Yes, it's a known issue with the Civic hybrid. Supposedly there is a reflash to help keep the car from causing the batteries to lose capacity too quickly, but many suspect that either by the time it's done the damage has already been done, or that it sacrifices fuel economy in normal operation - despite Honda's claims that it doesn't.

It depends on the length of your trips (the shorter they are, the worse it is) and the temperature, but it's not unheard of. Even on other hybrids on the Prius. The latest Toyota hybrids have exhaust heat recovery systems which help mitigate this to some degree. Don't forget to check your tire pressure - inflating them a bit higher than recommended can also help a good deal - most find that around 40 psi is a good compromise between fuel economy and ride quality.

Regular cars also suffer from reduced fuel economy in the cold - it's just normally quite as dramatic or noticable because they are so much less efficient to begin with.

I drive a hybrid car now, and in the LOVELY Minnesota winter, the batteries just DIE. I'm not kidding, they've had to be replaced.

Out of curiousity - what type of hybrid do you drive exactly? While the batteries used in current hybrids (NiMH) are definitely lacking in extreme cold temps like you get, they shouldn't fail because of it if the battery management system system is doing it's job. I've never heard of a Toyota hybrid's battery dying because of the cold...

Even when they work my mileage almost halves in the winter.

That's expected. Current hybrids sacrifice fuel economy for reduced emissions meaning they need to run the engine more to keep it warm. Plus you will typically be running the heater which gets it's heat from the engine - meaning the engine has to run more.

A surprise "Hey your vehicle's range just dropped form 100 miles to 50 miles with no notice!!!!" is NOT a good thing.

While range in an EV will go down a good deal in winter - this is primarily because of HVAC loads, not because of reduced battery performance. The heater will suck down juice in the very cold between at 3-5 kW or so. Solutions are to run with less heat (EVs optimized for the cold will have steering wheel and seat warmers which is more efficient), bundle up a bit more for your drive, and pre-heating - using energy from the grid to preheat your car right before you drive off. The best lithium batteries will work down to very cold temps without issue - some chemistries will require some thermal management to maintain performance under extreme cold.

Either way - it won't be "no notice!!!" issue - you will be well aware of the reduction in range before you leave your driveway.

Second, I want to be able to plug the thing into a regular ol' outlet.

The two current production plug-ins (the Nissan LEAF and Chevy Volt) can plug into a regular ol' outlet just fine. But it takes a LONG time to charge - basically one hour of charging on a 120V 15A circuit (the car will pull slightly less than 12A on this Level 1 charge or about 1.4 kW) means that for each hour of charging, you get about 4 miles of range.

Both the LEAF and Volt can charge on a Level 2 circuit up to about 3.7 kW (240V at ~16A) this is about 3 times faster or about 12 miles / hour.

The upcoming Ford Focus EV (to be released late 2011) will be able to charge at twice that rate (~7.4 kW) or about 24 miles / hour. I would expect the next model year LEAF to get this higher rate charger as well.

So while it's completely possible to charge off a regular 120V circuit - you really need to plug into a higher power circuit to achieve reasonable charge rates.

Who said it was bad for America?

The GP said:

which is why it's hilarious to hear the CEO of Molycorp waving American flags in various quotes

Seemed to me that he was implying that opening these mines in the USA is only good for the Japanese companies funding the project and bad for the USA who is stuck with the cleanup costs.

Any substantial investment into the USA is a good reason to wave the flag, especially in a state with 12.5% unemployment.

Uh, how is exporting raw materials (many of which will end up in electronics back on our shores) bad for America?

Sure, it would be better if those materials were used in local manufacturing facilities, but opening a source of those raw materials will make it more financially viable to do so.

Yep, there's really no point in installing a super-high powered charging station at home. The existing infrastructure to and at most homes won't handle more than 20 kW at most - and even then with significantly lower charge rates, many homes (especially older homes) will need to have some sort of significant upgrade to handle the power.

The J1772 standard allows up to 240VAC 80A charges - 19 kW. Given that your typical EV will travel about 4 miles per kWh, one hour of charging at that rate is good for about 80 miles.

So unless your home happens to be in the middle of a round trip, it makes much more sense to place the high power quick chargers near commercial centers which already have infrastructure to more easily handle those types of electrical demands.

The vast majority if the time, people are driving well under 100 miles per day using about 25 kWh. A 240VAC 3.3 kW charge will take care of that in 8 hours - that's less power than what your typical electric dryer/water-heater/stove sucks down when in use.

If you are going on a longer trip, you probably want to charge a LOT faster than what the infrastructure at your typical house can handle (50kW+) - and when you want to charge, you'll be far away from home. So installing high power quick chargers should be done along transportation corridors where people need that type of functionality most often.

Wherever you have currently have a gas station is probably a good location to consider installing these high power quick chargers.

From what I've been able to dig up, the battery pack holds about 115 kWh.

In any case, your typical EV these days goes about 4 kWh/mile, which matches up nicely with their 375 mile trip.

So if you want to fill the car with 100 kWh in 6 minutes, you'd need about 1000 kW (ignoring charging losses).

Your typical house in the USA has 240V service with a main panel size ranging between 100A-200A - or 24-48 kW. There is no way you're charging this battery in a short amount of time at home unless you use some sort of buffer.

Your typical EV today uses a Level 2 J1772 EVSE - of which the J1772 specification will handle up to 240V AC at 80A or 19 kW. But the first mass produced EVs on the market (the Leaf/Volt) will only be able to charge at 3.3 kW or so using that standard.

The Tesla Roadster can charge at up to 19 kW, but still uses a slightly different plug (Tesla came before the J1772 standard, but existing Roadsters are expected to be converted over).

"Gas" stations to sustain Level 3 charging (meaning anything that spits out high current DC) are currently being deployed with chargers that will push out a max of 50 kW or so. The Leaf will be the first car to use those chargers and can charge it's 24 kW pack to 80% in 20-30 minutes.

I suspect that some sort of local battery buffer will be needed in most locations to support 1000 kW chargers - or you'll need to be very close to electrical substations and transmission lines.

Your typical income earner under the median income has all of their taxes deducted out of their pay-check. Come tax season, their rebate is simply the return of some (or all) of that money.

If you consistently collect a big rebate check every year, you should reduce your withholdings so that you keep that money in your savings account instead of loaning the money to the govt.

It is highly unlikely that the primitive 1970s amorphous silicon technology-- about 1% efficient-- provided any meaningful amount of power.

First of all - the solar panels on the roof of the White House that were installed in the 1970s were not electricity generating, but water heating. The efficiency of those types of panels don't usually vary by that much - all you have to do is throw something on the roof to catch the heat from the sun and they'll work just fine as long as they don't leak.

Secondly, PV panels made in the 1970s work just as well as panels made today. Any commercially sold solar panels made then were made using crystalline panels (you know, using wafers kinda like the silicon ones that power your computer) - and even then those panels were about 15% efficient - the same as most commonly available panels you'd buy today. Many people have even performed long term tests on those 30 year old PV panels and found them to generate nearly the same amount of power today as they did when new - having only degraded a couple percent at most.

Mine will even charge my batteries slowly on a clear night when the moon is full.

Complete BS. Moonlight radiates about 1 milliwatt / sq/m. On your panel of 18" x 48" (848 sq/in or about 0.55 sq/m) which is probably about 15% efficient overall at full sun (1000 W / sq/m), would generate about .08 milliwatts in full moonlight.

Good luck powering your solar powered calculator with that let alone charging a battery to any significant degree.

There is also no way that your panel (perhaps rated at 80W in full sun) would be enough to do anything but provide anything but a tiny dent in anyone's electricity bill - it might generate 125 kWh/year in the southwest desert - most households would use that amount of electricity in a matter of days (average household energy consumption ranges between 500-1000 kWh/month depending on where you live).

As to how well a solar panel works when it's cloudy, let's look at my very own solar panels (I have 18 180W panels / 3240W of solar on my roof with Enphase microinverters).

On a clear sunny day this time of year, my system will generate about 14-15 kWh. PVwatts estimates that my system will generate about 327 kWh in a typical October, or about 10.5 kWh/day. So it's pretty clear that clouds will have a large effect on energy production. Looking at the past 7 days, none of which have been ranged between completely cloudy/rainy to mostly sunny (no 100% clear days), energy production has ranged between 3.0 kWh to 14.4 kWh with an average of 7.8 kWh/day.

So stating that they work "quite well" when it's cloudy is being quite optimistic at best when clouds can cut power generation by 80%.

Look - I'm a huge proponent of solar power (I have them on my own roof!), but overstating their abilities does not help promote them.

Yep - that's exactly what they've designed and what the two plug-in vehicles (Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt) will be sharing.

The SAE J1772 charging protocol uses a standard port and allows for basic communication between the EVSE and vehicle to determine the maximum safest charging rate up to 19 kW (though EVSEs on the marget are currently limited to 7.2 kW).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772

They are still working on a different standard that will allow even faster charging which will likely be agreed upon in the next year.

How quiet the heatpump/AC is depends on how quiet they can make the compressor. Modern units can be a lot quieter thanks to additional sound-deadening.

I do know that some of the mini-split type systems (typically made in Japan) are very efficient and also very quiet (though still not silent). They are typically designed for heating/cooling smaller areas - say up to 1000 sq/ft and not entire houses as they are ductless.

Yep, they aren't exactly silent like resistance heating. But if you have AC - a heatpump is just an AC unit that can run in reverse - the noise is the same.

Not only that, but you can get a 3x improvement in efficiency by replacing those inefficient electrical resistance based heaters with a heat-pump.

A standard 90% efficient gas furnace will also be more energy efficient than electrical resistance heating (since the best power plants are only about 60% efficient and most of our electricity currently comes from burning fossil fuels.

Now - if you life in an area where most of your electricity is generated from renewables or nuclear - that changes things a bit.

Gas saving tires have a lower rolling friction. That also means that along with getting better gas mileage, the also reduce the effectiveness of your brakes and reduce your ability to make emergency evasive maneuvers. Pretty shitty trade off if you ask me.

They are available aftermarket. I checked tire rack and they have 3 choices available in the OE size for a 03 civic hybrid.

Wait - so you apparently put a LOT of importance on cornering/braking ability and bash any so called "low rolling resistance tires"?

If I am to understand your argument, the GP should not have bought the Civic in the first place - a sports car would be much better - screw fuel economy.

The amount of energy and resources and toxic chemicals involved in the car manufacturing process FAR outweighs any "statement" you make with a hybrid.

The "amount of energy and resources and toxic chemicals" is not significantly different whether you buy a hybrid or a non-hybrid.

About 85% of the energy in a vehicle is burned by fueling it up directly. So reducing the amount of energy a vehicle consumes over it's lifetime has a significant effect on it's overall resource consumption.

BTW - if you're really concerned about "toxic" chemicals in batteries - every single car on the road has 20-50 lbs of toxic batteries in them already - and nearly 100% of those batteries are successfully recovered and recycled - just like hybrid batteries are.