The lead in paragraph suggests that Guardino was buying a car that eschewed the ICE. The fact is the Prius has an ICE. What Guardino was really saying apparently is that it is OK to burn coal or nuclear fuel at a remote location rather than burn gasoline under the hood. He is the epitome of NUMH (Not Under My Hood). I could be wrong. He might have a 10KW windturbine in his back yard.
Toyota tells us that this new version of the Prius will go 475 miles on a tank. That's all well and good, but my 2005 Insight would go 600 miles on a 9.8 gallon tank, sometimes more. Which gets me to my point. From an engineering standpoint, what makes more sense, commuting in a somewhat cramped four seater with an inefficient and complex planetary drive train or stretching out in a more fuel efficient two seater with a more aerodynamic body, a more efficient drive train and less weight?
The feature that would make a PHEV interesting to me is not the economy. Rather it would be a feature that would allow the plugin connection to work both ways so that if the power went out I could run my house for a few hours while power was being restored. After the winter of 2010, this fall's hurricanes, and who knows what else is coming this makes a lot of sense to me.
And one question that didn't get answered in the article is whether the 2012 Prius will charge all the battery when running in hybrid mode? If one goes past the 16 miles and the Prius ICE starts to recharge the battery, will it recharge all the battery 100%. If it does this then why plug it in? If it doesn't, why carry around the discharged battery like the Volt does?
There are at least six very differnt Li-ion chemistries. Some can take a 0-100% discharge in a stride and others can't. Those that can't are generally managed so that in reality they operate between, say, 20% and 80% charge. The user will never know this because the charge meter will say 0 charge when in fact the battery is at 20% and it will say fully charged when it is at 80%.
B. 22mpg for commuting in winter snow season or for SUV tasks (<3000 mile per year)
C. 5mpg for hauling loads greater than 3 tons. (<500 miles per year)
Most people don't need C but can easily do A & B. If you look at the cost to move a ton per mile or person per mile you can see that this was indeed a very efficient setup. The real cost issue for A was that taxes and insurance greatly exceeded yearly fuel cost. The real efficiency for C was that it could carry more than it's own weight in payload.
This approach, in my eyes, has been a no-brainer since hybrid cars came out. I can never figure out why it takes so long to get to.
There are even aftermarket plug in kits for converting older hybrids to hybrid hybrids.
Again, the whole concept seems way too obvious. Most people commute a short distance. Even if it's over 13 miles, say 26 miles, 50% on electric 50% on gas still lowers fuel costs by quite a bit.
It's clear this is a technology in it's infancy so any way to push it along is good. There are a lot of factors in determining the true efficiency and cost/mile. The cost of emf generation, transmission and distribution is a variable. The only true "free" power (after installation costs) comes from renewable sources, wind & solar, etc. However for the average consumer who has no control over emf distribution and many other factors, getting the first 13 miles for a much lower cost than burning gas is a good thing, especially if most trips to and fro are under 13 miles (for this car).
I assume eventually, as battery technology matures, car makers will offer ways to add optional batteries to the car, the next logical step in hybrid hybrids.
As renewable power generation grows more widespread, past the initial investment, we will be able to get around cheaper with less carbon problems.
This is a good direction for we as a society to pursue.
Did you ever think of where your electricity comes from? Coal, oil, or nuclear? Those are not renewable resources. Electric cars may move the problem from the highway to the power plant, and probably are more efficient than an internal combustion engine but not renewable. Hydrogen and solar are renewable.
I find a lot of this discussion, and similar discussions on previous forums, miss the point of hybrids, plug in hybrids, and electric vehicles. Each is a great alternative for some folks, and not for others - alternatives are good. Why do we have to justify each one as if it's going to become the only game in town? I have a Prius, and it's a great all around car that happens to get 50 mpg. I bought it partly for the high mileage, partly for the reliability & low maintenance (topic for another discussion) and partly because I think it's the right thing to do. I find it odd that we need to discuss the economics of extremely economical vehicles, but no one ever asks about the ROI or yearly operating cost of a Mercedes, Porsche, 12 mpg pickup truck, etc.
I suspect that if we ignore those who are only out to make a statement (or who can consider the purchase a business deduction), there would be virtually no sales of the Leaf. While it could be a viable 3rd car, as a 1st or 2nd even for shopping trips the range with A/C or heat on is 30 min or less round trip. 15+ hours charge (from 110v) for 30 min of use requires a lot of planning. It would be embarassing to ask to plug it in at a friends house when we meet for dinner.
The sales of the Prius may (or may not) be mostly to those out to make a statement, but it seems to be a enjoying popularity. I believe it could be a very usable 1st car with the plug-in charging a plus and a very respectable option for a 2nd car. The only troubles I see are:
Is Toyota selling the Prius at a loss? If true, this cannot continue forever.
What is the cost of replacing the battery when it eventually fails (along with the environmental costs)?
I would like these 2 questions answered before I consider purchasing one.
A half century ago, cars were still built by people, not robots. Even on some of the countryís longest assembly lines, human workers installed windows, doors, hoods, engines, windshields, and batteries, with no robotic aid.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.