Nissan’s Andy Palmer: The Hybrid Solution “Doesn’t Work”


Bunch Of Hybrids That "Doesn't Work" As A Solution

Bunch Of Hybrids That “Doesn’t Work” As A Solution

Aside from Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Nissan’s chief planning officer Andy Palmer is likely the most outspoken electric vehicle supporter who happens to hold a key position at an automaker that strongly supports electric vehicles.

In this episode of Andy Palmer on solving humanity’s problem via zero emission automobiles, Palmer presents his view on hybrids:

“I don’t believe that a panacea hybrid solution is the right solution. It’s not. It doesn’t work in Europe right now. It doesn’t work in the United States right now.”

“Simply hooking up your carriage to the world of hybridization doesn’t work. It doesn’t solve humanity’s problem because it still has an exhaust pipe. It’s still emitting emissions.”

Thanks Andy!

Palmer’s belief is that a hybrid’s reliance on fossil fuels make this entire class of automobile rather pointless, going so far as to say that, even today, hybrids aren’t the right solution.

Source: Automotive News

Categories: Nissan


Leave a Reply

66 Comments on "Nissan’s Andy Palmer: The Hybrid Solution “Doesn’t Work”"

newest oldest most voted

Unless the hybrid has a plug, I’m starting to agree. I’m at a loss to understand why any manufacturer still makes a hybrid that doesn’t plug in. The cost difference between a regular hybrid and a plug-in hybrid is so little that it should be a no-brainer.

Hybrids or the prius in most respects are important considering their popularity and efficiency, more are needed without a doubt. But the whole idea of the Prius is just a step to the solution. While Toyota made the little step of creating PiP, it’s far from enough.

A true step forward from hybrids are plug-in hybrids, then electrics, and I would like to see Nissan offering a PEHV. Now, Toyota? The one who said they had it all figured out? It would skip the plug as much as it needs to, I’d love to see an EV Prius but a Fuel Cell with a Prius badge is more likely. When it comes to emissions and efficiency, FCEV are not the step above electricity for road vehicles.

Some folks live in apartments and do not have the option to charge. For them, a hybrid with a plug would be a waste.

I live in an apartment which has no place to plug-in. But I happily own a BEV. Public fast charging (sometimes even regular charging) does the trick for me.

That’s pretty awesome! In California, a few agencies are working on funding for charging infrastructure in apartment complexes. One of the barriers is that the building owners are reluctant to install them since they’d have to pay for the electricity. Unfortunately, the approach seems to be “how do we get the tenants to pay” rather than “how do we convince building owners to offer it as an amenity?”

Companies like eVGo are starting to offer multi-tenant dwellings Chargepoint-like units. They will pay the MUD owner for the electricity used, then bill the driver that plugs in. They also take care of paying any installation costs and “parking spot rental”.

Either that or simply use a plugin hybrid without charging the battery. Big deal. What’s the problem with adding a plug, even if you never use it. I’d like to see some numbers as to how much the plug actually costs Toyota and others.

Probably not much. The PiP is clear evidence in their lack of interest in anything with a plug. I don’t think they would have bothered at all if ARB didn’t allow PHEVs to get EV credits and if the plug were expensive. Don’t be surprised if the PiP variant of the 4th gen doesn’t see much range increase. Toyota want’s those 7x credits that FCVs will give them.

That was very far-sighted of them, to embark on their fuel cell program in 1992 to obtain ZEV credits in 2015.
I am even more surprised to learn that they will get ZEV credits for their fuel cell vehicles produced for Europe and Japan.

1992 eh? Sounds like that is around when ARB started aggressively pushing for a ZEV mandate. I suspect that the automakes started working on fuel cells as an alternative with the intention of convincing either ARB or politicians to adopt it over battery EVs. It almost worked. Fortunately, the technological limitations of fuel cells (and the hubris of the automakes) prevented it (screw ZEV, we want SUVs and lots of ’em!).

As for those fuel cell credits, they have been around for the last 12 years. ARB adopted those credits back in 2002 when GM engineered the (temporary) demise of the BEV. Its only now, with the success of Tesla and the cost reduction of the fuel cell stack to a “cheap” $100,000 per stack that Toyota has all of the sudden decided to start making noise about fuel cells (they didn’t even make a lot of noise 10 years ago when it was the talk of the town).

Yeah, I’d say that’s foresight.

I just noticed the other part of your comment. I don’t know where the heck you got Europe and Japan from since I specifically mentioned ARB (as in the California Air Resources Board), but I’ll bite. Japan just recently announced huge incentives for manufacturers of Fuel Cell vehicles (I believe the story was on this website). As for Europe, to my knowledge, they are the only ones, so far, who have created a level playing field in that all of their requirements are based on CO2 emissions (if someone knows more, please do share).

You seriously think that Toyota has spent a couple of decades and many tens or hundreds of millions to comply with ZEV through a technology they don’t believe in?

So whatever Dude, party on!
It sounds as though you live in Colorado.

HAHA! I wish I lived in Colorado! 😛

No I think they spend a couple decades and tens of millions (more like billions given the investment cost of producing new vehicles) on preserving the status quo. Or as close to it as fuel cells will allow. They, like most other automakes would prefer gas cars, but barring that, “we’ll come out with this magical solution called the fuel cell” while the fossil fuel industry is snickering away in their smoke filled back rooms.

I think fuel cells work great in STATIONARY applications. NOT mobile! Even better if the teleco’s will dump their diesel backup power gensets with a fuel cell.

That is precisely why Toyota introduced the Prius, to maximise oil use and support the oil industry!

Their present cunning plan to spend a substantial amount of their own money to conspire with industries in which they have no financial interest AFAIK may be unusual, but whatever!

In 1992 the fuel cells still looked like a good idea for the future… Good times.. 🙂

There was a time when I would have defended hybrids, even with the proliferation of EVs. That time has passed. After having owned a Prius for the last 7 years, I’ve realized how little a difference in gas usage between my previous car, the Mazda 3, and the Prius is. The difference? 100 gallons…per year. That’s less than 10 gallons of fuel saved per month. That’s nothing. Contrast that with owning a Leaf for almost 3 years. We’ve saved three times that much, 300 gallons per year (it would’ve been far higher if our other car were not a Prius). I’d also point out that the Prius gets such high mileage because Toyota cripples it. Ford’s hybrids get low mileage because they were unwilling to sacrifice performance. Toyota has no problem sacrificing performance (on all of their cars, not just Prius) to save a few drops of gas. I’m done with Toyota. They only know how to build boring cars (and their customers will be the first to abandon cars when other options become more attractive). Tesla and Nissan know how to build fun cars that are EVs (we love the performance and handling of our Leaf). My next EV… Read more »

Agreed, hybrids have nearly all the stuff needed to make real fuel savings yet don’t save that much. Adding a plug is the only feasible way to make significant fuel savings and actually make a net saving when factoring in the cost of the drivetrain.

Well said….

Well said. Regular hybrids are now obsolete. Only use is for people without access to an outlet.

The key to removing dirty, inefficient fossil fuel engines from automobiles is the emergent of a “Better Battery.” It must be a lower-cost, lighter, traction battery that can at least double the range of the Nissan Leaf.

…says the company that sells the 13MPG Titan and 13MPG Armada.

They better stop mixing signals. Leave hybrids alone. They are doing more good than harm for now. Electrics are the future but we have to ease people into it. Hybrids are a good bridge to full electrics.

Good point! They also just came out with a hybrid Pathfinder this year too. Talk about mixed signals! If they really believed that, the Pathfinder should’ve (and could’ve) been a PHEV. Then they’d have beat Mitsubishi to market with a PHEV SUV. Unless GM pulls off a miracle, it looks like Mitsu will be first with a PHEV SUV.

Don’t be too hard on Nissan. They seem genuine in the EV efforts but have no legal choice but to satisfy shareholders by going where the money is. (Hint: regrettably at this point it’s not EVs.)

I don’t think I’m being too hard on them. I applaud them for going all in on the Leaf and not making compliance BEVs like Ford, GM and Toyota. I don’t expect them to be as aggressive as Tesla but I think they could be more aggressive than they are now. Right now, they are working on standalone EV models (the upcoming Infinity comes to mind) but I don’t see why they couldn’t have PHEVed up the Pathfinder rather than making a turbocharged mild hybrid Pathfinder. Ford and GM may be tepid about BEVs, but they are aggressive about PHEVs with several plug vehicles to their credit. Right now, Nissan has just the one. I hope that changes in the next couple of years, but I am skeptical that it actually will.

Two things about Nissan help explain their behavior. One is, they are still an ICE company and can’t just drop that business or make too many sudden moves with it. Second thing is, Carlos Ghosn was hired to lead it because of his fame as a cost cutter. Nissan has to focus resources and it is understandable that they don’t spend a lot of effort on making sophisticated hybrids. That money is better spent on pure EVs anyway. The cost focus has resulted in an underwhelming car, especially the original Leaf, to American eyes. But if you zoom out and look globally, you will see a lot of developing countries, such as India, China, Brazil, and so on, where low cost is king. Ghosn was born in Brazil and understands this better than any other auto CEO, which is why Renault-Nissan is so heavily invested in these markets. Written Musk style, Ghosn’s “secret plan” goes something like this: 1. Make a not too expensive EV in modest quantities, with a design suitable for mass production. 2. Improve it and make it cheaper as you scale to higher quantities. 3. Repeat #2 till everybody on the planet can buy an EV.… Read more »

He’s right, and it goes for the Volt as well. Replace the gas engine, replace the gas tank, replace the added complexity with a bigger battery and you solve the problem hybrids are proported to solve, namely range.

The next generation of EVs will start sweeping the hybrids into the trashcan of history.

Volt owners drive more EV miles than Leaf owners because they can use the full battery capacity.

We don’t know it’s because the CAN use more of the battery capacity or because their particular situation requires it of them. For example, I drive a BEV and drive maybe 6-7k miles a year. A work colleague of mine has a Volt, but drives 15k miles a year, about 60% of that on electric. So, yes, he drives more electric miles, but it’s not because I CAN’T drive more, it’s just because I don’t need to.

I like the Volt, but I don’t think it’s better or worse than a BEV, just different for different driving requirements. If you flip your original statement around, I would guess that Volt drivers use more gas than Leaf owners use in a 2nd ICE car.

The link below explains it better than I could. Regarding can or can’t, I only own 1 vehicle, so it has to be able to do all my trips. Due to range anxiety, Leaf owners are not going to put as many miles on it, compared to the AER. Also if the Leaf can’t make the full trip, it will have to sit in the garage, while the Volt is used instead. That’s what makes a Volt/Leaf combination great for 2-car households.

I thought this part was interesting too. I charge my Volt on 120V.

“About half of Chevrolet Volt drivers don’t have a home 240-Volt Level 2 charging station, but a majority of Leaf owners do.”

It is so funny to watch Nissan and Toyota trash talk each other. What’s most fascinating is that ultimately, one will prevail. Right now my money would be on plug-in’s rather than fuel cells, just based on infrastructure, but, then again, money does seem to appear for new projects. H2 refueling stations will be consuming lots of it.

How much you want to bet that the money for hydrogen infrastructure will “appear” from the fossil fuel industry?

It won’t matter to me. I will never step foot in an FCV as long as I live. If the “powers that be” kill plug-ins, I’ll just go back to gas.

Fortunately, it looks like that’s unlikely.

If H2 were produced without NG as a precursor, I would consider a fuel cell vehicle. (Assuming the infrastructure is rolled out.)

I think the current issue blocking H2 is (ironically) lack of infrastructure versus EVs.

I’m not devoutly opposed to FCVs. I’m opposed to the current approach. Right now, they appear to be for the sole purpose of propping up dying industries (fossil fuel) and industries that would have a lot to loose (auto parts industry, lots of pipes, valves etc in a FCV). If Toyota had come out and said “we’re introducing a fuel cell vehicle that can be refueled with solar powered hydrogen and has a PHEV drive train for those short trips and hydrogen for those long trips, so it’s the cleanest and most versatile vehicle in the world.” Then I’d be far and away more supportive. But that’s not what happened. Instead, they took a hybrid drive train (which you have to do with a FCV) and took the engine out and stuck a fuel cell in. And then, they went so far as to say “you’ll be using natural gas for your hydrogen for the time being.” That’s a thinly veiled “nudge nudge, wink wink” to the fossil fuel industry saying “no worries mate, we got your back!” I don’t think this will change anytime soon, if at all, which is why I say “I will never step foot in… Read more »

A third of hydrogen used for transport in California, the initial area for fuel cell cars are mandated to come from renewables, currently methane from waste water, and that and similar sources such as sewage can on their own provide enough hydrogen for around 10% of California’s light vehicle fleet.

That is a similar percentage as the amount from fossil fuels in the US grid, although of course that includes coal, which releases a lot more carbon dioxide.

Of course the meme is that electric cars will run on solar, which currently provides less than one percent of the US grid, which is not going to take over the grid anytime soon.

Advocates tend to gloss over the fact that it rarely shines at night too, and almost all of the cars said to run on solar power don’t, unless they are owned by nightworkers.

Ok, fair point. However, you do know that natural gas from a spent oil field is considered a “renewable source” right? I found this out working on distributed generation certification. I wouldn’t have thought that, but it is counted as such. Just another one of those wacky legal definitions.

I don’t know where you got the idea that 1/3 of the US grid is fossil fuel. Last time I checked, coal by itself is in the 40% range. In California, however, coal use has dropped significantly and is around 1 or 2% (left over from the few utilities who contract with outside providers). Most of California’s power is Natural Gas with a steadily increasing supply of renewables.

Speaking of Natural Gas, the “original” source of both the EVs and FCVs, if you look at the efficiencies of generating the electricity vs reforming it into hydrogen, generating the electricity is a clear winner. It’s also a winner in emissions.

Solar is a whole other ball of wax.

My comment was meant to indicate that fossil fuels are in the two thirds of the electric grid range, and other sources including nuclear at about a third, not the converse.

My apologies, I misread it then. By that reckoning then, you’re right, it is about 2/3s fossil and 1/3 non-fossil.

Sorry, allow me to answer you more directly. I’ve had that rant rattling around in my head for awhile and it felt good to get it out.

I agree with the issue of NG to produce hydrogen. NG is best served for stationary fuel cells which are a bit more fuel agnostic and can handle NG directly without any fuel processing.

I think the stumbling block for hydrogen infrastructure is the cost. It would take billions upon billions to invest in the kind of infrastructure necessary to support fuel cell vehicles in any meaningful way. This is in contrast to the tens of millions it would take to build out a supercharger network (on a side note, I think that those billions would be better spent on bullet trains).

The reason why EV infrastructure is so much less expensive should be obvious (but usually isn’t). We have electricity everywhere and the cost is usually to upgrade or expand what is already there. Throw in solar and the cost and environmental benefits of EVs become readily apparent.

All the studies which I am aware of show that it is not the case that electrification is cheaper than hydrogen infrastructure.

That would seem to include the Electrification coalition, which has put in a request for $15 billion a year for 8 years, total $120 billion.

The reason for that is simple.
You need minimum of one outlet per car before you start on away from home charging, whilst one hydrogen station can service a lot of cars.

Here is Toyota’s analysis, for instance, and whatever some may choose to imagine, they are not some bunch off innumerate fools, but can add up really, really well, and certainly have the capability of going big on batteries if they thought that was the best way forward.

They don’t, for the reasons given here:

They might be right, and they might be wrong, but they are not fools and have sound grounds for their choices.

Ok, let’s do some math. The California Energy Commission recently granted approx. $50 Million for 22 (that’s right twenty two) hydrogen fueling stations. That is roughly $2 million per station. Even if, as you say, it will serve more than one car (and I have my doubts on that point), that doesn’t jibe with what Tesla spends on its superchargers. They don’t say what the true cost is, but estimates floated have been in the neighborhood of $200,000 per supercharger. These stations serve anywhere from 6 to 10 Tesla’s at any given time.

As for Level 2 chargers, those things are even less expensive than Tesla’s superchargers. You can buy the EVSE for less than $1000 now, plus another $1500 or so for electrical upgrades. All-in-all, you could spend roughly $30,000 for 10 Level 2 chargers, which is chump change for most medium to large businesses and municipalities.

So, which is more expensive to roll out? I should point out that I didn’t include the cost of trucking or piping hydrogen from the reforming stations (assuming they’re off site, which they may or may not be).

Since the link gave referenced full on studies, then until you study them I am really not going to get into critiquing back of the envelope calculations.

As I said below, given Toyota’s track record of data manipulation, I have no interest in trying to decipher their BS.

If you don’t like my BOE calcs, that’s your problem, not mine. Those, at least, have some basis in reality even if they are rough estimates.

As for Toyota, I don’t believe anything they say anymore. I watched a presentation one of their reps gave in an ASME forum a couple months ago and was appalled at their disingenuous analysis of the efficiency of BEVs vs. FCVs. They deliberately used the best case numbers for FCVs and the worst case numbers for BEVs. It was clear to me that they were trying to sell a conclusion and were forcing the data to fit that conclusion.

Presumably you feel the same way about Honda, GM, Daimler and the DOE, and in fact everyone who has ever come to relatively favourable conclusions regarding hydrogen.

It does not seem likely on the basis of what you have decided that any further discussion will be productive, since you are not essentially arguing the case, having already made up your mind and being perfectly prepared to simply dismiss argument on the grounds of its source.

With the exception of the DOE, I haven’t seen anyone elses analysis on fuel cells. But I will say this…if someone can make a sound scientific and engineering argument on how FCVs are better than BEVs, then I would be willing to listen and maybe even change my position. Thus far, NO ONE has. Given the sources of hydrogen, AS IT EXISTS TODAY, the only conclusion I can reach on the driving force of fuel cells is politics and the efforts of the entrenched interests who have a lot to loose if BEVs succeed.

What appears to be happening is that the companies above are pushing science into the back seat in favor of politics or preservation of the status quo. If you don’t think that can, or is, happening then you do not understand the current political landscape (i.e. climate change, evolution, education, etc).

But hey, if you don’t want to believe me, then how about Morgan Stanly:
“We see the FCV push as a diversionary tactic to slow down, if not completely reset, a regulatory framework scripted to support mass adoption of EVs that don’t appear ready for prime time”.

I certainly can’t refute someone who dismisses studies on, if not ad hominem, ad corporatum grounds. You may not have noticed that the Toyota study referenced others, but it did. I don’t really feel like bothering to provide the umpteen links which I have to someone who is so dismissive of the possibility of their being of any value, or likely in reality to make any difference to what they have already decided. But for the record Toyota, like myself, have never said that fuel cells will prove the best solution. What they have said is that at present it seems more certain that they can continue to provide greater fuel efficiency, incorporate more renewables and reduce pollution with fuel cells. As they are the leader in producing the most efficient petrol cars on the market I take them seriously. They have however never dismissed batteries, continue research in them and are agnostic as to whether they will prove to be the eventual ‘winner’. It all depends on how the technologies progress relative to each other, which none of us can know, whatever we may imagine. Fuel cells and the hydrogen economy have as much prospective upside as batteries, perhaps… Read more »

Ok, can we call a truce? I’ve read a few of your other comments and have come to the conclusion that you are being a true technological agnostic. I’ll accept that you believe Toyota is being honest and, time permitting, I’ll even peruse the link you sent. I can respect that you are open to the idea of either outcome being the clear winner. I clearly am on the side of BEVs and am for sure not agnostic when it comes to vehicle technology.

As I stated in a previous comment, I would have been less concerned with Toyota if they made their FCV a PHEV, but I’ll allow for the possibility that they could have that in mind for their endgame and that they have embraced the “Minority Report” future (having not seen that movie, I need to figure out what that is exactly).

So, truce?

Cool. For the record, I am not neutral, and since I am a strong supporter of nuclear power would much prefer BEVs, or even better as the vehicles would be way lighter which is inherently more efficient through the road inductive charging. Strangely though whatever supporters of renewables may think fuel cells and hydrogen go together far better with renewables, as they can potentially overcome the massive although often ignored problem of storage to overcome intermittency. That is why the Germans are big on hydrogen and fuel cells. What I try to do personally is cultivate schizophrenia, since regrettably I don’t happen to rule the world, and evaluate technologies in their own terms, ie if we are going to have a very large percentage of renewables, which again anywhere very far from the equator I think is daft with any technologies we have at present, then hydrogen and fuel cells are absolutely essential to make it work. When I was young I used to know a great deal. It has taken me many years to know as little as I do. So to give a brief taste of how progress in technologies could change the most prevalent technology: Batteries less… Read more »

S/be ‘are similar where not identical’, not adverse.

More likely it will ‘appear’ by an act of congress, as a generous present to the fossil fuel industry

That, too, is a distinct possibility.

I hope he makes his point more, in ‘cents per mile’, too.

Meh, this is just a sales guy making noise that their products are better (or smarter, or faster, or whateverer). If you listen too closely, you will wind up signing away your firstborn…

Yes, it’s a good thing Nissan didn’t waste its time and money developing and then selling a hybrid vehicle after the Altima…wait, what?

Of course this is total BS. In case he doesn’t know, a Chevy Volt driver puts on more electric miles a year than a Nissan Leaf driver. Basically being able to use the car every day easily trumps not having an exhaust pipe and having to use the gas guzzler when you have a longer trip. If the question is which car is better for the environment (and running costs) then the Nissans lose out. (Not to say there aren’t reasons to have one).

I think Nissan would do better making a reasoned case that repeating platitudes that don’t stand up to analytic scrutiny.

Anyone who thinks gas engines are going away anytime soon will be disappointed. Not happening, unfortunately.

I think he was speaking more of conventional hybrids, not PHEVs. That read like it was more a shot across Toyota’s bow, rather than GM’s.

Personally, I’d like Nissan to make a good mass produced PHEV to compliment their Leaf. Likewise, I’d like to see GM make a good mass produced EV (maybe the supposed 200 mile Model III competitor?) to compliment the Volt. (Yes, I know about the Spark, no its not a “good mass produced EV that compliments the Volt.”).

The Toyota gas/electric hybrids like the Prius and Honda Insight were originally introduced in Japan in 1998. After nearly 15 years of sales and promotion, the results are in: In June of 2012, there was a 2.7% take rate for non-plug-in hybrids (think Prius) In 2013, it was 3.22 per cent. And once again in 2014 it pencils out to be 2.77% While Toyota has sold a boatload of hybrids, (over 6 million) most of them have been in the U.S. and Japan and a bit in Europe. But, hybrids, by and large are much less popular in other countries and the “Take Rate” is significantly lower or even non-existent in many countries. To say the least, hybrids are not wildly popular worldwide. If standard (non plug-in) hybrids offered a significant quantum leap in fuel efficiency versus purchase price, they would have already taken over. Toyota is riding a dead horse with their old tech gas-electric NiMh hybrids. They have been a marginal success at best. All gas/electric hybrids do is make the ICE on board a bit less inefficient. Same old gas pump addiction. Yes, you get a bit better mileage (but, you pay for up front when buying… Read more »

In a recent two-week trip to an Eastern European country where at least half of the cars seemed diesel I encountered quite a few hybrids, Toyota Auris and Prius, a couple of Honda CR-Zs, and even a couple of Lexus RX400h and 450h. There was even one Honda Insight with Greek license plates. With so few public charging stations I encountered only one plugin vehicle while there and it was a bit of a surprise what it was…

A signature red Model S.

At the present adoption for the old fashioned Prius style hybrid, it will take 100 years for that technology to dominate the marketplace.

Even then, you are still “addicted to oil”

Even the Public Relations artists at British Petroleum think we will be out of oil long before the end of the 21st Century.

The gas /electric hybrid will do nothing to stem that. In fact, it will aggravate our dependence on oil.

Because in the end it’s just an ICE vehicle propelled by gasoline.

No q

At the present adoption for the old fashioned Prius style hybrid, it will take 100 years for that technology to dominate the marketplace.

Even then, you are still “addicted to oil”

Even the Public Relations artists at British Petroleum think we will be out of oil long before the end of the 21st Century.

The gas /electric hybrid will do nothing to stem that. In fact, it will aggravate our dependence on oil.

Because in the end it’s just yet another ICE vehicle propelled by gasoline.

Sigh. As much as I’m in favor of EVs, I wish these marketing guys could adopt a somewhat more rational language. “It doesn’t work in the United States right now”? Of course it does. I see tons of hybrids driving around everyday. These cars make economic sense for people with average incomes today even without huge government subsidies, which cannot be said of plugin vehicles yet (let alone FCEVs). And the Prius alone has saved more than a billion gallons of gas in the US compared to the average fleet consumption.

Also, who ever said that hybrids were a “panacea”? I have never heard anybody claim that, not even Toyota. Hybrids are clearly recognized as a transitionary technology until other technologies are ready for mass market adoption. And as such, they have been doing a great job. Yes, hybrids have not been very successful in Europe, but that is mostly because the tax structure there distorts the markets in favor of diesel.

Old time hybrids like the Prius only slow down gasoline consumption.

Any hybrid gas savings (on a world wide basis) is immediately swept aside by increased demand for vehicles in the developing world.

Bottom line is that hybrids, while they may save gas for some individuals who own them, they have approximately zero effect in terms of worldwide CO2 production.

At the very, very best, gas/electric hybrids only conserve oil.

All savings and sacrifices from the industrialized West are simply and immediately swept away by demand from the developing world.

For everyone conserving oil in the West, there is someone ravenously consuming it in the developing world.

The only answer is to get away from oil entirely. Standard hybrids and plug-ins are basically a waste of time, since they are still fundamentally dependent on oil.

So you think all plug-in hybrids are fundamentally dependent on oil? I could drain the tank on my Volt and not even notice. I’m sure a BMW i3 Rex driver could say the same.

I still say anything with a plug is a step in the right direction. There are still far to many people out there that have never plugged in a car. There are so many vehicle needs across the market, many different varieties will be needed.

I see the two major markets as 20 – 50 mile PHEV (especially for the SUV/Truck application) and the 150 – 200 mile BEV with DCQC. I really think every vehicle (excluding commercial trucks) will be sold with a plug 11 years (2025) from now.

Yeesh…I’ll just stay out of this one and keep driving my Mariner hybrid until my Model III rolls off the assembly line…

Hybrid doesn’t work b/c Nissan SUCK at it…

Toyota would strongly disagree…