Article: Plug-in hybrid

Tweaked hybrid gets 80 miles per gallon


By Tim Molloy Associated Press


CORTE MADERA, Calif. -- Politicians and automakers say a car that can both
reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil
is years or even decades away.

Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage.

It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80
miles-per-gallon secret -- a stack of 18 brick-size batteries that boosts
the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even
less fuel.

Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent
several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car.

Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small
amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra
batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet
at his home in this San Francisco suburb -- all for about a quarter.

He's part of a small but growing movement. "Plug-in" hybrids aren't yet
cost-efficient, but some of the dozen known experimental models have
gotten up to 250 mpg.

They have support not only from environmentalists but also from
conservative foreign-policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism
through their gas guzzling.

And while the technology has existed for three decades, automakers are
beginning to take notice, too.

So far, DaimlerChrysler AG is the only company that has committed to
building its own plug-in hybrids, quietly pledging to make up to 40 vans
for U.S. companies. But Toyota Motor Corp. officials who initially frowned
on people altering their cars now say they may be able to learn from them.

"They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up
their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome
and accessories," said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. "Maybe the hot
rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what
they can do about increasing fuel economy."

The extra batteries let Gremban drive for 20 miles with a 50-50 mix of gas
and electricity. Even after the car runs out of power from the batteries
and switches to the standard hybrid mode, it gets the typical Prius fuel
efficiency of around 45 mpg. As long as Gremban doesn't drive too far in a
day, he says, he gets 80 mpg.

"The value of plug-in hybrids is they can dramatically reduce gasoline
usage for the first few miles every day," Gremban said. "The average for
people's usage of a car is somewhere around 30 to 40 miles per day. During
that kind of driving, the plug-in hybrid can make a dramatic difference."

Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their
cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but
they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil. They
also note that electricity could be generated cleanly from solar power.

Gremban rigged his car to promote the nonprofit CalCars Initiative, a San
Francisco Bay area-based volunteer effort that argues automakers could
mass produce plug-in hybrids at a reasonable price.

But Toyota and other car companies say they are worried about the cost,
convenience and safety of plug-in hybrids -- and note that consumers
haven't embraced all-electric cars because of the inconvenience of
recharging them like giant cell phones.

Automakers have spent millions of dollars telling motorists that hybrids
don't need to be plugged in, and don't want to confuse the message.

Nonetheless, plug-in hybrids are starting to get the backing of prominent
hawks like former CIA Director James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, President
Reagan's undersecretary of defense. They have joined Set America Free, a
group that wants the government to spend $12 billion over four years on
plug-in hybrids, alternative fuels and other measures to reduce foreign
oil dependence.

Gaffney, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy,
said Americans would embrace plug-ins if they understood arguments from
him and others who say gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern
governments that support terrorism.

"The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent
on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling
those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said.

DaimlerChrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said plug-in hybrids are ideal for
companies with fleets of vehicles that can be recharged at a central
location at night. He declined to name the companies buying the vehicles
and said he did not know the vehicles' mileage or cost, or when they would
be available. On the Net:

CalCars Initiative: calcars.org

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article >,
> (Jason) wrote:
>
>
>>CORTE MADERA, Calif. -- Politicians and automakers say a car that can both
>>reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil
>>is years or even decades away.
>>
>>Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage.
>>
>>It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80
>>miles-per-gallon secret -- a stack of 18 brick-size batteries that boosts
>>the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even
>>less fuel.
>
>
> Is this like buying a book-sized battery pack to stick to the back of
> your iPod so that you can go longer between charges?
>
yes. and claiming higher mpg when in fact all you're doing is
substituting motive energy from gas to motive energy from the electric
utility company. once you're outside the range of the extra battery
pack, mpg goes back to where it was before, or worse due to additional
charging losses.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article >,
> jim beam > wrote:
>
>
>>>Is this like buying a book-sized battery pack to stick to the back of
>>>your iPod so that you can go longer between charges?
>>>
>>
>>yes. and claiming higher mpg when in fact all you're doing is
>>substituting motive energy from gas to motive energy from the electric
>>utility company. once you're outside the range of the extra battery
>>pack, mpg goes back to where it was before, or worse due to additional
>>charging losses.
>
>
> And additional weight with less carrying capacity.
>
> That was really my point--what are you achieving except to move your
> transportation costs from one energy bill to another?
>
you got it!

In article >, "Elmo P.
Shagnasty" > wrote:

> In article >,
> jim beam > wrote:
>
> > > Is this like buying a book-sized battery pack to stick to the back of
> > > your iPod so that you can go longer between charges?
> > >
> > yes. and claiming higher mpg when in fact all you're doing is
> > substituting motive energy from gas to motive energy from the electric
> > utility company. once you're outside the range of the extra battery
> > pack, mpg goes back to where it was before, or worse due to additional
> > charging losses.
>
> And additional weight with less carrying capacity.
>
> That was really my point--what are you achieving except to move your
> transportation costs from one energy bill to another?

Hello,
That's true-the owner of a plug in hybrid would be moving the
transportation costs from one energy bill to another. However, since gas
prices are going higher and higher, the owner of such a vehicle may save
money in the long run. Some power companies charge less money to customers
that use electric power during the middle of the night. I recall that I
received a notice from the power company when they were having rolling
black outs to wash clothing in the middle of the night since that was when
there was plenty of elec. power available during the midnight hours.
Perhaps an engineer could better explain why this is true--I just know
that it is true but not all of the reasons.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:49:14 -0700, jim beam >
wrote:

>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article >,
>> jim beam > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Is this like buying a book-sized battery pack to stick to the back of
>>>>your iPod so that you can go longer between charges?
>>>>
>>>
>>>yes. and claiming higher mpg when in fact all you're doing is
>>>substituting motive energy from gas to motive energy from the electric
>>>utility company. once you're outside the range of the extra battery
>>>pack, mpg goes back to where it was before, or worse due to additional
>>>charging losses.
>>
>>
>> And additional weight with less carrying capacity.
>>
>> That was really my point--what are you achieving except to move your
>> transportation costs from one energy bill to another?
>>
>you got it!

Did you guys read the whole article? I'm not vouching for the
accuracy of the article, but they're claiming that the greenhouse
gases and pollutants produced during the generation of the electricity
used are much less than those produced by burning the oil necessary to
propel the auto the same distance. I, myself, don't even own a
hybrid, but I'd be reluctant to insult the intelligence of those
proposing this innovation by insinuating that they forgot that the
electricity was produced by burning fossil fuel. Calculating the
break-even point of this proposition is going to be a little more
complicated than that.
Ron

Milleron wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:49:14 -0700, jim beam >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> jim beam > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Is this like buying a book-sized battery pack to stick to the back of
>>>>>your iPod so that you can go longer between charges?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>yes. and claiming higher mpg when in fact all you're doing is
>>>>substituting motive energy from gas to motive energy from the electric
>>>>utility company. once you're outside the range of the extra battery
>>>>pack, mpg goes back to where it was before, or worse due to additional
>>>>charging losses.
>>>
>>>
>>>And additional weight with less carrying capacity.
>>>
>>>That was really my point--what are you achieving except to move your
>>>transportation costs from one energy bill to another?
>>>
>>
>>you got it!
>
>
> Did you guys read the whole article? I'm not vouching for the
> accuracy of the article, but they're claiming that the greenhouse
> gases and pollutants produced during the generation of the electricity
> used are much less than those produced by burning the oil necessary to
> propel the auto the same distance. I, myself, don't even own a
> hybrid, but I'd be reluctant to insult the intelligence of those
> proposing this innovation by insinuating that they forgot that the
> electricity was produced by burning fossil fuel. Calculating the
> break-even point of this proposition is going to be a little more
> complicated than that.
> Ron

did you read this tread? the claim that simply adding batteries creates
higher mpg is utterly bogus. that's why i say, and repeat for your
benefit, that if the author wants to claim high mpg, he should go the
whole way and drive a fully electric vehicle.

you're right that generation of electricity at the average power plant
is both cheaper & more efficient than within a car engine, but otoh, the
majority of grid power is generated by burning coal which is mostly
carbon. as least gasoline is a hydrocarbon, so proportionally, less of
the output is co2. and burning gasoline does not emit the gross tonnage
of mercury, cadmium, etc. of coal burning power stations.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:28:50 -0700, jim beam >
wrote:

>Milleron wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:49:14 -0700, jim beam >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> jim beam > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Is this like buying a book-sized battery pack to stick to the back of
>>>>>>your iPod so that you can go longer between charges?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>yes. and claiming higher mpg when in fact all you're doing is
>>>>>substituting motive energy from gas to motive energy from the electric
>>>>>utility company. once you're outside the range of the extra battery
>>>>>pack, mpg goes back to where it was before, or worse due to additional
>>>>>charging losses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And additional weight with less carrying capacity.
>>>>
>>>>That was really my point--what are you achieving except to move your
>>>>transportation costs from one energy bill to another?
>>>>
>>>
>>>you got it!
>>
>>
>> Did you guys read the whole article? I'm not vouching for the
>> accuracy of the article, but they're claiming that the greenhouse
>> gases and pollutants produced during the generation of the electricity
>> used are much less than those produced by burning the oil necessary to
>> propel the auto the same distance. I, myself, don't even own a
>> hybrid, but I'd be reluctant to insult the intelligence of those
>> proposing this innovation by insinuating that they forgot that the
>> electricity was produced by burning fossil fuel. Calculating the
>> break-even point of this proposition is going to be a little more
>> complicated than that.
>> Ron
>
>did you read this tread?
Sure I read the thread. Nowhere in is mentioned the points you make
in your last paragraph.

>the claim that simply adding batteries creates
>higher mpg is utterly bogus.
In fact, it's utterly true. That "g" in "mpg" stands for gallon.
These vehicles can go more miles on a gallon of GASOLINE, hence HIGHER
MPG. I don't know that they're claiming that they go farther on an
original kilocalorie of fossil fuel (combined coal, natural gas, or
oil + the gasoline from the pump), but they definitely go farther on a
gallon of gasoline. Some of the proponents of the plan see that as a
way of lessening dependence on foreign oil. Whether the process is
ultimately more efficient or not, these autos use less GASOLINE for
driving on short trips between recharges. I think that's all they're
saying right now. It's for that strategic reason, and not for
practical reasons, that the former cabinet secretaries are behind the
initiative.

>that's why i say, and repeat for your
>benefit, that if the author wants to claim high mpg, he should go the
>whole way and drive a fully electric vehicle.
Why???

>you're right that generation of electricity at the average power plant
>is both cheaper & more efficient than within a car engine, but otoh, the
>majority of grid power is generated by burning coal which is mostly
>carbon. as least gasoline is a hydrocarbon, so proportionally, less of
>the output is co2. and burning gasoline does not emit the gross tonnage
>of mercury, cadmium, etc. of coal burning power stations.

Some of the proponents of this plan -- the ones with strategic goals
for it -- may be hoping, ultimately, for sources of electricity that
are cleaner than coal -- nuclear, wind . . . cold fusion for all I
know. What they're producing at this point are, admittedly,
prototypes. I don't see any reason for discouraging or denigrating
them.

Ron

Milleron wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:28:50 -0700, jim beam >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Milleron wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:49:14 -0700, jim beam >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>jim beam > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is this like buying a book-sized battery pack to stick to the back of
>>>>>>>your iPod so that you can go longer between charges?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>yes. and claiming higher mpg when in fact all you're doing is
>>>>>>substituting motive energy from gas to motive energy from the electric
>>>>>>utility company. once you're outside the range of the extra battery
>>>>>>pack, mpg goes back to where it was before, or worse due to additional
>>>>>>charging losses.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And additional weight with less carrying capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>>That was really my point--what are you achieving except to move your
>>>>>transportation costs from one energy bill to another?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>you got it!
>>>
>>>
>>>Did you guys read the whole article? I'm not vouching for the
>>>accuracy of the article, but they're claiming that the greenhouse
>>>gases and pollutants produced during the generation of the electricity
>>>used are much less than those produced by burning the oil necessary to
>>>propel the auto the same distance. I, myself, don't even own a
>>>hybrid, but I'd be reluctant to insult the intelligence of those
>>>proposing this innovation by insinuating that they forgot that the
>>>electricity was produced by burning fossil fuel. Calculating the
>>>break-even point of this proposition is going to be a little more
>>>complicated than that.
>>>Ron
>>
>>did you read this tread?
>
> Sure I read the thread. Nowhere in is mentioned the points you make
> in your last paragraph.
>
>
>>the claim that simply adding batteries creates
>>higher mpg is utterly bogus.
>
> In fact, it's utterly true. That "g" in "mpg" stands for gallon.
> These vehicles can go more miles on a gallon of GASOLINE, hence HIGHER
> MPG. I don't know that they're claiming that they go farther on an
> original kilocalorie of fossil fuel (combined coal, natural gas, or
> oil + the gasoline from the pump), but they definitely go farther on a
> gallon of gasoline. Some of the proponents of the plan see that as a
> way of lessening dependence on foreign oil. Whether the process is
> ultimately more efficient or not, these autos use less GASOLINE for
> driving on short trips between recharges. I think that's all they're
> saying right now. It's for that strategic reason, and not for
> practical reasons, that the former cabinet secretaries are behind the
> initiative.
>
>
>>that's why i say, and repeat for your
>>benefit, that if the author wants to claim high mpg, he should go the
>>whole way and drive a fully electric vehicle.
>
> Why???
>
>
>>you're right that generation of electricity at the average power plant
>>is both cheaper & more efficient than within a car engine, but otoh, the
>>majority of grid power is generated by burning coal which is mostly
>>carbon. as least gasoline is a hydrocarbon, so proportionally, less of
>>the output is co2. and burning gasoline does not emit the gross tonnage
>>of mercury, cadmium, etc. of coal burning power stations.
>
>
> Some of the proponents of this plan -- the ones with strategic goals
> for it -- may be hoping, ultimately, for sources of electricity that
> are cleaner than coal -- nuclear, wind . . . cold fusion for all I
> know. What they're producing at this point are, admittedly,
> prototypes. I don't see any reason for discouraging or denigrating
> them.
>
> Ron

i discourage & denigrate b.s. hype like "modified to achieve 80mpg
because of bigger batteries".

is the hybrid technology sound? it has benefits. but so does driving a
smaller car. or driving a diesel.

fact is, hybrids are expensive and are likely to remain so. small gas
or diesel cars are not. in fact, they're ridiculously cheap.

all the hoopla about hybrids merely ensures that economy comes at
substantial extra cost thereby discouraging large scale adoption. i
mean, adoption would in turn, [gasp] actually impact national gas
consumption! that ain't going to happen. "hybrid" is weasel worded lip
service to economy while cleverly ensuring large scale non-adoption.
imagine what would happen if small cheap economical cars were the object
of so many fawning column-inches. before we knew it, we'd be
reducing... i mean importing less... i mean emitting less greenhou...
oh, never mind.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:54:22 -0700, jim beam >
wrote:

>Milleron wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:28:50 -0700, jim beam >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Milleron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:49:14 -0700, jim beam >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>jim beam > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Is this like buying a book-sized battery pack to stick to the back of
>>>>>>>>your iPod so that you can go longer between charges?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>yes. and claiming higher mpg when in fact all you're doing is
>>>>>>>substituting motive energy from gas to motive energy from the electric
>>>>>>>utility company. once you're outside the range of the extra battery
>>>>>>>pack, mpg goes back to where it was before, or worse due to additional
>>>>>>>charging losses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And additional weight with less carrying capacity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That was really my point--what are you achieving except to move your
>>>>>>transportation costs from one energy bill to another?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>you got it!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Did you guys read the whole article? I'm not vouching for the
>>>>accuracy of the article, but they're claiming that the greenhouse
>>>>gases and pollutants produced during the generation of the electricity
>>>>used are much less than those produced by burning the oil necessary to
>>>>propel the auto the same distance. I, myself, don't even own a
>>>>hybrid, but I'd be reluctant to insult the intelligence of those
>>>>proposing this innovation by insinuating that they forgot that the
>>>>electricity was produced by burning fossil fuel. Calculating the
>>>>break-even point of this proposition is going to be a little more
>>>>complicated than that.
>>>>Ron
>>>
>>>did you read this tread?
>>
>> Sure I read the thread. Nowhere in is mentioned the points you make
>> in your last paragraph.
>>
>>
>>>the claim that simply adding batteries creates
>>>higher mpg is utterly bogus.
>>
>> In fact, it's utterly true. That "g" in "mpg" stands for gallon.
>> These vehicles can go more miles on a gallon of GASOLINE, hence HIGHER
>> MPG. I don't know that they're claiming that they go farther on an
>> original kilocalorie of fossil fuel (combined coal, natural gas, or
>> oil + the gasoline from the pump), but they definitely go farther on a
>> gallon of gasoline. Some of the proponents of the plan see that as a
>> way of lessening dependence on foreign oil. Whether the process is
>> ultimately more efficient or not, these autos use less GASOLINE for
>> driving on short trips between recharges. I think that's all they're
>> saying right now. It's for that strategic reason, and not for
>> practical reasons, that the former cabinet secretaries are behind the
>> initiative.
>>
>>
>>>that's why i say, and repeat for your
>>>benefit, that if the author wants to claim high mpg, he should go the
>>>whole way and drive a fully electric vehicle.
>>
>> Why???
>>
>>
>>>you're right that generation of electricity at the average power plant
>>>is both cheaper & more efficient than within a car engine, but otoh, the
>>>majority of grid power is generated by burning coal which is mostly
>>>carbon. as least gasoline is a hydrocarbon, so proportionally, less of
>>>the output is co2. and burning gasoline does not emit the gross tonnage
>>>of mercury, cadmium, etc. of coal burning power stations.
>>
>>
>> Some of the proponents of this plan -- the ones with strategic goals
>> for it -- may be hoping, ultimately, for sources of electricity that
>> are cleaner than coal -- nuclear, wind . . . cold fusion for all I
>> know. What they're producing at this point are, admittedly,
>> prototypes. I don't see any reason for discouraging or denigrating
>> them.
>>
>> Ron
>
>i discourage & denigrate b.s. hype like "modified to achieve 80mpg
>because of bigger batteries".
>
>is the hybrid technology sound? it has benefits. but so does driving a
>smaller car. or driving a diesel.
>
>fact is, hybrids are expensive and are likely to remain so. small gas
>or diesel cars are not. in fact, they're ridiculously cheap.
>
>all the hoopla about hybrids merely ensures that economy comes at
>substantial extra cost thereby discouraging large scale adoption. i
>mean, adoption would in turn, [gasp] actually impact national gas
>consumption! that ain't going to happen. "hybrid" is weasel worded lip
>service to economy while cleverly ensuring large scale non-adoption.
>imagine what would happen if small cheap economical cars were the object
>of so many fawning column-inches. before we knew it, we'd be
>reducing... i mean importing less... i mean emitting less greenhou...
> oh, never mind.

Good points, all. Extremely valid. If I could wave a magic wand and
turn all SUVs and large pickups used for one-passenger commuting into
Honda Civics, I'd do it, and we'd be a billion barrels of oil ahead of
where we'd be with a handful of hybrids running around.

But the Prius in the original post is already a small car. I hate to
put words into the mouths of the folks behind this initiative, but I'm
guessing they'd say something like "But we're trying to lay the
groundwork for combining cleanly-generated electricity with very small
diesel-powered vehicles." This guy, Gremban, knew with certainty that
he'd never recoup his $3,000 investment in gasoline savings. Let's
give this E.E. credit for some common sense. I think it's very clear
that what he thinks he's doing with his experimental car is just that,
an experiment. Who would want to stifle experimentation???
The Wright brothers first plane was a silly way to try to get from
point A to point B. A journey of a thousand miles begins with the
first step.
Oh, never mind.

Ron

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:49:14 -0700, jim beam >
> wrote:
>
> >Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> jim beam > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Is this like buying a book-sized battery pack to stick to the back of
> >>>>your iPod so that you can go longer between charges?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>yes. and claiming higher mpg when in fact all you're doing is
> >>>substituting motive energy from gas to motive energy from the electric
> >>>utility company. once you're outside the range of the extra battery
> >>>pack, mpg goes back to where it was before, or worse due to additional
> >>>charging losses.
> >>
> >>
> >> And additional weight with less carrying capacity.
> >>
> >> That was really my point--what are you achieving except to move your
> >> transportation costs from one energy bill to another?
> >>
> >you got it!
>
> Did you guys read the whole article? I'm not vouching for the
> accuracy of the article, but they're claiming that the greenhouse
> gases and pollutants produced during the generation of the electricity
> used are much less than those produced by burning the oil necessary to
> propel the auto the same distance. I, myself, don't even own a
> hybrid, but I'd be reluctant to insult the intelligence of those
> proposing this innovation by insinuating that they forgot that the
> electricity was produced by burning fossil fuel. Calculating the
> break-even point of this proposition is going to be a little more
> complicated than that.
> Ron

Ron,
You appear to be making an assumption that "...electricity was produced by
burning fossil fuel." I agree that most of the electricity is produced by
burning fossil fuel but electricity is also produced by nuclear power
plants, water powered generators (at large dams) and wind energy. In some
states, power companies are forced to buy back power from people that have
solar panels on their roofs or special solar panels in their back yards
that follow the sun.
It's usually not a good idea to make assumptions. I should also note that
power companies have to run many of their generators in the middle of the
night. Much of that power is not even used--why not use it to provide
power to charge hybrid batteries--it would reduce the amount of gasoline
used in America.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.