A Question Concerning The Viability Of Plug-In Hybrid Cars

[Rage for Order]

I've heard a number of people, Obama included, advocate for plug-in hybrids. I like the idea, but there seems to be a major part of the equation that nobody is addressing. Where is the additional electricity going to come from to recharge all of these vehicles? According to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there were a little more than http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html">250 million automobiles registered in the US as of 2006, of which nearly 137 million were passenger cars. Our national power grid can barely handle the power we're pulling now to cool our homes and office buildings, power our computers, etc, as evidenced by the rolling brownouts and occasional blackouts we experience in the US during the summer. What happens when 137 million cars plug into the power grid everyday? We can barely keep up with our growing need for power as it is. I can't imagine how we'd do so when you throw in plug-in hybrids. Where will the additional power come from? Nuclear, coal, natural gas, wind, solar? New power generating sources will have to be built and tied into the national grid. How much will this cost? Where will the funds come from? Also, the power grid will have to be upgraded to handle all of the additional electricity. Again, where will the funds for this come from? Certainly it won't be inexpensive to do these things. In addition, will the price of electricity skyrocket along with the huge increase in demand for electricity? To me, this is a gaping hole in the plug-in hybrid argument, and one that needs to be addressed by those who advocate for the same. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see plug-ins replace gasoline powered cars. However, I think the powers that be need to begin contemplating these very serious issues sooner rather than later.

[Indydem]

1. This is pretty simple actually...

Plug-ins will be on a timer system to take advantage of off-peak hours, charging the car between, say 12-8AM when industry is shut down and most consumers are using little to no power to run their computers and AC.

Our power grids are made to sustain industry and consumers during the day when industry is using tons of electricity to run equipment and millions of people have their houses set at 70 degrees. Brown out almost never occur at night, because there is space on the grid.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Still electricity does not appear out of thin air

There just isn’t any way around it, we are going to Nuke Power. …. That or become a 3rd world country.

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. France drives half as much as we do, and is not 3rd world... in fact so did we in 1980.

Drive half as much as we do now, that is.

And France uses lots of nuclear power.

But the amount of additional FUEL (energy has to come from somewhere,
capacity timing is not the only issue) is gigajoules -- something
like te equivalent of doubling our national electric consumption --
if we insist on continuing to drive twice as much as we did in 1980.

[doc03]

15. In the off-peak hours electric companies shut

down some of their generating units and that also gives them an opportunity to perform routine maintenance on the idle equipment. It's not like all of this electricity used on off-peak hours doesn't burn any fuel or have its costs. If 250 million cars are charging their batteries on off-peak hours the power companies will have to run all their units during that time. The power companies will have to expand their output capacity and more fuel of some kind will be required to produce that power. You can't make an omelet with out breaking some eggs.

[Radical Activist]

3. Its really not a problem.

First, most of the cars would be plugged in at night when demand on the grid is low. That also happens to be when wind power reaps the most energy so wind turbines and electric cars compliment eachother well.

I don't know where you live but I've never experienced brownouts or blackouts except for the regional northeastern blackout several years ago and that had nothing to do with supply issues.

Efficiency projects can reduce US energy consumption by 30%.

Yes, new wind and solar power sources need to be built, which will create more jobs. We are nowhere near our wind and solar capacity.

The cost will be less than the costs of dealing with more global warming disasters and long term problems. It will also be far less than the cost of the war in Iraq. Its an important investment and one that we can afford to make.

[FreakinDJ]

4. Your dreaming – its not enough power.

California alone, needs an ADDITIONAL 600 Megawatts of new electricity every year just to keep up with demand.

I’ve engineered more energy conservation projects then I care to think of anymore. I’ve built 8 power plants, the smallest being 50 megawatts.

Wind will help, solar will help, thermal dynamic cooling will help

But push has come to shove and it time to wake up and smell the coffee (average coffee pot 1400 watts) We are going to have to build new nuclear power.

Hopefully the NRC can step up to the plate for once and dictate design, rather then be dictated to

[Radical Activist]

51. It sounds like you're repeating industry talking points.

They have a financial incentive to exaggerate growth and demand projections.

If the industry tries to start building nuclear again they'll find that it costs too much to do it right and that even photovoltaic solar is cheaper. Japan requires new buildings to have roof top solar. Most of CA gets a lot of sun, correct? Solar during day time peak use hours. Wind at night. Problem solved.

[doc03]

17. I work on a electric arc steel furnace and many times we a forced

to shut down because of excess power demand on the grid.

[Leopolds Ghost]

47. We can't double US electricity generating capacity on wind and solar.

What will happen is continued lack of investment in
energy-efficient, grid-connected mass transit, and
doubling the amount of fossil fuels that are used
to burn to make electricity -- mountaintop removal
coal and strip mined tar sands and Arctic natural gas, mostly.

Wind and solar will also double or triple to a staggering 10%
of total output needed to power all those cars
and double US electrical energy consumption
(so the US will go from using up what, 25% ?? of per capita
world energy, to using up 50% or more) and all people
will do is crow about how we massively increased
solar and wind which will remain a low percentage
of total output while we also doubled US coal production.

No one will mention the coal, certainly not the next
President. Nor will anyone mention mass transit.
Mass transit and mixed-use walkable communities
is un-American.

All people will talk about is the wind: and how, thanks
to energy deregulation bill, anyone who feels bad about
using all that coal to power all those cars is free to
spend more and be "100% wind powered" despite the fact
that all voltage on the grid is shared.

I just don't see the feasibility here.

Areas where the current rather unsightly windmill design
is suitable (if we won't allow factories here in America's
cities and we won't allow mixed-use walkable neighborhoods
or any sort of elevated structures for appearances' sake)
are far from major pop. centers (except for Phoenix and
Boston near Nantucket and maybe Kansas City and Chicago,
they could put some out on the lake.) Transmission loss
and spare current capacity need to be considered. Bottom
line is, nobody's going to be doubling US electricity
consumption simply to power a fleet as big as the one we
have now (twice as big as the US fleet was 40 years ago).
If they did, they couldn't use wind to do it -- you would
need coal plants to manufacture all those windmills, for
one thing. Coal and gas would grow as fast as wind under
that scenario, which is why guys like T. Boone Pickens love
the idea of a multi-pronged approach that doubles coal
consumption while quadrupling wind consumpotion to make up
for the loss of oil, coal and natural gas still come out
massively ahead.

Besides, such an extreme transition would only happen
in an emergency atmosphere of huge and growing oil prices
or shortages, meaning we would rapidly fall back on coal
and use new wind plants -- even rapidly expanded wind
power -- as a green fig leaf. We'll even put windmills
on top of the mountains we removed.

[Radical Activist]

50. Who says we need to double capacity?

That's a straw-man argument and you'll need to site a source before I believe that. Are you assuming that every car in the US is going to suddenly be all electric overnight? Come on.

You write about electric cars v. mass transit as though its an either/or proposition. I didn't suggest that and its silly to think we only need to do one or the other. People will mention mass transit and walkable communities and they DO NOW. The same environmental groups who are pushing for electric cars will continue to push for those other alternatives as well.

You think windmills are unsightly. I disagree. They look much better than a coal power plant and make boring prairie landscapes more interesting.

Transmission from wind farms is a problem but let's great real about the fact that new coal plants aren't being built at population centers either. They're being built in poor, rural areas. If you're worried about transmission then you should be all for decentralized, roof-top solar, which you seem to have forgotten about. There are plenty of ways to meet and reduce demand.

[elocs]

5. "How Plug-in Hybrids Will Save the Grid"

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17930/?a=f

Major automakers and the Department of Energy are pouring money into research on plug-in hybrid vehicles. These cars promise to cut petroleum consumption by allowing commuters to drive to work using primarily electricity--stored on board in batteries--rather than gas. Although critics have warned that the vehicles could put too much pressure on an already strained electrical grid, experts are now arguing that rather than being a strain on the grid, plug-in hybrids may actually help prevent brownouts, cut the cost of electricity, and increase the use of renewable energy.

-----snip-----

The concern is that plug-ins are not a good way to reduce gasoline consumption, because if they become popular, and millions of car owners recharged their cars at three in the afternoon on a hot day, it would crash the grid. But plug-in hybrids could actually help stabilize the grid if owners charged their cars at times of low demand, and if the vehicles could return excess energy to the grid when it's needed--say while parked in the company lot at work during peak demand.

Since utilities have built enough power plants to provide electricity when people are operating their air conditioners at full blast, they have excess generating capacity during off-peak hours. As a result, according to an upcoming report from the Pacific Northwestern National Laboratory (PNNL), a Department of Energy lab, there is enough excess generating capacity during the night and morning to allow more than 80 percent of today's vehicles to make the average daily commute solely using this electricity. If plug-in-hybrid or all-electric-car owners charge their vehicles at these times, the power needed for about 180 million cars could be provided simply by running these plants at full capacity.

This could be a boon to utilities, because they'd be able to sell more power without the added cost of building more plants. Ideally, this will translate into lower electricity prices, says Robert Pratt, a scientist at PNNL. It might also help utilities justify the added capital costs of building cleaner coal-burning plants, because they'll be able to recover their investment faster by "selling more electricity with the same set of iron, steel, and concrete," Pratt says.

[Rage for Order]

7. Here's the key part of that article:

"If plug-in-hybrid or all-electric-car owners charge their vehicles at these times"

Lots of people work the night shift too. When will they plug in and recharge?

[FreakinDJ]

9. 180 million cars = 540 GIGAWATTS to charge

That is like 50 Nuke power plants

And if they sold back all the power out of their batteries at 3pm - how they going to get home at 4:30pm

The guy that wrote that article is not living on the same planet

[elocs]

19. As opposed to the experts here at DU,

but we seem to have experts here on every conceivable subject and an endless number of people who will chime in about how something will not work, but they have no other alternative.

On edit: The article I originally quoted was from Technology Review, published my MIT. You know what dumbasses they are at MIT. Hell, what do they know there?

[FreakinDJ]

23. Used to work for Cal Pine - does that qualify me

Would like to have an intelligent discussion on this subject (as I have here on DU in the past)

and your discipline of study is....

[elocs]

27. My discipline is not finding something wrong with everything.

Not everybody agrees on everything, but I believe that MIT probably has at least as much credibility as you do and would not publish something they thought was garbage or that they did not believe was possible.

[FreakinDJ]

34. Show me the MIT study

I'm not the enemy - and I'm all in favor of electric cars

But the numbers just don't add up - at least not out here on the West Coast.

BTW: Prior to working for Cal Pine I designed Enery Management Control Systems (conservation) for a local engineering firm. I have been crunching these numbers for a very long time.

Increased demand - even without population increases is very real. More computors, more air conditioning, more techno gadgets, more more more....

To work our way out of the current crisis (which will be our focus for at least the next 10 years or more) it is going to take many different forms of conservation, AND production of energy.

Obama is 100% correct in "We need to drive the Technology" rather then wait for it to fall from the heavens or perculate out of the ground. But we need to do this on a larger scale then just the automobile

[Rage for Order]

28. MIT may publish Technology Review...

But the information it refers to came from a "report from the Pacific Northwestern National Laboratory (PNNL), a Department of Energy lab". And we know the government is never wrong, and they NEVER underestimate the cost of a project. Hell, look at the Iraq War, or the Big Dig in Boston. Those projects came in on time and on budget, right? :sarcasm:

I'd love to see plug-in hybrids work, but I'm not naive enough to think that all that has to happen is for automakers to produce them, consumers to plug them in, and everything goes off without a hitch.

[doc03]

22. Exactly

[tkmorris]

33. You could power 446 time-traveling DeLoreans with that

And that would be awesome.

[Radical Activist]

52. On what planet will 180 millions cars go electric overnight?

You're not being realistic here. This is a total straw-man argument you're setting up.

[Rage for Order]

16. Seems like a net effect of zero on pollution reduction

Cars will emit much less pollution, but in return we will have the pollution from power plants that now have to run at full capacity 24/7 instead of powering down significantly during the overnight hours. Won't we just be trading one pollution source for another? :shrug:

[elocs]

18. You know, I bet some very, very smart minds have considered that problem.

Their ultimate difficulty is to come up with the perfect solution that will have absolutely no problems whatsoever because for every person who believes something will work there will be 10 who say it never will work because there are too many insurmountable problems.

[Rage for Order]

20. Well, at least one very, very smart mind has considered that problem

After all, I did pose the problem in the OP, did I not? ;) I'm not saying it will never work, because clearly it can. I'd just like to know how all of the excess electricity needed to do this will be generated. If that makes me a naysayer, so be it.

[elocs]

24. To tell the truth, I don't know myself, but I thought I would find something positive

to counter all of the negative posts I expected to see. The article was from Technology Review which is publish by MIT and I do believe MIT has some credibility.

[Rage for Order]

31. That's where you and I differ

You see it as people being negative, but I see it as people asking tough questions and demanding logical answers prior to rolling out a program as significant as changing the way the entire country transports goods and people every day. You sited one article, which is great, but surely there isn't yet a consensus in the country on the yet-to-be implemented plug-in hybrid technology?

[elocs]

48. There is also no consensus against it. Concerning energy there really is no consensus

for any alternatives. Be honest, it would make no difference if I had posted a dozen articles. At least I bothered to try and do a simple Google search.

[conscious evolution]

25. 'trading one pollution source for another?'

Yes we would be trading one for another.
The difference,however,is that power plant emissions can be scrubbed at the generating point while autos currently spew pollution wherever they are and are harder to regulate.

[BearSquirrel2]

29. Power Plants run more efficiently ...

A power plant burns fuel much more efficiently than the motor on your car. It also has a static emission source so it's easier to mitigate the output by scrubbing out carbon and mercury.

[doc03]

41. All fossil fuel and nuclear plants generate electricity

by producing steam then the steam is used to turn a turbine and generator unit. The process is really not that efficient from what I recall from studying for my steam engineers licence. Then there is more loss transporting the electricity to the end user. I would bet that a car actually uses fuel more efficiently.

[Radical Activist]

53. No, because electric cars are still more efficient energy users.

Less pollution will result from an electric car, even when powered by a coal plant, than a conventional gasoline car.

[doc03]

21. Wasn't there a big problem with electricity a few years ago

in California when a couple generating units were taken down for maintenance in the summer? If you have all the power plants working 24 hours a day to supply power demand they will have to add generating capacity. The power companies use those times of low demand for routine maintenance. Another thing that is just ridiculous is they could use the power stored in the car batteries during the day to supplement high demand periods. One question, what happens when you leave your job and get in your electric car and the power company has drained your battery?

[amerikat]

6. I can address a couple of items.

The grid needs to be upgraded anyway(an investment that will create jobs). Most of the charging of plug in hybrid would be done at night, when demand for electricity is lowest. The grid and power system are designed to meet peak loads. This is typically during the day time to meet the demand of business's and air conditioning so there is excess power at night.

You are correct in noting the hypocrisy of charging an electric car with energy from dirty sources. Personally I switched my energy supply to 50% small hydro and 50% wind. By switching the source of my power I hope to make the utility build more wind farms and build more small hydro plants.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

[conscious evolution]

8. Actually there is excess capacity

on the grid right now.
Remember all those factories that shutdown and moved overseas?They are not on the grid anymore.
Then there is the fact that almost all home appliances these days are much more efficient then they were twenty years ago.Even lightbulbs are more efficient.Especially the CFL and LED versions everyone is switching too.
Because of the improvements in efficientcies we use about 30% less electricity then we did in the 1970's.
Also,chargers do not use as much power as one would think.Most chargers draw less than 2Kw,which is a little more than a hair dryer uses.
And don't forget solar.A small solar array would provide plenty of charging power for an electric car.

[FreakinDJ]

11. Electrical Demand has been increasing in America every year

No one is going to spend 500 million building new power plants if they thought they could not sell the power.

We have 4 major projects being built right now in California / Nevada alone.

[Rage for Order]

13. The Census Bureau estimates the US population will grow by 10% by 2050

That seems like a pretty conservative estimate to me. They project an additional http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/usinterimproj/natprojtab02b.pdf">28 million people by 2050. How much new power will be required to provide just for these new people? It seems to me that the increase in population will offset any usage reductions we will realize from increased conservation and efficiency. What are your thoughts on this?

[BearSquirrel2]

30. Parking lots - solar fields ...

Parking lots are a waste the way they are now. Imagine canopies like the ones on gas stations covering the bulk of a parking area. Atop are large solar panel arrays that will both keep your car cool/safe and at the same time generate power for the grid.

[Rage for Order]

32. That's one idea

But who pays for it? Also, it wouldn't be feasible in all areas of the country, especially the Pacific Northwest. In addition, people will still have to recharge when they get home. That said, solar panels on a canopy covering parking lots would help to a degree.

[FreakinDJ]

36. Don't forget all those Flat Topped Commercial buildings

They can pressed into service of producing energy or reducing the need for energy too

[EC]

39. Don't remember where I heard it, something I was watching

on TV, but there is a guy (I think in Dubai)that has an idea like this, but it will have set ups to rent the spots to charge the car. He wants to put them all over like gas stations, in business, industrial and residential areas. He figured there would also be enough power to sell back to the grid.

[doc03]

35. Give me a break you are not charging a single 12volt

battery like in the conventional car. That battery is only used to start an engine. A battery to power a car is going to be much bigger and you are not going to charge it with a 10 amp charger like a conventional car battery. I really find it extremely hard to believe we use less electric than in the 1970s. We all have 4 times more electrical gadgets than we had in the 70s. Another thing is everyone going to get off work and just go home and sit there so their car can recharge all evening.

[csziggy]

38. Why not put the solar cells on the cars?

When my budget allows, I'm planning to put an array on the roof of my electric golf cart that I use around (the farm instead of an ATV or tractor). This company has them - I am sure there are or will be more companies offering them: http://www.cruisecarinc.com/product-solar-roof-kit.htm

Here is a company that is making solar roofs for hybrid vehicles: http://www.solarelectricalvehicles.com/

Realistically, Solar cells are not yet really efficient to fully charge an electric vehicle - but every economy can help. And perhaps someday solar will be good enough to power cars fully.

Frank says that, even if onboard solar is a marketing gimmick, it could advance the electrification of transportation by advertising the possibility of replacing gasoline with renewable energy. "Whether it's perception or real doesn't matter," he says, "because it creates public awareness."
Does Car-Mounted Solar Make Sense? http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21073/page1/

[conscious evolution]

43. That load rating is for industrial chargers.

The type used to charge forklifts and other equipment.
The ones you are thinking of draw much less than that.

Beleive it or not we do use less than back then.True,we have more stuff but most of it consumes a lot less power than you think.
Plus,the stuff we had back then used more power than todays versions.
Then there are factors such as buildings having better insulation,windows and doors built with minimizing heat transfer in mind,widespread use of motion and light sensors to control lighting and more awareness on the consumers part.When you add in the factors mentioned upthread they all added up to decreased demand.

I don't think it will require all night to charge cars either.With the increases in range that are coming out in newr battery technology I seriously doubt that most cars would need a full charge every evening.If I had a vehicle that got 200 miles off of a charge I would only need to recharge once every two or three days.I think it would be the same for a lot of people.

[doc03]

37. You would need solar panels covering your the entire roof of

your house to generate enough electriity to charge your electric car and the sun isn't out at night when your off work. If you employer put solar panels in to charge say a hundred cars they would cover acres. What do you do in my area where we rarely have a sunny day from November to April?

[conscious evolution]

45. Wind turbines would probably work.

If not you are just shit outa luck in that regard.
Chargers use less power than you think.That and the fact that most people will not need a full charge every time make it worth trying.

[Strelnikov_]

10. Electrical grid could handle millions of plug-in hybrids

http://news.cnet.com/Electrical-grid-could-handle-millions-of-plug-in-hybrids/2100-11389_3-6142640.html

A new study, conducted by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and sponsored by the federal agency, predicts that off-peak electricity production is adequate for keeping 185 million plug-in hybrids on the road. The study stated that there are 220 million vehicles in the U.S. and, if all were converted to plug-in hybrids, the current electrical grid could keep 84 percent of them charged.


http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 70% percent of the U.S. light-duty vehicle (LDV) fleet, if they were plug-in hybrid electrics. (Note: an earlier version of this release referenced 84% capacity based on LDV fleet classification that excluded vans).

. . .

Researchers found, in the Midwest and East, there is sufficient off-peak generation, transmission and distribution capacity to provide for all of today's vehicles if they ran on batteries. However, in the West, and specifically the Pacific Northwest, there is limited extra electricity because of the large amount of hydroelectric generation that is already heavily utilized. Since more rain and snow can't be ordered, it's difficult to increase electricity production from the hydroelectric plants.

"We were very conservative in looking at the idle capacity of power generation assets," said PNNL scientist Michael Kintner-Meyer. "The estimates didn't include hydro, renewables or nuclear plants. It also didn't include plants designed to meet peak demand because they don't operate continuously. We still found that across the country 84 percent of the additional electricity demand created by PHEVs could be met by idle generation capacity."

[RedEarth]

12. Energy efficiency ,,,,, and plug-in hybrids

By Joseph Romm


Energy efficiency is the most important climate solution for several reasons:

It is by far the biggest resource.
It is by far the cheapest, far cheaper than the current cost of unsustainable energy, so cheap that it helps pay for the other solutions.
It is by far the fastest to deploy.
It is “renewable” — the efficiency potential never runs out.
This post focuses on #1 — the tremendous size of the resource. Part 2 explains why it is The limitless resource, Part 3 explains why efficiency is The only cheap power left, and Part 4 explains How California does it so consistently and cost-effectively.

.....

In the past three decades, electricity per capita has stayed flat in Californian while it has risen 60% in the rest of the country. If all Americans had the same per capita electricity demand as Californians, we would cut electricity consumption 40%. And if all of America adopted the same energy efficiency policies that California is now putting in place, the country would never have to build another power plant.

Energy efficiency is THE core climate solution.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/23/energy-efficiency-is-the-core-climate-solution-part-1-the-biggest-low-carbon-resource-by-far/

http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/27/energy-efficiency-part-3-the-only-cheap-power-left/

and

The car of the future is here

By Joseph Romm

Jan. 22, 2008 | When is someone going to offer a practical and affordable family car that runs on something other than oil and that sharply reduces both greenhouse gas emissions and your fuel bill? A few weeks ago, I test-drove this mythical car of the future, a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle whose mass production might be only a few years away.

The Extreme Hybrid from AFS Trinity was rolled out last week at the Detroit auto show. It can run 40 miles on electricity before reverting to running efficiently on gasoline like a normal hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius. Because the majority of people drive less than 40 miles a day, that car can replace most weekly gasoline use, even if it is charged only once a day. The fuel cost per mile, while running on electricity, is under one-third the current cost of gasoline. A full overnight charge might cost a dollar. The car accelerates like a cheetah, though quietly.

more.......

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/22/plug_in_hybrids/

[ColbertWatcher]

14. Good question, should be a good conversation, k+r. n/t

[BearSquirrel2]

26. I think the end of oil is a fallacy ...

I don't think oil independence is feasible. The fact is that reducing demand for oil will decrease demand and hence decrease the price which actually stimulates demand.

The energy economy of the future is a very diverse one that ads Wind, Solar and tidal power to the equation. It also exploits biomass as part of the equation (plants are after all just really efficient solar collectors). It involves the continued use of fossil fuels along with carbon and mercury scrubbers to keep the nasties out of the atmosphere. It involves the use of existing nuclear power plants. And of course, it involves conservation.

The energy of the future WILL be more expensive. But it will create it's own economy.

So what about plug-in hybrids? They solve the problem of excess grid output. Unlike Repubs, I don't think Barack Obama is advocating "the one" car on the road. Instead, we're looking at diversified solutions involving plug in hybrids as well as traditional hybrids and different fuel types including ethanol, natural gas and hydrogen cells.

Yes, we will need a LOT of turbines and a LOT of solar cells. I see the deserts of America littered with solar cells. I see portions of the ocean dressed up with solar collecting platforms. I see wind turbines on the high planes and on the great lakes.

We are collectively wasting most of the bounty from the sun. All we need do is collect it and save a little energy.

[Greyhound]

40. It would be a problem if tens of millions of people all bought these vehicles

this year, but that is not going to happen. Firstly, there are not enough of them being manufactured, and secondly, there are not that many people that can afford them.

The problem with our "national power grid" is that we don't have one, it was chopped up and sold off in the 80s to the usual suspects who have done nothing to expand and maintain them since (remember the NE blackout a couple years ago?) but in their typical MO have just done barely enough to suck as much money out of the suckers as they could get away with. A good example of this is California, 90% of the municipalities sold off their production and grids to these looters, who turned around and blackmailed them a few years later, except for the city of LA that said, "thanks, but no thanks". During the summer of extortion, while the rest of the state suffered through the rolling blackouts and chaos, LA had power, no blackouts, and no astronomical rate increases. Dennis Kucinich sacrificed his first political career to stop the sale of Muni Light & Power and subsequently saved Cleveland millions.

These people are parasites and we must rid ourselves of them.

[Rage for Order]

42. Certainly it wouldn't happen overnight

But in 10-15 years time we could be looking at a national fleet of entirely plug-in electric hybrid vehicles, so the questions still remain. At some point we will have to ramp up electricity production in order to recharge a couple hundred million electric cars.

[Greyhound]

49. Definitely, and maybe this will be the catalyst that will wake us up to what's been stolen from

us by the parasites that we continue to tolerate. Your time frame is way too short, hundreds of millions of durable goods, like cars, takes a long time to produce and sell, but the overall point is correct, we have to make a fundamental correction to our whole infrastructure.

[MellowDem]

44. The honest answer

We will need to build a lot more power plants. Sure, we should make them as efficient as possible, we could throw in some nuclear, and we could supplement them with wind and solar, but in the end, we will need a whole lot more coal plants.

Still, it would be a more efficient and cleaner system than we have now, it would be a boon for the electric companies as well. I fully believe they would be willing and able to build more plants as people began switching to hybrids.

In the long run, hopefully with advances in technology, we can begin switching out the coal burning plants for more efficient renewable sources.

However, I don't think it's a very serious issue. We have the coal to burn for a very long time, and we won't be switching to hybrids all at once.