Sens4Miles

Well, I think the consensus within the industry is that Li-Ion batteries will be the best way to bring about the new wave of EVs for the obvious well-known reasons. It would appear that NiMH batteries are not going to be used to power EVs by any of the big car companies. But what do I think is holding back the EV market? I think it really comes down to profit. These batteries are so expensive, that they're not going to be able to sell these cars for a profit for some time. They will all need to take a risk and believe in this technology and that it will sell as well as hybrids have and eventually sell at a profit once the costs come down. No, I don't believe the Chevron patent is single-handedly holding back the technology, but it's holding back NiMH and the potential EV range of current hybrids.

GM could be the world leader in EVs right now if they would have kept the EV1 in production and sell them in limited quantities. But they saw how much money they could potentially lose in the investment and decided to cash in instead by selling the tech to Chevron.

The fact that now, GM, Nissan, Toyota, and others all seem committed to delivering these EVs or some sort of long-range PHEV by 2010, they must believe that there is a serious demand for them and that eventually (like the Prius), it will be a profitable investment.

Nissan claiming that their EV will roughly cost around 25k is almost unbelievable at this point, but if they can do it, they'll lead the pack and quickly become the world leader in green cars, IMO. GM still seems wishy washy about the Volt, only giving out limited details and not yet 100% committing to the November 2010 deadline.

I do not believe that any of the arguments against EVs are what are holding them back at the moment (no plug-in stations, lack of extended range for long trips, etc). Like I mentioned previously, EVs are not for everyone. But then again, neither are SUVs, but they sure do sell a lot of them. Same with compacts, crossovers, diesels, AWD vehicles, trucks, etc. There is a demand for EVs, hybrids, & PHEVs, but they must also be affordable. A 50k EV isn't going to cut it.

Sens4Miles

I want an electric, and I would love to drive a hybrid, but I'm not buying a Prius.. why? Because I find it to be completely unattractive and I cannot see myself in it. If it were styled differently, I would absolutely consider it (fully loaded with all options of course). Right now I'm driving a GS300 which I have decided I will be selling by the summer and replacing it with a loaded Toyota Camry Hybrid.

You have to also remember, the Camry Hybrid accounts for part of those 2:1 sales numbers over the Prius you keep harping on. The fact that the Prius outsells every other Toyota make and model including everything from Lexus & Scion is astonishing. Yet you still seem to downplay its success.

I find it remarkable that you somehow believe this "trend" as you call it, will not continue? Gas is quickly approaching $5/gallon. The Prius continues to break its own sales records every month and you honestly believe there's a chance people are going to buy less of them in the future and more gas-guzzlers?

I agree with you on the business aspect of EVs/hybrids/PHEVs in that the profit isn't there for the companies that sell them. But there is a demand from the consumers and these sales figures month after month in the past few years prove that.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

You find it remarkable because you haven't seen the same things I've seen over my lifetime. I remember the Oil Embargo of 1973. I remember the lines and the sold out stations. I remember thinking I wanted a degree in Chemical Engineering in 1978 because I wanted to help humanity find a way out of the mess we were in with the "energy crisis." Then for reasons I certainly can't explain, the price of oil plummeted. Remember, in 1980, a barrel of oil was $80 when measured in constant dollars (uninflated).

I can't say it won't happen again. I can't say we won't see oil at $80 a barrel in the next two years. Lehman Brothers seem to think this will happen, and have publicly stated it. I can say two years ago I started studying peak oil, and I've read a LOT about possible scenarios from the pundits. It made me question everything about the life I live and the lifestyle I've come to enjoy. But I have a fundamental belief in mankind's ability to adapt and overcome. So I have confidence that a solution will develop. I also have confidence there will be a lot of "dry holes" along the way, and there will be a lot of unhappy investors who are speculating on what will happen next.

I actually think you nailed it on the head in the post above this one. Excellent analysis! There is a place for EVs. I personally don't think they're the answer. They're one possible answer, to solve a certain niche's problems. How big that niche is drives the decisions people with the money make. How much do we invest in satisfying this niche? Will the niche become the mainstream and displace what we know today to be mainstream? Can I (the CEO responsible to a lot of people who are investing) afford to be wrong about this?

I am quite certain there are a large number of people in my age group (45- 55) who are also looking at this with an historical perspective. So they're sitting on the fence as well.

Toyota got it right with the Prius, and they're obviously working to add to this success. It wasn't without some serious hand wringing and a lot of soul-searching in hopes of finding the right solution to a problem that hadn't really materialized (when they first released Prius.)

It's still very difficult for me to believe an electric is fundamentally more energy efficient from cradle to grave than an ICE. Sure the operating cost for the owner is less, but I understand the processes required to mine and smelt the metals, produce the polymers (from oil), and build the car in the first place. I also understand that if we fail to recycle EVs we will do the planet a huge disservice and all the "green" of no tailpipe emissions will be lost to toxic metals leaching into the ground water around battery dumping sites. We don't even do a good job of dealing with standard dry cells right now, we're still just tossing them in a hole in the ground in almost every state.

So we're back to solving a lot of problems.

BTW, when I bought my first MkIV Supra in 1994, I didn't think it was a good looking car. I thought the square lines of the MkIII far more attractive. But after seeing the performance numbers for the MkIV and comparing it to everything else available at the time, it wasn't hard to accept the car's appearance.

bagwell

damn dude you have a long commute j/k

sure my Insight could do it 35 hours, why wouldn't it? I have cruise control along with a nice sound system - and the car is comfy to cruise in.

oh, and I could do it with just 3.3 tanks of gas (@ 10 gallons each) = less than $140 (@ $4).


oh and re F150 sales (which I estimate 50% of which are commerical sales)
check this thread out ---> https://www.clublexus.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=356111

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

the battery is the only thing holding an EV back, once a high charge capacity, lightweight battery is developed to give a EV a large range, that will be the breakthrough.

you dont dump batteries, auto zone gives you $10 for your old car battery for a reason. I am not even sure where to take AA/AAA batteries to recycle but I dont care because I use rechargables, saving a crapload of money using rechargables.

IS350jet

It's lack of demand, not profit. Really, who wants a car that gets less than 100 miles per tank, and then takes 4 hours to fill up? When they can make an EV with a 400+ mile range and can be charged in about 4 minutes, I may consider one. Until then, this remains the *sole* reason why EV's have not caught on. You're kidding yourself if you think differently.

bagwell

one word........ TESLA

IS350jet

Bring it!!

Sens4Miles

You travel more than 100 miles a day?
If so, then you must rack up more than 36,500 miles on your car per year. That's a lot of miles. Sure, some people do travel that much per year, but most travel on average about 30-40 miles per day (more than enough range for day-to-day driving). I see no issue with a car taking 4 hours to charge up, since most human beings sleep 6-9 hours every night. Just like you plug your cell phone in to charge over night so you have enough juice to talk on the phone the next day, you can plug your car in at night so you have enough juice to drive the next day.

EVs cannot "catch on" as you say since currently none of the major manufacturers even have "1" available to lease or purchase. You can't suggest there is no demand for them without giving at least one example of poor sales since there are none available. Have you done any research online to see if there is a demand for these vehicles? I have. Take my word for it, there is a BIG demand for EVs. Problem is, you can't go down to your local Toyota dealership and pick one up... yet. But when Nissan or GM or Toyota have one available in 2010 and we see the sales numbers, then we'll see exactly how much demand there really is/was.

bagwell

you can't win here -- then they'll complain -- oh, I have to plug it in every night??

personally I'd glady plug it in every night so I don't have to EVER stop for gas....hell, I'd gladly plug in at work -- I'm sure they wouldn't mind until 100 people try to plug in

Plus -- for longer drives I'd still have a hybrid that uses regular old gas....but as you say most people drive under 100 miles a day anyway...POLL TIME!!

IS350jet

No, I don't drive over 100 miles a day for work. However, every car I've ever owned (16 in all) has been driven, at one point in their life, 100 miles or further on weekends or road trips. I have one primary vehicle that I use for transportation and so does my wife. An EV won't cut it for me. This is the same scenario for literally millions of commuters.

You do bring up some good points and nobody is saying that EV's are a complete failure. They're just not where they need to be for mainstream America. I've already pointed out the reasons. I consider them highly specialized vehicles for very specific purposes, at least for now.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

I can see EVs working for people with moderate commute distances per day and to use it as a daily errand vehicle. Dont really see EVs for taking a long road trip where you have to wait some time to charge it vs. gassing up a vehicle in 5 minutes.

Sens4Miles

Ok, but that's not a valid argument in that there's "no demand" for EVs. There's no demand from YOU and probably many others like you. But people like ME, who have access to everything he needs around him all within a 30 mile radius, there is a demand. I, unlike you, do not go on 100+ mile road trips every weekend. I do however go on road trips maybe once or twice a year. For such trips, I could always rent a car for the weekend. Not a big deal for me. It certainly doesn't justify spending hundreds of dollars a month on a toxic foreign fuel to power my vehicle.

Also, keep in mind that there are already talks of setting up electric power stations in key locations around the country. As EVs become more mainstream, more and more of them will be popping up. San Francisco is currently trying to create a charging infrastructure within the city:

S.F Mayor Wants to Make E-Cars More Common Than Cable Cars

San Francisco could become the first city in America to put electric vehicles on the road in big numbers and create the charging infrastructure to keep them going, a move EV advocates say would push electric cars from the fringes to the mainstream.

Mayor Gavin Newsom is talking to Project Better Place about building a network of charging stations and automated battery-exchange stations similar to those the Silicon Valley startup is developing for Israel and Denmark. The mayor reportedly also is talking to several companies that would work alongside Project Better Place to develop the infrastructure.

"It would be terrific if this happened," said Paul Scott, co-founder of Plug-In America. "People will know that those of us who have been driving these cars for 5 or 10 years already know -- this technology works."

This is by no means a done deal, and anyone who knows San Francisco politics knows it can take forever to get anything done. But if Newsom pulls it off, EV advocates say, it would show people that electric cars are a viable alternative to internal combustion.

Newsom's office confirmed the mayor met with several of Project Better Place's top executives, including CEO Moshe Kaplinsky, last week in Israel. He reportedly is "very impressed" with the startup's plan to bring EVs to the masses and has offered to work with the company to bring electric cars to San Francisco.

Project Better Place is working with the Israeli government to roll out a nationwide EV charging infrastructure, and Renault has agreed to build the cars. It unveiled a prototype of the four-door sedan -- which will use a lithium ion battery with a range of 125 miles -- last weekend. Newsom was already back in the states by then, telling the audience at the New Yorker's "Stories from the Near Future" conference all about Project Better Place and saying San Francisco wants to be "the first city to adopt that strategy."

Scott says San Francisco is the perfect place for an electric car because it is compact, most people commute less than 50 miles a day and most of its electricity comes from natural gas, nuclear power and renewable sources like wind and geothermal energy.

That doesn't mean much if you haven't got the cars, but those are coming as well. Nissan, which is owned by Renault, plans to bring EVs to California by 2010. Several other automakers -- including BMW, Audi, Mitsubishi and Subaru -- are developing electric cars that will meet California's zero-emission vehicle mandate, which requires automakers to put at least 7,500 electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road by 2014.

Scott says Newsom's plan "absolutely" would hasten the development of electric vehicles by creating a market for them. Renault is already developing cars for Project Better Place to deploy in Israel and Denmark, and if it brought those cars to California, Scott says, it would encourage other automakers to do the same.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/san-francisco-c.html

What do you mean "they're just not where they need to be for mainstream America?"

Where are mostly AWD vehicles sold? The Northeast. Why? Because of the snow and terrible weather conditions. Are AWD vehicles prevalent in the south? No. Why? Because there's not really a need for them in those areas. The same thing applies to EVs. For those who live in or near major cities (a good chunk of the population), these vehicles are wanted and needed. I do not consider them "highly specialized vehicles for very specific purposes". What would be so highly specialized about driving 100 miles or less in a day to commute to work, run errands, and pick up the kids? Please explain what you mean, because I don't quite understand your argument.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

You're in NYC - why do you need a car at all?

Sens4Miles

Well, I'm actually in a suburb right outside of NYC (about 20 minutes from Manhattan). For me, an EV would be perfect. I have nightly access to an outlet to plug into, I live close to everything I need, and travel no more than 40 miles per day. Gas prices right now are higher here than the country average (regular is about $4.05, premium is about $4.25). For me and many of my friends/family members, an EV/PHEV is a no-brainer right about now.