Fisker Karma drivers averaging 150 MPG*

I'm not sure if that is supposed to be sarcasm or not.

California's energy might be fairly clean if we are talking about the northern half. It's the southern half that uses a lot of fossil fuels. Oregon is a cleaner due to the use of hydro, yes. The rest of the United States is quite bad though. Google 'us electricity generation by source' for more info. My number is a little bit exaggerated. It's more like 78-79% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels ( 45% of that from coal, 24% from natural gas, the rest % from others. ) as of 2010

2WM: My delicious pacific NW electricity is MUCH cleaner than 80% fossil fuel. And, I am pretty sure your 80%+ line is garbage, too. Nuclear alone gives the US 20% of our electricity. Solar and wind together are ~5-8% and don't forget hydro, sweet, wet hydro. "The grid" doesn't work as 1 perfectly integrated network. I get NW locally made electricity, very clean. In some places EV's are less 'green' than others. You can't generalize over the whole grid. Fewer people who live where electricity is 'dirty' will buy EV's than in Cali (lotsa solar) and WA &OR too.

Sure. You're absolutely right about that. Likewise, Fisker Karma drivers are completely accurate when they say their cars are cleaner and use less energy than all but a very few vehicles. Aside from choosing a Tesla, there's no other vehicle that offers what the Fisker Karma offers.

2WM, Are you having trouble with your math today? You say that you have exaggerated with the 80% from fossil fuels, and then by your own admission coal is 45% and NG 24%, and still you get up to 79%? you might want to break out that calculator again.

No, they're not accurate at all. They're not accounting for their energy usage at all. Put 24kwh into a Leaf and it will go 75 miles. Put 20kwh into a Karma and it will go 40 miles. That's a big difference and a lot of waste. Stop playing dumb, i know you're astroturfing again. Your hydrogen astroturfing when you had money on hydrogen companies was bad enough. Let me reiterate again; You know it uses 33%-40% more electricity than other electric cars. You know our grid is >80% fossil fuel powered. You know that this car gets 20mpg on gas, so whenever the gas engine turns on, it gets the fuel economy of some of the most obese v8/v10/v12 luxury sedans ( but doesn't have the power of one.. ) You know it weighs 5,300lbs. If it's not powered by renewables, it's a pig. How many people have a 4-10kw panel + battery array on their house to fill this thing up from the sun, really? A 4 cylinder hybrid or any other plugin hybrid is cleaner than this car, and probably some other 4/6 cylinder cars are cleaner. If it did not have a battery, you would pay a gas guzzler tax at the dealership when you bought it. If it did not have a battery, you could have traded it in as a 'cash for clunkers car. If you think is cleaner and uses less energy than most cars, you have reached a state of delusion that has not been named yet... let's call it 'astroturfer's delirium' for now, though.

A pure BEV will always be more efficient than the Karma, no argument. But it's silly to compare the Karma to the Leaf for many obvious reasons. The Karma, being a PHEV, is clearly better than a pure ICE - ie all those big luxury sedans you know it competes with - simply because the Karma has the option to *not* use gasoline on the regular daily commute. Other PHEVs, like the Volt and the Honda Accord PHEV, are definitely more efficient, but they also lack many of the finer details like style and power, so they likewise compete at a different level. The Cadillac ELR gets close, very efficient, almost as luxurious and stylish. Maybe too common, but certainly in the zone. BMW, Porsche, and all the other premium brands will certainly bring their A-game, so the Karma won't be alone in its market for long. Keep hating, 2WM (and others). The Karma is something you just don't understand.

Better than truck nuts.