Washington Post Reveals the Shocking Truth about Electric Cars
Over the weekend, Washington Post editorial staff member Charles Lane did a brutal take down of the inflated hopes behind the Obama administration's push for electric vehicles. President Barack Obama is using billions of tax dollars to bribe manufacturers and drivers into putting a million plug-in hybrids on America's roads by 2015. Plug-in hybrids can have their large capacity batteries charged through connections to electrical outlets and essentially function as electric vehicles with an internal combustion engine as backup. They also cost about $10,000 more than comparably equipped gasoline-powered vehicles. Lane begins by noting:
…the Volt's launch coincided with publication of a 72-page report by J.D. Power and Associates that confirmed, in devastating detail, what many other experts have found: Electric cars still cost too much, even with substantial federal subsidies for both manufacturers and consumers, to attract more than a handful of wealthy buyers - and this will be true for at least another decade.
What little gasoline savings the vehicles achieve could be had through cheaper alternative means. And electrics don't reliably reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since, as often as not, the electricity to charge their batteries will come from coal-fired plants.
The Obama Energy Department has suggested that, with the help of federal money, manufacturers can ramp up mass production and bring the price of electric-car battery packs down 70 percent by 2014 - thus rendering the cars more affordable.
But J.D. Power is skeptical. "Declines of any real significance are not anticipated during the next 5 years," the report notes, adding that "the disposal of depleted battery packs presents yet another environmental challenge."
Lane further observes that study after study shows that plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles will have almost no impact on the administration's stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, he cites a recent National Academy of Sciences study which found:
"Subsidies in the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars. . .will be needed if plug-ins are to achieve rapid penetration of the U.S. automotive market. Even with these efforts, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are not expected to significantly impact oil consumption or carbon emissions before 2030."
Lane blisteringly (and correctly) concludes:
Yet, like a rural voter clinging to his guns, the Obama administration brushes aside the experts because - well, who knows why? Perhaps subsidizing electric cars helps a Democratic administration make corporate welfare and tax breaks for the wealthy seem progressive. It's possible President Obama feels bound by his grandiose campaign promise to put a million plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on the road by 2015.
Or maybe Republicans aren't the only ones susceptible to ideological obstinacy and magical thinking after all.
Whole remarkable Post op/ed here.
See also my recent report, Revving Up Electric Cars with Government Cash, about my visit to a lithium ion car battery factory last in September.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
*Yawn*
When will the WaPo come out against roads?
"... after which he was grabbed by black-suited individuals and taken into a black, electrically-driven limousine and driven to a yet unknown destination. No word from him since..."
He could be 50 miles from there!
Heh heh
Win.
Awesome. (But it's an electric LIMO, so he's probably 10-20 miles away at best).
The electric limo is only a two-seater. The rest of the space is so that the batteries can ride in almost regal comfort.
Silly. Rationing is for the little people. Specially equipped four ton H2 abductor vehicles with a V8 engine on each side of the chassis, and undiluted petro kept in tanks dug in behind the Gov Employee only filler-up on Quantico for the important people.
Meanwhile, administration lapdog and devoted corporatist Jeff Immelt says General Electric will be buying lots and lots of electric vehicles.
The science is settled!
"the disposal of depleted battery packs presents yet another environmental challenge."
Green jobs.
Woohoo!
How many more green jobs are necessary to chuck the dead batteries into the lanfill with those cute twisty lightbulbs?
Am I the only one who throws the cute twisty light bulbs into the regular garbage with everything else?
No
Nope. If they want me to recycle, they can pay me for the mercury.
How could you possibly recycle them? I've never had one wear out in the 2-3 years since I started putting them in. The only time I get rid of when is when one breaks, at which point the mercury is already in my home and there is no point in recycling.
You're lucky, I've had a dozen or more go in the 4 years I've had them-I've replaced 6 flood lights in my kitchen, 2 in the living room fan all in the last 4 years. ALL 4 $14! 3-way bulbs in the living room died in less then 18 months. 4 of 6 bulbs in the bathroom in maybe a year. I had a similar experience in my last apartment on the other side of town. The only fool here is my for continuing to buy these bulbs. I have started picking up incandescent bulbs when I remember so I can start phasing them back in as the CFLs die.
CFLs are great in a light that gets left on for awhile. I went back to regular bulbs in the bathrooms after the cfls burned out in a few weeks from being turned on/off too much. I have a cfl for a back porch light that has been on continually for 3 or 4 years. ya gotta leave em on to keep em alive.
That weakness is actually the ballasts, not the tubes themselves. In magical Euroland, its actually more popular to buy light fixtures that house the ballast, and "bulbs" are just the tube. With a little more money spent on the stationary/re-useable ballast, they get much more robust.
WaPo goring a Sacred Cow of the Progressive/Leftie/Nanny-state crowd. What's next, an expose on the health benefits of salt?
OFFICER! ARREST THIS MAN!
While I agree with the article, was the nasty jab at gun owners really necessary? Electric cars aren't really that high up on the list of rights protected by the Constitution. Guns on the other hand are way up there at Number 2, much to the chagrin of liberals throughout the country.
I think he was referencing Obama's campaign line of "rural voters clinging to guns and religion." I don't think the writer was necessarily calling out a specific demographic.
Not only is the right to bear arms explicitly protected by the 2nd Amendment, educated people (including many rural voters) understand that a privately armed society is an effective defense against both lawlessness and tyranny. There is much historical evidence to support their opinion on this subject. Not only that, many people think firearms are fun.
OTH, there is very little evidence that battery-powered vehicles will ever become a sensible replacement for hydrocarbon-fueled vehicles. The energy density of light hydrocarbons is vastly superior to anything that any foreseeable battery technology could deliver.
The Obamatons have faith that there will be a revolutionary improvement in battery technology and manufacturing economics.
In other words, the Obamatons are promoting faith-based science and economics.
Oh, and electric-powered vehicles are only fun if one thinks it's fun to ostenatiously display self-righteous concern about the environment while accomplishing nothing to preserve it.
I would disagree with the latter. We're well past the point where a rifled barrel is the epitome of military technology. The time when cutting edge military equipment was both commonly available and easily used has long gone.
When it comes to technological optimism, Reason is usually in the same camp.
When it comes to technological optimism, Reason is usually in the same camp.
Except the Reason-camp doesn't expect that innovation to occur as the result of Green Legislation.
Afghanistan and Iraq prove you don't have to have the latest in military hardware to be a pain in the ass of a technologically advanced military.
One day your electric car and your laptop will be powered by methanol fueling a microturbine.
No more batteries!
He wasn't insulting gun owners, he was making fun of Obama for patronizing them. Stop getting butthurt so easily.
the electricity to charge their batteries will come from coal-fired plants.
D'oh!
"The disposal of depleted battery packs presents yet another environmental challenge."
I know of a hollowed-out mountain in Nevada that isn't being used for anything.
Stupid broken links. Why won't Congress fix them? And why does my preview button disappear and reappear at random?
---"the electricity to charge their batteries will come from coal-fired plants."---
Although, through economies of scale, it is easier and cheaper to mitigate the emissions at the power plants rather than individual vehicles. Not that I'm a fan of electric vehicle subsidies, but just sayin'.
It won't be easier to mitigate the emmissions of the gas or diesel powered tow truck that comes to haul off your electric car when it runs out of juice on the interstate.
Because gasoline engines never run out of fuel?
Ok, but when a combustion-powered vehicle says "Empty" you still have as much range as a fully charged EV.
---"Not that I'm a fan of electric vehicle subsidies, but just sayin'."---
These electric cars are/were necessary to sell the GM bailout to democratic voters.
And with more Federal subsidies, we could graft narwal DNA with horse DNA and make affordable Unicorns! By 2014!
Don't tease me like that!
I really hope there is a volcanic island somewhere where mad scientists are perfecting unicorns. A man can dream.
Trappe Summers would be delighted!
By doing the genetic engineering in the lab you take away the possibility of some very interesting porn. hehehe
Too bad that the only thing that gets narwals in the mood for some horse-lovin' is dragon blood.
That will require more Federal subsidies. There's nothing that Federal subsidies can't solve!
Remember that flight was made possible through Federal subsidies???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langley_Aerodrome
Here's a hybrid from 1906. http://www.shorpy.com/node/5734?size=_original
They sucked then, they suck now.
I'm waiting for the first serious accident with the battery electrolyte and/or heavy metals tossed around an intersection.
It'll be closed for months as a haz-mat site.
The electrolytes don't look that dangerous (insert disclaimer about how I'm not a chemist) and lithium isn't either, aside from the danger of combining it with water. Could complicate fire-fighting efforts i suppose.
What heavy metals though?
(additional disclaimer: Yo, fuck electric vehicles.)
Electric cars don't get into accidents. They're protected with a 0.000001" thick layer of faerie dust. And those sparkly bits in the paint job? Ground up unicorn horn.
This is eerily like that massive electrification plan the leader of a nation had in mind to bring his country to a new century...
...whether the people liked it or not, whether it was feasible or not.
Unless we are willing to embrace nuclear, electric cars basically run on coal. That no doubt comes as a shock to liberals who are so stupid they really do think electricity is magically produced by the light socket.
It'd be better if it was produced by millions of unicorns on treadmills.
Every Amercian should have a stationary bike in their house connected to the electricity grid. Every morning, they have to ride for an hour to generate the energy they will use for that day. Get in shape while saving the planet. Or, get an illegal Mexican to do it for them. That's my plan.
As long as I don't have to cut my hair like Ed Begley Jr., I'll consider it.
Oh, he's adorable. His dad would be so proud.
That is if he hasn't already shot himself in the face for being the father of Ed Begley Jr.
Lots of plants have oil-firing capacity as well. If that isn't ironic, nothing is.
Every Amercian should have a stationary bike in their house connected to the electricity grid.
A person cycling vigorously can produce 60-100 watts. I'm not sure of the benefit we'd see if everyone contributed 0.1KwHr daily.
I'm not sure of the benefit we'd see if everyone contributed 0.1KwHr daily.
Around 20 million KwHrs a day?
How about millions of unicorns that shit cheap solar panels out of their ass?
That just might balance out the copious amounts of methane those unicorn asses produce.
Except we have vent-hoods over the Unicorns to capture the methane, which powers the equipment in the slaughterhouse. Mmmmmmm, Unicorn Steaks.
It's obviously you're no engineer either, since you don't realize that it's the combined efficiency of both the electric motor and power-plant turbine that make the system worthwhile.
It obvious, as it it wasn't already, that you are a fucking moron. Burning coal to produce electricity to charge highly toxic batteries to run cars does the environment no good.
Most of our CO2 emissions come from coal power plants not cars. You are just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
You are just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
And I haven't seen one red cent... so...
It's possible President Obama feels bound by his grandiose campaign promise . . . .
Somehow, I doubt it.
Well, it's not like Obama didn't campaign on this. And yet you still gave the man your support. Where is the admission that you fucked up and have no right to complain about this boondoggle?
Proof.
xy: What I said: 1. Who are you voting for in November? Obama. The Republicans must be punished and punished hard.
And punishment may have worked as I hoped. The Republicans are now at least pretending to be in favor of smaller less intrusive government.
So, we should all be thanking you for your Obama vote? Even if we're stuck with Obamacare for the rest of eternity?
Or until the first lawsuit reaches the Supreme Court, whichever comes first.
I wouldn't hyperventilate over Obamacare just yet.
I wish I could trust Kennedy to not be a statist prick.
But you can trust him to be an egomaniac who gets off on being the swing vote. Took my place, he did.
"The Republicans must be punished and punished hard."
And all the rest of got punished hard as well.
Thanks a lot.
Hey Ron, I can read, thanks. In fact, I have read not only your 2008 pile of dog shit but also your bullshit justification -- on several occasions.
Do you really want to peddle that horse turd here?
You do realize there were more than two options, right?
Answer this question (just once): Would it have been possible to vote and punish the Republicans without voting for Obama?
*crickets chirping*
Ron? Ron?
x,y:
I gather you disagree with my analysis of how best to punish misbehaving Republicans. So be it.
This is a sad commentary on the wisdom of several Reason writers. I whole-heartedly agree with their loathing of McCain and Bush, but it took a peculiar variety of cluelessness to translate that loathing into a vote for Obama.
Somebody at Reason should compile similarly a formatted retrospective on their Obama voters, along with photos of these writers wearing Chinese-style dunce caps to signify their humiliation.
And now the Democrats have to be punished, and punished hard. And then, next time, the Republicans will have to be punished, and punished hard. And then.........
we need better punishments
I'm a fan of crucifixion. Line Pennsylvania Ave with the crosses and leave them there until the bodies rot.
"It's not so bad once you get up here."
"Hey, you can see the White House from here!"
the rotting bodies should be gone in a very short time due to all the vultures and parasites in the neighborhood.
I'm strongly inclined to take anything J.D. Power says with a whole salt shaker, rather than a mere grain of salt, due to their business model.
(namely, how they get hired by a given company to produce a review of a product, using a supposedly-independent in-house testing facility, using secret criteria and methods, not releasing any results except to those who pay, and mysteriously, the "best" products that win awards in the reviews are always those made by the paying company. Go figure).
Bergman: Good point, but then there are the other studies referenced by Lane.
What happens when one of these electric cars is involved in a crash? I believe the batteries to run them are supposed to be pretty toxic. I'd imagine in a high speed crash some of those chemicals would leak out.
Charles Lane is obviously just a racist teabagger, trash-talking electric cars because he hates President Obama. Nyaah!
Here's your next Friday Funnies: You're buying your mandated Chevy Volt, only to find out it's actually just a wheelbarrow full of batteries for which you and the government each kick in $20,000.
And then Obama comes in, drawn in some racially insensitive manner.
"Or maybe Republicans aren't the only ones susceptible to ideological obstinacy and magical thinking after all."
I know you're too cool to take sides on anything and need to avoid being seen as unclean, but this line is like a soiled strip of toilet paper dragging behind an otherwise useful article. It had nothing to do with the subject and was the irresistible tug of libertarian smugness wining out right at the end. Fail.
Oh boo hoo, are your little partisan feeling hurt?
I'm a lifelong registered Democrat, and a libertarian by philosophy, but this neurotic need to prove your independence with every position is just another form of ideological blindness. It makes libertarians seem to value narcissism above all else.
For the record, that line you quoted was from Lane's article, not Bailey's commentary.
Right, but Bailey did preface it with "Lane blisteringly (and correctly) concludes:", and it is typical of Libertarian arguments.
I'm a lifelong registered Democrat, and a libertarian by philosophy ...
Does not compute.
Registration is a clerical function that promises and obligates nothing. Been Dem. since 1976, but haven't voted for one since 1980. I get all the enlightening campaign literature in my mail. Independents don't get those freebies.
You think it's easy for us to always be right? It's taxing man.
How hard can it be? Mom makes you soup and a nice sandwich and back to the basement for a nap, then up in time for the meeting of the local He-Man Woman Hater's Club. Life is good.
Why has no one ever thought of that joke before? Genius!
I think it was speaking personally.
Ah, I see. What happens to concern trolls when their mothers finally wise up and commit suicide? Do they starve or something?
Repetition is a time honored method teaching. Now pay attention this time.
No need to repeat yourself. I'm quite quick. I picked up on the fact you were a boring troll right off the bat.
Repetition is also the sign of serious mental problems. Given your other symptoms, you should see a professional
And you're a tampon string stuck between the cellulite infested thighs of an std ridden whore.
Since you are a registered retard, I can imagine that red-team/blue-team bullshit doesn't bother you so much, but as a man living and working in washington, I can assure you that it is the leading cause of stupid ideas in otherwise intelligent individuals.
"And you're a tampon string stuck between the cellulite infested thighs of an std ridden whore."
Then at least I accomplish something, unlike some tampons who claim to be against the flow, but do nothing to stop it. They feel themselves too good to help the cellulite infested, condom disillusioned, struggling working girl, who is the purest version of a libertarian free agent.
bagoh20|11.1.10 @ 1:37PM|#
"...who is the purest version of a libertarian free agent."
When all else fails, you can rely on brain-dead ignoramuses to make up some lie and hope others are as ignorant as they are.
I know you're too cool to take sides on anything and need to avoid being seen as unclean, but this line is like a soiled strip of toilet paper dragging behind an otherwise useful article. It had nothing to do with the subject and was the irresistible tug of libertarian smugness wining out right at the end. Fail.
Ha. Ha. Empty rhetoric is a cold quilt to sleep under at night.
On a slightly-off but related topic on the matter of corporate welfare, the Economist magazine reports that Silicon Valley is losing its affection for Barack Obama. Although some of this change in feeling is attributed to BO's anti-business rhetoric, much of it has to do with high-tech not receiving all the corporate welfare goodies it was led to believe it was going to receive.
http://www.economist.com/node/17361426
What's sad is the volt, if pictured here, is a pretty sexy sled. I wonder how many they would sell with a nice big fat v-8 in them. My guess is that it would be nice competition for the Charger R/T and the loaded fusion. Unfortunately, we will never know because this thing will be the battery-powered version of the ford five hundred.
Of course, if you've just gotta build an electric car, at least make it a hybrid that goes 0-60 in under 5 seconds, gets 75 mpg and makes women everywhere drop their moistened panties in half a second.
There will be an aftermarket.
There's more to it than that. Electric motors are substantially more effient than their piston countertypes, and burning carbon in a powerplant turbine is much more efficient than in a car. There are overall energy/carbon savings, even with coal and gas fired plants and transmission line losses, mostly due to the fact that your motor is 85-90% efficient and not idling in traffic. Also, the carbon coming from a single power plant is much easier to sequester than that coming from tens of thousands of automobiles.
Which is not much time at all, really, considering the magnitude of the change you're talking about here. I'm skeptical about battery production and the capacity of our electric grid to support large number of charging automobiles, but not about the efficiency gains of electric vehicles.
"Electric motors are substantially more effient than their piston countertypes, and burning carbon in a powerplant turbine is much more efficient than in a car"
Well that's real nice but it ain't what counts.
A tank of gas has about a 9 to 1 energy densitity ratio advantage over hybrid and electric car batteries.
That is significant when you have to carry you energy source around with you as is the case with vehicles.
And then there is the matter of being able to fill up your gas tank in about 5 minutes and be on your way vs waiting around for about 8 hours to recharge your electric car.
Which effects range; not efficiency or performance. Range is great, but most people use their cars to commute, not drive cross-country.
Indeed. Battery weight it the biggest issue now. But considering the savings in motor and drivetrain weight, electric vehicles come out about even with gasoline.
Which is why there's a company in Israel that uses recharge stations with a machine to rapidly change out the battery packs. Where's your faith in human inventiveness?
Seriously, some degree of technological realism is always justified, but this is ridiculous. A hundred years ago, and most people here would be arguing for the supperiority of the horse and buggy. I guess this is why I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.
"Where's your faith in human inventiveness?"
Human inventiness is fine - particularly when it is combined with free market capitalism.
It doesn't go well with government mandated industrial policy.
"Seriously, some degree of technological realism is always justified, but this is ridiculous. A hundred years ago, and most people here would be arguing for the supperiority of the horse and buggy.
No I suspect they would be saying that the marketplace will sort out what mode of transport is best just fine on it's own without government mandating one over the other.
Agreed. But lets not talk about the gasoline vehicle as if it's the pure, unsullied product of entrepeneurial genius; the days of Henry Ford are long gone. Detroit is Washington's two dollar bitch and has been for decades.
Well, not Detroit per se. Not any longer anyway... 😉
"Which effects range; not efficiency or performance. Range is great, but most people use their cars to commute, not drive cross-country."
I'd say that most people HAVE used their cars to drive significant distances on a vacation or for some other purpose at some time or another.
I have faith in human inventiveness, but practical electric vehicles are a very, very difficult engineering challenge. The batteries just aren't good enough, despite 100+ years of effort.
"Which effects range; not efficiency or performance"
The only thing that matters to me is the functionality and versatility of the vehicle and the cost of purchase and operating it.
The price of gas would have to go substantially higher than it is now for the electric car to make economic sense even with the govt subsidies.
"Which is why there's a company in Israel that uses recharge stations with a machine to rapidly change out the battery packs"
Fine and dandy for Isreal - a puny country by the way.
How much do the machines cost?
Most gas stations have at least 4 pumps and some double that. You would have to have that many machines to replicate the functionality of gas pumps.
And how many fully charged batteries would have to be stored on site and readiliy available at all times to replicate the amount of energy stored in each underground gas tax tank at each station.
I seriously doubt that it economical or that people would be willing to put up with it.
Coal plant efficiency is 33%, transmission line losses are 6.5%, power inverter to charge the battery losses about 10%, battery charge/discharge efficieny is about 65%, accessories consume about 2.2%, rolling resistance 4.2%, aerodynamic drag 2.6%. Including your 90% electric motor the total efficiency is about 15% and doesn't include heat which is normally supplied by waste heat from the engine. Also, a batteries internal resistance goes up with decreasing temperature requiring additional energy to heat the batteries in colder climates. Net energy savings is pretty much zero.
thanks. Good post. But good luck talking sense and facts to the faith based environmental community.
I'm not an environmentalist, dipshit, I just don't see the world through partisan lenses.
Thanks for the serious reply to my lighter comment. You don't have to get that elaborate, though. Just look at mpg and convert that to energy/mile. Based on an energy density of 141 MJ/G of gasoline, a car getting an average 21 MPG around town spends 6.71 MJ/mile. Tesla's model S spends 0.73 MJ/mile at about 35 miles per hour including battery losses. When I include power generation from coal, transmission and charger losses, I get an equivalent 53.6 mpg for the electric vehicle, which would also be your break-even point. Of course, then you should probably include the price of refining and transporting liquid fuel in the efficency calculation of operating a internal combustion engine...
Multiplying a bunch of numbers is elaborate? It is simple to calculate and reasonable numbers for the efficiency of the systems in the chain are readily available. It doesn't require dubious data from a company that has a vested interest in putting on the best face.
Wrong. Gasoline has 132.24 MJ/G.
Tesla's model S is vaporware at this point. In other words you are comparing the performance of a real car to one that doesn't exist outside the lab environment. Either way the .73 MJ/mile is suspect. Wiki says:
That translates to 179.37 MJ divided by 200 miles or .897 MJ/mile which is significantly different then the .73 MJ/mile you used. Needless to say the Tesla numbers are more marketing then reality. I wouldn't doubt they could achieve those numbers under very carefully controlled conditions. The problem is the real world will not be so cooperative. To make a comparison to the performance of a real world vehicle is flawed beyond doubt.
I don't disagree but the same goes for all the materials that go into making and operating any vehicle. Most cars are in the 18% to 20% range. Refining and transportation is about 86% efficient which works out to about 15% efficient for the whole chain. That is equivalent to the efficiency of the electric car I calculated previously. The energy savings for an electric car are not significant if there are any at all.
There are also hidden costs for electrical cars that are not trivial. The simplistic view that we could charge them at night doesn't take into account the realities of the grid. The distribution transformers are sized based on the fact that power consumption reaches a peak during the day and drops at night. Thermally they heat up during the day and cool off at night. Adding a bunch of electric vehicles getting charged at night and the cool off time is no more. The end result is a lot of transformers will go boom.
It's not true that electric motors are substantially more efficient than their piston countertypes.
It's true that electric motors are substantially more efficient than their piston countertypes at RPM certain ranges for which the electric motors have been specifically tuned. Outside those relatively narrow ranges, piston motors win every time, oftentimes by ridiculous margins. This is why a Prius is absolutely fantastic for navigating long, straight, flat stretches of pavement but worse than worthless just about everywhere else.
I'm skeptical about battery production and the capacity of our electric grid to support large number of charging automobiles, but not about the efficiency gains of electric vehicles.
That's nice.
Spend your own money on it, and keep your hand out of my pocket.
Exactly. Anybody who thinks electric cars are better is free to buy one. Hell, buy two or three. But if they can't because the car is expensive as hell? Not my problem.
Electric motors are substantially more effient than their piston countertypes
I've said it before: give me a small, ultra-clean diesel with a honking big electric motor at each wheel, an alternator to power it all and fuck the batteries. I'd buy it in a second. It would wax just about any normal muscle car produced today and do it getting 80 MPH. Sadly, no one will make it.
Unfortunately, our masters have a fetish for D-cells and plugs-ins and making cars that no one wants to buy at its true cost.
Gah, 80 MPG...
I'd buy it in a second.
Ha, that's why they won't do it. It's just no fun if they don't get to stick a gun in your face.
Maybe you can get GE to build you a scaled down diesel-electric locomotive.
I got a nice vision of JW in that scene from Stars My Destination where the main character arrives at a party in a locomotive that a huge line of employs are laying down tracks for as he travels to the party.
JW has a line of train tracks following him all over town, like the dotted line behind Jeffy in a demented version of a hack Family Circus daily.
Didn't that one win the best Rape Scene in a Novel for the Year 1956 award?
Who said I was a role model?
Just finished Chasm City. Incredibly well done in large quantities of the novel, but some of the logic of character action is to say the least frustrating especially given the level of expertise in mil'try matters they possessed. Why for fuck sake would you consider the Ultra's intelligence in regard to Argent's point of travel still good after you were well certain that they were playing both sides. It made absolutely no sense to continue further with the ambush after the incident at the tree.
Also, the reiteration of the basic goodness of Argent's character. What was that about? And long before S.H. stopped suspecting him of being the one behind nuking the sky cable.
I mean Family Circus, of course. They really do let those kids wonder around the neighborhood too much, so who didn't see that one coming, right?
wonder/wander fuck all
That's the idea, Gilbert.
Think of it as a practical Tesla Roadster.
Such machines exist, they're just used for industrial applications and mineral extraction. The advantages of having a motor in each wheel don't scale well to personal transport.
They seem to be scaling down electric motors for death-trap econoboxes very nicely. Problem is, they're stuck on making everyone drag a 25 mile extension cord behind them.
Substract the 600 lbs or so of the battery (and get out from under China and Bolivia's thumb) for 400 pounds or so of engine+fuel and get your trunk and back seat returned to you too, not to mention being able to slap some extra structural weight on there so you can survive being t-boned by a moped.
We've got to break our dependency on foreign lithium.
as long as I can get my foreign librium I really don't give a rip.
Actually it's neodymium and other rare earth elements.
The government needs to support emerging technologies, like electric cars which have been around only since....oh, the dawn of the automobile. Well, there's still those new solar panels, which have only been around...huh, 40 years or so....ANYWAY...windmills
Mainer|11.1.10 @ 1:25PM|#
"The government needs to support emerging technologies, like electric cars which have been around only since....oh, the dawn of the automobile...."
And that amazing new technology, the choo-choo train!
Don't forget High Speed Rail!
High speed trains are the easy part. Making the tracks in the states suitable for such trains? That may be a bit more difficult and kinda spendy.
Where's your faith in human inventiveness?
Right where it has always been; centered on individuals acting on their own, not government bureaucrats pursuing grandiose "industrial policies'.
Then criticize the policy of subsidizing electric vehicles; most of what's posted here is just snark about the superiority of the internal combustion engine.
I supplied a counter argument previously, that wasn't snark, without a response from you. It shows that the "energy/carbon savings" of electric cars are zero.
And of course there is no actual proof that we need to be cutting carbon emissions to begin with.
They are superior from the economical and functionality standpoint of the individial driver -at the current price of gasoline anway.
And that's really all that matters when you're trying to sell cars to the public.
Talking about how electric motors are generically more "efficient" than gasoline engines isn't relevant.
The comparison is the total cost and functionality of the entire SYSTEM of gasoline fueled vehicles vs a SYSTEM of electric fueled vehicles.
Hybrid and electric cars are more expensive to purchase and there is still the problem of the energy density ratio of the fuel source to deal with, the lack of range of electric cars and the recharge time.
Personally I am not going to buy any car that is not capable of being ready to go at any given time of day or night. An electric car that is not charged up at a time when you need to go somewhere in a hurry is no better than having no car at all.
One could have made the same complaint about the automobile in the era before paved roads were common. Demand for the vehicles and their capabilities lead to demand for the infrastructure, which in turn, allows for the production of more vehicles and a decrease in cost.
That being said, using Tesla's model S as a basis of comparison, I'm still getting superior efficiencies including power generation, transmisssion and charging.
Again, all of that could have been said about the advantage of horses at one time. Amazing how technology improves, isn't it?
This reminds me of my grandfather, who always had to have a V8 just in case he needed the power and damn the extra expense. Personally, I just wouldn't run the batteries down to zero every day any more than I would take it home with an empty fuel tank.
"That being said, using Tesla's model S as a basis of comparison, I'm still getting superior efficiencies including power generation, transmisssion and charging."
You are not getting any sort of superior ECONOMIC efficienty at the individual car owner level. And that is all that counts.
You can keep carrying on about how electric motors are more efficient and all. It is irrelevant. Hybrid and electric cars are more expense to produce. You would not make back the difference in gas savings for a very long time unless the price of gas increased dramatically and stayed high indefinitely.
"Again, all of that could have been said about the advantage of horses at one time. Amazing how technology improves, isn't it?"
It has yet to be established that the electric car IS an improvement. It will only be proven to be so if it can replicate the exact functionality of an internal combustion engine care at LOWER economic costs to the individual.
The one's that exist now can't.
"Personally, I just wouldn't run the batteries down to zero every day any more than I would take it home with an empty fuel tank"
Really.
So you can accurately anticipate in advance with 100% accuracy exactly how many miles you will need the instant you start out somewhere with a full charge. There's no such thing as any unanticipated trips in your life? No emergency situations?
You can keep dancing around the recharge issue all you want. The fact is that it is a major disatvantage of electric cars. The consuming public knows it whether you do or not. Having a car that requires 8 hours or so of downtime to get going again is a car with less functionality - period.
Range is great, but most people use their cars to commute, not drive cross-country."
No small fraction of the daily commutes will exceed the comfortable range of the Volt.
Even if your daily commute is within range, you better not need to take any side trips of any distance.
And you better not need to drive more than the comfortable range, ever, on vacation, or running errands, or whatever else you do.
Nah. Range matters. A hell of a lot. As in, insufficient range for transportation makes it pretty much useless.
Electric cars at this point are a toy, a vanity, a third car that will probably, on net, add to the family carbon footprint, not shrink it.
None of our resident progressives commented on this article?
Electric vehicles are more expensive than conventional vehicles because the price we pay at the pump doesn't include all of oil's external costs. It doesn't include the costs of cleaning up the pollution, the health costs resulting from that pollution, the costs of oil shocks and "accidents" like we just had in the gulf, or the costs of using our military to secure our oil supplies. In other words, gas is a lot more expensive than we're currently paying on an individual level. Estimates of the true cost of a gallon of gas range from $8 to $15 per-gallon. If those costs were included in the lifetime cost of a conventional vehicle, electric vehicles would not only be competitive, they'd be less expensive.
A fossil-fueled car is less expensive because we've been avoiding paying our bills.
Please quantify those cost otherwise it is just a bunch of hand waving. Please take into account that half of our electricity is produced from coal that is without a doubt a lot dirtier then oil. In other word, stop pretending that there are no external costs from generating electricity.
"Electric vehicles are more expensive than conventional vehicles because the price we pay at the pump doesn't include all of oil's external costs.
This guy sounds like a Chad understudy.
It's the EXTERNALITEEEEEEEZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!
The same kind of nay-saying was going on when cars came on the scene to replace horse pulling power!
Wrongity wrong wrong. Electric cars enjoyed a short run of popularity beginning in the middle of THE 19TH CENTURY. They were quickly made obsolete around the 1900s by advances in internal combustion. The electric car was, and still is, a more primitive version of transportation than the gas-powered car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle
Let's stop reporting old news !
The yellow and purple Audi A2 car took around seven hours to complete the 600-kilometre (372-mile) stretch, even had the heating on.
Driver Mirko Hannemann, the chief of DBM Energy, drove the distance at 90 km/h (55 miles per hour) on average, had the heat on and was able to whisk around a few more miles in the city. When the A2 electric finished, it still had 18% of the initial electric charge in the battery.
?
It has a lithium-metal-polymer battery. DBM Energy, the company that built the battery and electric motors into the Audi A2, said the battery would function for 500,000 kilometres.
?
A representative of the car said the Audi still featured all the usual creature comforts such as power steering, air-conditioning and even heated seats as well, so it was not like the car was especially made for long distance record attempts
?
The German engineers said their car was special because the battery was not installed inside the luggage area, but under the luggage area, meaning the full interior space of the car was still available
?
The battery, based on what DBM Energy calls the KOLIBRI AlphaPolymer Technology, comes with 97 percent efficiency and can be charged at virtually every socket. Plugged into a high-voltage direct-current source, the battery can be fully loaded within 6 minutes
The young inventor couldn't give an exact price for his battery -- he said that was dependent on scaling effects -- but vowed it wouldn't just be more powerful, but in the end also cheaper than conventional lithium ion batteries.
What's more important, the technology which made the trip possible is available today.
?
German Economics Minister Rainer Bruederle, who subsidized the drive, said it showed electric cars are not utopian but really work.
What about the argument that it lowers our reliance on foreign oil? Does that not have any weight in the issue?
I heard foreign oil is making our kids gay french-speakers.
No it doesn't.
And here's a story about how the market works.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/0...../index.htm