http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/23/tesla.electric.cars/index.html
Article on CNN.com. I don't think I'll ever be able to afford anything from Tesla but the article mentions money going to Nissan for an electric car that will soon be built in Tennessee. Coming from Nissan it might actually be affordable.
well that tears it, i'm never buying anything from tesla ever again!
yes, Nissan is planning a true electric car.. should be here in 2012 and it is planned to be affordable...
They skipped right over the hoopla around the hybrids, calling them exactly what they are.. a small niche market that was blown out of proportion by the media
Tesla must have done a awesome marketing job to pull that off. While the cars make many promises, they can't deliver on them all - at the same time, yet that's conveniently ignored, left out, and quietly swept under the rug. Drag racing a supercar and winning? Yes, but then it has to cool off for twenty minutes. Oh, and how about best out of three? No, have to swap battery packs... who's going to do that?
While I'm all for electric cars, I don't like how the media buys into the hype and turns a blind eye to the details.
mad_machine wrote: They skipped right over the hoopla around the hybrids, calling them exactly what they are.. a small niche market that was blown out of proportion by the media
You could say the same thing about electric cars. All they will do is displace where the polution is happening and place a burden on the electrical distribution network. Where do you think the energy is coming from? The coal or natural gas plant on the outside of town.
I'd like to think that alternate fuels will ultimately be gasoline and diesels successors. Go look up how long it took for charging the Tesla on Top Gear's trial.
Ok, we'v HAD this duscussion before. 
Even coal fired electric plants are vastly more efficient at producing energy vs pollution, and using them vs gasoline powered cars reduces automotive related pollutants (including the pollution created at the plant) by over 80%. It's easier to clean and regulate a few centrally located sources of pollution than millions of indiscriminately maintained point sources.
Secondly, electric plants currently have to ramp down and ramp back up again during off peak hours, and are thus less efficinet than they could be. A california study showed that by using smart meters to allow off peak recharging would allow for the replacement of most of the current automotive fleet there without adding a single powerplant. AND the grid would be more efficient due to not having to ramp the power plants down and up.
Even when transmission and charging losses electrics are still nearly twice as efficient as fossile fueled powered vehicles with the same level of performance.
lastly, the only way for there to be a strain on the current grid would be to replace most of the existing fleet all at once. The entire US fleet is 200 million plus vehicles. Even if every manufacturer switched over to 100% electric car production, at current manufacturing ability, it would take a couple decades of new car sales to replace the fleet. At NORMAL replenishing rates, it would take 30+ years to do so. Please, don't act like the entire fleet could be replaced overnight, or that the infrastructure would have to be changed overnight to accomodate said replacement. Considering how long it will take to replace the fleet just in America, I think we'll have more than enough time to upgrade the grid to handle it.
Froma couple years ago:
'In California, where over half of the state's pollution comes from ICE vehicles, the overall mix of power plants is one of the cleanest in the country. Power plants burning cleaner fuels, such as natural gas, account for a major share of the state's electricity. In fact, natural gas facilities in California emit 40 times less NOx than existing coal plants in the Northeast (2). Renewable sources such as hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal produce a respectable share of the electricity generated in California.
Taking advantage of California's abundance of sunlight, several utilities are using Solar Charge Ports to charge EVs. Charge Ports are facilities that have an array of solar panels placed strategically on the roof of the structure. The solar panels convert sunlight into electricity where it is distributed to the vehicles or the adjacent building's power supply. On cloudy days, the building supplies the electricity to charge the EVs. Charge Ports are in operation in several cities in California including Diamond Bar, Azusa, and Santa Monica.
Because California has a mix of cleaner fuels and renewable sources, several studies have concluded that improvements in air quality can be achieved easily by plugging in to EVs.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that EVs operating in the Los Angeles Basin would produce 98 percent fewer hydrocarbons, 89 percent fewer oxides of nitrogen, and 99 percent less carbon monoxide than ICE vehicles.
In a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs were significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity generation process produces less than 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles.
Many EV critics remain skeptical of such findings because California's mix of power plants is relatively clean compared to that in the rest of the country. However, in Arizona where 67 percent of power plants are coal-fired, a study concluded that EVs would reduce greenhouse gases such as CO2 by 71 percent.
A study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that EVs in the Northeast would reduce CO emissions by 99.8 percent, volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 90 percent, NOx by 80 percent, and CO2 by as much as 60 percent.
According to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) study, use of EVs results in significant reductions of carbon monoxide, greenhouse gases, and ground level ozone in the region, with magnitudes cleaner than even the cleanest ULEV."
And more to the point on how many power plants we need...
'Many critics ask how this country could possibly support millions of EVs on today's existing power grid. The Electric Power Resource Institute (EPRI) estimates that this country has the ability to support 50 million EVs without building any more power plants. Another study puts this number closer to 20 million. Even so, 20 million EVs is only 10 percent of today's fleet of nearly 200 million cars. Thousands more could be added if they are charged at night during off-peak hours. Twenty million EVs, each with 100,000 miles on the odometer, would reduce CO2 emissions in this country by 500 million tons without building more power plants.
Southern California Edison (SCE) estimates that it has enough off-peak capacity to refuel up to 2 million cars, 25 percent of the area's automobiles. SCE estimates it will only need to add 200 megawatts of capacity by 2008 to accommodate EVs. "
And of course, as power production goes, tech right now is pretty close to reliable alternate fusion using plasma, with a couple new tokamaks being built. In the next couple decades, that power source could be viable.
Oh, and as someone lese mentioned:
"Furthermore, we already have an electric infrastructure- a major hurdle for other alternative fuels. To top it off, once all the cars are electric we can use a myriad of energy sources to provide the electricity. This shelters us from the volatility of special fuels like petro, and it allows huge numbers of drivers to take advantage of the latest power technologies right away instead of having to rebuild all the cars again. They're the ultimate in fuel flexibility!"
Chris_V wrote: Ok, we'v HAD this duscussion before.
Had that actually been true, the OEM's would not have been able to sue California over the ZEV mandate to subsitute the PZEV vehicles for the required EV's. The California constitution has a small provision that states if there's a MORE effective method that is also CHEAPER, then it must be accepted policy. Thus PZEV's replaced EV's, as they were both cheaper and cleaner than electric power. All using California Government data.
PZEV > EV.
Eric
I'll add this. I'm a fan of the ICE and might even do something crazy someday like put a Vette engine in the Miata.
But.... If Nissan made an affordable and efficient electric that I could use for my daily commute that did not take the cost of gas and just transfer it to my electric bill I would be all over it. The cost per mile is the important part.
exactly, I would not give up my play cars.. but an electric I could use for my 15mile trip to work each day would be great! (especially if I could charge it at work too)
alfadriver wrote:Chris_V wrote: Ok, we'v HAD this duscussion before.Had that actually been true, the OEM's would not have been able to sue California over the ZEV mandate to subsitute the PZEV vehicles for the required EV's. The California constitution has a small provision that states if there's a MORE effective method that is also CHEAPER, then it must be accepted policy. Thus PZEV's replaced EV's, as they were both cheaper and cleaner than electric power. All using California Government data. PZEV > EV. Eric
Cheaper and cleaner how? Cheaper to buy, implement, what? What do you mean by cleaner as well? The filing of a lawsuit does not mean someone proved a truth, only fought or threatened to fight a legal battle.
well, I am proud to admit here.. where I live in NJ is all nuke or wind. There is ONE gas plant. No coal at all
MrJoshua wrote: Cheaper and cleaner how? Cheaper to buy, implement, what? What do you mean by cleaner as well? The filing of a lawsuit does not mean someone proved a truth, only fought or threatened to fight a legal battle.
Since the whole point of the EV mandate was the clean the air, that means that the controlled substances were HC's (well, NMOG's), CO, and NOx. At the time, those were the only controlled pollutants coming from cars.
Data generated by the EPA and various industries showed that the actual harmful emissions were cleaner coming from a PZEV vehicle than from coming from a plant that produced electricity for EV vehicles. Even the EPA wrote an article that said that EV's were only an emissions displacement deveice, not a reducer.
PZEV vehicles are FAR less expensive to make than EV's- basically it's all in the battery. Let alone, far more capable for the consumer, but that's not part of the argument.
So when the OEM's sued CARB over the EV mandate when they had found that PZEV vehicles were more effective in producing less smog and health reatled pollutants and they were a lot cheaper to build, the California Supreme Court agreed with the OEM's, and the EV mandate ended.
It wasn't filing a suit, it was suing the ARB, and winning by proving the more effective and less cost method of PZEV vs. EV.
It's why you don't see 2% of all the new vehicles sold in California being EV's from ALL manfuacturers.
Eric
Eric-thank you for the info.
I still maintain that much of the electricity needed is already being produced by the idling powerplants at night so you are basically using what is already there.
Yes the batteries are the key and progress is being made. We aren't quite there, but we are getting closer.
What did the suit consider health related pollutants? Was it simply smog or did they pull out the "millions of dead batteries littering our streets" bogeyman? Basically, did they use pure fact vs. fact arguments or was some of the fear of new technology/lack of infrastructure a big player.
Something that has been interesting to me since I first started following the progress of EV development, is the argument that single point power production is inherently cleaner because it can be cleaned up more easily. Yes it CAN be cleaner, but I have wondered if it really is. Powerful lobbies pretty much make logic a worthless argument.
I believe the main reason large power plants are more efficient is the effective size of their "combustion chambers." If you research it you'll find that, in general, the larger the combustion chamber of an engine, the more efficient it is, something about volume versus surface area of the container. The last time I went on a tour of a natural gas-powered power plant we got to look inside the combustion area. Like looking through a small window into hell, it was enormous, something like 30 feet across and maybe 50ft tall.
MrJoshua wrote: Eric-thank you for the info. I still maintain that much of the electricity needed is already being produced by the idling powerplants at night so you are basically using what is already there. Yes the batteries are the key and progress is being made. We aren't quite there, but we are getting closer. What did the suit consider health related pollutants? Was it simply smog or did they pull out the "millions of dead batteries littering our streets" bogeyman? Basically, did they use pure fact vs. fact arguments or was some of the fear of new technology/lack of infrastructure a big player. Something that has been interesting to me since I first started following the progress of EV development, is the argument that single point power production is inherently cleaner because it can be cleaned up more easily. Yes it CAN be cleaner, but I have wondered if it really is. Powerful lobbies pretty much make logic a worthless argument.
Since the intent of the rule was 100% air pollutants, that's all that was considered. Nothing about batteries and disposal/manfucature.
And it wasn't like any of the OEM's weren't trying, too- everyone and their brother had an EV- Honda had an EV Civic, Ford the EV Ranger, and of course the iconic GM EV1. Those were the ones customers got to taste. They missed the Th!nk cars that would re-define city travel. Every OEM had their EV being developed and ready to go- Billions were invested in EV research, but it was still cheaper, and more effective to do PZEV.
Can EV's be cleaner? Without a single doubt. Are they? Major doubts. While the raw combustion is better (where combustion is used), aftertreatment isn't nearly as good currently as on most cars, let alone PZEVs. And the power industry continue to fight further regulation- which will result in more expensive power for you, the consumer.
And there's still the market stigmatism that mileage is compromised, especially in real world applications where one needs A/C or Heat- which are significant power draws each. Not that they won't be solved, but there's still a LONG way to go to make EV's fully capable. Or even capable enough.
Ford also got a loan for the same thing. How was that missed ?
alfadriver wrote: And there's still the market stigmatism that mileage is compromised, especially in real world applications where one needs A/C or Heat- which are significant power draws each. Not that they won't be solved, but there's still a LONG way to go to make EV's fully capable. Or even capable enough.
It's all relative. I drive 7 miles round trip to get to work. It is very rare that I drive more than 50 miles on a work day including errands, events, etc. I almost never use AC (most of my vehicles don't even have the option of using it) and it doesn't really get that cold here...a couple of seat heaters and a heated defroster would suit most of my not-plugged-in needs. Funny how perspectives change when you live in a more mild climate and in a metropolitan area that isn't suffering from major sprawl.
Keep in mind that while a vehicle is plugged in, pre-conditioning the cabin is easy to do and pretty efficient, much more so than doing it with a gas engine after the car is started up. So, even when it is very hot/cold here, I could easily be comfortable for my regular commute.
For my needs, an EV is most definitely capable enough. Something like an EV1 would suit 90% of my needs, the remaining 10% being long distance driving and stuff relating to my beater racing (LeMons, rallycross, $2009). I buy "green" energy sourced from about 85% wind and 15% biomass, so this noise about coal/gas plants producing more emissions powering my electric car than a Subaru Legacy would running gasoline is that much more nonsense.
It sure chaps my ass to hear a knowledgeable, well informed guy like you (alfadriver) saying EV's (past or present) aren't fully capable or even capable enough. I ride a motorcycle, is that not "capable enough" either? I have a handful of vehicles that have no/crappy heat and AC and I usually only drive them for a few miles at a time, are they not capable enough? Am I a bad consumer because I don't have to drive an hour to work in 20° weather? Because I can't haul three kids and a bicycle in my vehicles? Because I would rather "have" to plug in when I park at home for the night than "have" to go fill up at a gas station?
While I definitely don't think the goverment should be forcing legislation down the OEMs throats to get EVs to the public, I think very few would argue that the OEMs are better off for having trash-canned their EV development for a decade or so. I think something like the Volt (extended range plug in) would have been a fantastic response to the CARB mandate rather than offering a car with reduced emissions and a few new doodads to reduce evaporative emissions. I also think the EV development should be consumer driven, not government driven...either through "loans" or legislation. However, many consumers have heard "shifting emissions" "batteries clogging up landfills" "dangerously slow" "unsatisfactory range" "no heat or AC" "tiny, ugly cars" etc. sooooo many times from so many sources, they believe it instead of considering putting their money down on one. A little education goes a long way. Stop telling people that EVs aren't "capable enough" and they might start to learn something useful.
Bryce
iceracer wrote: Ford also got a loan for the same thing. How was that missed ?
(shh. it will allow me to finish my carrer here.)
bryce, if a motorcycle were all anyone ever needed to get around, wouldn't everyone be riding motorcycles on their 4 mile commute every day? surely you don't think that everyone should move to an area with a more moderate climate and live 4 miles from work. or is it that you think everyone else does as well, and therefore everyone should have an EV in its current form? i'm not sure i fully understand your ramblings.
Nashco wrote: It sure chaps my ass to hear a knowledgeable, well informed guy like you (alfadriver) saying EV's (past or present) aren't fully capable or even capable enough. I ride a motorcycle, is that not "capable enough" either? I have a handful of vehicles that have no/crappy heat and AC and I usually only drive them for a few miles at a time, are they not capable enough? Am I a bad consumer because I don't have to drive an hour to work in 20° weather? Because I can't haul three kids and a bicycle in my vehicles? Because I would rather "have" to plug in when I park at home for the night than "have" to go fill up at a gas station? Bryce
Bryce If everybody bought cars that they just need for their commute, EVERYONE would be buying EV's, with a handful of exceptions. I'm saying that the market is telling us that EV's are not fully capable to what consumers want, outside of a fringe.
You are not a bad consumer- I admire the fact that you are more than willing to make sacrifices for your commute. There are quite a few people just like you on this board (Dave is a notable other). That's totally awesome.
But the buying public isn't you. And so far, are not willing to make the same sacrifices. Nor willing to have multiple cars for that other 10% of thier driving. This isn't just the US, but Europe and Japan, too- they commute using rail by neccessity, not want. They have to, since the roads are all jammed up with other cars, few of which are EV's or even motocycles.
Again, it's great that you can put together multiple vehicles to be fully capable for you. But the rest of the buying public don't. It's not like they don't have choices right in front of them- multiple ones. From Motorcyles to small cars- both of which are CHEAPER than "gas using" large cars and SUVs. Somehow, those are not chosen nearly as much.
E-
Stop telling people that EVs aren't "capable enough" and they might start to learn something useful.
I think 95% of Americans would be jealous of the 7 mile round trip commute and mild weather. Rightly or wrongly, the typical American commutes further than that, so yes, an electric car needs to be capable, in the sense that it must get you to work and back - that's not unreasonable. Are there EVs that do that now? Yes, can we afford them? In general, no.
Now that my company has moved I live about 25 miles from work. To move closer would be a HUGE tax hit, never mind the houses all costing more than our present one. Are you going to write me a check for the difference? No, and I don't expect you to, but it does mean that there are a lot of different situations out there. I myself am unwilling to pay $xxx,xxx in housing costs to save gas money.
I guess I get a little annoyed with a myopic view of the world, where if one person's situation is better than others, he applies it without considering all the different situations. Kinda like wondering why people in starving countries don't simply grow more food... it's not that simple.
Strizzo wrote: bryce, if a motorcycle were all anyone ever needed to get around, wouldn't everyone be riding motorcycles on their 4 mile commute every day? surely you don't think that everyone should move to an area with a more moderate climate and live 4 miles from work. or is it that you think everyone else does as well, and therefore everyone should have an EV in its current form? i'm not sure i fully understand your ramblings.
My point isn't that everybody should want what I want, drive what I drive, or live how I live, my point is that if people continue saying EVs aren't good enough (as a blanket statement) then some people might actually believe it instead of doing their homework. After all, your friends probably think you're a highly qualified person to give them tips on the vehicle purchases, so if you say so why would they doubt you? In my situation, an EV would work great! I'm not the only person living like I live, and statistics show that many people have a similar situation (commute, climate, multiple vehicles, desire to plug in at home, etc.). There's just a horrible stigma associated with electric cars that doesn't make any sense considering the products, technology, etc. that exists and is proven.
alfadriver wrote: You are not a bad consumer- I admire the fact that you are more than willing to make sacrifices for your commute. There are quite a few people just like you on this board (Dave is a notable other). That's totally awesome.
I don't understand, what sacrifice am I making???
Driving a motorcycle, EV, old car, pickup, a new car, or even taking public transit (GASP!) isn't a sacrifice. It's a choice.
Bryce
kb58 wrote: I guess I get a little annoyed with a myopic view of the world, where if one person's situation is better than others, he applies it without considering all the different situations.
That is my feeling on the situation as well, so we've got that in common. Just because somebody can't justify buying an EV for their own use doesn't mean XX% of the rest of the population can't either. Many people CAN live their daily life with an EV without sacrificing anything. Maybe it'd cost a few bucks more, or come with a few less options based on current technology/prices, but if they want to pay for it then it's a choice rather than a sacrifice. (We don't say a new M3 owner is making a sacrifice because he wants a car that's 3 seconds faster per lap, right?)
A 50 mile round trip is easily swallowed with many modern EVs. That electric MINI that came up in off-topic can do that with ease, and as mentioned in that thread it's no more expensive for you to lease than its gas-powered brother.
Bryce
Nashco wrote: I don't understand, what sacrifice am I making???
What horrible stigma do you speak of? Do we really hold people as evil for driving EVs?
And explain your situation to average Joe/Jane public. Most of them will tell you that bikes are dangerous, or hot, or cold; public transportation isn't convienent enough; and EV won't let me take me and my family to granma's house, and I can't afford a second car or more space.
All choices are trade offs. People DO think that you must sacrifice you schedule to use public trasportation- it takes my wife an HOUR to cross town using a bus, a half hour to bike, 10 min to drive. In this case, time is money- time is being sacrificed.
If consumders are not willing to make that trade off, then you ARE asking them to sacrifice to use that form of transporation. For you, obvisouly you don't see it that way.
For the driver who forgets to plug in the car overnight, then what? Do you not think buyers think about that? It's not like they can go to an Electric station to fill it up in 3 min.
For the guy with 4 kids with a soccer practice after work, and he needs to drive 50 miles a day- he's making a CHOICE too- and NOT for an EV.
Heck, for many people, driving an old car is a sacrifice that they choose not to make. They CHOOSE to have a new car every couple of years.
Right now, EV's can't go more than 150mile under ideal conditions. Most people see that as a problem. I've never, ever told anyone not to buy an EV. The huge problem now is that cars that are capable enough to cover even 0.1% of the buying public's want, they cost $100,000, taking that 0.1% to 0.0000001%
EV's have been part of the automotive market for over 100 years. For no stigma, they continue to be rather marginal in market share.
E-
Nashco wrote: ... my point is that if people continue saying EVs aren't good enough (as a blanket statement) then some people might actually believe it instead of doing their homework.... ...In my situation, an EV would work great!
I too, admire your perspective, Bryce.
But I think you are missing the point. Perhaps it would be better to say that EVs aren't good enough to be marketable to a significant enough percentage of the population to be sustainable or profitable.
I'm sure they would work just fine for you. Unfortunately, you are not prepared to buy 250,000 of them to make it worth the R&D to bring them to market, and you don't have 249,999 friends who are in the same position as you.
Contrary to the what this board may believe is best, the rest of the country disagrees. Like it or not, the #1 selling vehicle in America for over 20 years is the F-150, followed closely IIRC by the Silverado. The majority of vehicle buyers need something quite different than the EV1. It simply is not good enough to meet the needs of a significant enough percentage of people to be marketable.
I am sorry, however, that neither you nor I can have our EV1s.
You'll need to log in to post.
