Who killed the electric car?

[Triumph]

The golf car manufacturer lobby. Didn't want GM edging in on their market.

 

[Eeezee]

Video killed the radio star

 

[Linflas]

The same people that killed the Stanley Steamer?

 

[Scarpozzi]

George W. Bush shot Lincoln.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

If they ever find out who did it, hopefully they make that information public so I can go thank the proper person(s)

 

[Minjin]

A personal EV1 page

EV1 Range

Sure, the EV1 didn't get 100 miles per charge. But how often do you actually need that? And remember that this was with lead acid battery technology. If you may recall, we've made 'some' improvement in that area. Nicad => Nimh => Lithium Ion => Lithium Polymer...

We just had a thread here where the New Jersey people whined about having to go to the gas station and pump it themselves. Imagine if you never had to go to the gas station except on long trips for a quick 15 minute refresh charge (the tech is already there).

I think electric cars have alot of promise, but as always, the answer is between the extremes. No, I don't believe in any GM or oil conspiracy theories. The market is driven by the consumers. However, if the consumers don't understand the benefits of a product, it will never take hold. Now they are starting to realize the benefits and everyone's looking at hybrids because they have forgotten about or have bad impressions of electric cars. The future is definitely in electric.

Mark

 

[Dunbar]

Originally posted by: Minjin
A personal EV1 page

EV1 Range

Sure, the EV1 didn't get 100 miles per charge. But how often do you actually need that? And remember that this was with lead acid battery technology. If you may recall, we've made 'some' improvement in that area. Nicad => Nimh => Lithium Ion => Lithium Polymer... The future is definitely in electric.

Even if you only need the range a handful of times a year, and it's your only vehicle, how useful is that? Plus you have to plug the thing in every night. The future is not electric, I don't even think people will buy hybrids in large numbers unless gas stays over $4 a gallon for an extended period.

 

[Minjin]

Originally posted by: Dunbar

Originally posted by: Minjin
A personal EV1 page

EV1 Range

Sure, the EV1 didn't get 100 miles per charge. But how often do you actually need that? And remember that this was with lead acid battery technology. If you may recall, we've made 'some' improvement in that area. Nicad => Nimh => Lithium Ion => Lithium Polymer... The future is definitely in electric.

Even if you only need the range a handful of times a year, and it's your only vehicle, how useful is that? Plus you have to plug the thing in every night. The future is not electric, I don't even think people will buy hybrids in large numbers unless gas stays over $4 a gallon for an extended period.

As I said, the technology is already available for quick charging. You'd stop at a gas station and they would have charging stations that could give you 80-90% of your charge in a short period of time. The infrastructure is already in place (electric grid). But for argument sake, lets assume that that tech isn't available. How many people own a pickup truck? Quite a few, but quite a few don't. So how do those who don't own one deal with the situations when they need to move large objects like furniture or a load of stone/mulch? They rent or borrow a truck or a trailer. You'd rent (or borrow) a long range car and to carry the analogy further, there are already generator trailers that you could tow behind your electric car to give it equivalent range. And if its once or twice a year, is it really that big of a hassle? Its certainly much cheaper than paying for capability/capacity year round that you don't need.

edit: oh yeah, is it really that difficult to plug your car in every night?

Mark

 

[sunzt]

It died cause it ran out of batteries too quick.

 

[Mo0o]

Given that i frequently forget to charge my cellphone I'd be wary of a battery only car

 

[Xyclone]

Effeciency did.

/thread

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Lyfer
We have wireless intenet (YES INTERNET WITH NO WIRES, and its gonna hit 200mbps soon), and yet our method of transportation makes us rely on a prehistoic expensive fuel.


conspiracy theorie?

Similarly, we have high-temperature superalloys, and yet it takes almost 3000 kg of meat a year to feed a full-grown tiger.

non sequitur?

 

[Stvfarmboy]

I like the guy that says that the electric vehicle isn't for everybody. It can only meet the needs of 90% of the population.

 

[MasterAndCommander]

It was Chuck Norris of course - he thought they looked ghey.

 

[sniperruff]

electric cars are so 90's... takes a long time to charge, and by the end of the day, you're still using electricity, which is produced mainly by oil anyway.

this is the future

 

[Dunbar]

Originally posted by: Minjin

Originally posted by: Dunbar

Originally posted by: Minjin
A personal EV1 page
As I said, the technology is already available for quick charging. You'd stop at a gas station and they would have charging stations that could give you 80-90% of your charge in a short period of time...You'd rent (or borrow) a long range car and to carry the analogy further, there are already generator trailers that you could tow behind your electric car to give it equivalent range. And if its once or twice a year, is it really that big of a hassle? edit: oh yeah, is it really that difficult to plug your car in every night?

How quick would the charge take, 30 minutes or more? That's a lot longer than the five minutes, or less, it takes to fill your gas tank. I think most people want to be able to drive more than 100 miles round-trip without having to "fill up" their car. And yes, plugging in your car, and unplugging it every morning, would actually be a big hassle. Especially for those who don't park their car in a garage.

If electric vehicles are "all that" you'd think they'd be a hit in Europe. They pay $7-8 a gallon, already drive small cars, and travel shorter distances. Also, the electricity has to come from somewhere which means coal, natural gas and petroleum are being burned to generate it (70% in the US.)

 

[BMdoobieW]

Originally posted by: OREOSpeedwagon
video killed the electric car

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Minjin
A personal EV1 page

EV1 Range

Sure, the EV1 didn't get 100 miles per charge. But how often do you actually need that?

Every day I work.

 

[Minjin]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Minjin
A personal EV1 page

EV1 Range

Sure, the EV1 didn't get 100 miles per charge. But how often do you actually need that?

Every day I work.

RAV4 EV (an electric SUV) had 80-120 mile range. Do you drive more than that one way (people are forgetting that you could charge at the destination)? Consider yourself in the minority.

As for the comment above about electric being mainly produced by oil burning, this is far off base. The majority is coal with nuclear being 2nd. Oil is down around 5%. Let me find some real figures. Even if 100% of power plants were gasoline and we were just switching from producing energy at the car to producing energy in a plant, you get huge efficiency gains. Its also much easier to distribute electric than gas. Its much easier to regulate and control the emissions from one plant than 100,000 cars.

Its kind of funny because I'm not a huge electric car fan. I know they aren't for everyone, so folks stop posting that they just happen to not work for YOU. But they are a good option for MANY.

edit: energy source FACTS: Text

Mark

 

[desy]

Of course they have a place just like an SUV has a place.

liquid fuel like gasoline is a net energy loser before you even get going , but its advantage is the portbility of it and power.

I want a deisel and not an expensive one like in a Jetta but a run of the mill NA car 🙂

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Minjin
As for the comment above about electric being mainly produced by oil burning, this is far off base. The majority is coal with nuclear being 2nd. Oil is down around 5%. Let me find some real figures. Even if 100% of power plants were gasoline and we were just switching from producing energy at the car to producing energy in a plant, you get huge efficiency gains. Its also much easier to distribute electric than gas. Its much easier to regulate and control the emissions from one plant than 100,000 cars.

Mark

Coal is about a thousand times worse than oil IMHO.

Originally posted by: sniperruff
electric cars are so 90's... takes a long time to charge, and by the end of the day, you're still using electricity, which is produced mainly by oil anyway.

this is the future

And by the end of the day, hydrogen comes from electricity, which is produced...?

 

[arcenite]

GM had no reason to kill the electric car. They had reason to kill light rail: To sell vehicles. If GM was selling electric cars, they would be making just as much $$. The oil tycoons, however, is another question.

 

[Minjin]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Minjin
As for the comment above about electric being mainly produced by oil burning, this is far off base. The majority is coal with nuclear being 2nd. Oil is down around 5%. Let me find some real figures. Even if 100% of power plants were gasoline and we were just switching from producing energy at the car to producing energy in a plant, you get huge efficiency gains. Its also much easier to distribute electric than gas. Its much easier to regulate and control the emissions from one plant than 100,000 cars.

Mark

Coal is about a thousand times worse than oil IMHO.

Originally posted by: sniperruff
electric cars are so 90's... takes a long time to charge, and by the end of the day, you're still using electricity, which is produced mainly by oil anyway.

this is the future

And by the end of the day, hydrogen comes from electricity, which is produced...?

Agreed with the hydrogen. Its a dead end.

As for the coal, again facts need to be brought forward:

Text

You can see that emissions are very similar.

Mark

 

[ElFenix]

for purposes of the thread, i bet when the guy said oil he meant natural gas. which is a significant amount of the generating capacity in the US (it's what provides afternoon air conditioning, mostly). NG is much better suited for power stations than it is for about anything else, because of its transportation and storage limitations. but it burns in a turbine just fine without much (or any) processing.

burning gasoline in a car produces far fewer pollutants per MWH than burning oil at a power station, regardless. the stuff power stations burn is less refined than gasoline for passenger cars.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Minjin
You can see that emissions are very similar.

Mark

Don't forget the particulate matter, the radioactive emissions (greater than a nuclear power plant), and other heavy metals that coal power will spread throughout the atmosphere. That site is a very barebones look at the emissions. Coal is a really, really dirty form of power.