The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
From the OP:

“In fact, a true ICE ”range extender” for a BEV is not a bad Idea, It's just that current designs are all abysmal failures, from the point of energy efficiency and driver utility. Putting an ICE drivetrain in an EV, whether in series, parallel, or any other hybrid configuration, is not advisable, IMO. Invariably, you will get an overweight, overpriced, underperforming vehicle, like the Volt. It seems almost as ridiculous, to install an extremely expensive and heavy large battery pack (like the Tesla S long-range options) which is only occasionally required by the BEV driver.”

Well the concept of a trailer mounted range extender, posted, either a 30 kWh or larger hydrocarbon–fueled generator, or a large battery pack, more or less converts a BEV into either of the undesirable options above, a very large battery pack BEV, or a series hybrid ICEV. And I think you probably will require a trailer–mounted unit, if you either want a 30 kWh (series hybrid sized generator) or a larger-than 20 kWh add-on battery

The good news, or course, is that it’s only temporary, and you could theoretically set up rental networks, so that the (very?) high costs could be spread out over many users, and the efficiency penalties would only occur during the time of usage, Allowing cost and energy efficient BEV use at all other times.

But I believe these are among the least likely directions vehicle evolution will take. It is currently fairly cheap and simple just to rent a specialty vehicle for a particular task. Will range-extender trailer rentals ever prove superior to just renting the vehicle you require?

Maybe I should have premised the OP with the comments I have made many times on other threads. I believe BEVs are currently superior for the majority of consumers for the majority of their needs, and will soon largely replace ICEVs (including hybrids) and that BEVs’ market dominance will be constrained mainly by how rapidly the BEV charging infrastructure is established.

But the final stage in the evolution from ICEV to hybrid to BEV, the range-extended EV, in which the ICE is reduced to it’s vestigial state, as a small, cheap generator, intended only to do it’s dirty and inefficient work when absolutely necessary, to reduce the time and frequency of BEV recharge sessions on occasional longer trips, is now the missing link in the vehicle market, in this evolutionary path. And even after the ICE is no longer required at all, when the BEV charging network is established, and cheaper longer range batteries are available, I might have no problem at all ,still filling the combustion heater tank in my BEV up (with a relatively low polluting fossil fuel) every winter, to get heat much more efficiently than through the grid-to-battery-to resistance alternative.

I don’t get it. My LEAF is a great car, but if I lived 35 miles from town rather than 25, or if winter temperatures regularly fell into the teens, rather than the thirties (in Shasta County where I live, where there is currently virtually no charging infrastructure, and little prospect for rapid future development) I wouldn’t have bought it.

And if any manufacturer had brought a LEAF class twenty-something available kWh battery pack BEV to market, with a 4 kWh to 8 kWh range extender, with only a few hundred pound, and few thousand dollar cost, penalty (both realistic, IMO) I, like many LEAF buyers, probably would have chosen it, over my LEAF.

And I also think almost every Volt buyer, would have done so...

As well as many other car buyers, who chose ICEVs and hybrids.
 
For these micro turbines, what dies their claimed efficiency mean? What is comparable efficiency of other engines/generators (for comparison).
 
essaunders said:
For these micro turbines, what dies their claimed efficiency mean? What is comparable efficiency of other engines/generators (for comparison).

As posted earlier:

http://www.microturbine.com/_docs/CAP1100_Drive%20Solution_Range%20Extender_LR.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Somewhat better than most ICE, but about half as efficient as grid combined cycle natural gas, I believe.
 
JRP3 said:
N952JL said:
I love the BEV, but the leaf needs to have 4x the range at the same price to become main stream.
Nah, double the range at $10K lower price would do it in my opinion, especially as fuel prices rise and people care more about getting to and from work and the store than the rarely taken road trip.

I disagree. Of course I am going by the 73 mile range for interstate @ 70mph just at one hrs. Double the range would just give me a 2 hr range before 30 min QC recharge to 80% for an addition hr and halve. That gives you about a 250 mile range in 4 hrs total time. That would just get me to Atlanta and back. Most of America is country, not city. There is more of America like Warner Robins than San Diego. If you want to go somewhere it takes time and distance. An honest interstate range of 300 miles would turn this car into the only car I would need. Less than 200 I need to rent or buy an ICE. An air travel isn't the answer as it a 180 mile round trip to the Airport area with no public or private charging anywhere near.
 
Since most households have more than one vehicle most households are not really limited by an EV, especially if that EV has at least a 150 mile range. You're making the mistake of projecting your own situation onto the general public EV's don't need to have 300 mile range to go mainstream, they need to have enough range at a low enough price. Requiring enough range for a trip that might be taken once a year for most people is just not necessary, especially when there are other viable options, i.e, the second car or rental.
 
JRP3 said:
Since most households have more than one vehicle most households are not really limited by an EV, especially if that EV has at least a 150 mile range. You're making the mistake of projecting your own situation onto the general public EV's don't need to have 300 mile range to go mainstream, they need to have enough range at a low enough price. Requiring enough range for a trip that might be taken once a year for most people is just not necessary, especially when there are other viable options, i.e, the second car or rental.

I agree, I also have another ICE vehicle for the longer trips. But I thought the aim was to eliminate gas. I can't prove this, but for some reason I feel about 1.00 per gal of gas goes to fund the bad guys. And I really do not what any of my money going there. I would love to eliminate ICEs in total. We can't do that if we still need the ICE for the longer trips required by everyone who doesn't live in a city.

For example, you live in Savanna GA. You are forced to evacuate because of a storm. (Fl knows all about that). Where do you go? You go to Macon, 160 miles away.
 
About 20% of our oil comes from the "bad guys", so theoretically driving an EV about 85% of the time covers this. If we do most of our driving on electricity then home grown biofuels, become a real possibility to fill in for the rest when necessary. More to the original point though, EV's become mainstream long before your originally stated parameters are met, in my opinion.
 
Ingineer said:
Here's a cut-away drawing:

pic
Phil,
I just saw a cargo carrier at harbor freights that can hold 500lbs (it's $69.99 with a coupon). I wonder if you could use this to hold your generator setup and avoid having to have a dedicated trailer built; since it's aluminum, it should be lighter too. http://www.harborfreight.com/500-lb-capacity-aluminum-cargo-carrier-92655.html?utm_medium=cse&utm_source=googlebase&hft_adv=40010&mr:trackingCode=75730F9E-782A-E011-B31E-001B2163195C&mr:referralID=NA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Do you think it would work?
 
I see lots of people tossing out long trips as an issue, some dismissing it as infrequent. Individual's of course vary but long trips are a real issue for the average American.

If you want to focus on reducing oil, or are mixing the desire for a new car with reducing costs and oil dependency then the BEV +ICE compared to an Range Extended EV REEV) +ICE take looking at real data. Your personal data is best and it is clearly very family dependent. But if one wants to talk main stream or average, that has been discussed on another thread (http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6762&start=210" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
where there is some data to address "average" American, look at http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlig" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... on_03.html
The data is a mess but there are some useful tidbits you can get

The average American in that data takes 24 "long trips" trips per year, with a median distance of 194 miles. (Long trips are defined as the final destination > 50miles from home, so minimum 100m round trip).
So its not 1-2 times per year that the need 200 miles or more.. it is on average 12 times in the 200-2000 range and 12 times in the 100-200 range, with a total travel for long distance trips of about 7500 miles.

Which is better BEV+ICE vs REEV in terms of reducing gas usage depends on the the average of BEV+ICE verses a REEV. Since I don't know of the efficiency of any 3rd party range extender I cannot estimate it. But I will comment that some have posted here that a range-extender build into car is not efficient, without any data to support that view. If its a choice between buying a BEV to augment an existing average ICE, or buying an integrated EREV like the Volt (which gets 37mile per charge and 40mpg/hwy), then for the average data (commute <35 miles & ~24 long trips per year) BEV +32MPG ICE uses more gas than an EREV. Sure a family can do better; a BEV + Prius is better; A BEV + TDi is better. But if the choice is Buy a BEV and keep an average ICE, versus but a integrated EREV, the EREV may save more gas overall. YMMV and anyone considering the issue should model their projected usage.

What about the economics of an add on RE?
With a 25mpg ICE the 12 trips > 194 miles need about ~100 gallons of gas, which is < $400/year and it will be hard to justify an expensive range-extender. (Total long distance travel 7500 is about 300 gallons or < $1200 a year).
60% of families have second car, so the car is not and added cost, just gas. A rental ICE would obviously add more.
With respect to the total cost of covering one can argue if renting an ICE or a Range Extender makes more sense.
Renting a range extender might make sense if its efficient enough and the price < price of gas for the ICE. With a limited market for while that may be difficult to make cost effective.




If you are focused on minimizing cost this is totally moot as no new BEV or Range Extended EV (REEV) is the right choice. The right choice is used Prius or other high MPG car (because of the vehicle cost and rapid depreciation no new vehicle is a good financial investment), at least until used BEV or REEV are on the market and a decent price.
 
I guess I don't know any average Americans since I don't know anyone who takes that many long trips in a year. Actually I do know one person who never seems to stop taking trips since she doesn't have to work and doesn't have any real hobbies, maybe she tips the averages.
 
edatoakrun said:
In fact, a true ICE ”range extender” for a BEV is not a bad Idea, It's just that current designs are all abysmal failures, from the point of energy efficiency and driver utility. Putting an ICE drivetrain in an EV, whether in series, parallel, or any other hybrid configuration, is not advisable, IMO. Invariably, you will get an overweight, overpriced, underperforming vehicle, like the Volt.

You need to reconsider your ideas about the Volt, per the EPA it gets 35 mpg in the city and 40 in the hwy in the hybrid mode.. that is pretty darn good for a range extender that will seldom be used. Its not a slow car and the cost is very comparable to a Leaf, PIP, Coda and Focus EV.
 
JRP3 said:
I guess I don't know any average Americans since I don't know anyone who takes that many long trips in a year. Actually I do know one person who never seems to stop taking trips since she doesn't have to work and doesn't have any real hobbies, maybe she tips the averages.

For that study, a long is not really that long (> 100m R/T) and I did not list the reasons, but many of of those trips are for work, not pleasure. For me every trip to the airport is a long trip (>120 miles, and >150 if I take co-workers), and I have meetings in denver/boulder (100-220m depending on with whom I meet) and any weekend in the mountains is ~250 R/T. Out west things are far appart, I've been to wedding where the reception was 90m away. There are people in that number that are the super-commuters (>100m a day), and I'm sure there are sales guys that are on the other side of average as well.

America is a melting pots. I have friends in manhattan that don't even drive or have a license!
 
Herm said:
edatoakrun said:
In fact, a true ICE ”range extender” for a BEV is not a bad Idea, It's just that current designs are all abysmal failures, from the point of energy efficiency and driver utility. Putting an ICE drivetrain in an EV, whether in series, parallel, or any other hybrid configuration, is not advisable, IMO. Invariably, you will get an overweight, overpriced, underperforming vehicle, like the Volt.

You need to reconsider your ideas about the Volt, per the EPA it gets 35 mpg in the city and 40 in the hwy in the hybrid mode.. that is pretty darn good for a range extender that will seldom be used. Its not a slow car and the cost is very comparable to a Leaf, PIP, Coda and Focus EV.

I agree that it's not a bad hybrid, but the Volt's EV performance is just not comparable to any of the BEVs you mention, with about half the electric range, higher initial cost, worse energy efficiency, and almost certainly, far higher long term operating costs.

Why buy a car that operates so poorly, in the mode in which it is intended to be used the most?

I have actualy made some favorable comments about the Volt, admittedly, not on this forum recently. If you belong to that small percentage of drivers, those with:

1) Access to only one vehicle.

2) Who have a longer than 12 mile commute (PIP) but one shorter than the Volt’s EV range of 35-50 miles.

3) And also regularly make drives longer than can be conveniently done in a BEV with recharges.

I’d say the Volt might be a reasonable choice. I never seriously considered it, because I belong to none of those three subsets of drivers.

I just think GM is counting on a convincing a lot of buyers, who do not meet these limiting criteria, buying Volts, based on irrational perceptions of what they need in a vehicle.

GM may be right. Somehow, a huge proportion of US car buyers apparently have become convinced they require a two-to- three ton vehicle to pick up groceries.

And maybe, many “EV” buyers will also be convinced that, only dragging along a 1.3 liter premium-gasoline-fueled “range extender”, will prevent their suffering from “range anxiety”.
 
edatoakrun said:
I agree that it's not a bad hybrid, but the Volt's EV performance is just not comparable to any of the BEVs you mention, with about half the electric range, higher initial cost, worse energy efficiency, and almost certainly, far higher long term operating costs.

Why buy a car that operates so poorly, in the mode in which it is intended to be used the most?

The Volt may have half the EV range, cost a few thousand more, but the actual driving performance is excellent.
If you have not driven one, you should before you publicly say its operates poorly. I consider its operational performance superior to a Leaf, though both are good and way better than a Prius III or a gas-based Ford Focus. (I've rented the latter two).

Your three criterion for potential Volt users (assuming its OR) covers a lot of good potential users. 34% of US households have only 1 car. Statistically Americans average approximately 7500 miles or so of "long distance" (>100 miles) trips in their cars per year (mixing both fun and work) and more than 50% of families have a daily usage/commute farther than a PiP's EV range.

Some people tend to dismiss the Volt, but ignore their longer-trips (airport runs, weekend getaways, vacations, trips for work, etc). As I posted earlier, the "average case" for long trips really does make a good case for a range-extended EV, for me its both financially and ecologically way better than a BEV + ICE. I looked at Leaf, and even looked at range extenders for it, and considered the Tesla (but would need the 230m range at a minimum which was way more $$). The integrated range-extender has some advantages, with a gain of 10-15% in usage in mode 3, which an external range extender could never do. If one's total milage in long-trips is more than 25% of total miles (which is common) the CS mode efficiency gain is more than making up for the lower EV efficiency caused by lugging it around. For a BEV+ICE, if the ICE is lower MPG (e.g. my wife's AWD Subaru), even if one looses on pure EV efficiency compared to a BEV, the family makes up for that by savings on long trips (and even makes up for lots of medium trips (40-100 miles). Its not a "Pure EV", but overall its more energy efficient for many families and more cost effective than a new BEV + existing ICE.
 
edatoakrun said:
I agree that it's not a bad hybrid, but the Volt's EV performance is just not comparable to any of the BEVs you mention, with about half the electric range, higher initial cost, worse energy efficiency, and almost certainly, far higher long term operating costs.

Why buy a car that operates so poorly, in the mode in which it is intended to be used the most?

Because if you are driving daily within the Volt range, it doesn't feel like it's operating "poorly". You don't feel at all the effects of the "defects" listed above. The range of course has no effect. The worse energy efficiency, of EPA 94 mpge vs. 99 mpge, if you are driving 8k electric miles a year, amounts to only about 145 kw-hr or $17 a year. (I'm getting about 110 mpge in actual use). The initial cost is about the same as a Focus/Coda, $3k over the Leaf SL w/ quick charger port, and $3k over the PiP after tax credits. $3k doesn't feel like so much given the overall price of these cars if you fit some of the criteria you listed; while you happen to fit none, I happen to fit all 3. As for the "access to one vehicle" thing, a lot depends on what that other vehicle is, & if it's being used regularly. Not everyone already has a 45-50+ MPG Prius or other high-efficiency car to use as their 2nd vehicle. Otherwise the Volt is an upgrade & helping on long trips also. A lot of former Prius owners have a feeling like 40 mpg highway is "epic fail", end of the world, even though it's only for 10-30% of the driving, but for people like me upgrading from std compacts like an older Civic (33 MPG), the Volt is a substantial improvement for the gas trips too, especially when a non-insignificant amount EV driving can also be utilized along those long trips. A Prius/Volt owner posted in the Volt forums that he was pleasantly surprised to get 42 mpg on a 600 mile trip (no EV miles counted w/ that) loaded up with cargo changing his residence; he was only expecting 30s.

With ultra-short daily driving, maybe the PiP looks OK, but having to keep below 62 and having to accelerate slowly at lights to keep the engine from starting can be a turn-off to people, plus a lot of people aren't enamored of the Prius's aesthetics or handling, enough they might want to spend a few K more for a Volt and 3x more EV range w/o the limitations.

Long term operating costs -- I really doubt it's all that much higher. You have to change the oil/oil filter once every 2 years. After 10 years the range extender may only have about 20k-30k miles worth of operation on it. Engines on conventional cars last far longer without needing major maintenance.

Based on irrational perceptions of what they need in a vehicle.
People buy mostly based on wants, not needs. Even though one *could* potentially make long trips in a Leaf, going from charging station to station, if the infrastructure improves and enough fast chargers get put in the right spots, hoping that the station doesn't go out of order and that you don't get stuck behind other EV driver(s); so that one doesn't *need* an ICE vehicle, many people may not *want* to make their long drives that way. LEAFfan is perfectly willing to do this, and the fast chargers would make the long trip objections moot for HIM, but they wouldn't make them moot for many other people.
 
DrInnovation said:
edatoakrun said:
I agree that it's not a bad hybrid, but the Volt's EV performance is just not comparable to any of the BEVs you mention, with about half the electric range, higher initial cost, worse energy efficiency, and almost certainly, far higher long term operating costs.

Why buy a car that operates so poorly, in the mode in which it is intended to be used the most?

"DrInnovation"...As I posted earlier, the "average case" for long trips really does make a good case for a range-extended EV, for me its both financially and ecologically way better than a BEV + ICE...
I thought, in my OP, I made a pretty good case for the same point?

But nothing you have said supports the case that the Volt is an effective means to meet these REEV objectives.

To restate my main points, IMO, the Volt's principle inadequacies are as a result of GM’s decision to use an existing ICEV traction engine, that is fundamentally unsuited for the role of an ICE generator, as an EV range extender, since:

It is far too large to be used efficiently for the task required.

It runs on an unstable and highly polluting fuel, gasoline.

Which also prevents (edit-replace prevents with reduces the practicality of) the hydrocarbon fuel from being used for the one purpose for which these fuels are ideally suited, to heat the passenger cabin (and battery pack, if so required) using a combustion heater.

This results in the Volt’s inferior efficiency to other hybrids, when operating in ICEV mode, and also notably inferior in efficiency to any BEV, when operating in EV mode.

The only thing recommending the Volt, that I can see, is the fact that it currently is the only vehicle on the market that can operate in both modes.

When the PIP and other “small battery” plug-in hybrids are introduced, I think their superior hybrid performance will attract a lot of buyers.

And as I wrote in my OP, I hope that many manufactures will also soon introduce REEV designs, that have far superior efficiency and range, in BEV mode.
 
Plus, the lower price of "small battery" PHEVs will likely drive more people to buy them over the more expensive and compromised Volt...

edatoakrun said:
The only thing recommending the Volt, that I can see, is the fact that it currently is the only vehicle on the market that can operate in both modes.

When the PIP and other “small battery” plug-in hybrids are introduced, I think their superior hybrid performance will attract a lot of buyers.

And as I wrote in my OP, I hope that many manufactures will also soon introduce REEV designs, that have far superior efficiency and range, in BEV mode.
 
Ingineer said:
eHelmholtz said:
Ingineer said:
Right now my design will only be 30kW capable, not the full 50kW the Leaf is able to accept. Still, that should give a 80% charge in under 30 mins, and a full charge in under an hour.
Cool! Does the design also allow charging while driving?
Yes, while connected to the Trailer, there is an "umbilical" cable that connects to the Leaf's battery that allows charging and/or motor operation while underway. Once parked, the CHAdeMO cable can be used to charge other cars.

Hopefully, I will be able to bring this unit to the December 3rd meeting at Google in Mountain View. Nissan's Engineering team will get a look! =)

-Phil
Phil - if the prototype pans out, are you actually planning to produce these units? If so have you Ingineered a way to modify the current-gen LEAF to support your "umbilical" cable without voiding the warrranty? Seems to me that this was always the "deal-breaker" in the previous threads about a range-extending trailer.

Also, assuming that TomT's previous link to the C30 PDF was the one you're talking about, the efficiency graph seems pretty low...26% or so, which IIRC is lower than most IC engines. Wouldn't something like a motorcycle engine be more efficient (though I'm not sure which would be easier to emissions/noise control...)?

I hope you can get some Nissan folks interested in the idea. And BTW, consider me an extremely interested prospective customer. :D

Anxiously awaiting your further updates (maybe in its own thread, with pictures...hint, hint!)...
 
DrInnovation said:
I see lots of people tossing out long trips as an issue, some dismissing it as infrequent. Individual's of course vary but long trips are a real issue for the average American.



What about the economics of an add on RE?
With a 25mpg ICE the 12 trips > 194 miles need about ~100 gallons of gas, which is < $400/year and it will be hard to justify an expensive range-extender. (Total long distance travel 7500 is about 300 gallons or < $1200 a year).
60% of families have second car, so the car is not and added cost, just gas. A rental ICE would obviously add more.
With respect to the total cost of covering one can argue if renting an ICE or a Range Extender makes more sense.
Renting a range extender might make sense if its efficient enough and the price < price of gas for the ICE. With a limited market for while that may be difficult to make cost effective.




If you are focused on minimizing cost this is totally moot as no new BEV or Range Extended EV (REEV) is the right choice. The right choice is used Prius or other high MPG car (because of the vehicle cost and rapid depreciation no new vehicle is a good financial investment), at least until used BEV or REEV are on the market and a decent price.

I feel you have made some very good points. In the end, I do not want us to import any oil as that is a complete drain on our economy. I only have one small point. You made an assumption that all families have two cars so the only added expense is the expense of the gas necessary to run the car vs the range extender. That may not be true. I am looking forward to the time I only need one vehicle. Without a Range Extender or longer range BEVs I will be forced to buy a Prius or simular vehicle which is more than just the cost of gas.

My lease for the Leaf will be 39 months. I am hoping that within 39 months we have improvements that will allow me to keep using a BEV. Till then, I fall within the 12 per year longer 200+ round trip trips. But the leaf does meet my everyday needs.
 
edatoakrun said:
To restate my main points, IMO, the Volt's principle inadequacies are as a result of GM’s decision to use an existing ICEV traction engine, that is fundamentally unsuited for the role of an ICE generator, as an EV range extender, since:

It is far too large to be used efficiently for the task required.

It runs on an unstable and highly polluting fuel, gasoline.

Which also prevents the hydrocarbon fuel from being used for the one purpose for which these fuels are ideally suited, to heat the passenger cabin (and battery pack, if so required) using a combustion heater.

GM made an excellent decision, this is why:

1. existing ICE engine is much cheaper than developing and EPA certifying a dedicated genset engine, GM was short for time and money at that point, if you recall.
2. GM intended to use a derivative of their already designed (and very expensive) 2 Mode FWD electric transaxle (designed in partnership with Mercedes and Chrysler), but modified to a simpler configuration.. this transaxle was designed to fit a conventional ICE, not some new fangled cold fusion reactor or H2 fool cell.. it was a requirement that in certain hybrid modes the ICE could be coupled semi-directly to the wheels, required for a desire for efficiency.
3. GM engineers had a requirement that the Volt would run at 100mph while in the hybrid mode, thus that forced the requirement of the large 80hp engine.. as a matter of fact the engine was slightly too small to afford an atkinsonizing process and also required using premium fuel.. most likely the next generations of the genset will use a larger engine, unless GM drops the 100mph requirement. Voltec tech is adaptable to this kind of stuff.. hopefully they will use a atkinson ICE.

Why are you saying that gasoline is an unstable and polluting fuel? .. this is not true at all. Are you a paid patsy of the EV Cartel?.. paid to spread FUD?.. do you think GM can afford to put a diesel in a Volt, or a CNG tank?

Kerosene or alcohol would be a better liquid fuel for a heater, if that is all you want.. but GM wanted a no compromise BEV that would behave like a conventional car once the battery is depleted. Yes the Volt is heavy, blame that on all the heavy steel required by the safety goons in the Insurance Cartel.

The cost of the Volt is not bad, once you consider the cost of the much inferior PIP, the Focus BEV, the Coda and even the Leaf. I personally prefer a Leaf but I will not tolerate Volt abuse because its fashionable among certain people. Its understandable the Leaf and PIP are expensive, its due to the exchange rate of the Yen to the Dollar.

Step back and observe something.. here we have an almost 4000lbs behemoth, praised for its luxurious ride, safety and sportiness, driven by a lousy 80hp engine and still getting 35mpg on the city and 40 on the hwy.. and once it gets the California $2500 rebate its cost will drop below the average transaction price of vehicles sold in the US... and you still get the benefits of a BEV if driven less than 40 miles. Its a win-win without all the trip pre-planning and angst of a crippled pure BEV.
 
Back
Top