The 2017 Dodge (minivan) hybrid achieves an 'effective' 85mpg with less complicated ICE combustion hardware and cleaner fuel alternatives. 85mpg. Deal with it.

My viewpoint is also contentious. I've argued here many times that plug-in hybrid EVs reduce fuel/energy consumption and emissions MORE than both BEV and FCEV tech. But you'll all just laugh and poke fun at my argument - that the most pertinent question to answer is how to reduce the unsustainable amount of driving, flying, trucking and shipping. PHEVs offer more incentives to drive less, to walk, bike and use transit more, to promote photovoltiac solar and biofuels (including hydrogen), to complement regional utility grids, to reduce household energy consumption moreso than either BEV and FCEV tech.

Despite my misinterpretation of Lad's comment, I tried to present important benefits PHEV tech offers which fuel cell and all-battery EVs do not. Automobile companies view hydrogen as a fuel they can control and consequently create a demand only they can fill. The larger problem is that we drive too much, too far, for too many purposes. Fuel cell and all-battery EVs offer a driving range far enough to continue driving like lemmings as if there are no consequences nor more sensible economic structures based on driving less. Walking, bicycling and mass transit must serve more travel needs, but are instead hampered by hazardous traffic and development patterns based on long-distance driving, trucking, shipping and air travel and transport. If we must reduce energy consumption, we must rebuild communities to become more self-reliant, less dependent upon the dictates of faceless corporate entities.

Lad would like to believe fuel cell EV technology is ideal even though it's not. Extended range hybrid tech can utilize cleanly combustible hydrogen at a lower pressure and more safely stored. PHEV technology is the more ideal match to rooftop photovoltaic solar arrays. Smaller PHEV battery packs consequently lead to smaller, less expensive rooftop solar arrays that complement regional utility grids yet can operate off the grid, especially important in emergency grid failure. All-battery BEVs like the Tesla store as much as 17x the amount of energy as that of PHEVs, thus require more power from regional utility grids, leading to the need for more power from polluting sources. Prove hydrogen fuel cell is ideal rather than just say it is, Lad.

Platooning will never pass muster, IOW, it ain't gonna happen. Potential for horrific accident is too high. Autonomous tech won't solve rush hour traffic jams, nor move stopped traffic through the worst stoplight intersections. Reducing emissions begins with EV drivetrains, yet sales lag because of high cost and autonomous features drive cost even higher. Good grief. People are just attracted to shiny things that add little value to opulently consumptious lives. Get a bike.

Battery life extends more readily on smaller battery packs, PHEV 5kwh vs Tesla 85kwh. Consider capacity to power more than 10x the number PHEV households than BEV households. Rooftop solar arrays matched to smaller PHEV packs vs Tesla and justifiably high-power BEVs per household, etc. Complementary grid match questions. BEVs have their place. The Car2go BMW 'Smart Car' is designed for short distance and low speed, thus its smallest battery pack ALSO encourages short drives. Whereas the sport coupe Tesla is too sexy to drive without it driving itself while the woman/man thing can go on in the back seat on the skyline freeway. (^:

Enhanced hydraulic hybrids saves half the fuel says HGibson as if. Electric motor drive now applying stability control interface with electronic enabling driverless operation and pre-emtive over-the-horizon radar via the cloud... Huh? Whaa? The battery pack electrical system less prone to heating has a properly refined design?, like, whatever? Oh what the hell? Most households NEED an electrical backup power system readily achieved with household/rooftop PV to EV energy systems. PHEVs offer more benefit/advantages than BEV/FCEVs. Hydraulic drive MY ASS.

The questions regarding grid capacity must be asked and answered for whole fleet conversion to EVs to happen sooner rather than later. The central question I bring up here is which EV tech creates the most incentives to drive less? Reducing emissions, reducing traffic and its hazards and waste through energy conservation? Which EV tech offers the most incentives to walk, bicycle and use mass transit? Which EV tech promotes rooftop and small scale photovoltiac energy production? Which EV tech promotes local economies that can eventually disempower corporate control over our lives? The answer seems to be Plug-in Hybrid PHEVs, rather than BEVs and FCEVs.

Please don't bother to reply, engineer-putz. The credibility of your viewpoint is in the toilet. Maybe things aren't working out all that well for you. Maybe you have more money than you know what to do with. You really don't have to be rude here. Have a nice day.

Engineer-poet, I tried to find common ground with you, but you prefer to be argumentative. My specific and definitive support for plug-in hybrids over all-battery EVs, especially the Tesla 'S' and other vehicles than can justify a larger battery pack, remains absent in your unnecessarily rude counter-argument. Nevermind. I'm done trying to learn anything useful from you. Hang out with your nukular cult member friends living in the 1950's pretending the self-driving car is just around the corner. The morning robocar announcement, "State destination" is met with an unusual reply from its daily commuting passenger, "Take me to the nearest cliff and drive off." A short pause later, Robocar queries, "Are you sure this is what you want?" The passenger answers, "Well, drive to the nearest cliff. Stop. I'll get out. Then drive off the cliff and make it look like an accident because I want a new car and the insurance company to pay for it." After a somewhat longer pause, robocar in lurid tones answers, "I can't do that, Dave."

Look engineer-poet, you haven't demonstrated anything remotely poetic in your prose nor altered my opinion with pompously professed understanding. More effort to express common viewpoint -multi-fuel PHEV engines for example- would make discussion less contentious. I contend that PHEVs have more potential than BEVs and FCEVs to reduce fuel/energy consumption overall by incorporating elementary consideration of the need to reduce demand for long-distance travel and transport. Specifically, households with a PHEV 5kwh battery pack and matching rooftop solar array -nevermind prohibitive costs and complex charging infrastructure- offers incentives to drive less. This point is aligned with my experience working to improve living standards using less energy. Not difficult to comprehend but still missing in your curt replies. Thousands of historic, architecturally valuable homes were saved from the wrecking ball. Whole neighborhoods added or restored functional local economic structure. Energy efficient transit systems improved alongside walking and bicycling becoming more viable modes of travel. Try answering this question: How is the automobile like globalization?

If you tried to understand a argument contrary your own, we might find common ground. I usually spell the word nuclear as such and reserve the spelling nukular for bull-headed advocates such as yourself. It's a given that PV arrays can charge an EV battery pack off the grid. Thus it follows that even grid-tied systems in grid failure can if so designed supply household power for appliances/electronics. Such a "lifesaving" backup power system is enough reason to consider widespread implementation. In my earlier responses, I've argued that PHEVs offer 'dispatchable generation' off the grid using any combustable fuel including hydrogen. BEVs are more dependent upon the grid. BEVs and fuelcell EVs lull motorists into a false sense that routine long-distance driving and the current economies dependent upon long-distance travel/transport are sustainable. Corporate BS. PHEVs on the other hand offer economic incentives to drive less, whereby more energy efficient modes of travel (transit, walking, bicycling) serve travel needs as rightfully fundamental travel modes that support local economies. I could continue, but if you can't see my admittedly complex point, it's a stalemate. Your point is singularly that more power is needed by any means. BS. In the 1980's, President Carter's energy policy and Home Weatherization Tax Credit program raised insulation and appliance efficiency standards that make today's homes more comfortable, cleaner and healthier as well. Suddenly, the predicted demand for power was reduced enough to CANCEL Washington State's WPPSS project to build 4 nukular power plants. The decommissioning of Oregon's single nuclear plant Trojan was justified for the same reason - reduced demand that also produced a higher standard of living.

"Almost all PV is grid-tied, so it also goes down in a grid failure." Because PV power can be stored in PHEV and BEV battery packs off the grid, nevermind corporate utility company preference to retain total control over power supply, my argument is sound. Your argument, that nukular power is safe, is weak and disregards the many advantages of adding complementary decentralized power sources to regional utility grids.

Nuclear power, not only extremely dangerous, is just another centralized power system that leaves households stranded in grid failure. What is wrong with you people? Uh duh, uh, we don't want no stinkin power source on or near our roofs! We want super duper nukular power, man. Yeah, and we wanna drive all day everywhere too, see, in big cars, lectric ones, cuz then we get laid, groovy.

Plug-in hybrid PHEV tech offers benefits that all-battery BEV and fuelcell vehicle tech cannot when emission reduction can only be achieved by reducing VMT(vehicle miles travelled). All EVs offer households the choice whether electricity is used for driving or for keeping household electric appliances operating, especially in grid failure. The PHEV's small 5kwh battery pack and limited driving range (10-30 miles) is an incentive to drive less, whereby mass transit, walking, bicycling become more viable travel options, more trips become possible without having to drive, local economies become more self-sufficient. The relatively small PHEV battery pack is the ideal match to modest rooftop solar arrays (rather than giant PV arrays controlled by utility companies) that in grid failure will likewise strand households. The combination of PHEV + rooftop PV arrays make grid modernization possible without major grid expansion. Therefore, PHEVs matched to rooftop/neighborhood PV arrays have the most potential to reduce VMT and electricity consumption overall. We drive too much, too far, for too many purposes, fly too much, truck and ship goods around the world too much, all at too high cost and impact. We've become mer slaves to automobile-related business interests (finance, insurance, fuel/energy, parking, advertizing, etc) who have constructed and intend to maintain a transportation monopoly and a global economy that cannot be sustained.

Dr Love, ahem et al, the EV offers a backup power supply. The PHEV offers smaller battery pack that matches more evenly to the modest PV arrays regional utility grids accommodate: PHEV+PV more ideally than BEV+PV. BEV+PV draw-from more than supply-to grids, get it? Approximate 100 Tesla vs 1500 Prius households. Which? -driving least while developing short-trip economies? Better BEV heads better think again, darn it. Hydrogen fuelcell also loses to hybrid PHEV using hydrogen at lower pressure thus wider distribution and co-generation with important bio-fuel systems. You gotta be kidding me. So tired of this un-finished debate. Self-driving car tech is nonsense. Save some safety features, sure. Give UP on empty cars everywhere, NOT crashing into pedestrians and other cars while increasing traffic, without casualties? Simpler EV more widely distributable is unquestionably the PHEV+PV option. So anyway, Dr Strangelove, translation: You may miss an opportunity for a cheap 'portable' emergency lifesaving power supply for whole communities, at each other's rescue, with a portable backup power supply system! Yew jus thinkabodit now yahear? I helped restore SanDiego River/estuary 15 years ago anniversary party coming up. Almost clean enough marsh for a fishery, in this century sans chemical fertilizers. Done good there. High Speed Rail off to a good start, myopinion. VersedRail practioner design/engineer draftsman. also known as: THE SEATTLE CIRCULATOR PLAN (2002-present) "Plan B for BERTHA" Both plans still options callously rejected by know-it-alls taking conference with other know-it-alls in high-tech circles, neither thinking the other at tad incorrect while spending money on Seattle with worst new rail starts worst streetcar system. Whom influence whomever on whatever is going on here? Something like that? Just remember PHEV+PV is best. also remember, Bertha is perhaps possessed? PREDICTION: 'amplifies' destructive earthquake forces suddenly dislodging sinkholes, building collapse. Few offer the least concern this predicted analytical conclusion is incorrect. I'm scared like the Black Rabbit from Watership Down. I see the warren hole entries plugged and the asphixiation of that scene from toppled buildings I'm convinced will happen BECAUSE of the bore underneath wildly transmitting waves of vibrations along its length with probable water redistribution channelling under destructively high pressure while shaking disturbs foundations: Potential collapse in that sense is very high risk. There I said it. Yet. Haha/Hoho seattlers casually comforted have other worries.

Whatever you're smoking, Arnold, isn't helping your counter-argument. I'll admit my arguments are complex, but simplified with common terminology. Driverless vehicle technology is like putting the cart before the horse; just converting vehicles to electric drive would be more beneficial and necessary before any practical application of safety features possible with computer control. Driverless tech is a devious ruse meant to mislead motorists into believing we can continue driving like chickens with their heads cut off.

The PHEV plug-in hybrid list of benefits and advantages over the other EV (and hydraulic) drivetrains is long; fuel economy is NOT the most important benefit. The safety advantage of regenerative braking is lost with hydraulic drivetrains; electric drive itself is a safer propulsion system than standard drivetrains. The relatively small PHEV battery pack is consequently less prone to overheating and fire. Households with EVs gain a backup power system, especially important in an emergency grid failure and with PHEVs a 'portable' power source less dependent upon the grid and better suited to affordably smaller rooftop photovoltiac arrays. The limited all-electric driving range of PHEVs offers an economic incentive to drive less, whereby walking, bicycling and mass transit may serve more travel needs, thus reducing the traffic hazards of driving for all purposes. New models of PHEVs more adaptably serve as light duty utility vehicles than BEVs and FCEVs. The questions of vehicle safety, EV compatability to utility grids, PV solar and vehicle fleet needs should be integral to the discussion of conversion to electric drive.

I believe self-driving autonomous vehicles is impossible safely. I also believe plug-in hybrid EV technology has much more potential to reduce fuel/energy consumption than all-battery EVs like the Tesla. 100 million additional vehicles driving 10,000 miles (1 Trillion miles) a year will only make traffic worse and accidents more horrific. Oh but isn't science fiction so much fun? Elon Musk's hyper-loop nonsense is once again pushed onto the public by moneybags editors of the Wall Street Journal. They'll say anything to keep the public distracted from the downside of car-dependency.

The plug-in battery pack is 9.8kwh and costs $4000. The standard hybrid gets 40mpg. The plug-in 'combined' is an effective 100mpg, depending on length of daily drive; drive under 27 miles daily, recharge at night, effective gas mileage I suppose would increase much more than 100mpg. PHEV technology certainly reduces fuel consumption enough to meet goals. Why they can't be more affordable, you got me. Maybe the car companies shouldn't spend so much on self-driving autonomous tech?

Electric Vehicle battery packs offer households the means to survive emergency grid failure, Strangelove. PHEVs are less dependent on grids for recharging and offer 'portable' power with an effective mileage rated about 100mpg. Winners own EVs.

@ECarInsider, "The size of a BEV battery has 'almost' no relationship to the amount of power drawn from the grid or rooftop solar. The amount to charge an EV is related to miles driven daily. For a 20-mile commute, a BEV or PHEV leaves fully charged and returns with 6kW less; about 300W per mile, 6,000W. BEVs do not drain grids more than complement them. It's all just a matter of how much you drive." The more important question is related to whether modern motorized society can and therefore should continue driving as much as we do, and increasing, or plan to 'somehow' reduce driving overall. The limited electric driving range of smaller PHEV battery packs is an incentive to conserve energy by driving less and more closely monitor household energy consumption. As for rooftop PV solar, obviously, the smaller PHEV pack reduces the size and cost of the array and components. This basic backup household power system should complement regional utility grids and may only be possible with smaller PHEV battery packs. Households with 85kwh Teslas will always keep them recharged and use electricity with less sense of the need to conserve energy. My argument favoring PHEVs is the bigger picture obvious to me. Don't forget to watch Minority Report tonight on Fox. Self-driving cars, as seen on TV!

The perhaps biggest advantage PHEVs offer - over BEVs and FCEVs - is to complement regional utility grids and affordably match to rooftop PV solar. BEV battery packs at 3x to 17x larger capacity drain grids more than complement them. Rooftop PV arrays also larger and more expensive to arrange than the the smaller PHEV packs. I could put it in fewer words, but why this isn't considered plainly logical here is utterly baffling.

To those who think Hyperloop makes sense, I recommend the Fox network new show "Minority Report" for its take on future technology. In the 3rd episode, a maniacal motorist unplugs the autonomous control and recklessly drives into oncoming traffic just to watch cars jolt out of his way. When his dash monitor displayed a security officer declaring him a public threat, autonomous control reset, and his apprehension immiment, he felt his rights were violated.

Consider basic economic systems in 5 scales: (Local, Regional, State, National, Global). Place Local and Global economies on the extreme ends of a Bell Curve. The 'many' Local economies are too small to take advantage of mass production, thus inefficient. The 'single' Global economy loses the gains of mass production in the costs of long-distance transport, likewise inefficient. The most efficient economy - highest on the bell curve - are Regional economies (consisting of local economies within metropolitan regions) supported by State and National economies. The global economy is like the automobile. Just as dependence upon automobiles becomes an extreme impediment to all fundamental modes of urban/suburban travel - walking, mass transit, bicycling AND the optimal function of motor vehicles - so too, the global economy undermines all lesser scales of economy. A functioning hyperloop system CANNOT serve the real need nor build the scale of economy that isn't dependent upon long-distance travel and transport. The Hyperloop is sheer nonsense.