Why don't the automakers come out with a plug-in electric hybrid option that costs the $10,000 or $15,000 more and let the rich people who can afford those vehicles right now be the guinea pigs.

In the meantime, R&D depts can make better systems while the companies gain great publicity, generating more antipication and demand, expanding availablity, and eventually driving down cost so that plug-ins become as omnipresent as airbags and ABS.

I don't understand how this is an advantage. How is using energy burned at a coal plant somehow better than using energy burned from a gasoline engine? It seems that this is just a feel-good technology that does nothing in the big picture--unless I'm missing something drastic.

Sean, that's a good question. I know that it seems that way at first, but when you look deeper into it, there are huge benefits to plug-in hybrids and electric cars.

I recommend that you read Tesla Motors' white paper. It will answer your question in detail (they write about electric cars, but it goes for plug-in hybrids too).

Here is the link.

"GM is in the early stages of plug-in hybrid development and has not committed to any production, spokesman Dave Barthmuss said."

Did I miss the plot in the documentary 'Who killed the electric car?'

Maybe it's just my inbuilt cynicism shining through (hey, I'm English, it's genetic), but surely the only reason PG&E is doing this is that as a supplier of electricity, their bottom line (and presumably shareholders?) will directly benefit from people plugging in rather than tanking up? If they were supplying 100% clean energy they might have a leg to stand on, but from where I'm sitting, this just seems like a shameless PR stunt. That's not to dismiss the whole hybrid ideology, rather just question the motives for this campaign.

Philder, you nailed it on the head. I would hope there would be some PG&E folks who pushed for this from an environmental standpoint, with the profit motivation as a secondary factor... yeah right...

It doesn't matter if environmental concerns are not at the top of the list. They should be there, but in a fairer market that takes into account as much information as possible (including what is currently "externalized"), going green can be very lucrative.

ie. Coal is very expensive if you internalize all costs (acid rains, global warming, mercury pollution, mine cleanup, smog, etc), so it makes financial sense to go with cleaner power generation. If a company dumps coal for financial reason instead of environmental reasons, who cares?

The main goal should be to level the playing field (by removing subsidies and building a regulatory framework) and then let whatever is most cost-effective win. There's no way that pollution and inefficiency is going to be the cheapest if all costs are really counted.

Correct me if I'm wrong,

Peak electrical usage is in the daytime. At night the coal powered powerplants put out about the same energy due to the fact that they keep the boilers fired at roughly the same levels. Most charging of cars would be at night while parked at home in the garage. Makes sense to use this wasted electicity to charge up the cars.

Philder & MGR - I agree with you for the most part. I'm sure PG&E isn't doing it because of the environmental merit and I really don't care if financial is their motivation.

Migrating away from gasoline (go plug-in and eventually EVs) is the right thing to do for other reasons - if I want to get my car from point A to point B, my only choice is for oil to be pumped from the ground. Go to plug-ins and electricity becomes the universal equalizer. Power plant emissions can be regulated and monitored much more tightly than cars and there are multiple sources and techniques for getting electricity. Yes coal and natural gas, but also nuclear, hydro, solar, geothermal. It is even possible for me to put enough solar panels on a house to charge up a plug-in - I'll never personally pump enough oil or grow enough corn/wood (for ethanol) to power my car. I want that option and flexibility to be able to choose my fuel source.

Mike

Well, to be fair, there's a good chance that a lot of people at PG&E (just like in many many big corps) care deeply about the environment and want to do their best. But because of the way publicly traded corporations now work, the short-term financial aspect has to be put first if any decision is going to be sold to shareholders.

The tragedy is not so much that this is what happens. The tragedy is - as I said in my previous comment - that what makes the most money is often something that pollutes and is inefficient. Instead of considering pollution and inefficiency as negatives, as we should, we created a system that considers them positives because their costs can be paid by society as a whole (externalized).

So lets fix the system and then even the most greedy corporations will move toward clean energy and zero waste.

Mike - my concern isn't so much the motives, even though they seem blatantly obvious to me, it's more that this is even considered newsworthy. What's the story? Electricity company wants people to use electricity. And? To keep it car themed, how about we talk about the new Mazda RX8 Hydrogen RE? Genuinely interesting story from both an environmental and technological standpoint, not some cynical attempt to appear warm and cuddly whilst not having to actually do anything.

Maybe it's just the mood I'm in, but this has annoyed me. Time for a cup of tea and a calm down methinks...

Robert,

I think that you have a really good point. I live in California, and PG&E is actually paying it's larger customers to reduce their energy usage! They do not want to simply increase their business, because the've found that it is more economic to decrease demand than to increase electricity generation.

I think it's newsworthy that a giant corporation is using its influence to push plug-in hybrids, even if it's in its interest.

There's no doubt that the car-energy field is a bit confusing. I think having plug-in hybrids is great because is gives the *consumer* the choice which is the cornerstone of a free market. (Leaving the choices up to the corporations will always be biased.)

If E89 is cheap and the latest incarnation of the fuel is cleanest, we go there. If we have opted to have our home electrified by cabron neutral power, we go there. If we have a wind turnbine on our roof, even better.

Let's not always assume that electric is coal, but let's not always assume electric cars are clean.

I see this as newsworthy mostly because it's another, fairly significant, step in the "mainstreaming" of (slightly) green technology. There are people out there who still believe that greentech = whacko, and this attitude still influences the thinking of decent, slightly unaware, middle-of-the-road-type people.

We Treehuggers might be way past it, but I think this announcement, and many other like it, will do a lot to establish the credibility of green among the waverers and less-informed, let them know there are (partial) solutions out there, and genereally give them stuff to think about. how many of these 1.5M people will be learning about hybrids for the first time? This one's for the soccer moms.

I have to agree with UncleRoy on this. Any news relating to a "greener" way of life is a step in the right direction because change occurs in incremental stages - not by full acceptance and compliance in masse.

No one knows what or which story will motivate change in a particular person's attitude and lifestyle. As a result, every green news story is needed!

This action by PG&E, regardless of their motives, could spark more interest in plug-in hybrids. Just having more people aware of the technology is powerful, I believe. Hence, I post stories like this.

If plug-in technology becomes available, people may generate their own electricity to charge their cars. Or the grid itself may eventually use clean energy.

Philder, about the hydrogen Mazda, look up how much electricity it takes to make the hydrogen and ask yourself where that electricity is comeing from.

I've never been a big fan of PG&E, especially after living through the rolling blackouts of 2000(?). HOWEVER, looking at what they are saying about energy efforts compared to my new energy company, Con Edison, I have to acknowledge their efforts to reduce use and promote alternatives. A simple glance at both web sites shows a hugely different effort. I realize that spin is king, but Coned has said very little about solar, wind, etc, while PGE is all over it. Perhaps there is some earnestness to the hybrid campaign(?)