Plug-in hybrid is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 30, 2007. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 On Sale Car List?
- 2 Aptera
- 3 AFS Trinity
- 4 Complete carmaker list
- 5 Warning
- 6 Chevy Volt: Thank Gods!
- 7 BYD F3DM hatchback!
- 8 Energy Effectiveness
- 9 Stuff I saw in the news
- 10 Disadvantage: Cost, weight, and size of batteries (and also other components!)
- 11 Removed some claims regarding patent encumbrance
- 12 cobasys has patents on all large-format NiMH batteries?
- 13 Volkswagen
- 14 Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
- 15 "Stikiest" form of energy
- 16 Encyclopedic?
- 17 Bot report : Found duplicate references !
- 18 date mess needs your advice and action
- 19 Chrysler Town & Country minivan and Jeep Wrangler PHEV-40s
- 20 Environmental cost of battery disposal
- 21 Bailed in
- 22 Can an article in history summary style be faulted for proseline?
- 23 Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
- 24 GM Volt
- 25 Date format
- 26 Featured Article Review (FAR) of Plug-in Hybrid
- 27 Tiered rate structure for electric bills
- 28 Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries
- 29 Range
- 30 Ford Escape
- 31 Daimler van video on relative mass
- 32 Seattle and Google fleets
- 33 Fast charging with LiFePO4
- 34 Hydrogen/battery hybrid
- 35 Informing the reader of Li-FePO4/*/polymer/S/etc. tradeoffs
- 36 Type diagrams
- 37 U.S. DoE Annual Energy Outlook "Issues in Focus"
- 38 Google rechargeIT
- 39 Plug-in EV
- 40 Hydrogen vehicle
- 41 France invests $2.2 billion in charging stations
- 42 Energy resilience and petroleum displacement
- 43 New article from Calcars
- 44 Volt going in to production November 2010
- 45 BYD F3DM available in US in 2011 or as 2011 model in 2010?
- 46 Why does GM want to call the Volt an EV, not a plug-in?
- 47 Deletion of the Ovonics/NiMH patent section again
- 48 United States Council for Automotive Research
- 49 PHEV Emissions Related to Coal-Fired Plants
- 50 Regarding claims in "Tiered rate structure for electric bills"
- 51 Please verify
- 52 Fossil fueled electric mode CO2 emissions relative to petroleum internal combustion inefficiencies
- 53 Correction
- 54 Possible POV issues
- 55 Executive orders
- 56 Why were these sections removed?
- 57 US-centric?
- 58 On board turbogenerators to extend range
- 59 Presenting key information at outset of article
- 60 Removing some outdated material?
- 61 Is the Chevrolet Volt distinct from others?
- 62 External links modified
- 63 External links modified
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)
Aptera
I deleted the mention of Aptera Motors in the intro, because it was not mentioned in the body of the article as WP:LEAD requires, and the announcement is not really what most readers would think of as a production consumer automobile: it's pre-orders only, for a three-wheeler, two-seater, and there is no expected availability date.
However, I think the Aptera announcement should be mentioned in the history section (and the history sub-article.) I might not have time to get to that right now; I just don't want Aptera fans to think I was deleting and running. J T Price (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. It is not for us to judge what readers think: Aptera themselves claim it is a plug-in hybrid (the title of the article), which is good enough for me. It also appears to have an earlier production date (2008) than the Fisker. I'll add it back in along with refs and more detail in the body of the article. --IanOsgood (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
AFS Trinity
Jan 13 2008 autoshow press release - see XH-150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.208.161 (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I added text about this product, that uses ultracapacitors to solve one of the biggers problems to mass-produce PHEV. Also this company makes flywheels to store electricity, that can be usesd in vehicles. --Mac (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Do you have a link to the recent article? Thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Complete carmaker list
The carmakers´ list and statements in the article is not complete The complete list include:
- AFS Trinity
- Aptera
- Audi
- BYD
- Chrysler
- Daimler
- Fisker
- Ford
- General Motors
- Honda
- Hyundai
- Nissan
- Rocky Mountain Institute
- Toyota
- Venture Vehicles
- Visionary Vehicles
- Volkswagen
- Volvo
--Mac (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Honda, Hyundai, and Nissan have no plans to make PHEVs (yet.) AFS Trinity, Audi, Chrysler, DaimlerChrysler, Venture Vehicles, Volkswagen, and Volvo have concepts or prototypes, but no plans to bring anything to market (yet.) Rocky Mountain Institute doesn't make cars (yet.) The only one of the rest that we don't have current information in the article is Visionary Vehicles (Malcolm Bricklin), but while he plans to go to market in 2010, he doesn't yet have a concept or a prototype, so it's not really the kind of production announcement that deserves to be outside the history section. J T Price (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Warning
I notice an edit war in progress. Fbagatelleblack, please don't revert Zap post again, you're in breach of 3RR. Refer to me or another admin if Zap link posted without discussion again. Anon Zap person, you are also in breach. If you think can justify your posting, discuss it here. Otherwise note that Wikipedia does not accept commercial links and action such as page protection or blocking may be taken. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to those who have pointed out the inappropriateness of some of my recent edits. Prior to receiving these warnings, I posted my concerns regarding this issue on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I shall withdraw myself from this issue until it is resolved by admins. With apologies, Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Chevy Volt: Thank Gods!
"the latest remake of the Volt features a slightly shorter hood, and there’s a bit more wedge to the overall stance." -- http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=1087
I was so sure they were going to make it a pathetic disfigured ... like the EV1. Dream Academy (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- At least the EV1 had some aerodynamic merit - the Volt: little, and none on the wheels (by even 1957 standards) - Leonard G. (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
BYD F3DM hatchback!
Someone please stub that redlink! I would but I'm at work.... Dream Academy (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Energy Effectiveness
It all sounds good but what you’re really doing is just substitution petroleum for coal and natural gas used to produce the electricity, well at least they’re much cheaper and we have a 200 year domestic supply of both. --J intela (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, also you have the facts that (1) those combustion-to-energy efficiencies are greater than what you can get from something under your hood, (2) we have a 3+ billion year supply of renewables, and (3) fewer asthmatics et al. are going to breathe the smoke. Shakedown Bluff (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Stuff I saw in the news
I'm sure you wikipedians will enjoy these as much as I did:
- Assaulted Batteries Newsweek
- A Prius That Can Power Your House? USN&WR
- Chevy Volt May be Priced Under 30K USNR&R
That last one, kind of jumped out at me. 76.225.157.216 (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Followup: meh.... 76.225.157.216 (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Disadvantage: Cost, weight, and size of batteries (and also other components!)
I dont believe that this area is expanded upon enough. It is definitely the primary disadvantage of the PHEV compared to the standard HEV. In the PHEV, you have to have the same size ICE system as in the HEV because for long distance trips, it will still be the primary supplier of energy to the propulsion system. However, you have to have hundreds of added pounds in batteries and also a larger electric motor since the PHEV has to be able to travel at highway speeds on electric power alone. Not only are you lugging around all that added weight, but you have to pay for it upfront... with a PHEV you essentially have to be paying for 2 complete drivetrains since the ICE engine has to be able to power the car by itself on long trips while the whole point of a PHEV is that you can use the electric system only for normal daily driving.
There are (before I edit the article) three sentences of analysis about the cost, weight, and size disadvantage: the first simply explains what it is (and not very thoroughly), the second makes a clear logical fallacy in claiming that GM's idea that it might rent the batteries for the Chevy Volt somehow decreases the cost disadvantage (those batteries still have to be bought by someone, there is no free lunch). The third system notes that used PHEV batteries could be sold the electrical companies, more absurd speculation based on a single anecdote. I think I'm going to completely delete the latter 2 sentences.
I can see how you could rationalize lugging around the ICE system while you're within the electric-only range: the grid energy you're using is much cheaper than gasoline, so its not really even that expensive to carry it around. And that savings at the pump might even moves towards the additional cost of the batteries (probably not for a really long time). However, as your trip gets longer than the electric-only range, things start to go bad rapidly. If your battery is empty, you're lugging around hundreds of pounds of useless equipment. In this case, fuel efficiency should be decreased compared to a regular HEV.
I'm going to go ahead on some changes, please comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.68.108 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
SHADOWBLUFF removed my edits and reinstalled the old section. He noted that I need sources for my claims, but doesn't understand that the previous information was irrelevant to the topic. Here is this section as it has been reverted:
- "Disadvantages of plug-in hybrids include the additional cost, weight, and size of a larger battery pack. General Motors may allow buyers of its Chevy Volt electric car to rent the vehicle's battery, offsetting some cost.[85] Also used PHEV batteries can be sold to electric utilities to be employed at electrical substations.[49]"
1st sentence: fine, but ignores that the cost, weight, and size of the electric motor must also be higher to facilitate much higher electric-only performance (considering that under high loads, a hybrid would run both the ICE and electric motor, whereas a plug-in hybrid would be expected to handle high loads, at least up to a much higher point, with the electric motor alone). And then an obvious corollary to this (the addition of 200 to 400+ lbs of batteries and marginal electric motor size) with regards to vehicle design is that the cost, weight, and size of components like the chassis, brakes, and even the ICE would have to also be increased in order to maintain the status quo utility (for example especially with regards to interior space, braking performance, and acceleration performance.
2nd sentence: completely irrelevent and insulting to the intelligence of readers. Most importantly its because the sentence doesnt follow logic; if GM is renting the batteries, it makes them no cheaper, lighter, or smaller. Those batteries still have to be paid for, either by the consumer or GM. SHADOWBLUFF, please look up there ain't no such thing as a free lunch for a little lesson in logic and economics.
3rd sentence: also marginally relevent. First of all, just like the fact that you supposedly possibly will be able to rent batteries from GM, this does nothing to eleviate the extra size of weight of the batteries (and other components) that must be carried around in the car. Secondly, it only reduces the real cost of the batteries by the discounted value of the money you would receive in the future when you sold the batteries. Most importantly, its an extremely speculative statement with a single source that CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CLAIMING THAT EVERONE WILL BE ABLE TO RESELL THEIR USED BATTERIES.
Sentences 2 and 3 should be removed from the article no matter how you spin it. If anyone disagrees, please argue their merits in the comment section.
In the mean time, I will attempt to go back and source my facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.68.108 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I agree except with your suggested deletion. Let me try and you tell me whether you like my new version. Shakedown Bluff (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I can't help feeling a bit annoyed at this section especially the alledged weight 'issue'. Standard HEVs are unlikely to be lighter since they have all the extra weight associated with connecting the ICE to the drivetrain, and clutches to disconnect it when not in use. Internal combustion engines used like this require heavy gearboxes/torque converters, etc to keep the engine running at speeds which will provide adequate torque. An electric motor does not require any of this heavyweight hardware. And if you think a gearbox manual or automatic is light, try getting one off the ground without a winch. This weight alone should offset any extra battery weight (and you are also trading on the perception that 'batteries' means Lead-Acid Batteries which are very heavy).
- The PHEV does require a generator attached to the ICE but since the ICE is then run at it's most efficient with constant rpm, it should be very efficient and the motor does not need to be as large. There is also nothing to say that the ICE needs to provide the extra juice to overtake as this can be supplimented by draining the batteries in the short term.
- I slight apology here because all the above comments apply nicely to the Toyota concept of a PHEV which is actually just a standard hybrid with a plug and maybe bigger batteries? This article should really only be discussing Series Hybrids (AKA Extended range electric vehicles) to reduce confusion. 202.154.104.194 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Bill
Removed some claims regarding patent encumbrance
I removed a few claims regarding patent encumbrance. It appears to me that some of the claims are contentious and could be classified as conspiracy theories (big corps buying technologies to bury them, etc).
I am not saying the conspiracy theories are incorrect. I am, however, saying that they're given undue weight in this article, and that they're not adequately supported by the 10-Q and other financial filings which are used as references.
For example, take this sentence:
- "Still other actions by Cobasys suggest that the company remains unwilling to make NiMH battery technology economically feasible for the development of automobiles that rely on electric motor technology more than currently available hybrid cars."
That statement is absolutely unsupported by the 10-Q filing which was provided as a reference. There 10-Q filing does not state that the company is trying to make its products economically unfeasible. It appears that the author of that statement inferred as much from a lawsuit listed in the 10-Q. But the inferences and hypothese of the statement's author do not belong in wikipedia.
I also changed the wording on the title. The title implied that there are patent encumbrances on NiMH batteries altogether, which is inaccurate since the patents on NiMH batteries were filed in the 1970s and expired long ago. The patents in question are for a specific kind of NiMH battery to which there are many competitors.
I also removed the paragraph dealing with Boschert's book. The paragraph presents speculations by Boschert and she is not notable enough to have a paragraph in an encyclopedia devoted to her speculations.Twerges (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
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: [1]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)
Volkswagen
It's weird how Forbes doesn't say "plug-in"[2]: "during a presentation of the first Golf model fitted with such an engine, [VW CEO] Winterkorn said the system, called 'TwinDrive', has an electric engine that can also be powered by gasoline for long-distance travel."
LOL. Well, it's more good news for the people who live in 2010. Two years sure seems a long way off.
What do you want to bet that in 2011 there will be all kinds of PHEVs with 5 to 15 mile electric ranges? 76.231.188.206 (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
- (1) In-house only
-
- (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
- (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
- (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
- (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
-
- (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
- (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
-
- (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
- (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
- (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
- (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
-
- (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
- (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
- (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
- (5) Edit-mode clutter
-
- (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
- (6) Limited application
-
- (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
- (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
"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)
Encyclopedic?
Although I have not yet taken the time to peruse the revision history of this article, the introduction seems like the work of some Environmentalist think tank. Just because someone at UC Davis publishes a study indicating that "electricity" is one quarter the price of "gasoline power" does not make it so. The reality is that complex market forces dictate relative pricing of energy sources, and if demand for electricity goes up, its price will as well. Am I the only person who remembers the rolling blackouts in California in ca. 2001? Am I the only person who doesn't buy into the Leftist party line that it was exclusively Enron's fault? Dear Lord I hope not.
That this article is 'featured' among all those on Wikipedia is exacly why Wikipedia is still easily discredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.179.120.2 (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would rather have information sourced to someone at UC Davis who has studied the averages and trends, than statements which ignore the efficiency-per-carbon advantages of the electric drivetrain inserted with nothing but the appearance of a source. I have reverted. Real Estate Baron (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
- "NYTXH" :
- The EAA-PHEV project was conceived by CalCars and the Electric Auto Association in October of 2005 to accelerate efforts to document existing HEVs and their potential for conversion into PHEVs.<ref>Electric Auto Association [http://www.eaa-phev.org "Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle" wiki] (2005–present)
- Wald, M.L. ([[January 13]], [[2008]]) [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/automobiles/13ULTRA.html "Closing the Power Gap Between a Hybrid’s Supply and Demand,"] ''New York Times''
DumZiBoT (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
date mess needs your advice and action
Dear colleagues—
I ran a script a while ago to remove date autoformatting from this article (which is no longer encouraged by MOSNUM). One of the benefits of this is that it uncovers inconsistencies in the formatting. Here, the first half seems to be in international format (7 January 1996) and the last half US (January 7, 1996). The references are an unholy mixture of US, international and one or two ISO dates (one of them wrongly syntaxed.
Since our readers have been viewing all of this—they see the raw formatting, blue, which is one reason for removing DA—may I encourage you all to decide on which format you want, in both main text and in the refs. They can be different, but ideally they should be the same. (ISO is commonly used with one of the citation templates, which is tolerated by MOSNUM).
Your choice should be based on the these guidelines, primarily a balance between a strong tie to one anglophone country (is there one here?) and the choice of the first editor, back in the edit history.
If you need assistance, please buzz me at my talk page. Tony (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- A mix of date formats can be neither holy or unholy, lacking a spiritual component. The current proportion is harmonious with the fact that most of the PHEVs are currently in the U.S., but that is about to change. I recommend holding off until it does change, and then converting to international format. A few ISO dates here and there could be a lot worse, too, but it's nothing like the PG&E tariff problem of the previous talk section. Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Chrysler Town & Country minivan and Jeep Wrangler PHEV-40s
Well, this is interesting in a frustrating kind of way.[3][4][5]
- "Chrysler LLC charged up the electric car race Tuesday, ... unveiling three electric-powered models and promising to put one of them on sale in the U.S. sometime in 2010. The company showed reporters three prototypes: a Dodge sports car, a four-door Jeep Wrangler and a Chrysler [Town and Country] minivan.... The automaker hasn't decided which one it will roll out first. The Dodge sports car is completely electric ... but the Wrangler and the Town & Country minivan will be [plug-in hybrids]."
This photo gallery states that the minivan is going to be a series powertrain, while the Wrangler is described as a series PHEV-40. Some of the other sources say the minivan has a 40 mile all-electric range, too. Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Environmental cost of battery disposal
Shouldn't soem mention be made in the disadvantages section of the massive environmental problems that disposing of large numbers of batteries would cause if these types of vehicles become mainstream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.105.146 (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I added a sentence with a {{cn}} tag. Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Bailed in
Good news, everyone! Look what's in Division B, Title II, Section 205-7 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, "Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles," on page 190-202 (references are to the Internal Revenue Code, U.S. Code Title 42):
4 SEC. 205. CREDIT FOR NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC 5 DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLES. 6 (a) PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLE 7 CREDIT.—Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of chap- 8 ter 1 (relating to other credits) is amended by adding at 9 the end the following new section: 10 ‘‘SEC. 30D. NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE 11 MOTOR VEHICLES. 12 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.— 13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be allowed as a 14 credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for 15 the taxable year an amount equal to the applicable 16 amount with respect to each new qualified plug-in 17 electric drive motor vehicle placed in service by the 18 taxpayer during the taxable year. 19 ‘‘(2) APPLICABLE AMOUNT.—For purposes of 20 paragraph (1), the applicable amount is sum of— 21 ‘‘(A) $2,500, plus 22 ‘‘(B) $417 for each kilowatt hour of trac- 23 tion battery capacity in excess of 4 kilowatt 24 hours. 25 ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.— p. 191 1 ‘‘(1) LIMITATION BASED ON WEIGHT.—The 2 amount of the credit allowed under subsection (a) by 3 reason of subsection (a)(2) shall not exceed— 4 ‘‘(A) $7,500, in the case of any new quali- 5 fied plug-in electric drive motor vehicle with a 6 gross vehicle weight rating of not more than 7 10,000 pounds, 8 ‘‘(B) $10,000, in the case of any new 9 qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle 10 with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 11 10,000 pounds but not more than 14,000 12 pounds, 13 ‘‘(C) $12,500, in the case of any new 14 qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle 15 with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 16 14,000 pounds but not more than 26,000 17 pounds, and 18 ‘‘(D) $15,000, in the case of any new 19 qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle 20 with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 21 26,000 pounds. 22 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF PASSENGER 23 VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS ELIGIBLE FOR CRED- 24 IT.— p. 192 1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a new 2 qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle 3 sold during the phaseout period, only the appli- 4 cable percentage of the credit otherwise allow- 5 able under subsection (a) shall be allowed. 6 ‘‘(B) PHASEOUT PERIOD.—For purposes 7 of this subsection, the phaseout period is the 8 period beginning with the second calendar quar- 9 ter following the calendar quarter which in- 10 cludes the first date on which the total number 11 of such new qualified plug-in electric drive 12 motor vehicles sold for use in the United States 13 after December 31, 2008, is at least 250,000. 14 ‘‘(C) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For 15 purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable 16 percentage is— 17 ‘‘(i) 50 percent for the first 2 cal- 18 endar quarters of the phaseout period, 19 ‘‘(ii) 25 percent for the 3d and 4th 20 calendar quarters of the phaseout period, 21 and 22 ‘‘(iii) 0 percent for each calendar 23 quarter thereafter. p. 193 1 ‘‘(D) CONTROLLED GROUPS.—Rules simi- 2 lar to the rules of section 30B(f)(4) shall apply 3 for purposes of this subsection. 4 ‘‘(c) NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE 5 MOTOR VEHICLE.—For purposes of this section, the term 6 ‘new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle’ means 7 a motor vehicle— 8 ‘‘(1) which draws propulsion using a traction 9 battery with at least 4 kilowatt hours of capacity, 10 ‘‘(2) which uses an offboard source of energy to 11 recharge such battery, 12 ‘‘(3) which, in the case of a passenger vehicle 13 or light truck which has a gross vehicle weight rat- 14 ing of not more than 8,500 pounds, has received a 15 certificate of conformity under the Clean Air Act 16 and meets or exceeds the equivalent qualifying Cali- 17 fornia low emission vehicle standard under section 18 243(e)(2) of the Clean Air Act for that make and 19 model year, and 20 ‘‘(A) in the case of a vehicle having a gross 21 vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less, 22 the Bin 5 Tier II emission standard established 23 in regulations prescribed by the Administrator 24 of the Environmental Protection Agency under p. 194 1 section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act for that 2 make and model year vehicle, and 3 ‘‘(B) in the case of a vehicle having a gross 4 vehicle weight rating of more than 6,000 5 pounds but not more than 8,500 pounds, the 6 Bin 8 Tier II emission standard which is so es- 7 tablished, 8 ‘‘(4) the original use of which commences with 9 the taxpayer, 10 ‘‘(5) which is acquired for use or lease by the 11 taxpayer and not for resale, and 12 ‘‘(6) which is made by a manufacturer. 13 ‘‘(d) APPLICATION WITH OTHER CREDITS.— 14 ‘‘(1) BUSINESS CREDIT TREATED AS PART OF 15 GENERAL BUSINESS CREDIT.—So much of the credit 16 which would be allowed under subsection (a) for any 17 taxable year (determined without regard to this sub- 18 section) that is attributable to property of a char- 19 acter subject to an allowance for depreciation shall 20 be treated as a credit listed in section 38(b) for such 21 taxable year (and not allowed under subsection (a)). 22 ‘‘(2) PERSONAL CREDIT.— 23 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this 24 title, the credit allowed under subsection (a) for 25 any taxable year (determined after application p. 195 1 of paragraph (1)) shall be treated as a credit 2 allowable under subpart A for such taxable 3 year. 4 ‘‘(B) LIMITATION BASED ON AMOUNT OF 5 TAX.—In the case of a taxable year to which 6 section 26(a)(2) does not apply, the credit al- 7 lowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year 8 (determined after application of paragraph (1)) 9 shall not exceed the excess of— 10 ‘‘(i) the sum of the regular tax liabil- 11 ity (as defined in section 26(b)) plus the 12 tax imposed by section 55, over 13 ‘‘(ii) the sum of the credits allowable 14 under subpart A (other than this section 15 and sections 23 and 25D) and section 27 16 for the taxable year. 17 ‘‘(e) OTHER DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.— 18 For purposes of this section— 19 ‘‘(1) MOTOR VEHICLE.—The term ‘motor vehi- 20 cle’ has the meaning given such term by section 21 30(c)(2). 22 ‘‘(2) OTHER TERMS.—The terms ‘passenger 23 automobile’, ‘light truck’, and ‘manufacturer’ have 24 the meanings given such terms in regulations pre- 25 scribed by the Administrator of the Environmental p. 196 1 Protection Agency for purposes of the administra- 2 tion of title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 3 et seq.). 4 ‘‘(3) TRACTION BATTERY CAPACITY.—Traction 5 battery capacity shall be measured in kilowatt hours 6 from a 100 percent state of charge to a zero percent 7 state of charge. 8 ‘‘(4) REDUCTION IN BASIS.—For purposes of 9 this subtitle, the basis of any property for which a 10 credit is allowable under subsection (a) shall be re- 11 duced by the amount of such credit so allowed. 12 ‘‘(5) NO DOUBLE BENEFIT.—The amount of 13 any deduction or other credit allowable under this 14 chapter for a new qualified plug-in electric drive 15 motor vehicle shall be reduced by the amount of 16 credit allowed under subsection (a) for such vehicle 17 for the taxable year. 18 ‘‘(6) PROPERTY USED BY TAX-EXEMPT ENTI- 19 TY.—In the case of a vehicle the use of which is de- 20 scribed in paragraph (3) or (4) of section 50(b) and 21 which is not subject to a lease, the person who sold 22 such vehicle to the person or entity using such vehi- 23 cle shall be treated as the taxpayer that placed such 24 vehicle in service, but only if such person clearly dis- 25 closes to such person or entity in a document the p. 197 1 amount of any credit allowable under subsection (a) 2 with respect to such vehicle (determined without re- 3 gard to subsection (b)(2)). 4 ‘‘(7) PROPERTY USED OUTSIDE UNITED 5 STATES, ETC., NOT QUALIFIED.—No credit shall be 6 allowable under subsection (a) with respect to any 7 property referred to in section 50(b)(1) or with re- 8 spect to the portion of the cost of any property 9 taken into account under section 179. 10 ‘‘(8) RECAPTURE.—The Secretary shall, by reg- 11 ulations, provide for recapturing the benefit of any 12 credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to 13 any property which ceases to be property eligible for 14 such credit (including recapture in the case of a 15 lease period of less than the economic life of a vehi- 16 cle). 17 ‘‘(9) ELECTION TO NOT TAKE CREDIT.—No 18 credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any 19 vehicle if the taxpayer elects not to have this section 20 apply to such vehicle. 21 ‘‘(10) INTERACTION WITH AIR QUALITY AND 22 MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS.—Unless oth- 23 erwise provided in this section, a motor vehicle shall 24 not be considered eligible for a credit under this sec- 25 tion unless such vehicle is in compliance with— p. 198 1 ‘‘(A) the applicable provisions of the Clean 2 Air Act for the applicable make and model year 3 of the vehicle (or applicable air quality provi- 4 sions of State law in the case of a State which 5 has adopted such provision under a waiver 6 under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act), and 7 ‘‘(B) the motor vehicle safety provisions of 8 sections 30101 through 30169 of title 49, 9 United States Code. 10 ‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.— 11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para- 12 graph (2), the Secretary shall promulgate such regu- 13 lations as necessary to carry out the provisions of 14 this section. 15 ‘‘(2) COORDINATION IN PRESCRIPTION OF CER- 16 TAIN REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of the Treas- 17 ury, in coordination with the Secretary of Transpor- 18 tation and the Administrator of the Environmental 19 Protection Agency, shall prescribe such regulations 20 as necessary to determine whether a motor vehicle 21 meets the requirements to be eligible for a credit 22 under this section. 23 ‘‘(g) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply to 24 property purchased after December 31, 2014.’’. p. 199 1 (b) COORDINATION WITH ALTERNATIVE MOTOR VEHICLE 2 CREDIT.—Section 30B(d)(3) is amended by adding 3 at the end the following new subparagraph: 4 ‘‘(D) EXCLUSION OF PLUG-IN VEHICLES.— 5 Any vehicle with respect to which a credit is al- 6 lowable under section 30D (determined without 7 regard to subsection (d) thereof) shall not be 8 taken into account under this section.’’. 9 (c) CREDIT MADE PART OF GENERAL BUSINESS 10 CREDIT.—Section 38(b), as amended by this Act, is 11 amended by striking ‘‘plus’’ at the end of paragraph (33), 12 by striking the period at the end of paragraph (34) and 13 inserting ‘‘plus’’, and by adding at the end the following 14 new paragraph: 15 ‘‘(35) the portion of the new qualified plug-in 16 electric drive motor vehicle credit to which section 17 30D(d)(1) applies.’’. 18 (d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 19 (1)(A) Section 24(b)(3)(B), as amended by sec- 20 tion 106, is amended by striking ‘‘and 25D’’ and in- 21 serting ‘‘25D, and 30D’’. 22 (B) Section 25(e)(1)(C)(ii) is amended by in- 23 serting ‘‘30D,’’ after ‘‘25D,’’. p. 200 1 (C) Section 25B(g)(2), as amended by section 2 106, is amended by striking ‘‘and 25D’’ and insert- 3 ing ‘‘, 25D, and 30D’’. 4 (D) Section 26(a)(1), as amended by section 5 106, is amended by striking ‘‘and 25D’’ and insert- 6 ing ‘‘25D, and 30D’’. 7 (E) Section 1400C(d)(2) is amended by striking 8 ‘‘and 25D’’ and inserting ‘‘25D, and 30D’’. 9 (2) Section 1016(a) is amended by striking 10 ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (35), by striking the 11 period at the end of paragraph (36) and inserting ‘‘, 12 and’’, and by adding at the end the following new 13 paragraph: 14 ‘‘(37) to the extent provided in section 15 30D(e)(4).’’. 16 (3) Section 6501(m) is amended by inserting 17 ‘‘30D(e)(9),’’ after ‘‘30C(e)(5),’’. 18 (4) The table of sections for subpart B of part 19 IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by add- 20 ing at the end the following new item: ‘‘Sec. 30D. New qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.’’. 21 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 22 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 23 December 31, 2008. 24 (f) APPLICATION OF EGTRRA SUNSET.—The 25 amendment made by subsection (d)(1)(A) shall be subject p. 201 1 to title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Rec- 2 onciliation Act of 2001 in the same manner as the provi- 3 sion of such Act to which such amendment relates.
These next two sections look plug-in related, too:
4 SEC. 206. EXCLUSION FROM HEAVY TRUCK TAX FOR IDLING 5 REDUCTION UNITS AND ADVANCED INSULA- 6 TION. 7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4053 is amended by add- 8 ing at the end the following new paragraphs: 9 ‘‘(9) IDLING REDUCTION DEVICE.—Any device 10 or system of devices which— 11 ‘‘(A) is designed to provide to a vehicle 12 those services (such as heat, air conditioning, or 13 electricity) that would otherwise require the op- 14 eration of the main drive engine while the vehi- 15 cle is temporarily parked or remains stationary 16 using one or more devices affixed to a tractor, 17 and 18 ‘‘(B) is determined by the Administrator of 19 the Environmental Protection Agency, in con- 20 sultation with the Secretary of Energy and the 21 Secretary of Transportation, to reduce idling of 22 such vehicle at a motor vehicle rest stop or 23 other location where such vehicles are tempo- 24 rarily parked or remain stationary. p. 202 1 ‘‘(10) ADVANCED INSULATION.—Any insulation 2 that has an R value of not less than R35 per inch.’’. 3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 4 this section shall apply to sales or installations after the 5 date of the enactment of this Act. 6 SEC. 207. ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REFUELING PROP- 7 ERTY CREDIT. 8 (a) EXTENSION OF CREDIT.—Paragraph (2) of sec- 9 tion 30C(g) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2009’’ 10 and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2010’’. 11 (b) INCLUSION OF ELECTRICITY AS A CLEAN-BURNING 12 FUEL.—Section 30C(c)(2) is amended by adding at 13 the end the following new subparagraph: 14 ‘‘(C) Electricity.’’. 15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 16 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 17 the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years 18 ending after such date.
That could be a whole lot worse. Section 30C(c)(2) looks pretty good with electricity in it; better than simply turning the food supply into part of the energy supply. Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Can an article in history summary style be faulted for proseline?
What exactly is the complaint that {{proseline}} is making? Does it apply to this article with a history details article in WP:SUMMARY style? If not, does anyone have any ideas about how to take it out of proseline form? Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
To anon, sorry about the "and" and "lessen" issue, I missed your addition of the comma and see that your version is better grammatically. I do not see however how Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program would qualify as a see also. There is no mention of Hybrids at that article, and it is such a specific topic that I don't see how it merits any more than a link from the body of this article. Can you please explain your reasoning? NJGW (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like it's pertinent to me. It's for auto manufacturer retooling, isn't it? 69.228.216.131 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
GM Volt
According to this article GM Volt GM claim that the volt isn't a PHEV. So, if wiki is to be regarded as non contradictory, should it be scrubbed from this page, or should GM's absurd claim be removed from the Volt article? Greglocock (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Where does it say that the Chevrolet Volt isn't a plug-in? It always has been since its initial announcement and all the concept versions are plug-ins. Although back when they announced it, Chevy was using the term "E-Flex" which they replaced with "dual-drive," but they stopped using that when VW announced the "TwinDrive" plug-in Golf. So now they are calling it an "Extended-Range Electric Vehicle (E-REV)" but it's still a plug-in and nobody says it isn't. This article calls the Volt a plug-in in the third paragraph of the intro, in the History section mentioning the announcement, and everywhere else. I can't find anywhere that says otherwise. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
-
- "the company has avoided the use of the term "hybrid" when describing its non-conforming E-Flex designs. Instead GM has described the Volt as an electric vehicle equipped with a "range extending" gasoline powered internal combustion engine (ICE) as a genset and therefore dubbed an "Extended Range Electric Vehicle"[7] or EREV.[7][8][9] " Which part of that makes it sounnd like they call it a PHEV? Given what the H stands for... Greglocock (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Per WP:COMMONNAME, we have to use these terms as they are most commonly used in the reliable sources, not WP:NEOLOGISMs created by corporations. Note that GM also uses the term "two-mode hybrid" for the plug-in Saturn VUE SUV. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I agree, therefore we should edit the GM Volt article to remove the stupid neologism. You will meet some resistance as the fanbois there are very protective of 'their' article. Greglocock (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Either way, please add the acronym "EREV" (Extended-Range Electric Vehicle) to the article, since "EREV" redirects here yet there is no mention of this acronym in the article. -149.32.192.33 (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
Date format
I see the US, I see China (East Asia mostly uses US format), I see US format originally inserted. Looks like Dabomb has done the right thing in harmonising to US format. Tony (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes; thanks to you, both! 69.228.201.125 (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- The article does not follows the international standards for date and time. So, added globalize tag--147.84.132.44 (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Featured Article Review (FAR) of Plug-in Hybrid
All interested parties should know that Plug-in hybrid has been nominated for a featured article review. If anyone would like to express an opinion as to whether Plug-in hybrid should retain its status as a featured article, you are encouraged to join in the discussion post your thoughts here. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- All of the specific issues raised have been addressed to the best of my ability, but I have a handful of questions to the reviewers pending. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiered rate structure for electric bills
The "Tiered rate structure for electric bills" section says:
"A report revealed[112] that: households that consumed 131%–200% of baseline electricity at $0.21981 per kWh would only see benefits if gasoline was priced above $2.89 (USD/gal); households that consumed 201%–300% of baseline electricity at $0.30292 per kWh would only see benefits if gasoline was priced above $3.98 (USD/gal); households that consumed over 300% of baseline electricity at $0.34648 per kWh would only see benefits if gasoline was priced above $4.55 (USD/gal)".
Looking at table 2 of the report at [7], this doesn't seem to be quite right. The rates mentioned are for the standard residential tariff, but electric vehicle users are actually required to be on the other tariff listed (its current equivalent, anyway). See [8]:
"Pacific Gas and Electric Company offers a special, discounted rate for our EV customers, the Experimental Time-of-Use Low Emission Vehicle rate (Schedule E-9). The E-9 rate is mandatory for those customers that are currently on a residential electric rate and who plan on refueling an EV on their premises."
That tariff gives people much cheaper rates if they charge at night.
The different possibilities (summer vs. winter, peak vs. off-peak) would unfortunately make things more confusing, but the page should probably point out that the pricing is actually more complex. Perhaps something like:
"However, some utilities offer electric vehicle users a rate tariff that provides discounts for off-peak usage, such as overnight recharging. Off-peak rates can lower the break-even point (the above numbers would change to USD $1.96, $3.17 and $3.80 per gallon, respectively, for the listed PG&E electric vehicle summer tariff). Conversely, such tariffs raise prices for recharging during peak hours (to USD $5.04, $6.25, and $6.88 per gallon, respectively, in the summer, but less in winter). Customers under such tariffs could see significant savings by being careful about when the vehicle was charged, perhaps by using an automated timer to restrict charging to off-peak hours."
I also note that the table only shows costs for people using 201% or more of baseline usage, omitting the much cheaper rates for lower usage. It's true that most people with PHEVs would use more than 200% of baseline, but lower usage levels are certainly possible with a residential solar installation. I have a friend on PG&E who first zeroed out his net electricity usage with a 4 kW solar photovoltaic system on his roof (no A/C needed around here), then later bought an electric car which he charges at night. His net electricity usage is still below 130% of baseline, almost all off-peak, so he's paying the equivalent of the $0.65 per gallon rate -- much cheaper than the table implies, and not a completely uncommon situation.
Tigertech (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tariff source! Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have a residential photovoltaic system that generates as much power as your electric vehicle uses, so that your electricity purchases from PG&E are the same, then the cost you're incurring is the cost of the photovoltaic system, not any cost to PG&E. In this case the PG&E rates are irrelevant. The vehicle's electricity cost would be the amortized cost of the PV generation system. --JWB (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a question on this section, so I moved it down here.
Why are we showing a subset of several rows from Table 2 on Page 4 of the Lemoine source? Shouldn't we be using "4.010 miles/kWh" over the average monthly commute distance to select one of the rows from the standard and electric vehicle tariff table?
CanExplain (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, here are some news articles that talk about economic factors: [9], [10], [11], [12]. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries
Surely this rather POV, OR and anorak section belongs elsewhere, not on the PHEV article? By their nature PHEVs are LESS affected by battery technology than a normal EV. Greglocock (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Moved it to EV batteryGreglocock (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but some folks have been mighty ticklish about this section in the past. Let's see if they get grumpy about the move. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I am going to have to object. The section is relevant to both EVs and PHEVs. If you want to copy the section into the EV article, then do it. However, it should not be deleted from the PHEV article.Xchange (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please justify why a subsection about details of batteries needs to be present in two articles (EVs, PHEVs) when it is directly relevant to a third article that already exists (EV batteries) and of excessive detail for an overview article like PHEV. As I said above, the details of battery technology are of less importance to PHEVs than EVs. I'd suggest a one sentence summary in the power storage subsection and a direct link to the subsection in EV battery. I also query why the anorak section is longer than the mention of the same issue on the Cobasys page. Greglocock (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Battery technology is critically important to both PHEVs and EVs. Neither would run without it. That is sufficient justification for including the section in both articles. If you are concerned about the length of the section relative to those in the Cobasys and EV articles, then I encourage you to increase the lengths of the related sections in those articles. Publishing costs are next to zero and readers can choose to not read them if they are not interested. This particular section has been cited or quoted in multiple online discussions and blogs. Given its impact on public discourse, deleting it or shrinking it would be counterproductive.Xchange (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the lecture. So you are unable to justify why it should not be in EV battery rather than on this page? Greglocock (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
You are arguing a false alternative, Greglocock. The only question is whether the discussion should ALSO be more substantive in the EV article. Xchange (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- In what way is it a false alternative? I see no reason to discuss this minor historical fact in any depth anywhere but on the EV battery article and perhaps in greater detail on cobasys. Why does an overview of PHEVs need to include this section in any detail? Greglocock (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an issue that has substantially influenced the development and commercialization of PHEVs over the last 8 years. The fact that this section has been directly quoted multiple times across blogs and discussion forums is sufficient indication that it is not a "minor" historical fact. Fbagatelleblack has written an article on the subject for a widely-read online publication. Sherry B. dedicated multiple pages of her book on PHEVs to the issue.
That said, I am not categorically opposed to creating a separate article IF the issue is summarized and linked properly across all relevant articles (e.g., PHEVs, EVs, NiMH, and Cobasys). I believe the summary provided by user 69.228.86.219 is a useful start, but inadequate. A summary should include the header and a concise 1-sentence summary followed by a very clear link to the article. If you want to go this direction, then let's agree on the summary before the extended section is deleted from the article. Fbagatelleblack, your help in setting up the new article and formatting the summary would be appreciated.Xchange (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Can that section be converted to WP:SUMMARY style? Here's what it looked like in the version which passed FAC. 69.228.86.219 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I have to agree with Mr. Locock, this entire patent encumbernace section isnt really relevant to scope of a PHEV article. It belongs in an an EV battery wiki perhaps, and then only after extensive editing for NPOV and non-existant reliable sources of reference.WopOnTour (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- It appears someone has recently addressed this issue, using much of the language from the PHEV article, in the NiMH article. I suggest we eliminate the section from this article, but include a reference to the corresponding section in the NiMH article. Of course, all editors should edit the NiMH article boldly, if they so desire. Thoughts? Fbagatelleblack (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- Yup let's do it. Have you got a proposal for a one sentence summary for this rather dull subject? Mine would run along the lines of "Specific combinations of chemistry and battery format have been patented by Cobasys which may have delayed the introduction of NiMH batteries into electric and hybrid vehicles." but i don't love it and can't quite see where to neatly place the link. Greglocock (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Greglocock, I am sorry you find this section dull. I (and many others) find it tremendously interesting and important. As I previously stated, I can only be supportive of this change if a separate article is created. My summary and link suggestion is below. Everything in it is factually accurate and not misleading. Details, such as the fact that there are competing NiMH battery technologies, would be explicitly addressed in the body of the new article. I think the link should be written out. I believe the summary and link should either go at the end of the Electric Power Storage section or at the end of the article with its own header.
<Header Wording>Encumbrance of automotive NiMH battery technology<Header Wording> “Some developers have complained that the business policy of Cobasys, patent owner of the NiMH battery chemistry used in all major hybrid automobiles, has forestalled the commercial and technical development of PHEVs and EVs in favor of oil and automotive industry interests.” <Link Wording>Link to the Encumbrance of automotive NiMH battery technology article<Link Wording>Xchange (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Xchange, I think your language is very good, concise and to-the-point. I have gotten a "thumbs up"from a friendly admin with regards to creating a new article. That said, I would still prefer to keep this section in the NiMH article rather than creating an entirely new article. That would keep things more compact, to my way of thinking. I'm could be flexible on this. Thoughts? Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for looking into this, Fbagatelleblack. I have 2 concerns about putting the expanded discussion in the NiMH article. One is that it could be obscured by the general technical discussion and generic "NiMH" links. The other is that I could see a future editor of the NiMH article with a technical/engineering focus getting annoyed with expanded discussion of the business/legal issues in the same way that engineering-oriented editors of the PHEV article have. Regarding the link wording, the conventional "Further information: etc, etc..." format probably makes the most sense.Xchange (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Greglocock, for setting up the new article. Well done. Sorry I did not get to it. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Range
Fuel range also would be included (i.e. PHEV-40/60, this means 40 miles in only-electric range and 60 miles in gasoline range - based in the gasoline fuel tank capacity - ). --Nopetro (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ford Escape
Phipps, J.L. (1/21/2009) "Ford's Plug-In Hybrid Offered Quiet Ride, Fueled By Electricity" Investor's Business Daily
- The Escape PHEV, which stands for plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, runs on lithium-ion batteries and gasoline and looks like every other car here in the Midwestern industrial zone. But Edward Kjaer, director of the electric transportation unit at Southern California Edison which for the last couple of years has partnered with Ford to put a fleet of Ford Escape PHEVs on the street, says the Escape is "not your grandfather's golf cart."
- Kjaer says SoCalEd has been using the Escapes for about a year and finds they transport utility workers economically and comfortably. The vehicles get between 110 and 120 mpg on city streets when electricity can do just about all the work, but only about 40 mpg on the highway, when some gas is needed to hit the higher speeds.
I wonder why Ford's drivetrain needs to burn gas to go fast. What does the EPA think?
Here are some more links about the Escape PHESUV: from the 2008 Detroit Auto Show, from USA Today a couple weeks back, and they just this month found a way to get batteries in time for 2012. Like the 2008 article said, "Ridiculous features: We still have to wait to buy one." 69.228.216.60 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Daimler van video on relative mass
I see that this source was removed so I am copying it here for reference:
Daimler (19 February 2009) "The new Sprinter Plug-In-Hybrid" Daimler VideoCast
Is anyone challenging it's assertion that NiMH batteries weigh twice as much in this form factor for the same all-electric range? 69.228.209.174 (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Probably not. Yawn. Greglocock (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- You don't like commercial vans? Clydesdales aren't as much fun as a new pony, but which brings more at auction? 69.228.209.174 (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Seattle and Google fleets
According to Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times, Seattle's fleet uses Hymotion cells, which are lithium ion "nanophosphate". Is that a form of lithium ion polymer, or a lithium polymer? Does anyone know where to find a side-by-side comparison of the performance of those cells against the lithium iron cells in use by BYD Auto? 69.228.209.174 (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Where does he mention hymotion? Greglocock (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- Personal communication. Here's how Hymotion's cells were doing in Canada last year. It's not unheard of for production batteries to go bad, and China went with in-house talent instead of outsourcing to A123, so we ought to prepare for the onslaught of questions about which is better and how they are different. Plug-in Prius conversions have been getting panned pretty widely. I think all the editors here need to keep up with the legislation, because the introductory lead section is now out of date. 69.228.209.174 (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It occurred to me that calling conversions of HEV production models "real world" is fairly misleading. It turns out that Google.org is in fact using the same conversions as Westneat was complaining about in Seattle. Trying to conflate these results of a particular form of conversion all using the same battery as "real world" data may not be as forthright as we aspire here. 69.228.209.174 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Have you any WP:RS that says that the performance of these conversions is in any way unrepresentative of PHEVs? Greglocock (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- First, they're conversions with little more than a battery and who-knows-what aftermarket electronics to keep the ICE from starting under conditions which it otherwise would in HEV mode. That they aren't engineered as PHEVs alone should prevent us from making any claims that they are representative of PHEVs, let alone "real world" PHEVs which is just absurd. Consumer Reports is also complaining about Hymotion cells. I've seen a quote from someone at Toyota saying the usual sorts of things about the unadvisability of hacking your car and that doing so voids the warranty. All I remember is that was from someone who got access to a Toyota test track last summer, so I'll try to dredge it up. 69.228.87.198 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Short answer, no. Greglocock (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Have you thought it through? In what sense can a conversion be a "real world" vehicle? In what sense is a single model conversion representative of aggregate results? If you want to be taken seriously, I recommend thinking it through and stating actual reasons so that your argument is judged on its merits instead of its terseness. 69.228.87.198 (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The results are in line with engineering expectations and prior tests. So, until we see real world experience of dedicated properly designed PHEVs driven by normal drivers they are a reasonable proxy. In my opinion. Greglocock (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- By "proxy," do you mean anything substantially different than anecdotal evidence? I think we need to give the readers a side-by-side comparison of Hymotion's lithium nanophosphate and BYD's lithium-iron battery chemistry, not necessarily in that order, with a report of battery performance over time. Since the F3DMs have only been out since December, that will take several more months or some years to develop. Industrial battery cells aren't rocket science, though. There is ample experimental evidence collected by the major companies involved. The trouble seems to be the involvement of fossil fuel companies and a lack of willingness in Detroit to ramp up production. Thank goodness the federal fleet procurement is being updated. 69.228.87.198 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Fast charging with LiFePO4
Kang, B. and Ceder, G. (2009) "Battery materials for ultrafast charging and discharging" Nature 458: 190-3. 1:00-6:50 (audio) NCC-8765 (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hydrogen/battery hybrid
Is a hydrogen fuel cell/electric vehicle as the Ford Edge Hyseries Drive not a plug-in hydrid aswell ? if so first lines are incorrect (no internal combustion engine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.187.13 (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Informing the reader of Li-FePO4/*/polymer/S/etc. tradeoffs
What effort should we make to the reader about the trade-offs inherent in choices of battery manufacturing and construction, such as the actual battery chemistry? Shouldn't there be a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the ferrous phosphate versus Li-ion, Li-poly, and Li-sulfur in different contexts? NCC-8765 (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Type diagrams
Include these types and the pictures (rework to cgi).
Thanks, KVDP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.151.170 (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
U.S. DoE Annual Energy Outlook "Issues in Focus"
Pages 31-35 of this document are packed with public domain information, charts, and graphs on PHEVs. 69.228.193.173 (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Google rechargeIT
Perhaps Google's rechargeIT project can be mentioned aswell (see http://www.google.org/recharge/)
Plug-in EV
Can Plug-in Electric vehicle article be made? Conversions are done of EV to PEV by green gears[1]
- It wouldn't make sense, as all electric cars recharge by pluging, that is, all EVs are PEVs by your nomenclature. See aso Neighborhood Electric Vehicle, the lead says so explicitly. Conversions are made for electric hybrids to work as plug-ins (PHEV), and that is what the souce you provided is talking about. This article already covers that kind of converson.--Mariordo (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hydrogen vehicle
Would someone please look at the Hydrogen vehicle article? The comparison with PHEVs is being destroyed by a hydrogen POV pusher. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
At no point did I push hydrogen, in fact no mention of hydrogen is made in any of my changes. I just made a few adjustments to page to accurately reflect the electric fuel-chain efficiencies. I've referenced everything in my changes. If that makes PHEVs or BEVs seem less efficient then that's your problem.
I am dismayed but not surprised that this article reads almost as one sided as the Hydrogen Vehicle article. The Disadvantages section is a joke. One line of size, cost and weight concerns and then straight into talk of renting batteries. What has that got to do with anything? The article then goes on, still in the disadvantages section, to talk about other possible but unreferenced advantages of PHEVs. As soon as I have the references to back it up, I'll have to make a start altering this one too.
"The difference is such that overall carbon emissions would decrease if all internal combustion vehicles were converted to plug-ins.[123]"
Further reference 123 is wrong. If you read through the article, Table 3-15 page 87 notes a 430m tonne Total US increase in CO2 emissions in the case of PHEVs. Also on page 80 they say that electricity generation will increase by 5.8% as a result of PHEV. Here is the summary of the report:
- "In summary, the addition of PHEVs as a significant transportation option adds approximately 6% to the total national electricity demand in 2030 compared to the base case with no PHEVs. Due to the charging profile that results in most of this additional demand occurring during off-peak hours (late night/early morning) there is an increase in the need for baseload generation. The addition of coal-fired generation to meet this need for more baseload generation does not result in any significant differences in annual emissions of SO2, NOx and Hg because of the caps on those pollutants. Therefore, any reductions in emissions of SO2, NOx or Hg from non-electric generating sources would result in a net national decline in these emissions. However, it does result in an appreciable increase in CO2 and PM emissions as this analysis has not assumed any limits on CO2 or PM emissions."
I've added all of this to the report and as such it directly contradicts the other quotes in the GHG section. I think that till a scientific consensus is reached (and there doesnt seem to be one at the minute) any claims to the GHG emissions, good or bad, should be removed.
France invests $2.2 billion in charging stations
See this article: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/france-invests-2-billion-in-electric-car-charging-stations.php -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Energy resilience and petroleum displacement
The statement "Each kilowatt hour of battery capacity in use will displace up to 50 US gallons" ...fuel is pretty much nonsense. It is the same as if I would say "each 1 l bottle I carry with me when trecking can replace up to 300 l water I would have to drink from a river along the trail". Further, 50 gallons fuel hold an energy equivalent of 2200-2300 kWh. Assuming an energy efficiency of only 25 % in relation to the electrical energy efficiency, that will mean that I need about 550 - 575 kWh of electrical energy, i.e. my 1 kWh battery simply needs to be reloaded 550-575 times in one year. Quite a challenge, but why not. But if I reload the battery twice a day, my fuel savings even increase, wow! A much better value would be how much fuel can be save throughout the life-time of a battery (of course taking account of the energy used for its production). Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
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.[13][14] 99.38.150.198 (talk) 07:36, 23 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)
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)
- 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)
-
-
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.
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.
- 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)
- 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)
-
-
-
-
-
- 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,[2] $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.[3]
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.[4][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.[5]
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)
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)
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:
- a bar graph showing models ranked by all-electric range (descending)
- whether PHEVs are worth the extra money over a conventional hybrid
- whether PHEVs really do much for the environment, especially if the electricity is coal-generated
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. 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)
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.)
- 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)
-
-
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Is the Chevrolet Volt distinct from others?
A comment posted in response to the Popular Mechanics article[6] 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090211041243/http://media.gm.com:80/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=51807 to http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=51807
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Archived sources still need to be checked
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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904154040/http://www.hybridcars.com/history/history-of-hybrid-vehicles.html to http://www.hybridcars.com/history/history-of-hybrid-vehicles.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/lithium-battery-010407.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070528055153/http://media.gm.com:80/us/gm/en/news/events/autoshows/07naias/brands/chevrolet/volt/volt%20design.htm to http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/events/autoshows/07naias/brands/chevrolet/volt/volt%20design.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2008/06/26/afx5156904.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131221190347/http://www.chinacartimes.com/2013/12/byd-launches-qin-plugin-hybrid-189800rmb-209800rmb/ to http://www.chinacartimes.com/2013/12/byd-launches-qin-plugin-hybrid-189800rmb-209800rmb/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/2007/06/photo_green_wom.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203012724/http://auto.howstuffworks.com/range-anxiety-electric-cars1.htm to http://auto.howstuffworks.com/range-anxiety-electric-cars1.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818225927/http://www.wheels.ca:80/reviews/article/256058 to http://wheels.ca/reviews/article/256058
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.com.com/PGE
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.com.com/Plug
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928021638/http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=19436 to http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=19436
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015001713/http://www.raivereniging.nl/markt%20informatie/statistieken/verkoopstatistieken/verkoopstatistieken%202011.aspx to http://www.raivereniging.nl/markt%20informatie/statistieken/verkoopstatistieken/verkoopstatistieken%202011.aspx
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216034711/http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=31882 to http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=31882
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131209090607/http://www.chinacartimes.com:80/2013/11/04/byd-qin-delayed-december/ to http://www.chinacartimes.com/2013/11/04/byd-qin-delayed-december/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216022835/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/porsche-exceeds-previous-years-sales-175900089.html to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/porsche-exceeds-previous-years-sales-175900089.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.micro-vett.it/english/bimodaleing.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/total-world-plug-in-vehicle-volumes/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140123204744/http://www.gronnbil.no:80/nyheter/over-20-000-ladbare-biler-paa-norske-veier-article366-239.html to http://www.gronnbil.no/nyheter/over-20-000-ladbare-biler-paa-norske-veier-article366-239.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
Archived sources still need to be checked
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- ^ Hybridization of electric vehicles
- ^ "Govtrack.us". Govtrack.us. Retrieved 2010-11-27.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
ReferenceA
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "GPO.gov" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-11-27.
- ^ "Calcars.org". Calcars.org. 2009-11-12. Retrieved 2010-11-27.
- ^ Austin, Michael. "4 Top Plug-in Hybrids, Tested". Popular Mechanics. Retrieved 12 October 2014.