the Public Service Commission (another government agency that perhaps can not to be trusted to audit the energy suppliers, but I've met some of their biologists and know that their environmental people at least TRY to do their job, even if the powers that be direct them to do otherwise) to attain their green supplier rating. Its a consumer vote in a marketplace dominated by coal, nuclear & natural gas.

    wildplaces
     
  19. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Okay. At 1.5 cents I understand your reasoning.
     
  20. richard schumacher

    richard schumacher shortbus driver

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    7,663
    1,039
    0
    Location:
    United States
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Well, sure: most of the people who vote for them are, at some times and on some subjects, morons or psychopaths.

    Plug-in hybrids are a fine idea but they will only help increase global warming unless supplied by nuclear, wind, hydro, or Solar power stations. (I will take this opportunity to boast that our house has used 100% wind-generated electricity from Green Mountain for nearly a year now.) We should remember this when next some NIMBY opposes a nearby wind turbine farm or some well-meaning ignoramus rants about the horrors of nuclear power, and do the right thing.