[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Little known information... maybe even facts - thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 4:22pm
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Jun 23, 2024 - 4:06pm
 
How do you create optimism? - thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 4:01pm
 
NYTimes Connections - ptooey - Jun 23, 2024 - 3:51pm
 
favorite love songs - thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 3:35pm
 
Things You Thought Today - thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 3:25pm
 
Breaking News - thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 2:42pm
 
Prog Rockers Anonymous - thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 2:24pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 2:01pm
 
Dumb Laws - thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 1:51pm
 
Israel - thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 1:38pm
 
Joe Biden - R_P - Jun 23, 2024 - 11:42am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - GeneP59 - Jun 23, 2024 - 10:24am
 
Wordle - daily game - maryte - Jun 23, 2024 - 9:50am
 
BEATLES Make History AGAIN!! - thisbody - Jun 23, 2024 - 9:12am
 
TV shows you watch - R_P - Jun 23, 2024 - 8:57am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jun 23, 2024 - 8:36am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Red_Dragon - Jun 23, 2024 - 8:27am
 
Congress - R_P - Jun 22, 2024 - 5:53pm
 
Song of the Day - thisbody - Jun 22, 2024 - 3:32pm
 
What do you snack on? - thisbody - Jun 22, 2024 - 3:20pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Alchemist - Jun 22, 2024 - 2:44pm
 
What did you have for dinner? - triskele - Jun 22, 2024 - 2:31pm
 
Jam! (why should a song stop) - thisbody - Jun 22, 2024 - 1:53pm
 
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes - fractalv - Jun 22, 2024 - 1:46pm
 
Things I Saw Today... - R_P - Jun 22, 2024 - 1:38pm
 
Trump - kcar - Jun 22, 2024 - 12:41pm
 
Some bands or songs are recurring too much in Rock channe... - mlebihan29 - Jun 22, 2024 - 9:26am
 
Fox Spews - R_P - Jun 22, 2024 - 9:19am
 
Sonos - thatslongformud - Jun 22, 2024 - 6:18am
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 22, 2024 - 4:44am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - thisbody - Jun 21, 2024 - 4:26pm
 
Too much classic rock lately? - thisbody - Jun 21, 2024 - 4:01pm
 
Girls Just Want to Have Fun - oldviolin - Jun 21, 2024 - 2:22pm
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Jun 21, 2024 - 12:26pm
 
2024 Elections! - R_P - Jun 21, 2024 - 12:20pm
 
Electronic Music - Manbird - Jun 21, 2024 - 12:14pm
 
LeftWingNutZ - Steely_D - Jun 21, 2024 - 8:07am
 
The Obituary Page - ColdMiser - Jun 21, 2024 - 7:56am
 
RightWingNutZ - Red_Dragon - Jun 20, 2024 - 6:39pm
 
Basketball - GeneP59 - Jun 20, 2024 - 4:53pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Antigone - Jun 20, 2024 - 4:04pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Jun 20, 2024 - 2:10pm
 
Shall We Dance? - Steely_D - Jun 20, 2024 - 1:18pm
 
Predictions - oldviolin - Jun 20, 2024 - 11:18am
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Jun 20, 2024 - 11:10am
 
Ukraine - R_P - Jun 20, 2024 - 10:41am
 
Just Wrong - ColdMiser - Jun 20, 2024 - 7:43am
 
Pink Floyd Set? - Coaxial - Jun 20, 2024 - 5:46am
 
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon? - Coaxial - Jun 19, 2024 - 6:14pm
 
Outstanding Covers - pope183 - Jun 19, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jun 19, 2024 - 12:34pm
 
SCOTUS - ColdMiser - Jun 19, 2024 - 7:15am
 
20+ year listeners? - islander - Jun 18, 2024 - 7:41pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - rgio - Jun 18, 2024 - 5:02pm
 
Other Medical Stuff - miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:35pm
 
Hello from Greece! - miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:35pm
 
Europe - R_P - Jun 18, 2024 - 9:33am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:57pm
 
What Did You See Today? - Manbird - Jun 16, 2024 - 2:39pm
 
Geomorphology - kurtster - Jun 16, 2024 - 1:29pm
 
Artificial Intelligence - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:53am
 
The Chomsky / Zinn Reader - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:42am
 
Football, soccer, futbol, calcio... - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:35am
 
No stream after station ID - arlen.nelson969 - Jun 15, 2024 - 2:29pm
 
Business as Usual - kurtster - Jun 15, 2024 - 9:53am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Antigone - Jun 14, 2024 - 7:04pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Jun 14, 2024 - 3:15pm
 
China - R_P - Jun 14, 2024 - 2:59pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - oldviolin - Jun 14, 2024 - 2:08pm
 
Religion - Steely_D - Jun 14, 2024 - 1:28pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jun 14, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - Proclivities - Jun 14, 2024 - 6:42am
 
Florida - R_P - Jun 13, 2024 - 3:35pm
 
Democratic Party - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 9:08am
 
Index » Entertainment » Movies » Who Killed The Electric Car??? -- The Movie Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Post to this Topic
KurtfromLaQuinta

KurtfromLaQuinta Avatar

Location: Really deep in the heart of South California
Gender: Male


Posted: May 2, 2024 - 9:51pm



aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2016 - 9:28am

 Lazy8 wrote:

The Truth about Tesla Motors




 

 
I'm OK with investing in promising technology that can have a significant long term beneficial impact on our economy. Truthfully, haven't we been subsidizing the ICE motor car industry for decades by allowing them to legally externalize costs, and various other taxpayer subsidies? But investment in the future shouldn't be a burden shouldered only by the current generation. Requiring future generations that will potentially benefit to chip in through the use of borrowing/bonds, etc. to contribute their share seems reasonable to me.

The glaring flaw in this article (a rather short one) is that McQuillan fails to answer the question, are Tesla's subsidies and externalized costs greater, percentagewise, than the traditional auto industry's? 
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2016 - 9:13am

The Truth about Tesla Motors




During a January 19th panel discussion at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Tesla Motors general counsel Todd Maron said: “We make money from one thing: car sales and car sales alone.” In reality, electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer Tesla Motors loses more than $4,000 on every car it sells on a “full-cost” basis (keep in mind that some of Tesla’s costs are heavily subsidized). Tesla’s losses per vehicle are even greater using generally accepted accounting principles. CNBC and Reuters explained:

Tesla reports its finances in a different way from the Detroit automakers. Using the generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, used by GM or Ford, Tesla’s operating losses per vehicle have steadily widened to $14,758 from $3,794 in the second quarter of 2014.

(...)

Instead of making money from car sales, Tesla survives by participating in many government subsidy programs. One lucrative program is California’s zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) credit program. Phil Kerpen explained how the program works:

ZEV credits are a mandate dreamed up by the bureaucrats at the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which requires manufacturers to build and dealers to sell an arbitrary number of “zero-emission” vehicles each year. . . . Tesla’s Model S generates four credits per unit sold. This means the company can sell $20,000 in ZEV credits to other manufacturers for each Model S sold—a cost borne by purchasers of other cars.

ZEV credits, pioneered in California, have spread to nine other states. Tesla has collected more than $517 million from competing automakers by selling ZEV credits to those who fail to sell enough zero-emissions cars to meet arbitrary mandates.

Charles Lane of the Washington Post said: “Tesla owes its survival to subsidies from taxpayers, who are usually less well-heeled than its plutocratic customers.” The average household income of Tesla owners is $320,000, according to Strategic Visions, a consumer research company.

Tesla buyers have also raked in $38 million in California government rebates (they receive a $2,500 rebate for each Tesla bought) and $284 million in federal tax incentives (they receive a $7,500 federal tax credit for each purchased Tesla).

The Los Angeles Times calculated that Elon Musk’s three companies, Tesla Motors, SolarCity, and SpaceX, combined have received a staggering $4.9 billion in government support over the past decade. As Kerpen noted: “Every time a Tesla is sold . . . average Americans are on the hook for at least $30,000 in federal and state subsidies” that go to wealthy Tesla owners. This is crony capitalism at its worst.

Tesla is in the business of capturing government subsidies, not making cars that people actually buy. At the same FTC panel, Tesla’s Maron said: “It’s imperative are replaced entirely by electric vehicles.” What’s the plan for achieving this? Buried in its 2013 annual report Tesla admitted: “Our growth depends in part on the availability and amounts of government subsidies and economic incentives.”


cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 15, 2011 - 8:03am

 beamends wrote:
I'd certainly go along with that - though persuading people to play ball may be a bit troublesome.
  Absolutely. Which is why we're rearranging the deck chairs...


beamends

beamends Avatar



Posted: Jun 15, 2011 - 8:02am

 cc_rider wrote:

I think it's actually less per mile, only because most people drive more than that, but that number seems pretty close. Note that number is less than the generally accepted cost-per-mile of conventional vehicles, BUT it is not adjusted for fuel costs, tire wear, blah blah blah, so it's not exactly comparable. Point is, the cost-of-operation of a hybrid is not hugely different from a conventional vehicle. Sure it is a step in the right direction, but such incremental improvements are not really gonna solve the real problem, which is the fact that people want their own private transportation. I'm just as guilty as anyone, in fact I drive a huge old V8 beater because I can't afford anything else, but I also spent a fortune on my house so I would have a short commute and less total travel miles. When I bought this house I could walk home from my office in a pinch (and a cold beer to keep up me strength...)

We have structured our cities around cheap gasoline. Fueled (ha!) by the oil companies, in cahoots with tire makers and other big business. Exxon (Standard Oil) built huge housing developments in the middle of freakin' nowhere, so people could buy big houses for cheap. The unintended consequence (yeah, right) was those folks had to buy a lot more gasoline! Funny how those things work, huh?

Until we change the structure of our cities, heck, our lives, all the improvements to individual vehicle efficiency are just window dressing.
 
I'd certainly go along with that - though persuading people to play ball may be a bit troublesome.


beamends

beamends Avatar



Posted: Jun 15, 2011 - 7:59am

 oldslabsides wrote:

Not sure, but knowing this guy has a fairly long commute I'd say the mileage on his car is probably somewhat higher than 10k per year.  I'd guess at least 50% more than that, probably more.
 
I've had a look for the BBC article, but can't find it. Here is an interesting article - in that the $9,000 price tag touted by Nissan for the Leap batteries is actually $18,000 - and that is what they cost to produce, presumably retail would be somewhat more, indicating the BBCs figure of £17,000 is not wildly out bearing in mind we usually pay in pounds what you pay in dollars for consumer goods..

cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 15, 2011 - 7:56am

 islander wrote:

Any idea what the mileage is on the car?

Assuming 10K miles/year would mean it's about $0.33 per mile for batteries. 

 
I think it's actually less per mile, only because most people drive more than that, but that number seems pretty close. Note that number is less than the generally accepted cost-per-mile of conventional vehicles, BUT it is not adjusted for fuel costs, tire wear, blah blah blah, so it's not exactly comparable. Point is, the cost-of-operation of a hybrid is not hugely different from a conventional vehicle. Sure it is a step in the right direction, but such incremental improvements are not really gonna solve the real problem, which is the fact that people want their own private transportation. I'm just as guilty as anyone, in fact I drive a huge old V8 beater because I can't afford anything else, but I also spent a fortune on my house so I would have a short commute and less total travel miles. When I bought this house I could walk home from my office in a pinch (and a cold beer to keep up me strength...)

We have structured our cities around cheap gasoline. Fueled (ha!) by the oil companies, in cahoots with tire makers and other big business. Exxon (Standard Oil) built huge housing developments in the middle of freakin' nowhere, so people could buy big houses for cheap. The unintended consequence (yeah, right) was those folks had to buy a lot more gasoline! Funny how those things work, huh?

Until we change the structure of our cities, heck, our lives, all the improvements to individual vehicle efficiency are just window dressing.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan


Posted: Jun 15, 2011 - 7:42am

 islander wrote:

Any idea what the mileage is on the car?

Assuming 10K miles/year would mean it's about $0.33 per mile for batteries. 

 
Not sure, but knowing this guy has a fairly long commute I'd say the mileage on his car is probably somewhat higher than 10k per year.  I'd guess at least 50% more than that, probably more.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 15, 2011 - 7:40am

 oldslabsides wrote:

A coworker bought a Honda hybrid new back in 2002, I believe.  He stated that the batteries had to be replaced after almost seven years at a cost of less than $2,000.  I'm just guessing the car cost more than twice that.
 
Any idea what the mileage is on the car?

Assuming 10K miles/year would mean it's about $0.33 per mile for batteries. 
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan


Posted: Jun 15, 2011 - 7:26am

 islander wrote:

NPR has the same search problem. I couldn't find the referenced story, but what you said & the previous info matches my assumption. I'll agree with the "completely different kettle of fish" in that what we are talking about with those numbers is a one off or limited production unit "designed" using older technology and without much consideration for anything other than the power methodology.

Regular production electrics and hybrids will not require the removal of the body to get at the battery. The arrays will not cost 50% or more of the cost of the car itself. The life of the batteries will be more than 3 years, and most will have substantial warranties (crafted by a team of engineers and actuarials that have more data than you and I) that will cover the cost of unexpected or early failures.

Saying an Ariel Atom (http://www.arielatom.com/) is harder on tires, more expensive to service, and less practical than a Honda civic, is all correct. But doesn't really make the argument that there are no good alternatives for a daily grocery getter.



 
A coworker bought a Honda hybrid new back in 2002, I believe.  He stated that the batteries had to be replaced after almost seven years at a cost of less than $2,000.  I'm just guessing the car cost more than twice that.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 15, 2011 - 7:21am

 beamends wrote:

Completely different kettle of fish. The figures came from a BBC report about a UK company that builds 'sports cars' using quick-charge fork-lift batteries, because they so much cheaper than 'proper' car ones (though somewhat less efficient) - it will be on their site somewhere (their search facility is pathetic unfortunately).
 
NPR has the same search problem. I couldn't find the referenced story, but what you said & the previous info matches my assumption. I'll agree with the "completely different kettle of fish" in that what we are talking about with those numbers is a one off or limited production unit "designed" using older technology and without much consideration for anything other than the power methodology.

Regular production electrics and hybrids will not require the removal of the body to get at the battery. The arrays will not cost 50% or more of the cost of the car itself. The life of the batteries will be more than 3 years, and most will have substantial warranties (crafted by a team of engineers and actuarials that have more data than you and I) that will cover the cost of unexpected or early failures.

Saying an Ariel Atom (http://www.arielatom.com/) is harder on tires, more expensive to service, and less practical than a Honda civic, is all correct. But doesn't really make the argument that there are no good alternatives for a daily grocery getter.


beamends

beamends Avatar



Posted: Jun 15, 2011 - 2:48am

 islander wrote:

These numbers look suspect to me. This is a little ambiguous as there simply aren't that many all electric cars on the road. But there are hybrids which use large battery arrays too. Most of these mass produced cars (all electric Nissan leaf included) are designed so that the batteries can be removed without "Having the body off the car".  And 17K? How many batteries are in this car and how much labor is involved in the swap?  Somethings not adding up there.  

Also, the Prius has an 8 year 100K mile warranty so any failure in that time frame wouldn't cost the owner anything. There is a prius taxi in Vancouver that has 200K+ miles on it, so cycles don't seem to be an issue with the nickle batteries.  The new cost of an array for a Prius is between $2500 and $4,000 - that's at most about 20% of the cost of the vehicle vs. the 74% in your quote above. There are also used arrays available and a lot of people are finding that some that were replaced simply need some corrosion cleaned up to be perfectly serviceable again. Again, cost of technology will come down as more are produced, so I'd expect that cost percentage to drop further.

I know I'm talking about Hybrids instead of pure electrics, but there just isn't that much info on pure electrics (real production ones) available. I know there are a lot of other factors, and that still won't be effective for all people. But for many it is a good solution. I think we need alternatives, and more importantly - I think we need to look at real numbers instead of hyperbole from either side. 

 
Completely different kettle of fish. The figures came from a BBC report about a UK company that builds 'sports cars' using quick-charge fork-lift batteries, because they so much cheaper than 'proper' car ones (though somewhat less efficient) - it will be on their site somewhere (their search facility is pathetic unfortunately).

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 14, 2011 - 9:09pm

 beamends wrote:

I don't see any references to Hummers there, only "mid-size family car", which would be a Ford Focus or such. Sure, they probably didn't take absolutely every factor into account, such as energy used to mine the coal to supply the power station and the like, but then the same is true of sourcing the Lithium. I'm not opposed to electric cars, but there is a long way to go on infrastructure - how do I charge up when doing a 400 mile round trip - including stops that takes me about 9 hours or so, with recharging it's going to take a lot longer. I don't know what you pay for electricity over there, but here I'm pretty sure the saving would not be so great here, electricity is expensive. One of the hidden costs of the current electric cars is that the batteries are likely to need replacing as a set after 3 years or so. The prices quoted on a recent BBC news report was that on a £23,000 car replacement would be, at list price and having the body off the car to do it, £17,000. So there would be zero second hand market, meaning a cars useful life would be reduced from about 10 years to three - that needs to be factored in. For city dwellers the electric option has it's merits (assuming the need to have tamper-proof cables across pavements to allow charging for the majority who don't have off-road parking - god alone knows how people in high-rise accommodation are suppose to manage), but even they will be screwed when it comes to the family holiday or the need to go and visit granny.

I think other alternatives have more to offer - the Japanese had a 50cc ceramic engine a few years back that ran at ridiculous temperatures and rpm, but with gearing could produce a remarkable amount of power from little fuel - but the catalytic converter killed that off. Perhaps it's time to review other/older ideas without the current emissions regulations and see where that can go?
 
These numbers look suspect to me. This is a little ambiguous as there simply aren't that many all electric cars on the road. But there are hybrids which use large battery arrays too. Most of these mass produced cars (all electric Nissan leaf included) are designed so that the batteries can be removed without "Having the body off the car".  And 17K? How many batteries are in this car and how much labor is involved in the swap?  Somethings not adding up there.  

Also, the Prius has an 8 year 100K mile warranty so any failure in that time frame wouldn't cost the owner anything. There is a prius taxi in Vancouver that has 200K+ miles on it, so cycles don't seem to be an issue with the nickle batteries.  The new cost of an array for a Prius is between $2500 and $4,000 - that's at most about 20% of the cost of the vehicle vs. the 74% in your quote above. There are also used arrays available and a lot of people are finding that some that were replaced simply need some corrosion cleaned up to be perfectly serviceable again. Again, cost of technology will come down as more are produced, so I'd expect that cost percentage to drop further.

I know I'm talking about Hybrids instead of pure electrics, but there just isn't that much info on pure electrics (real production ones) available. I know there are a lot of other factors, and that still won't be effective for all people. But for many it is a good solution. I think we need alternatives, and more importantly - I think we need to look at real numbers instead of hyperbole from either side. 
beamends

beamends Avatar



Posted: Jun 14, 2011 - 8:20am

 islander wrote:

It looks a lot like the study that was done a couple of years ago that tried to prove a Hummer was a better alternative than a Prius for the environment. They included all conceivable carbon costs for the Prius (including manufacture, delivery, repair, energy to operate, and distribution for that energy), and only included the energy to operate for the Hummer - and surprise: the Hummer wins!

As with most things, it depends a lot on the assumptions and where you draw the boundary lines for your evaluation. Yes, Batteries have a higher carbon cost to manufacture, but there are batteries in conventional cars as well (and they need to be replaced more often than the arrays in electric cars due to different technologies and less optimum charging).

Just think about the fueling infrastructure. The power grid exists now for all our homes. Large scale electrical generation is more efficient per unit of work than a lot of smaller internal combustion units.  Plus you have to have a whole different set of internal combustion engines running to move fuel around to the distribution stations.  This is why you can recharge an electric car for a couple of dollars worth of electricity vs. 60+ dollars in gasoline. So your range is half - that is still far more efficient.

I'm all for looking at the full stream cost of all the solutions, but lets be sure we use the same boundary conditions for each and not use data sets that were selected to push an agenda (on either side). 

 
I don't see any references to Hummers there, only "mid-size family car", which would be a Ford Focus or such. Sure, they probably didn't take absolutely every factor into account, such as energy used to mine the coal to supply the power station and the like, but then the same is true of sourcing the Lithium. I'm not opposed to electric cars, but there is a long way to go on infrastructure - how do I charge up when doing a 400 mile round trip - including stops that takes me about 9 hours or so, with recharging it's going to take a lot longer. I don't know what you pay for electricity over there, but here I'm pretty sure the saving would not be so great here, electricity is expensive. One of the hidden costs of the current electric cars is that the batteries are likely to need replacing as a set after 3 years or so. The prices quoted on a recent BBC news report was that on a £23,000 car replacement would be, at list price and having the body off the car to do it, £17,000. So there would be zero second hand market, meaning a cars useful life would be reduced from about 10 years to three - that needs to be factored in. For city dwellers the electric option has it's merits (assuming the need to have tamper-proof cables across pavements to allow charging for the majority who don't have off-road parking - god alone knows how people in high-rise accommodation are suppose to manage), but even they will be screwed when it comes to the family holiday or the need to go and visit granny.

I think other alternatives have more to offer - the Japanese had a 50cc ceramic engine a few years back that ran at ridiculous temperatures and rpm, but with gearing could produce a remarkable amount of power from little fuel - but the catalytic converter killed that off. Perhaps it's time to review other/older ideas without the current emissions regulations and see where that can go?

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 14, 2011 - 7:53am

 beamends wrote:

This isn't really news to engineers and others who have thought through the whole process, though it's good to have real numbers to back it up. When people talk about 'green' cars they mostly seem to make implied comparisons with 20 or 30 year old car designs. Most of the current generation of small cars look to get around 60 to 70 mpg (diesel). To put that in context, when at my first job in 1979 in a motorcycle shop people bought Honda C90s to get that sort of mpg! It seems to me that car designers are keeping well ahead of 'radical' solutions for now. That's not to say alternatives should not be followed up, the oil is going to run out sometime, but are electric cars really the way to go yet when electricity generation is still far from being renewable?
 
It looks a lot like the study that was done a couple of years ago that tried to prove a Hummer was a better alternative than a Prius for the environment. They included all conceivable carbon costs for the Prius (including manufacture, delivery, repair, energy to operate, and distribution for that energy), and only included the energy to operate for the Hummer - and surprise: the Hummer wins!

As with most things, it depends a lot on the assumptions and where you draw the boundary lines for your evaluation. Yes, Batteries have a higher carbon cost to manufacture, but there are batteries in conventional cars as well (and they need to be replaced more often than the arrays in electric cars due to different technologies and less optimum charging).

Just think about the fueling infrastructure. The power grid exists now for all our homes. Large scale electrical generation is more efficient per unit of work than a lot of smaller internal combustion units.  Plus you have to have a whole different set of internal combustion engines running to move fuel around to the distribution stations.  This is why you can recharge an electric car for a couple of dollars worth of electricity vs. 60+ dollars in gasoline. So your range is half - that is still far more efficient.

I'm all for looking at the full stream cost of all the solutions, but lets be sure we use the same boundary conditions for each and not use data sets that were selected to push an agenda (on either side). 
beamends

beamends Avatar



Posted: Jun 14, 2011 - 1:45am

 Steve wrote: 
This isn't really news to engineers and others who have thought through the whole process, though it's good to have real numbers to back it up. When people talk about 'green' cars they mostly seem to make implied comparisons with 20 or 30 year old car designs. Most of the current generation of small cars look to get around 60 to 70 mpg (diesel). To put that in context, when at my first job in 1979 in a motorcycle shop people bought Honda C90s to get that sort of mpg! It seems to me that car designers are keeping well ahead of 'radical' solutions for now. That's not to say alternatives should not be followed up, the oil is going to run out sometime, but are electric cars really the way to go yet when electricity generation is still far from being renewable?

Steve

Steve Avatar

Location: Around My Corner... and Up Yours
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 13, 2011 - 5:30pm

Electric cars may not be so green after all, says British study

votraspace

votraspace Avatar

Location: Earth
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 8, 2011 - 6:13pm

I'm waiting for Tesla to make that economical car they promised when they brought out the Roadster (yes, because everyone has $120,000 to spend on a vehicle), and the GM EV1 was around $35,000 before they recalled and destroyed them.  I see it as this - find me a car that can:  a.) get 300 miles on a single charge, b.) be able to quick charge in 10-15 minutes (if one has to wait, then so be it), c.) be around $20,000.  This is what most people want when it comes to a fully-electric vehicle, something that does the same as a gas-powered one.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 8, 2011 - 10:37am

Another lengthy article in today's paper about a fight at European level on a new standard plug for E-cars. Hope they get it sorted out quickly.

Main thing though was that the powers that be want to use the batteries of the private vehicle fleet to store the power generated by renewable sources to meet peak demand (morning toast etc.).

Not sure this is going to work because mornings is also the time you want your car to be charged up for the day...
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2010 - 7:10am

Looks like e-cars might just start becoming attractive (economically at least) for short journeys.


Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next