New range of plug-in hybrids from Volvo and Saab

That's because you aren't recognizing how much more efficiently the power plant uses the fuel.

Note where, much earlier, I wrote that the benefit from using coal-derived electricity is much smaller. It isn't hard to find out how your power is generated, and most places you can 'sponsor' alternative power in the amount you use.

There is a net benefit to the environment if the process doesn't create either of the greenhouse gasses: methane and carbon dioxide. Solar, nuclear, hydro-electric and wind produced electrical energy satisfy this condition. That is why Sweden and much of the rest of the world is moving in this direction.

You are mistaken. There is a benefit if the conversion is efficient enough to exceed transmission losses and still be higher than the low conversion efficiency of crude oil to automobile motion. Believe me or not as you choose.

The benefit is environmental. Greenhouse gases are very damaging. Chemicals that are not water borne nor air borne are easy to remediate. I worked in the semiconductor industry and we had a very small environmental footprint. Nuclear is also able to operate very safely as long as people get over this not-in-my-backyard attitude. Hydroelectric in New Zealand and other areas has a very small environmental footprint because the plants are located underground and don't interfere with any streams.