Recently, a report came out of the National Academies of Science that declared the costs for plug-in hybrids were "likely to remain high" while the benefits would be "modest for decades." With such a tantalizing bit of contrarianism, how could it not make the pages of the New York Times? The plug-in community responded, pointing out that there were many hydrogen vehicle proponents and oil and gas company people involved in producing the report. It was conducted by the Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies, after all. Still, the plug-in community needs to do more to refute the report, says CalCars' Felix Kramer.

Kramer calls the report "an incendiary tool that others are using to undermine support for PHEVs and EVs" and says "its science and economics need to be refuted -- and its implications need to be responded to publicly and politically." The flaws in the report aren't getting the attention they deserve, and the report should be treated as "the beginning of the conversation, not a reason to abandon PHEVs." Read his full analysis here.

[Source: CalCars, NY Times, In The Driver's Seat]
Photo by Kables. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
  • From Our Partners

    You May Like
    Links by Zergnet
    Share This Photo X