Electric vehicles; they work well, don't pollute, pennies to run, How come

[Zinfandel]

they are ALL being destroyed...Pressure from the oil companies?

"Pretty nifty cars, if you want to get out from under the thumb of the oil companies. There's only one problem: For the most part, you can't have them.

GM and other manufacturers have recalled most of their cars, leaving some in public agency fleets and others in museums or universities. In fact, GM has been hauling its EV1s out to the Arizona desert and crushing them.

But wait. What if you left your house in the morning, drove your 20 miles to work and 20 miles back -- by then, you'd have burned up $7 worth of gas - - (but instead) the whole trip cost a mere 50 cents?

That would be about the price of the electricity it costs to recharge your Ford Ranger electric-powered truck overnight. That's the truck that will go about 80 miles between charges, the one that looks the same as a gas- powered Ranger.

And the truck is hardly a slouch. With half a ton's worth of batteries slung under the pickup bed, lowering the truck's center of gravity, it handles more like a Mustang than the workhorse it was designed to be, taking corners marked for 30 mph at more than 65. Raboy said that in the past four years, the truck "has cost me nothing to run. No maintenance, no oil changes, no gas."

Electric vehicles are loved by the people who drove them, almost universally..."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/24/MNGDTCEA9B1.DTL

[ClassWarrior]

1. Sounds like it. Pressure from the criminals who created Bush**.

NGU.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. Corrections...

They don't work that well. They pollute as well, just not in the same location as regular cars (unless you're using solar to power it.) They cost more than pennies to run. They have limited range. The GM car in question was exceptionally quirky due to its being a small production run. They are hugely expensive to manufacture at this point.

[Zinfandel]

5. Why are they being destroy?

One OWNER states flatly...

"Raboy said that in the past four years, the truck "has cost me nothing to run. No maintenance, no oil changes, no gas."

"50 cents?" :bounce:

"That would be about the price of the electricity it costs to recharge your Ford Ranger electric-powered truck overnight. That's the truck that will go about 80 miles between charges, the one that looks the same as a gas- powered Range."

[KeepItReal]

7. GM also made the EV-1 butt-ugly (Literally). Wonder why?

You cannot make me believe they could not take that technology and put it in a more appealing body style.

Honda has gas/electric hybrid plants in the Civic and Accord body styles now. Ford has gas/electric Escapes and Lexus is rolling out the hybrid RX400h (next year they'll have a hybrid GS sedan). All of these vehicles should generate crazy sales (Assuming stealers -er- dealers don't jack up the sticker prices).

Never been a big fan of the Toyota Prius simply because of the looks. I understand it is a great vehicle otherwise, as exemplified in its sales.

Who says a eco-friendly car has to not look as good as a gas powered one? GM, I guess.

[TheFarseer]

3. Wow, that sounds really cool

You could have one electric car to drive everyday and one normal car to take on longer trips. I can't say I've ever seen one but if I had the cash and it was more mainstream I would definitely consider it. And before anyone launches into "well, it takes even more energy to produce the electricity for it" it doesn't have to. Electric power can be produced by wind, hydroelectric etc and if you're going to piss on that because the wind turbine rotors could kill a bird, then I just can't help you.

[wuushew]

4. You are hauling a large amount of dead weight with batteries

a nearly dead battery has the same mass as a fully charged one. With internal combustion engines (and fuel cells as well) the cost of the oxygen is not added to the weight of the vehicle. Additional flexibilty in performance can be affected by boring out the displacement or raising the compression of said engine. Traditional modes of transporation thus have superior flexability in the tasks they are designed for.

[nebula]

6. Wind and solar is pie on the sky

Even if half the landmass of the US was covered with wind farms and solar panels, they'd still produce only a small fraction of the energy that oil now provides.

And they depend on the weather cooperating, so they're not very reliable forms of energy.

[firefox]

8. I do not believe your statement is factual n/t

[nebula]

11. Win and solar can only be a minor supplemental

source of energy, but can never come close to replacing oil.

Their applications are rather limited. For example, wind and solar is not a suitable power srouce for vehicles, airplanes, or any energy-intensive applications.

[Zinfandel]

12. WRONG! Gee, I wonder what could be developed if there was NO OIL?

I guess we wouldn't have air travel?

[nebula]

14. Big problems with wind & solar

...transportability and storage.

With oil, you just stick it in a can and take it with you anywhere. Oil can be stored for months and years in a container.

You can't do that with wind or solar. With wind for example, you have to be within miles of a wind farm to take advantage of its energy output. And it can't be stored for more than a day or two, if that.

Not to be negative, but wind and solar technology is just giving us more false hope.

[wuushew]

16. I can guess on solar

6,000,000 btu per barrel x 20 million barrels of oil a day = 120,000,000,000,000 Btu

1 Kilowatthour of Electricity = 3,412 Btu
120,000,000,000,000 Btu/3,412 = 35,169,988,276.67 Kwh

Radiant power from the sun, to most of the populated earth surface, after atmospheric reflection and absorption, averages 644 watts per square meter. It's available for over 5 hours per day on stationary PV panels, installed so they receive maximum sunlight.
644 * (efficency varible say 10%) * 5-6 hours of usable sunlight.
644*.10*6 = 386 watt hours = .386 kilowatt hours per meter a day.


35,169,988,276 Kwh / .386 Kilowatt hours per meter equals = 91,113,959,264 square meters = 35,179 square miles

[Zinfandel]

10. Man, is that Bush/Cheney oil energy propaganda if I've ever heard it...

Well, one would NOT put wind mills in the desert, nor solar panels in the northwest or salt water hydro stations in Iowa...

What if we spent the 300 billion dollars on technology and development of renewable, non-polluting energy sources, instead of dumping in it Iraq as we already have?

Who's business would be hurt dramatically if these renewable sources were developed? The oil companies, you think? What is BushCo but Big oil??????

How much do you think was spent on alternative energy research in the 18 years of oil owned Reagan, Bush 1 and W?

How much do think is being spent this year? Not even 1% of what we give in subsidies ("Corporate Welfare") to a single oil company, all provided with our tax money.

[gollygee]

13. I agree that more money needs to be spent on alternative energy

but I agree with the other poster that it isn't going to solve the problem. We are running out of oil too quickly to have all we need ready by the time the oil gets scarce. And at that point, it will be hard to get the energy together to build the structures that will provide alternative energy.

[ladjf]

24. I don't think your figures are correct.

Further, you are basing you statement on the efficiency of today's technology. And you didn't mention geothermal and wave motion generators.

[firefox]

9. Two questions

1. Why do they not make the hybrids so that they can be plugged in and avoid the gas burning?

2. Why can you not get a car that will have limited batteries (weight and cost)made just to get to work and back instead of automatically going for 300 miles or so?

And how about the electric cars that were in this DU thread in reply8? - http://tinyurl.com/55zup

[lfairban]

21. I wondered the same thing, then I started to think about it.

This was after I read:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-5655009.html

As for question 1., the engineering considerations given the currently available technologies do not make this a winning concept. You are probably better off with a vehicle that is primarily gas powered with a little electric, like the current hybrids, or a car that is primarily battery with a small gasoline engine to extend its range. If you try to make it a 50/50% split, you will have an engine with too much weight and too many batteries. You get the worst of both technologies instead of the best. With the minuscule battery capacity of a hybrid, it is almost not worth the time to plug it in.

About question 2., I remember my bike, which has an electric assist motor, I love it. I wondered why I was using a battery that could power the bike for two hours, when my typical excursion was 15-30 min. The literature said that for a lead acid battery, the life expectancy would be considerably higher if it was not regularly completely discharged. It is best if you do not use more than 40% of its capacity on a regular basis.

I hope this sheds some light on your concerns.

[LaPera]

15. Looks like a lot of people own oil stock here, bro!

What else could explain their shortsightedness and ignorance on the amazing advantages of alternative energy, if it indeed received adequate funding for research and development, instead of being completely wiped out but every republican president, and then left with their propaganda why renewable, non-polluting endless amount of alternative energy won't work!

[lfairban]

22. I have a GMAC bond that is taking a beating.

I wish GM would get with the new technologies.

Since GMAC relies on GM for all of its business, as GM goes, so goes GMAC. My broker called me a couple of weeks ago to say that my bond had lost 14% of its value. Since then, I have been reading a lot about GM.

[Speck Tater]

17. Batteries last about 4 years

Then they have to be replaced. That takes lead (mined using diesel equipment, refined using coal or gas fired electricity) encased in plastic (from crude oil) and transported halfway across the country in diesel trucks. Without the oil-based infrastructure to support the electric car industry, electric cars can't last.

And that doesn't take into consideration charging the cars. Batteries are energy STORAGE, not an energy SOURCE. So the energy you burn in an electric car still has to come from somewhere. Solar? Do you know how much oil it takes to manufacture a solar panel? And at current electric rates you would have to get 30 years worth of energy from the panel before it broke even on cost. That measn paying your next 30 years electric bills upfront, today.

Wind? The titanium for the fan blades does not come from the US, so that, along with all the other parts and pieces gets transported halfway around the world by diesel ships. And wind turbines are famously unreliable and subject to breakdown. Neither wind nor solar can be sustained for any length of time without the oil-based infrastructure to support them.

Dreaming of relying on alternatives to maintain our present lifestyle is misguided foolishness. The ONLY solution is to radically alter our lifestyles. Unpalatable to most, but that resort WILL be forced upon us sooner or later. And probably sooner than most care to believe.

[Selatius]

18. Electric cars alone won't solve oil running out. The power grid USES oil

When you plug the wire into the outlet to charge overnight, the electricity is coming from the power plant, which most likely uses coal or oil. If it's not that, then it's usually coming from a nuclear power plant.

The point is you must cut back consumption if we're talking about trying to convert the entire grid over to solar, hydroelectric, wind, and even nuclear energy. The problem is where we get our energy from and how much of it do we use daily. We cannot sustain our present lifestyle this way. There are going to have to be sacrifices.

[Speck Tater]

19. FYI

<<the electricity is coming from the power plant, which most likely uses coal or oil>>

FYI: 60% of US electric power comes from natural gas.

[wuushew]

20. I disagree

Coal was the fuel used to generate the largest share (51.8 percent) of electricity in 2000 1,968 billion kilowatthours(kWh). This is over one and a half times the annual electricity consumption of all U.S. households (1,141 billion kWh). Natural gas was used to generate 612 billion kWh (16.1 percent), and petroleum accounted for 109 billion kWh (3 percent).

http://www.electricityforum.com/electricity-generation.html

[Speck Tater]

23. I stand corrected.

I looked up the figures I recalled and I had misremembered. It was that 60% of NEW generators built since 2000 have been natural gas fired plants.

[Zinfandel]

25. Shit, nobody answered my question? How come they are destroying

all the existing electric vehicles, even when people are offering to buy them?

[Selatius]

26. Well, the answer is implicit but clear: It's not "economically feasible."

[wuushew]

27. I think the question is why GM refuses to sell

unless the scrap value of the vehicles outweighs the buy offer, none of these companies are maximizing their return on investment.

[LaPera]

28. "Clear & not "economically feasible" to whom?

If I want to buy the used vehicle at any cost...and the vehicle is right in front of me & I want to own it and take responsibility for it.

And yet, they still prefer to take it out to the "desert and smash it"

If I feel the vehicle would not be economically infeasible for me, why not let me one buy it?

And even if its not "economically feasible" for me to operate it, shouldn't at least that much be my choice?

I mean to say, its not like I'm asking them to build me one, I'm speaking of the ones already here, built & running, that they plan on destroying when the people driving them want to buy them.

[Selatius]

30. It may be that they simply don't want the technology becoming widespread

It would most likely anger their friends in the oil business who make gasoline. There are no doubt contracts and agreements between the big automakers and big oil to supply things such as, for instance, motor oil and gas that goes into the car before they finally make it off the assembly-line. This is speculative on my part, I admit.

[left15]

29. cutting consumption.

I think we need to contiune developing electric cars, but they aren't very useful yet.

They still cost $45k to produce, (they sell them for $30k just to compete) and they don't have enough range to replace a gas driven car. Another issue is the batteries. After 3-4 years, you have to replace $8000 worth of batteries, not to mention disposing of 1 ton of lead.

What I would like to see is a stripped down version of the Chevy Avaeo? the current production car costs $10k, and gets 35 miles to the gallon on a 1.3L engine.

Make this into a 1 seater, with A/C am/fm/mp3, and enough room for a lunch box. This can be your commute to work car. doing so, you could probably drop 800lb in weight, and use a .8 L engine, and get 60 mgp. Get the price down to $7000 by only making 1 model in 3 colors, people would customize the snot out of themy anyway. At 7k it pays for itself in gas in 3 yrs, and at $7k you can have one in addition to your family car. Here in IL you have to keep your kids in some kind of car seat till their 8 or 10, so you almost need a minivan or SUV with 3 kids to fit 3 car seats across the back seat.


Just my 2 cents.


As far as energy consumption, here are some numbers just based on US oil consumption.

Barrles used per day 20,000,000
Barrles used per year 7,300,000,000
this equals btu/yr 42,340,000,000,000,000
which equals KW Hours per year 12,409,144,196,952

***currently ***
Nuke Plants 101
KW hrs per yr 7.28E+11
Avg KW/plan/yr 7,207,920,792

Therefore you would need:

1,722 nuke plants to replace oil

OR

720,792,079,208 SQFT of solar cells
(Current techology produce 10 W/sqft avg per day)

If the average home has 1200 SQFT roof

would would need to cover 1,201,320,132 houses

of course there are no where near 1 billion homes in the US.

I'd like to throw in factories, but I have no data on avg roof size.

Also worth noting, is current solar cell technology is based on some fairly rare elements, even if you had unlimited funds, there simply isn't enough raw materials available to do anything on a useful scale.