bagwell

there ya go!


this is exactly right....and I'll bet 90% of households have more than 1 car anyway....1 EV for daily commute and 1 efficient or fun ICE/HYBRID car/truck for the weekend or long trips.

IS350jet

It means that mainstream America needs transportation needs for reasons other than 40 mile a day work days. I don't know of anyone that uses their car exclusively for work and nothing but work. Owners of EV's would absolutely *have* to have alternate transportation because an EV could not provide complete transportation needs for the average (mainstream America) person.
Don't get me wrong, these people do exist but are there enough of them to support the EV industry? Not at this time, but the industry is working on it. The point is, until the EV can completely replace the ICE motorcar, there won't be many takers.

IS350jet

Do you realize just how staggering this number is? I'm just guessing but probably 99.9999999% of people would never consider owning an EV. I see that you're one of the 00000001% that would. Nothing wrong with that.

Sens4Miles

First of all, you're twisting my words and the facts. I never said that America should use their EVs for work and work only. In fact, I stated the average driver drives approximately 40 miles per day (including work, movies, shopping, picking up the kids, going out to dinner, etc etc). All of that, on average, is about 40 miles per day. However, if an EV gets even 80 miles per charge, it would more than cover the majority of the people's daily needs. The EVs from a decade ago got about 100-120 miles per charge. So I fail to see how an EV achieving even an 80 mile range wouldn't satisfy the needs of most in this country. Owners of EVs would not absolutely have to have alternative transportation because an 80 mile range EV (or heck even a 60 mile range EV) would more than cover the average person's daily needs out of a vehicle.

80 miles per day would equal 29,200 miles per year. I don't know of many people that drive that much in a year. When you lease a car, what is the expected yearly mileage? about 12,000. Even if it's 15,000 miles per year that would equal 41 miles per day. So again, I fail to see how an EV wouldn't satisfy the needs of most people in this country. The argument that an EV wouldn't satisfy the needs of most because mostly everyone goes on 100+ mile road trips every weekend is weak, especially if and when a charging infrastructure is put in place. It isn't necessary, but it would certainly help silence those that continually try to use that argument as a reason as to why EVs "won't work".

Sens4Miles

Oh please.. I would bet at least 5% of the population would make an EV their next purchase if they were readily available and reasonably priced. I don't know where you live, what your financial situation is, or if you have personal loyalties to oil companies, nor do I care. But I will say that for those whose finances have been affected by the high gas prices, they would jump at the chance of owning an EV. Saving $200-300 a month for many people is a huge amount of savings that could be used to paying off other bills, saving for their future, etc etc.

Financial issues aside, the green aspect of using NO FOREIGN OIL is huge among many environmentalists. And you really think only 00000001% of the population would be interested in an EV? OK. I guess Nissan, GM, Toyota, Subaru, Mitsubishi, and others that are working feverishly to get these Li-Ion batteries ready to go by 2010 and investing millions of dollars into research are doing it for nothing.

Obviously their analysis has shown there is a market for such vehicles or they wouldn't be doing all of this. Again, the Prius currently sells about the same amount of units per month as the entire Lexus division. It's currently the 3rd best selling vehicle from Toyota. If even 10% of all Prius owners would be interested in a long-range EV (a very conservative estimate), Toyota would sell 2,000 units/month. That's more than the GS sells on a monthly basis. If they could justify selling the GS, of course they could justify selling an EV.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Sorry, I just can't swallow the "NO FOREIGN OIL" interesting environmentalists. Environmentalists want the ICE to be a museum piece and all drilling for oil to be prohibited. They've pushed this agenda for quite some time much to the detriment of our US economy.

Visit any of the peak oil sites, and you'll get a clear picture why I see hybrids and electrics to be a shell and pea game. We're going to use oil, and a lot of it, no matter how you provide transportation. The only thing we're satisfying with electrics is NIMBY. Somebody will burn a lot of oil building the car - the piece they don't talk about with the Prius or the other hybrids - and somebody will burn a lot of oil reprocessing the waste (assuming we're going to exercise good stewardship and recycle/reprocess the vehicle when its useful service life is passed - if we do it third world style and toss it in a hole, then we've saved a lot of short term costs, much like nuclear power.)

I get your model. I get your concern. I fail to see why you won't look at cradle to grave costs for a fair comparison. You do realize how cheap it is to ethically dispose of an ICE based vehicle, and how expensive it is to dispose of an electric?

Seriously, for environmentalists to be happy, we'd really need to eradicate mankind. We really are a scourge to the planet what with all the destruction we do to nature. Ask any Earth First member - if you can find one unimprisoned.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

You're absolutely right. The first false dichotomy is when people talk about humans vs. 'nature' when we are PART OF nature.

Most of the 'idyllic' places environmentalists revere have been changed and landscaped significantly BY HUMANS.

Environmentalists always decry more housing development, forgetting that where THEY live was once farm land or forest too. If we have expanding population we need additional housing.

And almost everything these environmentalists take for granted in their daily lives was created with or is dependent on energy, and very often, oil.

IS350jet

Wouldn't this be considered "alternate transportation"? Imagine having a car that could not be driven on an extended road trip, ever. Who wants that? Obviously you do.

Again, until an EV can completely replace, or even come close to replacing the ICE, takers will be few.

cpone

Let me assist you:
http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/resyourcar.php

cpone

I've read most of this discussion.
Great discussion though.
But those that are all for the EV failed to address J_Rok's response.
Either on purpose or missed it.
So someone care to explain their thoughts on this?

cpone

There is a guy at MIT that is developing a new battery.
Really neat stuff. His issue when testing the Li-On is the heating up problem when its in use and the ability for it to burst into flames. I forget the guys name but he has developed a new compound for the batteries that gives LOTS of charge quickly. The problem he was having was it going too fast on the charge. But its being worked on.

Lil4X

One thing about EV's that concerns me is the requirement for two or three hours to recharge the battery to even a minimal level following a full discharge. I've had this happen to me with an ICE, that due to a freeway accident or weather, traffic is stalled for an extended period - requiring several hours to make a 45-minute trip. Meanwhile you are consuming those all-important amps at a higher rate, stopping and starting every few feet, running the AC and other accessories.

In an ICE vehicle you may run low on gas, but you can usually find a place to refuel - or at least reroute. Because charging stations are limited, you could find yourself having to plug into an available 110v source to recharge with the on-board charger in mid-commute. Now that takes considerably more time than the big 220v charger you have at home, and with only a partial charge, running the backroads at night in your EV is probably not a good idea.
_____________________

As to J_Rok's question, EV's don't solve the energy problem, they simply displace it. OK, your greeniemobile doesn't pollute (well, except for ozone produced by the motor brushes), but the increased generation capacity required to charge it from the oil, coal, or gas-fired plant somewhere out there on the grid does. PV's aren''t going to help unless you work the night shift, because you need bright sunlight to produce a small current from even a roof-sized array of solar cells. Your car will consume electricity for several hours of recharging at about the same rate as your home AC - in a hot climate.

Add to that the transmission losses incurred getting that juice from the generating station to your home, and you probably aren't making as big a contribution to clean air as you might think. If the entire nation were recharging their EV's overnight, we'd have a real grid capacity problem on our hands.

Some EV's require up to 70A at 220VAC to charge the battery. Of course this tapers down pretty quickly, finishing up probably around 2-5A as the battery nears full capacity 4-5 hours later. If electricity is a cheap 14¢/KWH in your neigborhood, you might get a full recharge for a couple of bucks - maybe $2.50 for enough power to do it all over again tomorrow. Until your state realizes that trundling all of those batteries up and down the road is creating potholes - and wants to extract a "user fee" (tax) for road and bridge repair. Figure another buck a day for equivalent mileage, and you are back in Prius territory.

No matter what fuel you use, at some point gasoline will be the cheapest alternative - with diesel a close second. Nothing else has the high level of BTU's per gallon to apply torque to the wheels. Hydrogen, fuel cells, batteries, CNG - nothing else really outperforms gasoline for moving you and your vehicle down the road at an equivalent miles-per-dollar figure. Maybe some day someone will invent an entirely new technology - or we will bite the bullet and pay through the nose to drive more environmentally-friendly direct hydrogen or fuel cell conversion vehicle that emits nothing but water vapor. Meanwhile enjoy cheap fuel (!) while you can.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

About load on the electrical grid, it might not necessarily be a significant issue since most of the recharging will be done at night when regular power demands are significantly less anyway.

This whole thing is just madness though - there's VAST quantities of untapped oil and gas all over the globe that we're not using, choosing instead to cripple the global economy and be dependent on dictators and kings in unstable regions of the world.

bagwell

excellent post!!

no problem - just have Bush go beg on his knees for more oil in saudi arabia....or bribe them with 100 F-22's.

Lil4X

Yes, but . . .

A lot of that off-peak capacity is currently being sold off elsewhere at a slightly reduced rate - to industrial plants and mills who work 24/7, and across the grid to other time zones that will still be in their peak consumption hours. By keeping the throttles wide open all night they work the plant to near max capacity because it produces revenue. What they shut down are the high-cost generators, the gas turbines that are brought on line for peak hours. If these have to work through an extended peak period - say until 2am when the majority of automobiles will be tapering their charging rates, their fuel and maintenance costs (and our bills) will go up.

I totally agree. Until we stop all our NIMBY whining, tap our vast onshore hydrocarbon resources and those of the Outer Continental Shelf, we are going to be in the pockets of some pretty nasty individuals who don't have our best interests at heart.