Who Killed the Electric Car

[Bud Plug]

Individual cars now produce lower emissions than at any time in history. The critical environmental problems do not lie in the design of individual cars, although there is room for improvement.

The critical environmental problems stem from the number of cars, and the amount of time people drive them.

The amount of time spent driving cars is a function of population growth and increased urbanization (suburb development). The conventional ways of addressing this issue are:

1. Improve the roads. This reduces traffic congestion, idling time, and therefore emissions. This option is very expensive and it would be difficult to stay ahead of the commuter curve.

2. Improve mass transit. This discourages commuters, at mininum, from driving all the way to work, thereby reducing emissions. Again, a very costly process (tracks are even more expensive and difficult to build than roads). It takes so long to plan and build rail lines that you'd have to forecast needs 20 years from now in order to even plan anything that would be effective. There's a good chance that alternative fuel systems could be developed more quickly and less costly than mass transit.

3. Tax people into submission. In particular, you could tax gasoline, like income, "progressively". This would change behaviour but with significant disruption to the economy.

The increasing number of cars is largely a function of population growth and increased unbanizination as well.

You can see where I'm going with this. The biggest environmental problem is that population growth is not sustainable in the biosphere. So, if you really want to help the environment, do your part in keeping the birthrate low. Have one or fewer children in your lifetime. Of course, Canadians are far from the worst offenders here. Without population control, there are no effective solutions to any environmental problems.

The alternative is to develop space programs at a pace (and cost) never before seen in history, with a view to offloading as many people (and their associated pollution) as quickly possible before things get too bad here on Earth.

Save the planet - have an abortion! Save the planet - have a vasectomy! Save the planet - give her a facial instead! Save the planet - visit SPs instead of marrying!

 

[spiderman89]

The reason the electric car did not survive is there isn't market for the gutless range limited device currenlty avialable. The market demands powerful or at least peppy vehicles. The electric car cannot be produced due the current battery technology. Even a 100 hp electric motor requires a lot of current to make go. And few IC engines are that small.

If these were truly viable and there was a market, some small company somewhere would be making them and selling them. This is how the economy works and, to a large degree, how western civilization has reached the wealthy state we are currently enjoy.

The conspiracy theory is alive because people like it and it entertains. But every invention and improvement in technology has its winners and losers. The world is too big and diverse for even the most powerful to stop a good viable product from coming to market.

I know that may sound simple to the those who want to believe all the other bullshit but……

 

[Tangwhich]

The reason the electric car did not survive is there isn't market for the gutless range limited device currenlty avialable. The market demands powerful or at least peppy vehicles. The electric car cannot be produced due the current battery technology. Even a 100 hp electric motor requires a lot of current to make go. And few IC engines are that small.

Electric motors have incredible amounts of tourque. They also have a straight acceleration curve which IC engines do not have. Depending on how it's configured it can be fast, damn fast. Faster than most IC engines could ever dream of.

If these were truly viable and there was a market, some small company somewhere would be making them and selling them. This is how the economy works and, to a large degree, how western civilization has reached the wealthy state we are currently enjoy.

There are and there are. The reason they are not better known is because pretty much everybody believes the myths that exist about electric vehicles. All the major car companies proved that the technology works and is ready for prime time 10 years ago in California. Finally they are embracing the technology on a larger scale.

 

[Tangwhich]

The purported real reasons for dumping the EV1 program from a supposed GM insider:

Interesting to hear the other side of it. It doesn't reflect what any of the owners of the cars say however, but nothing is going to be perfect as a first run item.

As for the cost of the car, it's hardly surprising since they were made by hand. Once a readily available production model comes out, production costs will go down dramatically.

I certainly understand the concerns with regards to the voltages, but owners were willing to sign waivers releasing GM of all responsibilities and pay them a ton of cash to get them. They obviously liked them.

That said, thanks again.. food for thought..

 

[Macator2003]

Electric motors have incredible amounts of tourque. They also have a straight acceleration curve which IC engines do not have. Depending on how it's configured it can be fast, damn fast. Faster than most IC engines could ever dream of.


The reason they are not better known is because pretty much everybody believes the myths that exist about electric vehicles. All the major car companies proved that the technology works and is ready for prime time 10 years ago in California. Finally they are embracing the technology on a larger scale.

Well said Tangwich....

 

[Macator2003]

The purported real reasons for dumping the EV1 program from a supposed GM insider:

"General Motors lost two billion dollars on the project, and lost money on every single EV1 produced. The leases didn't even cover the costs of servicing them.

The range of 130 miles is bogus. None of them ever achieved that under normal driving conditions. Running the air conditioning or heater could halve that range. Even running the headlights reduced it by 10%.

Minimum recharge time was two hours using special charging stations that except for fleet use didn't exist. The effective recharge time, using the equipment that could be installed in a lessee's garage, was eight hours. Home electrical systems simply couldn't handle the necessary current draw for "fast" charging.

NiMH batteries that had lasted up to three years in testing were failing after six months in service. There was no way to keep them from overheating without doubling the size of the battery pack. Lead-acid batteries were superior to NiMH in actual daily use.

Battery replacement was a task performed by skilled technicians taking the sorts of precautions that electricians do when working on live circuits, because that's what they were doing -- working on live circuits. You cannot turn batteries "off." This is the reason the vehicles were leased, rather than sold. As long as the terms of the lease prohibited maintenance by other than a Hughes technician, GM's liability in the event of a screw-up was much reduced. Technicians can encounter high voltages in hybrid vehicles. In the EV1, there were _really_ high voltages present.

Lessees were complaining that their electric bills had increased to the point that they'd rather be using gasoline.

One of the guys I worked with transferred to the EV1 program after what was by then a division of Raytheon lost the C-130 ATS contract. He's now back working for us. He has some interesting stories, none of them good, though he did like the company-subsidized apartment in Malibu. He said the car was a dream to drive, if you didn't mind being stranded between Bakersfield and Barstow on a hot July afternoon when a battery blew up from the combined heat of the day and the current draw."

Its funny that this supposed GM insider said that the leases didn't even cover the cost of servicing them. If you can believe what they said on the documentary, and what a number of mechanics said, all they ever needed was a tire rotation and a refill of their windshield washer antifreeze.

In regard to your statement that noted: Lessees were complaining that their electric bills had increased to the point that they'd rather be using gasoline.

Your energy bill will be less overall by driving with electricity. EVs are so efficient that the cost, per mile driven, is significantly less. For instance, a 2002 Toyota RAV4 will travel 100 miles on 4 gallons of gasoline. At $2.50/gallon, (2006/07 rates) this is $10.00. A 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV will travel 100 miles on 30 kWh of electricity. At 10 cents per kWh, this is $3.00.

 

[spiderman89]

Electric motors do have high torque, but the size used in EVs are not big enough to muster the power of most IC cars. Torque caharacteristics of electric motors work well in street cars but they are connected to a system that can deliver the power as needed. It is well known that electric cars are not as powerful as IC cars. But if the technology is there (mainly batteries) to satisfy a consumer need, then it will come in time and the market will prevail. Even if the paranoid conspiracy theorists think GM, with the illuminotti like forces they must possess to hold this stuff down, does not like it.

 

[C Dick]

Do you have any data to back this up?

Facts, you want facts? Would I be anonymously debating on the internet, on an escort board, if I had any facts?

Seriously though, electricity is highly inefficient, in the distribution. My factless understanding is that over 2/3 of the power made in a power plant is radiated as heat in the wires, and only 1/3 even makes it to the house. Pumping, refining, distributing and burning gasoline is not great, but it is better than that.

But electricity is still better, there are just some technological hurdles that must be crossed. Basically, there are two of them:
- You have to make the power much more cleanly than even burning anything 100% cleanly. Either wind, solar, tides, hydro, geothermal, etc. Or nuclear. My vote is to build a giant reactor way up North that can power all of North America.
- Batteries are not yet comparable to gas tanks for energy storage. I remember an article I read perhaps 10 years ago, that said that there was more energy in a cup of gasoline, than in 1,000 pounds of the best batteries then available. I am sure that they will get there, but it is a big gap to make up.
The engines and things will be fine, and once they have the batteries big enough, they can power radios and AC and have decent range. It is just those two issues: make the power cleanly, and develop good enough batteries. One takes political will, one takes technology, so if you buy an electric car, it just encourages more battery development, so it does help.

 

[dax]

...As for the cost of the car, it's hardly surprising since they were made by hand. Once a readily available production model comes out, production costs will go down dramatically...

Price a Tesla lately?
http://autoreview.belproject.com/item/399

 

[Meister]

I am tired of people continously bashing GM. After all it was the Clinton soccer moms who kept demanding larger and larger monsters to feel safe. You know moms these days are so obsessed with safety that they would drive around in a Popemobile if they could.

So, don't blame GM for giving the market what it wants.

 

[danmand]

I believe there are plans to export the little norwegian electric car.

http://www.elbilnorge.no/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7&bakgrunn=english

 

[red]

Facts, you want facts? Would I be anonymously debating on the internet, on an escort board, if I had any facts?

Seriously though, electricity is highly inefficient, in the distribution. My factless understanding is that over 2/3 of the power made in a power plant is radiated as heat in the wires, and only 1/3 even makes it to the house. Pumping, refining, distributing and burning gasoline is not great, but it is better than that.

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [2], and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998

 

[Meister]

No, it was the $100,00 tax right off offered by the Government for 'trucks', finally rescinded, for business purpose trucks, vans and pick ups.

Soccer moms don't drive V-10 engines, turbo-charged 400 hp tricked out pimp mobiles or swamp buggies, or super-charged Landrovers, or my ever favorite Dodge Magnum SUX or whatever they called that station wagon on steroids, now gone. Ever noticed how many commercials show cars being driven in incredibly fast fashions not seen in a normal days drive or off road across arid deserts or billy goat mountain passes never dreamt of by housewives and workin' stiff on their best days.

Obviously, you don't live in the suburbs. Go to a soccer practice in Mississauga, Woodbridge or Markham and you'll see Denalis, Pathfinders, Envoys, MDX en masse.

How many fuel efficient Volkswagen Passat Diesel Stationwagons will you see? Zero.

 

[Tangwhich]

Price a Tesla lately?
http://autoreview.belproject.com/item/399

It's an expensive car for sure, but it's a sports car, not an everyday car. While I don't feel any car of that price is reasonable, when you compare it to similar gas cars, it certainly is reasonable.

 

[Tangwhich]

Seriously though, electricity is highly inefficient, in the distribution. My factless understanding is that over 2/3 of the power made in a power plant is radiated as heat in the wires, and only 1/3 even makes it to the house. Pumping, refining, distributing and burning gasoline is not great, but it is better than that.

Not even close!
As I stated previously, according to my enbridge bill, it's 3.7% loss and as red stated, it's certainly less than 8% on a national level in the USA and UK. There's a reason why people get electricity delivered to their homes rather than having gas generators running in the back garden. It's considerably more efficient.

 

[C Dick]

Not even close!
As I stated previously, according to my enbridge bill, it's 3.7% loss and as red stated, it's certainly less than 8% on a national level in the USA and UK. There's a reason why people get electricity delivered to their homes rather than having gas generators running in the back garden. It's considerably more efficient.

I don't see what an Enbridge bill would tell you about electricity transmission losses? Or am I missing the point? I have no evidence to back up my 2/3 claim, do either of you have a link to information about the 8%? It doesn't really change much, either way, cars need to be fuelled with something better than burning materials.

I read today in the Globe that cars are now more energy efficient, in terms of both pollution and consumption, than transit buses, per passenger. Yes, per passenger. I found that mind-boggling. It is because cars have become way more efficient, where buses are huge and on average, pretty empty.

 

[Tangwhich]

I don't see what an Enbridge bill would tell you about electricity transmission losses? Or am I missing the point? I have no evidence to back up my 2/3 claim, do either of you have a link to information about the 8%? It doesn't really change much, either way, cars need to be fuelled with something better than burning materials.

Because they make you pay for it. They charge you a premium to compensate them for the line loss. I guess you could compare it to the freight charges you pay when you buy a new car.

I did a quick search for the transmission losses and came up with this link:

http://www.ontariotenants.ca/electricity/articles/2003/kws03g02.phtml

There are better sources if you spend some time no doubt. This stuff is related to my work, so I have some knowledge about it.

It doesn't really change much, either way, cars need to be fuelled with something better than burning materials.

I agree with the 2nd part of the sentence. But if you refer to earlier postings I made regarding electricity production, we're a very long way away from generating electricity specifically for cars. We'll just be using electricity we are already generating. I would dare say (and I stress I'm speculating), that we generate enough electricity from hydro-electric alone to charge a vast number of cars over night.

 

[C Dick]

I agree with the 2nd part of the sentence. But if you refer to earlier postings I made regarding electricity production, we're a very long way away from generating electricity specifically for cars. We'll just be using electricity we are already generating. I would dare say (and I stress I'm speculating), that we generate enough electricity from hydro-electric alone to charge a vast number of cars over night.

So does that mean that they do not run the natural gas and coal plants at night? That at night, all the power comes from hydro and nuclear? It that is the case, then you are right, having an electric car and charging it at night would be virtually emmission free.

 

[Tangwhich]

So does that mean that they do not run the natural gas and coal plants at night? That at night, all the power comes from hydro and nuclear? It that is the case, then you are right, having an electric car and charging it at night would be virtually emmission free.

No, plants run 24/7 regardless of the method of production. You can't just shut down a plant on a whim, so it runs all the time. So my point being, even if the electricity is being produced by a filthy method, it's getting produced, used or not. And there is an incredible amount of electricity just going to waste overnight.
My point about overnight clean energy was that *IF* they could shut down the dirty plants at night, I believe there would be enough production from clean sources alone to charge a significant number of cars.

 

[C Dick]

No, plants run 24/7 regardless of the method of production. You can't just shut down a plant on a whim, so it runs all the time. So my point being, even if the electricity is being produced by a filthy method, it's getting produced, used or not. And there is an incredible amount of electricity just going to waste overnight.
My point about overnight clean energy was that *IF* they could shut down the dirty plants at night, I believe there would be enough production from clean sources alone to charge a significant number of cars.

Are you sure about that? They run full blast all night? They can't even scale them back to burn less? I find that mind-boggling. Doesn't all that power have to go somewhere? (besides most of it being radiated as heat in the wires).