AutoblogGreen Q&A with Sherry Boschert: why plug-in hybrids will recharge America
Sherry Boschert is a What kind of car do you drive?
After Ford took away our beloved Th!nk, we drove a 1980 VW Rabbit that had been converted to electric - bought it on eBay - then a converted 1993 Ford Escort station wagon. Those cars had a range of 30-50 miles, and we still had the conventional Corolla as a backup. When the Corolla died, we pared down to one car, an electric Toyota RAV4-EV with a range of 120 miles between charges.
What got you interested in plug-in hybrids?
I'm not really into cars, but plug-in cars represent so much more than just transportation. It's their potential to address issues like air pollution, global warming and our dependence oil that make them interesting to me. Plus, the people involved have fascinating stories to tell, some of which I had the privilege to tell in my book.
(There's lots more after the jump)
Personally, after my partner and I added solar panels to our San Francisco home, we started looking for an electric car. At that time, if you looked hard enough, you could find some for lease in California , though not for sale. In 2002 we leased a Ford Think!City, a little two-seater hatchback with a range of 35-55 miles, depending on how hard you drove it. I was surprised by how much I loved that car. Despite its limitations, it met nearly all my driving needs. It was peppy, clean and quiet, and small enough to park just about anywhere.
We also had a conventional 1987 Toyota Corolla as our back-up car for long-distance driving. By the time it died a smoggy death in 2005, the California Cars Initiative had converted a Toyota Prius hybrid to a plug-in hybrid, and the Southern California company EnergyCS had done several plug-in hybrid conversions. It was obvious that for one-car families, a plug-in hybrid could be a great compromise – local driving on cleaner, cheaper electricity, plus a backup fuel tank for longer distances. And for two-car families, having one all-electric car for local/regional driving and a plug-in hybrid for long-distance driving could meet all their needs with the least amount of fossil fuels.
I became aware of these prototype plug-in hybrids because in 2004 I had become very active in the electric vehicle community, after Ford made us return the Th!nk to be destroyed. As seen in the fine documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? [ed note: soon to be released on DVD], all the major automakers began canceling leases and destroying electric vehicles after the California Air Resources Board watered down its Zero Emission Vehicle mandate in 2003. That whole story – and the protests by activists who managed to save around 1,000 electric vehicles from the crushers – make up the first chapter of my book. It's part of the history that helps readers understand why electric cars make sense and why we can't get them. Then it's easier to understand subsequent chapters on how plug-in hybrids fit into the story, and the challenges they face.What are some of the most amazing facts you discovered in researching this book?
Plug-in hybrids aren't so new – most of the major car companies toyed with them in the 1990s and early 2000s, but they took a back seat to all-electric cars and conventional cars. One company went so far as to start building a fleet of plug-in hybrids for further testing, with an eye toward selling them, but the company was bought out in 1998 by one of the Big Three automakers, which shut the plug-in hybrid program down in order to focus on its core product - SUVs.
Professor Andrew Frank at the University of California, Davis and his students have built a plug-in hybrid a year for a decade, showing that there's no technological reason these can't be made.
Despite this activity, it's only in the last few years that the technology has ripened and matured to make the time right for plug-in hybrids, for reasons discussed in the book. That technological threshold has converged with increasing calls for plug-in hybrids from many sectors of society in order to deal with the social and environmental issues I mentioned earlier (pollution, peak oil, etc.). We're likely to see plug-in hybrids introduced as early as 2007 and 2008, but there's no guarantee, as we saw with the story of electric cars. One of the main lessons from the electric vehicle battles is that we each can make a difference in bringing plug-in cars to market, and helping them stay there. The book suggests ways to help make that happen.
Can you give our readers a summary of the book in a paragraph or so. I'm sure that's an easy task, right?
Plug-in hybrids are bridging a divided America. An unusually broad coalition of environmentalists on the left, neoconservative national-security hawks on the right, and many people in between get the idea that plug-in hybrids offer one of the quickest ways to start reducing our carbon footprint and our dependence on oil. I tried to convey information about plug-in hybrids in an entertaining way through the stories of some of these characters.
The book makes some comparisons between conventional cars with internal combustion engines, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles, explaining a bit about each one. I also take a look at hydrogen fuel-cell cars and all the hype around them that helped delay the inevitable introduction of plug-in vehicles.
I spent a lot of time researching the question of emissions – are plug-in hybrids really green? After all, they do have an internal combustion engine and a tailpipe. And the electricity has to come from somewhere. I collected every study I could find, and can say that I'm very comfortable with the current shade of green of plug-in cars, and with their huge potential to be even greener as we continue to clean up the electrical grid with more renewable power and add vehicle-to-grid technology. That was one of my favorite chapters to write.Do you see plug-ins as the best vehicle propulsion system for cars? If so, how long will this last? Is there a future technology you see coming that will best plug-ins?
The global warming crisis is so urgent that I don't think of any car technology as being the best right now. Whatever we can do today to move away from fossil fuels, we need to do, fast. That means hybrids, biodiesel, ethanol, and plug-in cars (as well as bicycles, walking, and mass transit) all have roles to play. The same can't be said for hydrogen. That doesn't mean we should do any of these without thinking. How we make the electricity or biodiesel or ethanol is important, so that we don't create as many environmental problems as we solve. I do think plug-in cars are inevitable, because they can run on alternative fuels (sunshine or wind) that don't compete with land for food crops, forests, etc. One of the beauties of plug-in hybrids is that the backup to the electricity doesn't have to be gasoline, it could be ethanol, biodiesel, or what have you.
Where do you think the political support for plug-in hybrids stands in America today?
The political momentum for plug-in hybrids in the last two years has been amazing, yet a lot of it is still bogged down in some of the same traps that stalled electric cars. There are still too many calls for research, and not enough incentives to start production. Some of the high-profile politicians who back plug-in hybrids still pay lip service simultaneously to hydrogen cars, which won't be ready for decades - if ever - and drain resources from the cleaner cars that could be built today. Grass-roots support for plug-in hybrids is building incredible momentum, however, thanks to groups like Plug-in Partners, CalCars, Plug-in America, Set America Free, and others. That's driving automakers and politicians to accelerate plug-in hybrid activities.
So it's clear you like electric cars and plug-in hybrids.
Once you've had a chance to drive on electricity, you never want to go back to gasoline. I haven't been to a gas station in four years, except to slap a Who Killed the Electric Car? sticker on the gas pump.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mike Z. 12:33PM (10/18/2006)
Nothing about battery technology and if I can be cost effective?
That's the big issue right now and if the book does not address it, it's not worth reading.
Reply
C 1:52PM (10/18/2006)
Mike Z - I have never understood the battery cost issue. People pay $2K - $5K extra for improved entertainment systems in their car, which offer no improvement in fuel efficiency or environmental benefits.
What the automakers aren't getting, is that large numbers of people are willing to pay a premium for more environmentally friendly cars, even if there is no direct economic payback.
Automakers should have plug-in options for all their major cars. That way, those who want it, can buy it. Those who don't, won't. Eventually, as with all upgrades, the cost will come down, and it will be standard in all cars (think air conditioning, CD players, power windows, air bags, etc.).
Reply
charlie 3:04PM (10/18/2006)
"Automakers should have plug-in options for all their major cars. That way, those who want it, can buy it. Those who don't, won't. Eventually, as with all upgrades, the cost will come down, and it will be standard in all cars (think air conditioning, CD players, power windows, air bags, etc.)."
Except that there is a very legit debate about whether plug in hybrids are actually more efficient than straight gasoline cars. A lot of engineers are saying that they're not. A plug-in hyrbid needs a full electric powertrain including enough batteries to move the car a considerable distance (enough so that the ICE wouldn't have to be engaged in daily driving). and then it also needs a full ICE system.
So for daily driving, you'd be carrying around hundreds of pounds of ICE drivetrain including the engine, transmission, gasoline, etc, and not using them at all. For long road trips you'll be carrying around hundreds of pounds of batteries and marginal electric motor size that you won't be using at all. Not an efficient proposition.
In comparison, a hyrbid like the Prius can be efficient because it has a relatively small and light electric motor (which isn't designed for highway speeds)and much less battery space (only a few miles range if used alone).
I think that pure electric cars is where we'll end up. On the way we'll see a lot of innovations that will improve efficiency. I don't think that plug-in hybrids will catch on (
Reply
Mike Z. 3:10PM (10/18/2006)
I Disagree with the idea that car makers are interested directly.
There are many people who are interested in high performance cars and custom interiors--yet automakers do not offer often offer them to the public. This is where aftermarket customizers and performance accessory companies come in.
The same is true with after-market plug-in conversion companies. With automakers offering plug-ins directly to consumers, the same model is being followed.
We are not talking about a small add on, we are talking about taking a Prius and making it a $50,000 or $60,000 car---this is not simply a 'add-on' and makes the Tesla Roadster look a lot better.
With Toyota saying they will not even offer a Diesel hybrid as an option because it will add about $3-4k to the price, it seems unlikely that a plug-in is that likely.
I have to admit that I'm starting to not be all that crazy about plug-in hybrids, having to redundant power sources seems like a losing proposition. Pure electric seems to look better and better to me.
Reply
Mike Z. 3:13PM (10/18/2006)
I might add that the one plus I could see for Plug-ins would be if it incorporated a technology like the REGI Radmax engine, a super light-weight engine that would enable the weight penalty to be only a few hundred pounds to have dual power sources.
Reply
Charles S 3:40PM (10/18/2006)
"A plug-in hyrbid needs a full electric powertrain..."
As oppose to full-hybrid cars like the Prius? I think those who do not understand PHEV may need to do some research on the topic.
The reason that third parties can modify a Prius from a full-hybrid to a Plug-in Hybrid means that the biggest differences between hybrid and PHEV are battery capacity and software programming; nothing to do with additional electric drivetrain.
The main reason why PHEV can be more efficient than hybrid is based on the miles traveled between plug-ins, which most Americans only travel an average of 29 miles per day. PHEV is more suited as a daily driver. The extra weight of batteries for long trips really matters little on the long run.
I know people have wild speculations about what PHEV should be able to do in the near future, but in reality, a typical PHEV should have about a 20-mile electric-only range. Smaller battery size cuts down on weight and costs, plus the opportunities to exercise the gasoline engine often. People cannot just expect to get a PHEV and only use the gasoline engine twice a year; ICEs are not designed that way.
PHEV has many advantages, but it is by no means THE perfect car. The idea is to have the best balance in fuel-economy, efficience, and convenience of power and range.
If people want US to be less dependent on foreign sources for fuel, but can't switch to a pure EV, then PHEV is one of the best short-term solution we have.
Reply
Charles S 3:55PM (10/18/2006)
"I have to admit that I'm starting to not be all that crazy about plug-in hybrids, having to redundant power sources seems like a losing proposition. Pure electric seems to look better and better to me."
If I have to choose between PHEV or a pure EV (plus a small generator add-on), I'd take EV any day. But if we are going to talk about cost, then it is far far more likely that the public will accept a ~$40K PHEV that is more flexible to today's petro-based infrastructure, than a $50K-$100K+ pure EV. Yes, I know that $40k is nothing to sneeze at, but prices will come down, as long as public start buying into the concept.
All this talk about how PHEV have "redundant" drivetrain makes no sense to me. The current Prius already have a "redundant" drivetrain! When a PHEV operates, it will be no different than a hybrid, where both gasoline and electric engines can come on at the same time. The main reason why current full-hybrids do not drive on full-electric all the time is because of the heavy drain on NiMH batteries, and thus shortening the life of the batteries.
A modified plug-in Prius is really more of a proof-of-concept, where a dedicated PHEV will be designed with batteries that can maintain long-life, while sustain many charge and (deep) discharge cycles. The next generation of Lithium batteries will do the job, but now it's really just a matter of cost, and acceptance.
Reply
C 6:45PM (10/18/2006)
All those doubting the viability of PHEVs should take a close look at the work Andy Frank has done at UC Davis. You can't think of a PHEV as a regular ICE car that you add on batteries + electric motor.
He's shown that by simplifying the transmission, and reducing the size of the ICE significantly (much smaller than the Prius - more like a 600cc) the overall weight of batteries + electric motor + small ICE is not much more than the pure ICE that it replaces. And the performance is just as good.
Check it out:
www.team-fate.net
Reply
Sherry Boschert 3:27PM (10/19/2006)
Thanks for all your comments so far - this is a fairly knowledgable crowd!
Mike Z.: The book definitely discusses battery technology and cost-effectiveness. I structured it so that the chapters alternate between story-telling and more detailed looks at the technology, its feasibility, cost, and environmental and political implications.
Other comments: Are plug-in hybrids more efficient? Like any car, it depends on how you build it. But if you compare a conventional ICE and a plug-in hybrid of the same model (which I do several ways in the book, with advice from engineers and others), the plug-in hybrid is more efficient.
The idea that you need a full-sized ICE engine in a plug-in hybrid is a misconception. Prof. Andrew Frank builds plug-in hybrid giant SUVs with tiny gas-sipping engines, and they're plenty powerful.
I, too, favor all-electric vehicles, but I think a plug-in hybrid is what most Americans will become comfortable with first. And like others have said, there's no one-kind-fits-all car. Give us options.
And hey, everyone -- if you're interested in plug-in hybrids, keep your eyes on the Detroit Auto Show in January!
Sherry
Reply
Ryan Fulcher 6:24PM (10/19/2006)
Some good comments already, I'm just glad that people are no longer saying that you can't make a Prius a plug in hybrid. More and more people are beginning to realize that an EV can do 120+ mph and go 100 to 300 miles on a charge, not enough people yet... And it sounds like a few are also realizing that the best PHEV is one that started it's life out as a pure EV, which at the moment aren't very available. What I find curious, is that I could spend $100,000 for any number of high end gas powered vehicles, but only two or three similarly priced BEV's. Not to mention affordable $60K, $40K, or $20K mere mortal BEV's. And of course there are conversions, but how many grandmothers, wives, and sisters out there think "Let's go down to the machine shop" when they want to get a new or used car?
The bottom line is that the vast majority of us still need to wake up and smell the petrol, which stinks, then realize that we can change like we almost did 10 years ago.
Reply
Lee Dekker 2:06PM (10/21/2006)
It's completely understandable that the plug-in hybrid concept is still being met by misunderstanding, misinformation and uninformed skepticism. The public balks at change as much as the big auto manufacturers. A hundred years into building cars and we act like they're a genetic species not to be tempered with.
The plug-in hybrid addresses many pertinent and timely issues. But that doesn't mean it will be quickly or easily embraced by manufacturers or public. The histories of occupant safety and pollution controls are interesting examples of how proposed automobile changes are sometimes dealt with by both the public and manufacturers.
Safety: Forty or so years ago there was very little attention given to occupant safety. Dashboard arrangements could cause serious injuries with only minor accidents. Pedestrian safety didn't even register. Gradually, padded dashboards and better designs started showing up. But when seatbelts came around, manufacturers wanted no part of them and especially did not want to be ordered to include them in their vehicles. Airbags were also shunned and derided by manufacturers. Arguments similar to those made against plug in hybrids were voiced. Too expensive, no one will want to pay the extra premium, too complicated, subject to failure and so on. And, you can't tell us what to do!
Pollution: Another example of auto manufacturers unwillingness to embrace change can be seen in the area of pollution controls. And, as I recall, the public went along with manufacturers in their dislike of added pollution controls. All the same arguments. Too expensive, too complicated and questionable effectiveness. And,(of course)you can't tell us what to do!
But manufacturers did a 180. Manufacturers started out kicking and screaming and dragging their heels over every single safety feature that was mandated. Now, only a few years later, these same manufacturers are climbing over each other to show that they offer the most effective safety doodads on the market. Safety has quickly become a big sales feature and manufacturers have jumped on it with both feet.
Fortunately, both safety improvements and pollution improvements have moved forward in spite of stiff resistance from myopic manufacturers and public alike. Had these changes in vehicle safety not taken place, one can imagine our emergency rooms and hospitals overflowing with unnecessary injuries. Had the changes in pollution controls not come about... I don't even want to think about what the air would look like or what we would all be breathing in and out right now.
The plug-in hybrid is not perfect. Nothing ever is. The plug-in hybrid is a step in the right direction.
Reply
George Schonholtz 5:11PM (11/10/2006)
EV's and PHEV's Have a great future, especially when combined with expansion of nuclear power generation. Sometime in the future we may become completly free from foreign sources of oil. Than the trouble makers in the Middle East and South America can drink their Oil. One other point. As these vehicles become more popular, public "Recharging Pods" will become cmmonplace near work,school parking facilities etc greatly expanding their range.
Reply
David Kosowsky 8:25PM (11/12/2006)
Glad to see so many enlightened comments. EV's are definitely the end game and the sooner we get to a primarily electric power train the better. PHEV's sure appear to be the best choice with today's technology to get us there. The question that would be in my mind if I were one of the big makers, is how long will they be competitive against pure EV's, so how much am I willing do invest in developing them? PHEV's success will be self defeating, in a sense that the more successful they are the more practical pure EV's will become. Luckily, most of the technology used in PHEV's are needed in pure FV's (batteries, electric power train, regenerative braking, etc.). So, all will not be lost to those manufacturers that do develop PHEV's. In fact, this should put them several steps ahead of their competition.
Like the author, I believe options will be the key to the success of PHEV's. Nobody wants to pay for and lug around extra battery capacity that isn't needed for their regular driving. This will require a configurable battery system (say 50, 75, 100, 125 mile options), driver selectable operation modes (all EV, max range, max performance), etc. Another important issue that the author brings up is infrastructure to support away from single family home charging. this isn't brought up much and now is the time start pushing it politically. legislation needs to be passed that require certain quantities of "plug-in" spaces at airport parking any garages, municipal parking garages, government facilities' parking, etc. Tax incentives and building regulations should be put into place for private entities to add plug-in spaces to their facilities. By the time all the discussions, debates, and finally legislation takes place; plug-in vehicles will be on the road. Now that GM is supposedly in the PHEV, hopefully they're listening or already acting on this.
I would sure like to here the "legitimate" arguments for the equivalence of straight gas cars to hybrids that an early post alludes to. The biggest misconception that keeps coming up with regards to PHEV's is their need for two complete drivetrains. Even Tesla Motors makes this assumption in one of their blogs, and their posts are extremely knonwlegdgeable and well thought out. As other posts have alluded to, PHEV's with a primarily electric drivetrain along with the smallest, lightest, and relatively constant power ICE make the most sense. A Toyota Synergy-like transmission allowing ICE power to go to the wheels or to the motor/generator would really make this type of PHEV a no-brainer for many applications. The ICE would be sized to maintain rasonable highway speed. This would also allow for in-car recharging and power out applications. Being a resident of SE Florida, the last couple of hurricane seasons have have made this last "option" particularly interesting. A power-out option could take the place of the $8,000-$15,000 being sold like hot cakes here and all over the gulf coast and eastern seaboard. I've wanted to out solar panels up instead of a sizable generator, but would still need expensive batteries that would rarely be needed. I would much rather use my PHEV's batteries and generator to supplement the solar panels for extended power outages. So, for my application the PHEV may actually save money from day 1. Add the gas savings, time savings (few gestation visits), and a "real" portable generator; and it's shocking this isn't available today.
Best of all PHEV's will put us on the road to pure FV's. Whether tomorrow's EV gets it's power from batteries or a hydrogen fuel cell is being hotly contested. This seems like a needless waste of time and resources, though. If batteries are compared side by side with hydrogen fuel cells, batteries are the hands-down winner for consumer vehicles.
I'm waiting, cash in hand, for the first PHEV described above.
Reply
Chris 10:02AM (12/23/2006)
Europe has a significant potential to popularize PHEVs. Environmental issues are not enough to create a mass market for this technology. There has to be a financial incentive. With fuel prices 5-6 dollars per gallon alternative solutions become more easily accepted. In Poland over 2 out of 12 million cars run on LPG making it second largest market in the world. But when tax (and the price obviously) started to go up CNG started to attract some attention.
In case of PHEV’s, however, there has to be some support from the government to attract investment and raise public awareness. In Britain EV and some hybrid cars are exempt from road tax (about 100 pounds depending on the car) and congestion charge in downtown London ( which is a staggering 8 pounds a day or nearly 16 dollars). In Westminster, which has the biggest problem with air pollution in London, there are power points where you can charge your car for free. Other countries, especially Germany, Denmark and Spain generate a lot of electricity from wind turbines. That leaves them with a big surplus of energy at night, which is ideal for charging a huge fleet of cars. It could actually mean faster returns on investment in wind power since more of it would be sold off peak and that could result in even more investment in green energy.
We could finally drive clean and quiet cars. That’s a European dream.
Reply
Kelly Brown 8:50PM (4/08/2007)
I sincerely enjoyed today's Science Friday's, It seemed to me Dennis Simanaitis from Road & Track was more concerned about protecting the oil company interests than promoting electric vehicles & Track. I felt he was very close minded.
Sherry Boschert did not back down which our media seems to neglect. Any new workable concepts are discounted by the corporate interests, big oil and auto companies. They like things the way they are. Chevron Made Billions $$$$$$$$$$$$$ this year and they do not want to forfeit this profit in any way. They will do nearly anything to protect their interests.
Dennis did not want to discuss the viability of electric cars. He discounted nearly everything Sherry had to say.
I was surprised that Tesla, and others were not mentioned they are ramping up to fill some of the demand that the big auto companies abandon. Tesla has a range of 250 miles and acceleration of a Corvette.
I agree that we need Government pressure to steer these companies into new technologies. When CARB demanded zero emission vehicles, the auto makers responded. Our society should place a high priority on this area.
I feel that Hybrids are good and bad, the auto manufactures get first hand experience with electric motor driven vehicles but it requires two drive systems, gas motors and electric. This is a duplication of effort The fuel economy is not much better than a efficient gas or Diesel car. The Peugeot that got 76 MPG was cited. I do not know of a hybrid that is as fuel efficient.
Clean fuels are often over looked. Bio Diesel was mentioned and is an option in warm climates but has a tendency to separate in severe cold climates. I think additives can solve these problems.
There is a company call "Syntroleum" that has developed a viable economic process to convert natural gas into liquid gas form just like unleaded only 90% less polluting. It is on the internet and is traded on the stock exchange. You may want to check this intriguing technology out. It can be transported through the existing distribution system.
I think the more viable hybrid would be a turbine motor that charges the batteries. There was a Volvo and GM prototype that were not brought to market. I feel they were purposely not allowed to be marketed. A secondary alternative is a turbo diesel hybrid. Current Diesel fuel has ultra low sulfur content.
I attended the Los Angeles Auto show in the early 1990s and there was a start up electric car company called "AFS" American Fly Wheel Systems that boasted a 380 mile range. They actually had a prototype. I visited with the spokesperson and received brochures. For some reason this company was bought out and not given a chance???
Reply
Light Dancing 10:45PM (4/22/2007)
I'll apologize, in advance, if I'm treading ground already covered here, as I haven't read most of the blogs. Having said that. I feel that most "authorities" on the subject of batteries are justified in being scared to come right out and accuse the #1 source for suppression of Electric Vehicles and truly efficient hybrids. THE OIL COMPANIES! They have all but frozen safe, efficient, and affordable battery technology for at least half a century. It's what I call the 3 stages of suppression.
Scare Off, Buy Off, or Bump Off... and they are always quite willing and able to take one or more of these steps (as necessary) to "discourage" light weight, long lasting, and inexpensive battery technology from making long range electric vehicles the peoples preference. I have a retired engineer friend who was witness to a meeting, years ago, between a battery manufacturer and a group of Oil company lawyers. They came right out blatantly and threatened the battery company. They essentially said this. Go ahead and build your light weight, high amp battery, and we will tie you up in a legal battle that will drain you until you are bankrupt. Now, anyone who has been following the corruption of our present administration in Washington can put two and two together and see that this can't be dismissed as just another wild conspiracy theory of an obsessed madman. When are we going to speak out EN-MASS against these International Power brokers?
They can't threaten all of us at once... or can they?
Mike
Reply
Steve Books 3:42PM (1/19/2008)
I think it's reasonable to push PHEVs and include utilities in the discussion. The concept of saving gasoline by not using it, and exchanging gasoline with off - peak electricity instead will be paramount for Americans to understand while growing the PHEV club.
The outcome that many utilities will have with experimental PHEVs will undoughtedly show positive results. These outcomes should be well publicized.
Reply