Who Killed the Electric Car?

[nemo]

Just saw the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?". It was very thought provoking and I recommend it to anyone who's tired of paying through the nose at the pump. Basically, the message is that electic cars were mandated in California, but the car companies sued and got rid of the mandate. Then the car companies crushed just about every electric car out of existence. Hybrid cars are more acceptable to car companies because they still use a gas engine and require more maintenance than a pure electric vehicle. Range is a factor, but with better batteries a pure electric makes more sense to me - get rid of the gas completely and our dependence on oil. Hydrogen fuel cells were also discussed but they are a long way off and much more costly than electric. Comments appreciated, and if you have an alternative fuel vehicle I would like to hear about it.

[Senor_Pointy]

...get rid of the gas completely and our dependence on oil.

I don't know how much of the national grid relies on oil, but until coal power becomes much cleaner, or we solve the public and technical problems with nuclear power, or wind/wave/solar/whatever power becomes more feasible, we still need to generate the power to run electric cars.

[Zep]

Who killed the electric car?

...don't nobody leave this room!

[nemo]

This was addressed in the film. There are many ways we generate electrical power. Even with coal power plants, electric cars produce a net reduction in pollution. I think the time is right and the motivation is there to advance the electric car.

[Bikewer]

They had the film's producers and other commentators on last week's Science Friday. Pretty interesting. Since the vast majority of driving is short-haul commuting, a plug-in electric makes a lot of sense.
They are using this technology in Europe at present, while here the hybrids for sale do not even have the plug-in capability. There is a group or two offering conversions and trying to spread the word.

Problems, which they spoke of on the show, include cold weather. No heat on a pure electric, and reduced battery performance as well. Still, that's where a plug-in hybrid shines, as the gas engine can kick in as needed.
They also talked about designs wherein a highly-efficient fixed-speed diesel is used only to generate electricity, it does not power the vehicle otherwise. This is also a plug-in design.

If your electricity is generated by efficient means, overall pollution drops a lot.

[Amapola]

There's a lot of talk about running diesel engines on vegetable oil. Here's a link about it: link (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html) that explains various systems, using different oils, biodiesel etc. From the link, it sounds like this has been tried in Germany.

The idea is you can go to the local greasy spoon, get the oil they use in the deep fat fryer (they throw it out regularly), filter it to remove impurities and there you go. I'm not sure how easy this is to do. Our mechanic is skeptical but willing to learn more, so we are in the early stages of educating ourselves about it.

We've heard tales of people that drive across the country on nothing but oil but we don't know if these are true or not. We don't know anyone personally. Perhaps these are on the order of urban legends. Anyway we feel it is worth investigating.

[kevin]

I don't know how much of the national grid relies on oil, but until coal power becomes much cleaner, or we solve the public and technical problems with nuclear power, or wind/wave/solar/whatever power becomes more feasible, we still need to generate the power to run electric cars.

I believe most new power plants (outside the midwest at least) are natural gas, not coal.

Even if we got rid of all gas burning cars we'd still need refineries to product the basics for all the plastics we consume. Not as many or as large, but there would still be an industry.

[kevin]

There's a lot of talk about running diesel engines on vegetable oil. Here's a link about it: link (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html) that explains various systems, using different oils, biodiesel etc. From the link, it sounds like this has been tried in Germany.

The ability to do this is real. However there aren't enough greasy spoons in the US to support all the cars we drive. The question becomes, would mass producing bio-diesel be more environmentally sound than mass producing regular fuels?

Also I've never seen reports on the emissions of bio-diesel burning cars. One of the reasons I went with my hybrid over diesel was the diesels (at least at the time) had higher emissions, especially in particulates.

[blutoski]

The ability to do this is real. However there aren't enough greasy spoons in the US to support all the cars we drive. The question becomes, would mass producing bio-diesel be more environmentally sound than mass producing regular fuels?

Also I've never seen reports on the emissions of bio-diesel burning cars. One of the reasons I went with my hybrid over diesel was the diesels (at least at the time) had higher emissions, especially in particulates.

Biodiesel is a different consideration than electric. As it happens, biodiesel has about the same greenhouse emissions as regular diesel. The major salespitch is that it liberates the country from foreign oil imports. (It doesn't, of course.)

The key problem with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesels) is that there just isn't enough energy from the sun landing on arable land to meet demand. If every Joule of energy landing on plants (forests, lawns, crops...) in the US were converted to fuel, it would meet less than half of automobile needs. (49Quads available, and shrinking, versus 102Quads required, and growing)

see:
David Pimentel (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/july05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html)



In terms of electric, if it was a matter of California regulations, we'd electric cars scooting all over China, tapped into those shiny new nuclear power plants. The big US/Japanese automakers not only have zero traction in China, but the Chinese are always looking for a way to beat them at their own game. Nevertheless, we don't see anything like that.



The appeal of hydrogen fuel cells is that they're a smaller, lighter, and more efficient battery. Standard batteries are incredibly large and heavy, and have very limited range. There have been threads on this before.

[Amapola]

The ability to do this is real. However there aren't enough greasy spoons in the US to support all the cars we drive. The question becomes, would mass producing bio-diesel be more environmentally sound than mass producing regular fuels?

Also I've never seen reports on the emissions of bio-diesel burning cars. One of the reasons I went with my hybrid over diesel was the diesels (at least at the time) had higher emissions, especially in particulates.

Your first point is a terrific point. At this time, in my area, I could concievably drive my truck and tractor on what the local restaurants produce (all two of them) but if this caught on, two restaurants in this area would not be enough.

On the second point, I found this: link on emissions (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_nox.html) but I have not had time to read it all yet. Just glancing through, there does seem to be some good info here. It will take me time and research to figure out what all this means, as this is sure not my area of expertise! :)

eta: Thanks Blutoski, I will look up your link. We posted at the same time, apparently!

[blutoski]

On the second point, I found this: link on emissions (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_nox.html) but I have not had time to read it all yet. Just glancing through, there does seem to be some good info here. It will take me time and research to figure out what all this means, as this is sure not my area of expertise!

The one true benefit from using biodiesel is that the emissions smell like popcorn. Yay.

[TjW]

<snipped stuff about biodiesel>
In terms of electric, if it was a matter of California regulations, we'd electric cars scooting all over China, tapped into those shiny new nuclear power plants. The big US/Japanese automakers not only have zero traction in China, but the Chinese are always looking for a way to beat them at their own game. Nevertheless, we don't see anything like that.



The appeal of hydrogen fuel cells is that they're a smaller, lighter, and more efficient battery. Standard batteries are incredibly large and heavy, and have very limited range. There have been threads on this before.

Well, they would be, if they lived up to the potential. Looking at them as a battery, they're somewhat lighter, but actually not as efficient as, say, lead-acid. A lead-acid cell will give back about 75% of the energy you put into it.
A Lithium-ion gives back 90 to 95% of the energy you put into it.
The absolute theoretical limit for fuel cells is about 80%. That limit is sort of like the Carnot limits for heat engines.
I think the appeal is that you refuel instead of recharge, and that's just a whole lot more convenient.
I think the little methanol fuel cells could have a huge market in laptops and such. Methanol has its difficulties, but it's much easier to handle than hydrogen.

[Starthinker]

The Stone Cutters not only held back the electric car, but they made Steve Gutenburg a star.

[Scott Haley]

As I understand free markets, if a company does something that earns a profit and then stops doing it for non-financial reasons, another company will go after that profit. Did the EV-1 actually earn a profit, or was it something they only did for legal reasons? It would be very odd if there was money to be made selling electric cars, and no business wanted to make it.

--Scott

[athon]

Changing technology will be less of a challenge than changing attitudes, I think. People are married to the idea of having a vehicle for long distance transport.

Only in recent years since I got rid of my car and have had to walk or PT it have I realised just how little I really need a vehicle. It would be nice sometimes, but more 'convenient' than needed. I'm not saying that everybody should reduce their car use, but I think a lot of people can.

I'm looking at getting a small Vesper or something when I return to London, if not just a bicycle. Maybe both, the former for those days when the weather makes cycling less appealing.

Athon

[coalesce]

The Stone Cutters not only held back the electric car, but they made Steve Gutenburg a star.

And what about the Martians? And the metric system? Don't think we don't know!

Michael

[Meffy]

I don't know about the electric car, but it was a U.S. Cavalry sergeant who shot that Willys jeep with the busted front axle in the famous Bill Maudlin cartoon.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

As I understand free markets, if a company does something that earns a profit and then stops doing it for non-financial reasons, another company will go after that profit. Did the EV-1 actually earn a profit, or was it something they only did for legal reasons? It would be very odd if there was money to be made selling electric cars, and no business wanted to make it.

--Scott
That's what I don't understand. Yes, we all know the oil and gas industry is very powerful, but so is the automotive industry. Even if the oil industry was giving them millions in incentives (Which I doubt they are), what would stop the automotive industry from saying 'Keep your millions, we'll take the billions from selling cheap electric cars'?

Lots of good information at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV1) about the EV1.

[Bikewer]

The Science Friday show I mentioned (weekly 2-hour science show on NPR) has an ongoing series of shows on energy use.
It was a couple of weeks ago that they had a panel describing a vision for providing at least 25% of our fuel needs by investment in a highly-efficient factory system for producing ethanol.

Essentially, the same idea used presently on small Chinese farms, writ large.

Large-scale agriculture of highly sugar-rich crops (certain grasses far outperform corn) adjacent to factory-sized distilleries. The distilleries are powered by methane collected from attached beef-raising operations which are set up to capture the flammable gas.
Mash and vegetable waste products are recycled into fodder for the cattle. Cattle wastes ditto for fertilizer for the agricultural sector.

An interesting notion that would require large-scale investment/subsidy to start.
On the same show, proponents of wind power indicate that wind alone could provide 25% of electrical energy needs in the US. Again, the kicker is investment and/or subsidy. The show pointed out that while the oil industry in general recieves huge subsidies, tax breaks, and government assistance, alternative industries recieve scant or sporadic interest. Maybe you'll get some research money this year, maybe you won't.

Certainly politics rears it's ugly head here, and the oil lobbies are powerful and influential. Note the oil connections of much of our present administration. Still, the private sector, and the states are both moving ahead with such plans despite the lack of federal largess.

[TheChadd]

It was Colonel Mustard, in the Library, with the candlestick.

[CriticalThanking]

For rechargable vehicles, nightly plug-in would be a normal component of life. Workplaces, even public parking lots could provide chargers. But what about battery swap? If it takes time to recharge batteries, just swap them out. Pull into the "filling station" and "dock" with an automated battery exchanger? What are the hurdles? Leaping out into the blue, here is my short list. Feel free to add to it or shoot these down. <PULL>


Cars would have to be redesigned so the batteries were easily accessible in a uniform location/manner.

Batteries would have to be standardized and most cars from subcompact to land barge would have to take one or more standard battery sizes. Could you have economy (range), standard, and "performance" batteries similar to regular, mid-grade, and premium gas?

How would you charge for the exchange? Perhaps based on battery type and %charge remaining in the battery you are giving up?

If you run out of fuel you would no longer be able to lug a gallon of gasoline back in a container. You would have to lug a battery (perhaps a smaller "emergency" battery?).

The exchange mechanisms would have to be invented and fairly idiot proof.

Filling stations would have to stock a large number of batteries. Is there a way to quantify this? If the charging time on a battery is X and you have Y customers per hour, what number of batteries do you really need? Having more than one type of battery makes this a much larger issue.

What would be the environmental impact of that many more batteries being put into service?

[your list or flame goes here]

CT

[Ziggurat]

They had the film's producers and other commentators on last week's Science Friday. Pretty interesting. Since the vast majority of driving is short-haul commuting, a plug-in electric makes a lot of sense.

But not enough sense. Consumers may spend MOST of their time on short hauls. But they drive longer distances often enough that electric cars cannot replace normal cars. So either you can't do those longer drives (not acceptable), or you buy two cars (not acceptable).

Electric-only cars haven't been killed. They've been around in one form or another for over a hundred years, and they'll keep on hanging around. But batteries simply do not store close to enough energy for them to compete with fuel vehicles. They will be nothing more than a niche product unless the battery problem gets solved. And we're simply not close to solving that yet (if we ever do).

[jimlintott]

For rechargable vehicles, nightly plug-in would be a normal component of life. Workplaces, even public parking lots could provide chargers. But what about battery swap? If it takes time to recharge batteries, just swap them out. Pull into the "filling station" and "dock" with an automated battery exchanger? What are the hurdles? Leaping out into the blue, here is my short list. Feel free to add to it or shoot these down. <PULL>
Cars would have to be redesigned so the batteries were easily accessible in a uniform location/manner.
Shouldn't be too hard.
Batteries would have to be standardized and most cars from subcompact to land barge would have to take one or more standard battery sizes. Could you have economy (range), standard, and "performance" batteries similar to regular, mid-grade, and premium gas?
Standardizing has difficulties and will likely involve patents and politics.
How would you charge for the exchange? Perhaps based on battery type and %charge remaining in the battery you are giving up?
Basically, yes. They will compare the actual cost to what people are currently happy with paying. If what people are happy with exceeds the actual cost then there it is. Driving will cost the same is my guess.
If you run out of fuel you would no longer be able to lug a gallon of gasoline back in a container. You would have to lug a battery (perhaps a smaller "emergency" battery?).
Roadside assistance. A truck will deliver a new pack. It will cost more unless you have a plan like AAA.
The exchange mechanisms would have to be invented and fairly idiot proof.
Again the patent and politics thing will show up again. Also the amount of power needed to power a car is potentailly lethal. It may be more dangerous than putting gas in your car. Liability problems?
Filling stations would have to stock a large number of batteries. Is there a way to quantify this? If the charging time on a battery is X and you have Y customers per hour, what number of batteries do you really need? Having more than one type of battery makes this a much larger issue.
Shouldn't be too hard to look at fuel sales and convert it to battery sales. Hopefully there will be a standard battery. What you do when something better than the standard comes along is one of the problems with standards.
What would be the environmental impact of that many more batteries being put into service?
I don't know but my guess is that we don't get something for nothing. The manufacture of the batteries might not be the real problem.[your list or flame goes here]

CT
We would likely need to upgrade power grid infrastructure if everyone was driving rechargable cars. In California they have power problems when it gets hot and everyone turns on their AC. What if all those people plugged in their cars every night? What if it was also hot?

I have nothing against eletric cars but I think technology is the hold up. I don't buy the conspiracy about the auto makers because who do we think will be selling electric cars? They probably already know more about it than anyone else. It would be silly to think that Honda doesn't have several electric prototypes and a whole R&D team dedicated to their research.

[Ziggurat]

It would be silly to think that Honda doesn't have several electric prototypes and a whole R&D team dedicated to their research.

Why would they? We already know where the limitation is: it's the battery. No amount of engineering can make an electric car commercially feasible with current battery technology, and no battery technology on the horizon is going to change that soon. At this point, research into all-electric vehicles (as opposed to battery research, which is applicable for a lot more than just cars) is largely a waste of money. The big bet automakers are spending money on isn't all-electrics (GM got burned badly by wasting billions upon billions on EV1), but fuel cell vehicles, because there is a lot of car engineering that needs to be done which only they can do. For example, a fuel cell that can power a car produces less heat than an internal combustion engine, but it also needs to operate at a lower temperature, which means that the cooling actually needs to be more sophisticated and efficient than for an internal combustion engine (nobody will buy a car that won't work when the weather gets hot).

If a major battery breakthrough happens, car manufacturers can jump on it easily and quickly enough, but none of them are placing big bets on that happening.

[luchog]

There's a lot of talk about running diesel engines on vegetable oil. Here's a link about it: link (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html) that explains various systems, using different oils, biodiesel etc. From the link, it sounds like this has been tried in Germany.

The idea is you can go to the local greasy spoon, get the oil they use in the deep fat fryer (they throw it out regularly), filter it to remove impurities and there you go. I'm not sure how easy this is to do. Our mechanic is skeptical but willing to learn more, so we are in the early stages of educating ourselves about it.
The recycled cooking oil idea is feasible, but only for the dedicated home "self-sufficiency" nut, or a local business. As a large scale fuel source, it's not commercially viable. Commercial fuel oil would need to come from larger-scale sources, usually soy or rapeseed crops. The best oil crop is hemp; but the problems there should be obvious.

I have a number of aquaintances who currently drive diesels fueled primarily or exclusively with biodiesel; and the local transit system uses a biodiesel blend for their diesel-powered vehicles (ferries and some busses). The cost is still somewhat high, around $4 per gallon (conversion to local units is left as an exercise for the reader); but with the cost of petrol fuels as high as they are, and still rising, a small increase in the scale would render it very competitive.

[luchog]

Biodiesel is a different consideration than electric. As it happens, biodiesel has about the same greenhouse emissions as regular diesel. The major salespitch is that it liberates the country from foreign oil imports. (It doesn't, of course.)
That's not really true.

Petrol diesel emissions liberate large amounts of previously sinked CO2 into the atmosphere, increasing greenhouse gas levels. Biodiesel CO2 emissions are part of the existing CO2 cycle, and do not increase atmospheric levels of greenhouse gasses.

Petrol diesel contributes a higher level of (toxic) aromatic hydrocarbons as well; whereas biodiesel exhaust has higher levels of (non-toxic but unsightly) particulate carbon.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who killed the electric car?

...don't nobody leave this room!Nobody left, however anybody is still here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This was addressed in the film. There are many ways we generate electrical power. Even with coal power plants, electric cars produce a net reduction in pollution. I think the time is right and the motivation is there to advance the electric car.
Not only that, I don't recall very many wars fought over power sources other than oil. Water rights wars, maybe, but they are local by default. We need to get out of the oil loop.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's a lot of talk about running diesel engines on vegetable oil. Here's a link about it: link (http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html) that explains various systems, using different oils, biodiesel etc. From the link, it sounds like this has been tried in Germany.

The idea is you can go to the local greasy spoon, get the oil they use in the deep fat fryer (they throw it out regularly), filter it to remove impurities and there you go. I'm not sure how easy this is to do. Our mechanic is skeptical but willing to learn more, so we are in the early stages of educating ourselves about it.

We've heard tales of people that drive across the country on nothing but oil but we don't know if these are true or not. We don't know anyone personally. Perhaps these are on the order of urban legends. Anyway we feel it is worth investigating.Once you get very many of these cars, even McD won't be frying enough to power them all. I think this is a nice recycling effort but there's no long term solution here.

And I can't help wondering how short sighted turning food sources into fuel sources is. Instead of bombing the powerless poor in the world, we can turn the bread basket into a gas basket and starve the powerless poor instead.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I believe most new power plants (outside the midwest at least) are natural gas, not coal.

Even if we got rid of all gas burning cars we'd still need refineries to product the basics for all the plastics we consume. Not as many or as large, but there would still be an industry.And a gazillion other petroleum based products as well.

Re the natural gas power plants, they've increased in numbers rapidly causing my home natural gas price to skyrocket.

[Ziggurat]

Nobody left, however anybody is still here.
Who's on first?

[kevin]

Not only that, I don't recall very many wars fought over power sources other than oil. Water rights wars, maybe, but they are local by default. We need to get out of the oil loop.

Ah, but we don't currently have a large demand for anything other than oil. Wars are typically fought over things that both sides want, when both sides want uranium for nuclear power rather than oil, will we fight over that instead?

Are uranium deposits evenly distributed throughout the world?

I'm assuming of course that other non-oil power sources won't be able to meet demand without nuclear.

[Ziggurat]

Range is a factor, but with better batteries a pure electric makes more sense to me - get rid of the gas completely and our dependence on oil.

I may sound a bit like a broken record, but it really is the key: we do not HAVE better batteries, and probably cannot develop them either. In terms of energy density, battery technology has been essentially stagnant for a long time now, and that's NOT for lack of effort. Batteries simply do not have the necessary energy density to make an electric vehicle work for more than niche markets, and likely will not for decades to come (if ever).

[kevin]

That's what I don't understand. Yes, we all know the oil and gas industry is very powerful, but so is the automotive industry. Even if the oil industry was giving them millions in incentives (Which I doubt they are), what would stop the automotive industry from saying 'Keep your millions, we'll take the billions from selling cheap electric cars'?

Lots of good information at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV1) about the EV1.

I think the reason arises from a couple of sources that are more political and people in nature rather than technological in nature. Large corporations are like large governments -- they're primarily bureaucracies. If there is one thing a bureaucracy hates it's new things.

Switching to an electric car would simply change too many things for the big car companies. New engines, new manufacturing processes, etc....

Now ideally capitalism would dictate that a new small player would come into take advantage of the niche area, but the other thing a bureaucracy hates is competition. If a large threat actually arose they would either buy them out and shut them down, or use their large size against them (i.e. under cutting prices anywhere the competitor tries to sell their car.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I understand free markets, if a company does something that earns a profit and then stops doing it for non-financial reasons, another company will go after that profit. Did the EV-1 actually earn a profit, or was it something they only did for legal reasons? It would be very odd if there was money to be made selling electric cars, and no business wanted to make it.

--ScottYou are assuming no monopolies here. Also, the American public isn't the brightest when it comes to marketing techniques. If the companies who make billions in the oil industry want to campaign that electric cars are a flop, the public doesn't necessarily know they've been scammed. This was one of the issues Alan Alda recently noted in Scientific American Frontiers program on future cars (http://www.pbs.org/saf/1403/). The program re-aired the other day. (It was a 2004 program).

The electric cars in question were all leased to people who apparently really liked the cars. Then the auto company called in all the leases and destroyed the cars. Why would they do that? The cars were already produced and being leased. Why give up that profit and take the cars back just to shred them? You think managing the leases was an issue? Why not sell the cars to the people leasing them or anyone else then? No one had been sued for the cars posing a hazard. Is there any reason you can think of for canceling these leases?

Take, for example, one side plot in Who Framed Roger Rabbit (http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/34/rogerrabbit.html), based on real events. Eddie assumes that the highway won’t be needed because the city already has an efficient and profitable trolley-car system: "Nobody’s gonna drive this lousy freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel." The "Red Car" was, in reality, a profitable public transit system in Los Angeles in the late 1940s, and would cease to exist in 1961 because of a corporate conspiracy led not by Judge Doom but by three major corporations, General Motors, Firestone, and Standard Oil of California, that had a vested interest in seeing the automobile proliferate. The conspiracy was proved in court in the 1950s, and the three companies paid nominal fines but were not compelled to resurrect the trolley system.

More history of the Red Car Line. (http://www.ocweekly.com/features/features/next-stop-immobility/19137/)in the 20th Century, “there was really no work in Orange County except in the orange groves or in retail stores. The work was in LA. The main reason some of these cities—Cypress, Garden Grove and Santa Ana—grew was because they were on the Red Car line.” The Pacific Electric’s 900 cars and 1,150 miles of track weren’t the result of altruism or civic action; they happened because, for a time, greed coincided with the public interest. The rail line was never particularly profitable for owner Henry Huntington, at least not directly. He also owned the electric companies that powered them and the cities he created by buying and developing large tracts of land on the cheap so he could run rail lines there. He wasn’t shy about this, which is why towns wound up with names like Huntington Beach. As automobiles became more popular, the Red Car lines lost riders and lost even more when the trains were slowed by traffic right-of-ways. Eventually, the Pacific Electric was sold to a consortium that included General Motors and Firestone Tires, whose interest lay in doing away with the trains, which they did with a biblical finality, tearing up the rails and dumping the train cars in the ocean or shipping them to South America. By 1961, the Pacific Electric was no more. “We’ve created a sort of hell here, I think, compared to 35 years ago,” Crump mused in 1992. “I liked it when we could see the mountains. It’s been a nice deal for the oil companies, but for individual people, we are only faced with a tremendous and complete traffic jam that doesn’t give us anything.”

[Skeptic Ginger]

For rechargable vehicles,... what about battery swap? If it takes time to recharge batteries, just swap them out. ...

Cars would have to be redesigned so the batteries were easily accessible in a uniform location/manner.

Batteries would have to be standardized and most cars from subcompact to land barge would have to take one or more standard battery sizes. Could you have economy (range), standard, and "performance" batteries similar to regular, mid-grade, and premium gas?

How would you charge for the exchange? Perhaps based on battery type and %charge remaining in the battery you are giving up?

If you run out of fuel you would no longer be able to lug a gallon of gasoline back in a container. You would have to lug a battery (perhaps a smaller "emergency" battery?).

The exchange mechanisms would have to be invented and fairly idiot proof.

Filling stations would have to stock a large number of batteries. Is there a way to quantify this? If the charging time on a battery is X and you have Y customers per hour, what number of batteries do you really need? Having more than one type of battery makes this a much larger issue.

What would be the environmental impact of that many more batteries being put into service?

[your list or flame goes here]

CT
Add an anti-fraud device and some mechanism to avoid playing old maid or hot potato with the batteries that were wearing out.

[Skeptic Ginger]

But not enough sense. Consumers may spend MOST of their time on short hauls. But they drive longer distances often enough that electric cars cannot replace normal cars. So either you can't do those longer drives (not acceptable), or you buy two cars (not acceptable).

Electric-only cars haven't been killed. They've been around in one form or another for over a hundred years, and they'll keep on hanging around. But batteries simply do not store close to enough energy for them to compete with fuel vehicles. They will be nothing more than a niche product unless the battery problem gets solved. And we're simply not close to solving that yet (if we ever do).You may be one of those consumers who have been sold the "electric cars are bad" message.

The piece on the electric cars from the SAF program I noted above is worth seeing.

[kevin]

Batteries simply do not have the necessary energy density to make an electric vehicle work for more than niche markets, and likely will not for decades to come (if ever).

According to the Wikipedia page on the EV-1 the range of the NiMH version was 75-150 miles with a full recharge time of 8 hours.

According to this page:
http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/gasprices.aspx

in 2005 the average US worker drove 46 miles a day, the highest average being in Birmingham AL at 65 miles a day. Assuming most people are home 8 hours a day (midnight to 8am?) then the EV-1 already covered most driving in the US. That is quite a large niche.

[Skeptic Ginger]

... In California they have power problems when it gets hot and everyone turns on their AC. What if all those people plugged in their cars every night? What if it was also hot?....Especially if the Enron mentality and corruption continues to prevail, controlling supply to fake a shortage to manipulate the prices.

I agree there is an issue, don't get me wrong. But the Enron employees were caught on tape taking power stations offline to manipulate energy prices. They faked the need for those rolling blackouts. The tapes came out in court when the states sued Enron.

Enron Tapes Anger Lawmakers (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/02/eveningnews/main620795.shtml)During California's rolling blackouts, when streets were lit only by head lights and families were trapped in elevators, Enron Energy traders laughed, reports CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales.....

California's attempt to deregulate energy markets became a disaster for consumers when companies like Enron manipulated the West Cost power market and even shut down plants so they could drive up prices......

"People were talking about market manipulation. People were talking about schemes, people were making jokes," said U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash......

Two Enron traders, from the office where the tapes were made, have admitted manipulating energy prices and pled guilty in court. Another goes on trial in October.......

One trader is heard on tapes obtained by CBS News saying, "Just cut 'em off. They're so f----d. They should just bring back f-----g horses and carriages, f-----g lamps, f-----g kerosene lamps."

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who's on first?
Somebody.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ah, but we don't currently have a large demand for anything other than oil. Wars are typically fought over things that both sides want, when both sides want uranium for nuclear power rather than oil, will we fight over that instead?

Are uranium deposits evenly distributed throughout the world?

I'm assuming of course that other non-oil power sources won't be able to meet demand without nuclear.
Uranium is a separate issue given the enriched plutonium problem. Want to fight a war over wind or the Sun? Really, what's left? Will we go to war over arable land? The point is we are fighting oil wars now.

[Ziggurat]

According to the Wikipedia page on the EV-1 the range of the NiMH version was 75-150 miles with a full recharge time of 8 hours.

According to this page:
http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/gasprices.aspx

in 2005 the average US worker drove 46 miles a day, the highest average being in Birmingham AL at 65 miles a day. Assuming most people are home 8 hours a day (midnight to 8am?) then the EV-1 already covered most driving in the US. That is quite a large niche.

No, it isn't a large niche, because you're not actually answering the questions consumers are going to consider. Like I already said, it's simply not enough that your daily commute is within this range. If you make weekend trips longer than that, or even want to be ABLE to make such trips should the desire arrise, then the EV1 is useless. If you want to drive to the next state to visit the grandparents (or grandkids), the EV1 is useless. And most people fit in that category. Most people do not have the money to spare on a car for commuting plus a car for vacations. An electric car simply doesn't make sense for most consumers. Advocates keep going back to energy efficiency arguments, but for individual consumers, that argument just doesn't make sense. Why try to personally save energy if it doesn't save you money? Why try to save energy if instead it COSTS you a significant amount of money? And you want to add drastically reduced utility (short range and long recharge times) on top of higher costs? The number of people who would decide to do that is a niche market, and nothing about commute distances being within range will ever change that. Consumers do not want the electric vehicles that it is possible to make, and they WILL not want them unless and until a MAJOR battery breakthrough is made. Don't hold your breath.

[Ziggurat]

You may be one of those consumers who have been sold the "electric cars are bad" message.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. Are you saying I've been deceived by propaganda?

But in any case, I'm not claiming that "electric cars are bad". I'm claiming, and even the advocates concede, that they do not have ranges or refueling time comparable to gasoline-powered cars. For that reason, and that reason alone, the vast majority of consumers will not choose an electric vehicle over a gas-powered vehicle. No conspiracy needed. Given the option between a $20K gasoline-powered car that I can drive across the country if I want, and a $30K electric-powered car that I can't really drive out of my own metropolitan region, I'll take the gas-powered car any day, and so would most people.

[Pope130]

Ah, but we don't currently have a large demand for anything other than oil. Wars are typically fought over things that both sides want, when both sides want uranium for nuclear power rather than oil, will we fight over that instead?

Are uranium deposits evenly distributed throughout the world?


Uranium deposits are decidedly not evenly distributed. While it is found almost everywhere, deposits in central Africa, North America and Russia are far the most significant.
We have already had one uranium war. The Katanga seccession would not (in my opinion) have been of any great interest outside the Congo without the mines.

Robert

[jimlintott]

Why would they? We already know where the limitation is: it's the battery. No amount of engineering can make an electric car commercially feasible with current battery technology, and no battery technology on the horizon is going to change that soon. At this point, research into all-electric vehicles (as opposed to battery research, which is applicable for a lot more than just cars) is largely a waste of money. The big bet automakers are spending money on isn't all-electrics (GM got burned badly by wasting billions upon billions on EV1), but fuel cell vehicles, because there is a lot of car engineering that needs to be done which only they can do. For example, a fuel cell that can power a car produces less heat than an internal combustion engine, but it also needs to operate at a lower temperature, which means that the cooling actually needs to be more sophisticated and efficient than for an internal combustion engine (nobody will buy a car that won't work when the weather gets hot).

If a major battery breakthrough happens, car manufacturers can jump on it easily and quickly enough, but none of them are placing big bets on that happening.
Why would they? Well, Honda is the largest manufacturer of internal combustion engines on the planet. If a technology is going to replace that then they have a great interest in it being their technology. Sure the auto manufacturers can jump into the technology whenever it really shows up but imagine owning that golden goose. If they all have to buy that technology from you, KACHING$$$. I predict that there is a very good chance that the breakthrough will come from an auto manufacturer. (I predict a chance. That's pretty safe, eh.:))

However I totally agree with most of your arguments. I fully agree that battery technology is holding it back but also feel that public attitudes are another major obstacle. I don't think that people are willing to switch to electric until it offers a complete functional equivalent to their fuel based vehicles at a similar cost. Otherwise it will take a complete paradigm shift in the way people think about their vehicles. The current SUV mindset won't be easily satisfied by electric. People want floating living rooms with luxury and doodads. When they start thinking of the vehicle as simple transportation and look seriously at their real needs then electric will make inroads.

Until a guy can load his 2.3 kids and his wife into the SUV, hook up the boat trailer and drive two hours to the lake and home again without fussing with batteries the electric vehicle doesn't have a chance.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

I think the reason arises from a couple of sources that are more political and people in nature rather than technological in nature. Large corporations are like large governments -- they're primarily bureaucracies. If there is one thing a bureaucracy hates it's new things.

Switching to an electric car would simply change too many things for the big car companies. New engines, new manufacturing processes, etc....

Now ideally capitalism would dictate that a new small player would come into take advantage of the niche area, but the other thing a bureaucracy hates is competition. If a large threat actually arose they would either buy them out and shut them down, or use their large size against them (i.e. under cutting prices anywhere the competitor tries to sell their car.)
You are assuming no monopolies here. Also, the American public isn't the brightest when it comes to marketing techniques. If the companies who make billions in the oil industry want to campaign that electric cars are a flop, the public doesn't necessarily know they've been scammed. This was one of the issues Alan Alda recently noted in Scientific American Frontiers program on future cars (http://www.pbs.org/saf/1403/). The program re-aired the other day. (It was a 2004 program).
I dunno. I'm very skeptical of the lack of electric cars being some sort of 'big oil conspiracy'.

OK, so maybe the big 3 in the US is slow to accept change. There would most certainly be a large change in the manufacturing process. But the biggest Auto manufacturers aren't all in the US!

What about Japan? Germany? South Korea? France? Are they all in on it too? They're all afraid of the gas and oil industry? They're all so reluctant of change that none will retool their factories to produce a car that theoretically is technically superior and majority of consumers would purchase?

Others have brought up very good points here.. It certainly sounds like more of a technical hurtle than a political one.

Also, the fact of the matter is that Toyota and Honda offer many of their vehicles as hybrids, but for the most part, it offers no distinct advantage considering the batteries need to be replaced fairly often, and it is expensive and damaging to the environment to do so.

[TjW]

You are assuming no monopolies here. Also, the American public isn't the brightest when it comes to marketing techniques. If the companies who make billions in the oil industry want to campaign that electric cars are a flop, the public doesn't necessarily know they've been scammed. This was one of the issues Alan Alda recently noted in Scientific American Frontiers program on future cars (http://www.pbs.org/saf/1403/). The program re-aired the other day. (It was a 2004 program).

The electric cars in question were all leased to people who apparently really liked the cars.

Sort of a self-selecting sample, wasn't it? Now, my hobby is sailplanes. If GM offered to lease me a high-performance sailplane as part of their investigation of whether to go into the sailplane business, I'd jump on it. I'd probably also complain if they took it away. Would that constitute evidence that the sailplane business would be a profitable one for GM?

Then the auto company called in all the leases and destroyed the cars. Why would they do that? The cars were already produced and being leased. Why give up that profit and take the cars back just to shred them? You think managing the leases was an issue? Why not sell the cars to the people leasing them or anyone else then? No one had been sued for the cars posing a hazard. Is there any reason you can think of for canceling these leases?

Do you have evidence that they made a profit on those leases? They may have lost a little less money overall as a result of money coming in from the leases, but this would be the first I've heard that the EV1 project was profitable for GM.
At least one garage burned as the result of a fire due to charging. I don't recall if there was a suit or a settlement or not. I wouldn't count on no suit or settlement being the case in every future incident.
There are consumer protection laws (in California, at least) that if a car is sold, you must provide parts and service availability for a certain number of years after the car has ceased production. That would be a good reason for GM to only lease them in the first place, and an equally good reason to not sell them afterwards.

Take, for example, one side plot in Who Framed Roger Rabbit (http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/34/rogerrabbit.html), based on real events.

More history of the Red Car Line. (http://www.ocweekly.com/features/features/next-stop-immobility/19137/)

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Do you have evidence that they made a profit on those leases? They may have lost a little less money overall as a result of money coming in from the leases, but this would be the first I've heard that the EV1 project was profitable for GM.
At least one garage burned as the result of a fire due to charging. I don't recall if there was a suit or a settlement or not. I wouldn't count on no suit or settlement being the case in every future incident.
There are consumer protection laws (in California, at least) that if a car is sold, you must provide parts and service availability for a certain number of years after the car has ceased production. That would be a good reason for GM to only lease them in the first place, and an equally good reason to not sell them afterwards.
As an additional point to liability on the part of GM, the Wikipedia article states: "Over 100 people offered to purchase the electric cars and waive liability, but GM refused". Sounds like a conspiracy, unless you look at the fact that GM would not be allowed to be released from liability.

When you look at the facts, it's not at all surprising that GM cancelled the program and destroyed the cars.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

I don't think this has been posted yet, but GM has a response (http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/fastlane_Blog.html#EV1) to the movie that I found interesting. It reiterates many of the points brought up here.

[fsol]

Why would they? We already know where the limitation is: it's the battery. No amount of engineering can make an electric car commercially feasible with current battery technology, and no battery technology on the horizon is going to change that soon. At this point, research into all-electric vehicles (as opposed to battery research, which is applicable for a lot more than just cars) is largely a waste of money. The big bet automakers are spending money on isn't all-electrics (GM got burned badly by wasting billions upon billions on EV1), but fuel cell vehicles, because there is a lot of car engineering that needs to be done which only they can do. For example, a fuel cell that can power a car produces less heat than an internal combustion engine, but it also needs to operate at a lower temperature, which means that the cooling actually needs to be more sophisticated and efficient than for an internal combustion engine (nobody will buy a car that won't work when the weather gets hot).

If a major battery breakthrough happens, car manufacturers can jump on it easily and quickly enough, but none of them are placing big bets on that happening.

This is it really. The battery tech just isn't there for a full on electric car. The car manufacturers are chucking money at fuel cells, because they satisfy the range requirements of the consumer and score green points. It really isn't a case of any anti-electric car conspiracy. It is just a case of looking at the options and seeing which is more viable.

[Cyphermage]

According to the Wikipedia page on the EV-1 the range of the NiMH version was 75-150 miles with a full recharge time of 8 hours.

How many times could you cycle the batteries before you had to shell out to buy new ones?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. Are you saying I've been deceived by propaganda?

But in any case, I'm not claiming that "electric cars are bad". I'm claiming, and even the advocates concede, that they do not have ranges or refueling time comparable to gasoline-powered cars. For that reason, and that reason alone, the vast majority of consumers will not choose an electric vehicle over a gas-powered vehicle. No conspiracy needed. Given the option between a $20K gasoline-powered car that I can drive across the country if I want, and a $30K electric-powered car that I can't really drive out of my own metropolitan region, I'll take the gas-powered car any day, and so would most people.The people who leased the electric cars in question which were then taken back by the motor vehicle company did not want to give them back and were very happy with them. The idea there was no market is refuted by these users. Whether an electric car meets everyone's needs is not relevant. I did not suggest the conspiracy first, Alan Alda's script included it in the program I mentioned.

You are assuming no market based on your personal preference. Can you site a market study that contradicts the S.A. Frontier's evaluation of the actual users in the test market? How big is the market for electric cars? How does the disseminated information that the cars are impractical and the lack of an advertising campaign touting the benefits impact that market size? Do you think the disseminated information was based on market research or intended to direct the market? In the case of the Red Car Line, Firestone was convicted of purposefully dismantling it.

[joe87]

This is it really. The battery tech just isn't there for a full on electric car. The car manufacturers are chucking money at fuel cells, because they satisfy the range requirements of the consumer and score green points. It really isn't a case of any anti-electric car conspiracy. It is just a case of looking at the options and seeing which is more viable.
To understand why this is true, look at the energy density of gasoline vs batteries. Gasoline stores 12,200 Wh/kg, lead-acid batteries store 25 Wh/kg. This means that a 20-gallon tank of gas (about 54 Kg) contains 654,000 Wh of energy. To store that much energy in lead-acid batteries would take 26,000 Kg of batteries. Even with Li-Ion batteries, which can store 150 Wh/kg, you need 4,400 Kg of batteries. There is no conspiracy, just the hard, cold realities of physics. Electric cars will never be competitive with gasoline or diesel-powered cars.

[Senor_Pointy]

Electric cars will never be competitive with gasoline or diesel-powered cars.
...barring any unforeseen huge leaps in battery technology...

[TjW]

The people who leased the electric cars in question which were then taken back by the motor vehicle company did not want to give them back and were very happy with them. The idea there was no market is refuted by these users. Whether an electric car meets everyone's needs is not relevant. I did not suggest the conspiracy first, Alan Alda's script included it in the program I mentioned.

You are assuming no market based on your personal preference. Can you site a market study that contradicts the S.A. Frontier's evaluation of the actual users in the test market? How big is the market for electric cars? How does the disseminated information that the cars are impractical and the lack of an advertising campaign touting the benefits impact that market size? Do you think the disseminated information was based on market research or intended to direct the market? In the case of the Red Car Line, Firestone was convicted of purposefully dismantling it.
I would say the idea that there is no market for electric cars was refuted by the fact that there were electric cars before the EV1, and there are electric cars available now.
AC Propulsion sells integrated motor-controller-charger systems. As I understand it, there are custom shops that will convert an ICE car to electric. There is a small used market in these electric cars. The Porsche 914, the GM Sprint, and the Honda Civic seem to be popular chassis for conversion.
All it takes is money. The size of the market speaks for itself.
What there isn't, is a subsidized electric vehicle. The EV1 got front-burner status because California was going to require that 2% of the cars that a company sold in California be electric cars. Under those rules, GM would have had to lower the price of the EV1 to whatever it took to sell the 2%, so that it could sell the remaining 98% ICE cars at a profit. And the price of the remaining ICE cars would probably have gone up, so the rest of the GM car-buying public would have been subsidizing the electric car.
At around the same time, Ford had a slightly lower-profile and lower cost electric truck program. Like GM, the trucks were on leases, and were recovered and scrapped.

[kevin]

Uranium is a separate issue given the enriched plutonium problem. Want to fight a war over wind or the Sun? Really, what's left? Will we go to war over arable land? The point is we are fighting oil wars now.

Anytime a substance is in demand and the supply is geographically restricted it's probably going to be fought over. If sunlight were the only power source available, I could see areas where the sun disappears completely for months wanting a better supply.

I could also see windfarms positioned along a border causing accusations of stealing energy from wind before it crosses the border (similar to water arguements these days).

But no, I don't expect any of that to be likely to happen for wind/solar mostly because I don't see the supply of wind/power to be enough to for the demand to put the supply under enough restrictions to start wars. Although we certainly need to use them, I don't seem them being efficient enough to support us.

[kevin]

There is no conspiracy, just the hard, cold realities of physics. Electric cars will never be competitive with gasoline or diesel-powered cars.

Currently electric cars can not substitute for all usages of gas/diesel powered cars. However the range of cars available certainly has some rather large niches that could support the use of electric cars.

Not everybody buys cars for the same reasons. I know lots of people on the east coast buy hybrids as a second car for commute-only because they can use them in the HOV lanes, as a commute-only option the electric is an obvious fit.

Although I get 400 miles on a tank in my hybrid, I won't be driving it to my family reunion later this year. I'll rent a vehicle that is either more comfortable to drive that distance, or cooler to drive (currently thinking convertable mustang). My prius is too small and noisy for that type of distance driving.

The prius in europe has a switch that allows them to drive purely electric without the engine. Many people in the states are activating this switch on their cars (mine is an older model without the option, otherwise I'd do this too.) More adventureous people are hacking their hybrids to add a plug charger.

I think it's pretty clear that a farily large niche does exist for the electric.

[Pidge]

To understand why this is true, look at the energy density of gasoline vs batteries. Gasoline stores 12,200 Wh/kg, lead-acid batteries store 25 Wh/kg.

Of the 12,200 Wh/kg available in gasoline, only about 25% is converted to mechanical power in ICE. So the target for electrical energy storage is more like 3000Wh/kg to match gasoline assuming 100% (optmistic, yes) conversion of stored electriclal energy to motive power.

Burning magnesium metal provides 16,732,000J/kg or 4647Wh/kg, so a Magnesium-based fuel cell (converts magnesium metal to oxide, collecting most of the oxidation energy as eletrical energy instead of heat) could probably match the energy required, at a 65% conversion efficency (of chemical potenial to mechanical energy) vs 25% for gasoline powered ICE.

The other advantage electrical and hybrid cars have over pure ICE is that they use regenerative braking to recover energy. So although you have less total energy storage, you can go further on the same intial energy charge as the car recaptures a certain amount of the initial energy.

Fuel cell cars would probably have a small amount of battery storage that the fuel cell tops up - although the car may have 70kW electric motors, the fuel cell only provides maybe 8kW continously, enough to maintain speed and top up the battery between acceleration. This is how the current crop of hybrid cars work.

You need 216Wh to accelerate a 1400kg mass to 120kmph. That's 2kg of Li-Ion batteries by your own figures. (m = 1400kg, v = 120kmph = 33.333m/s, E=1/2 mV2, E = 777777J or ( 777777J / 3600s/h ) = 216Wh). There's air resistance to overcome to get to that speed, so call it 300Wh, and that would take a 8kW fuel cell 2.25 minutes to recharge.

These are all back-of-the-envelope calculations, btw. Feel free to refine. I'm just showing the feasibility. If it wasn't feasible, you would not be hearing the people complaining about having their leased electric cars taken off them almost by force, and hybrids would not be being made.

Also, there's a electric sports car around that embarrased numerous performance cars on a drag strip. It was only beaten was because the driver of the electric car left the park brake / hand brake on... I'll see if I can find an (internet) reference for that.


ETA - Heats of formation and chemical compositions (http://roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~propulsi/propulsion/comb/propellants.html)
ETA - tzero is the name of the car, had here's the article/press release on the 1/8mile drags http://www.acpropulsion.com/Press releases/tzero_Beats_Ferrari.htm

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Also, the fact of the matter is that Toyota and Honda offer many of their vehicles as hybrids, but for the most part, it offers no distinct advantage considering the batteries need to be replaced fairly often, and it is expensive and damaging to the environment to do so.It's my understanding the hybrids are indeed originating from outside the country and the US automakers are now having to at least go part electric after all.

As far as US companies though, the oil companies are big international giants. They can influence governments via lobby money and bribing corrupt individuals which there seems to be an endless supply; car manufacturers are not immune to oil company influence; and media manipulation has become a refined skill of all these corporate giants.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sort of a self-selecting sample, wasn't it?...

Do you have evidence that they made a profit on those leases?...
There are consumer protection laws (in California, at least) that if a car is sold, you must provide parts and service availability for a certain number of years after the car has ceased production. That would be a good reason for GM to only lease them in the first place, and an equally good reason to not sell them afterwards.While all of these are possibilities, I think the evidence is in the film and elsewhere pointing in the direction I propose.

Try the film reviews (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/usercomments) for starters if you haven't seen the film.

[Skeptic Ginger]

As an additional point to liability on the part of GM, the Wikipedia article states: "Over 100 people offered to purchase the electric cars and waive liability, but GM refused". Sounds like a conspiracy, unless you look at the fact that GM would not be allowed to be released from liability.

When you look at the facts, it's not at all surprising that GM cancelled the program and destroyed the cars.Really? What was this liability? One garage fire has been mentioned. That is hardly a big deal unless you show the cars are somehow more of a fire hazard than a combustion engine!

Wiki is only as good as the next editor as far as being factual.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think this has been posted yet, but GM has a response (http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/fastlane_Blog.html#EV1) to the movie that I found interesting. It reiterates many of the points brought up here.From the link:The good news for electric car enthusiasts is that although the EV1 program did not continue, both the technology and the GM engineers who developed it did. In fact, the technology is very much alive, has been improved and carried forward into the next generation of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles that are either on the road, in development or just coming off the production line....This and the majority of the response merely tout their new hybrids. I have no complaint that the technology is moving forward. But with $3/gal gas and a hybrid import market taking off, US car manufacturers developing hybrids is a no brainer. I think the decision to quash the electric car was short sighted and now the reasons it was short sighted are coming home to roost.

That doesn't mean quashing the electric car wasn't corporate politics. The following is the only part of the response that addresses the electric car. The rest is all marketing hype for new models. * A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease.
* Because of low demand for the EV1, parts suppliers quit making replacement parts making future repair and safety of the vehicles difficult to nearly impossible.Reasonable maybe for not continuing the leases. But for not selling the cars:Could GM have handled its decision to say "no" to offers to buy EV1s upon natural lease expirations better than it did? Sure. In some ways, I personally regret that we could not find a way for the EV1 lessees to keep their cars. We did what we felt was right in discontinuing a vehicle that we could no longer guarantee could be operated safely over the long term or that we would be able to repair.It isn't all that convincing. "We did what we felt was right" but no explanation for why it was felt to be right is really given.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would say the idea that there is no market for electric cars was refuted by the fact that there were electric cars before the EV1, and there are electric cars available now.
AC Propulsion sells integrated motor-controller-charger systems. As I understand it, there are custom shops that will convert an ICE car to electric. There is a small used market in these electric cars. The Porsche 914, the GM Sprint, and the Honda Civic seem to be popular chassis for conversion.
All it takes is money. The size of the market speaks for itself.
What there isn't, is a subsidized electric vehicle. The EV1 got front-burner status because California was going to require that 2% of the cars that a company sold in California be electric cars. Under those rules, GM would have had to lower the price of the EV1 to whatever it took to sell the 2%, so that it could sell the remaining 98% ICE cars at a profit. And the price of the remaining ICE cars would probably have gone up, so the rest of the GM car-buying public would have been subsidizing the electric car.
At around the same time, Ford had a slightly lower-profile and lower cost electric truck program. Like GM, the trucks were on leases, and were recovered and scrapped.Reasonable points. Again though, if one markets the idea electric is inferior, you can manipulate the market quite easily. It comes down to market vs marketing, cause vs effect.

I suspect one cannot kill an idea if the powers promoting it are strong enough. I still think the idea of killing the electric car was convenient at the time. I think oil companies had some influence. I think the wars we are in now and the looming oil competition with China and the rest of the world made killing the electric car fail. Doesn't mean they didn't try. The history of corporate competition tactics indicates there was motive and past business practice models for the effort. The hybrid cars would likely have replaced electric anyway. I'd just prefer people were better informed about how much market manipulation is really going on these days.

[pdw709]

Also, there's a electric sports car around that embarrased numerous performance cars on a drag strip. It was only beaten was because the driver of the electric car left the park brake / hand brake on... I'll see if I can find an (internet) reference for that.



Not exactly a fair comparison.........Given that in a race the Gas car would easily win due to its longer range. A more fair comparison would be to race the electric car against a hotrod/dragster :-)

Phil

[Pidge]

Also, the fact of the matter is that Toyota and Honda offer many of their vehicles as hybrids, but for the most part, it offers no distinct advantage considering the batteries need to be replaced fairly often, and it is expensive and damaging to the environment to do so.

Can you please define "fairly often"? As far as I know, the Toyota Prius (Gen III) NiMH battery pack can provide at least 180,000 miles (290,000 km) of driving life (see http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/prius-battery-pack). I wouldn't class that as "fairly often". I would hope that when the battery packs are replaced, the metals are recycled, as there is a large chunk of "readily" accessible nickel in there.

Yes, the URL is for a almost certainly biased source, however if you have evidence pointing to wide-spread failure to meet those figures, that would be useful.

[Pidge]

Not exactly a fair comparison.........Given that in a race the Gas car would easily win due to its longer range. A more fair comparison would be to race the electric car against a hotrod/dragster :-)

Phil
( I'll bite ;-) )

I understand the tzero is intended as a road-going car. Therefore, a drag race with other road-going cars is a fair comparison of performance.

And have you seen how fast race cars go through fuel? Race cars run up near the rev limiters, around 5000-7000rpm band for race tuned cars, and aren't exactly running a stochiometric Fuel/Air mix (14:1), more like 12:1, and lots of full throttle acceleration followed by heavy braking. An electric car might be able to keep up with its regenerative breaking. The team would just need to swap the battery packs during the pitstops, instead of refueling.

[pdw709]

( I'll bite ;-) )

I understand the tzero is intended as a road-going car. Therefore, a drag race with other road-going cars is a fair comparison of performance.

And have you seen how fast race cars go through fuel? Race cars run up near the rev limiters, around 5000-7000rpm band for race tuned cars, and aren't exactly running a stochiometric Fuel/Air mix (14:1), more like 12:1, and lots of full throttle acceleration followed by heavy braking. An electric car might be able to keep up with its regenerative breaking. The team would just need to swap the battery packs during the pitstops, instead of refueling.

All i'm saying is that its quite easy to build a light weight 2 seater sports car that has fast acceleration. I have one myself - a lotus7 type car with a motorbike engine. These thing can easily do 0-60mph in under 4 seconds and are more than a match for any production car, PLUS they have a large range which only depends on how big a fuel tank you want to fit. The best bit is that you can get build one for less than $10,000, or else buy one for a bit more.

So a lightweight 2 seater vs a Ferrari is not really a valid comparison.

Phil

[fsol]

You need 216Wh to accelerate a 1400kg mass to 120kmph. That's 2kg of Li-Ion batteries by your own figures. (m = 1400kg, v = 120kmph = 33.333m/s, E=1/2 mV2, E = 777777J or ( 777777J / 3600s/h ) = 216Wh). There's air resistance to overcome to get to that speed, so call it 300Wh, and that would take a 8kW fuel cell 2.25 minutes to recharge.

These are all back-of-the-envelope calculations, btw. Feel free to refine. I'm just showing the feasibility. If it wasn't feasible, you would not be hearing the people complaining about having their leased electric cars taken off them almost by force, and hybrids would not be being made.



This seems dubious to me. Whilst the energy required to accelerate a mass is independant of acceleration the power required is not.

If I want to accelerate your car to 120kmh in 10 secs I need about 78 kW if we ignore drag, or 52 kW if we use 15 secs as the target time.

Can 2kgs of 150 Wh/kg batteries supply that? If they can, how long can they supply it for?

Also, why pick a 8kW fuel cell stack, why not a bigger one? And does your recharge time take into account the characteristics of the battery?

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Can you please define "fairly often"? As far as I know, the Toyota Prius (Gen III) NiMH battery pack can provide at least 180,000 miles (290,000 km) of driving life (see http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/prius-battery-pack). I wouldn't class that as "fairly often". I would hope that when the battery packs are replaced, the metals are recycled, as there is a large chunk of "readily" accessible nickel in there.

Yes, the URL is for a almost certainly biased source, however if you have evidence pointing to wide-spread failure to meet those figures, that would be useful.
I apologize. After looking into it further, it appears that the newer NiMH battery packs DO usually last the lifetime of the car, and do not often have to be replaced; And NiMH batteries do appear to be largely recyclable, so I was wrong on that one too. :D

I should refine my statement, and say that hybrids offer no financial advantage over regular cars, which would still put off Joe Sixpack when deciding to purchase a new car. I had heard a few years ago that Toyota was retooling their production lines to roll out more hybrids, which would allow the cost of a hybrid to be the same as the fully gas-powered model. Anyone know what happened to this?

[Bindamel]

I spent about eight years in research and development of lithium ion batteries, four of which was with a company that was working in the US Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC). USABC was a joint effort by the U.S. Department of Energy and the "Big Three" automakers. I saw first hand all the problems with lithium-ion batteries, and why they never came to fruition in an electric car.

Lithium-ion batteries have a number of behind-the-scenes deficiencies, and typically the overcoming of one ends up exacerbating another. Among the difficulties I worked on were:

first cycle irreversible discharge. Graphite based anodes (as opposed to coke, which were the anodes of the li-ion batteries of the early 90's, but have a much lower energy density than graphite) chewed up a lot of the available lithium in the first discharge cycle, reducing the actual available energy beginning at cycle two.

high temperature storage. Charged lithium-ion batteries, stored at 60 C (140 F), exhibited a massive, permanent, energy loss in most formulations.

cycling. Expectations were generally 500 to 1000 charge discharge cycles to 80% capacity. Many formulations failed here.

Low temperature performance. One of the best electrolyte components for Li-ion cells is ethylene carbonate, which is a solid at room temperature. When you need to operate at -40 (C or F), you need to have a lot more of a less ideal electrolyte mixed in.

I'm now six years removed from any of that research, but the one thing that stays with me is that the biggest problem we had was intellectual dishonesty driven by greed. Because of those looming California requirements, large corporations and the U.S. government were throwing money at people who claimed to have something, so people were carefully reporting their work in such a way as to hide its deficiencies. Bellcore licensed its technology to several companies, and I don't recall a single one that was able to produce anything commercially.

[jimlintott]

( I'll bite ;-) )

I understand the tzero is intended as a road-going car. Therefore, a drag race with other road-going cars is a fair comparison of performance.

And have you seen how fast race cars go through fuel? Race cars run up near the rev limiters, around 5000-7000rpm band for race tuned cars, and aren't exactly running a stochiometric Fuel/Air mix (14:1), more like 12:1, and lots of full throttle acceleration followed by heavy braking. An electric car might be able to keep up with its regenerative breaking. The team would just need to swap the battery packs during the pitstops, instead of refueling.
It was a fair comparison. It's the nature of electric motors. If you replaced a 400hp Ferrari gas motor with a 400hp electric motor it would accelerate faster. From what I understand electrics produce more torque right from the bottom of the RPM range.

Here are some interesting items. F1 cars with their 2.4L normally aspirated motors are seeing 20,000 RPM on Aviation Gas (I don't know their economy). A NASCAR 358ci push rod V8 can rev to 8,000 or so RPM make about 750hp and get less than 3mpg. A top fuel dragster will burn over 15 gallons of fuel in a quarter mile but cover that distance (from a standing start) in 4.5 seconds (I believe the record is 4.2). From an 8L V8 they produce over 6,000hp. Race cars are fuel efficient for what they do.

A diesel powered Audi won the 24hrs of LeMans this year. It got some of the best fuel economy ever seen at the race. It would be cool to see an electric vehicle at LeMans but probably a long way off.

I'm actually a perfect candidate for electric because of my driving habits and pragmatic attitude to driving. I would be worried about how well it would work after being left outside at -45C for eight hours.

[Ziggurat]

The people who leased the electric cars in question which were then taken back by the motor vehicle company did not want to give them back and were very happy with them. The idea there was no market is refuted by these users. Whether an electric car meets everyone's needs is not relevant. I did not suggest the conspiracy first, Alan Alda's script included it in the program I mentioned.
I didn't say "no market". I said "niche market". And that's all those owners represent: they are the ultimate in a self-selected group, and their love for the car they chose says absolutely zero about how many other people would be willing to make a similar choice. A niche market is not enough for a vehicle that costs a billion dollars to develop. A niche market will not make a significant impact on infrastructure or oil consumption. A niche market cannot support more than a niche product, which means development costs, efficiencies of scale, and service infrastructure can never compete with the alternative (fuel-based cars).

You are assuming no market based on your personal preference.
Personal preferences? I doubt that those are just my personal preferences. And I already pointed out that I'm not claiming no market, I'm claiming only a niche market.

Can you site a market study that contradicts the S.A. Frontier's evaluation of the actual users in the test market?
I can't watch their program (no video from the current computer I'm at), so I have no way of evaluating their study. I do not care enough to search extensively for studies of my own - I plead laziness.

How big is the market for electric cars? How does the disseminated information that the cars are impractical and the lack of an advertising campaign touting the benefits impact that market size?
What do you mean, disseminating the information that the cars are impractical? They ARE impractical if you want to go long distances, and a LOT of consumers want the ability to go long distances. Are you advocating tricking customers into believing something to the contrary?

Do you think the disseminated information was based on market research or intended to direct the market? In the case of the Red Car Line, Firestone was convicted of purposefully dismantling it.
Red Car Line was a competitor. Why would GM dismantle their own car if they thought they could make money off it? It simply doesn't make sense as a conspiracy. And if there IS a conspiracy, chances are it will come out, just like the campaign against Red Line Car was uncovered. But accusations of crushing electric cars have been around for a VERY long time, and yet nothing substantive ever comes out. Why is that? Maybe because there really isn't a conspiracy, the technology simply cannot compete.

[Ziggurat]

I'm now six years removed from any of that research, but the one thing that stays with me is that the biggest problem we had was intellectual dishonesty driven by greed. Because of those looming California requirements, large corporations and the U.S. government were throwing money at people who claimed to have something, so people were carefully reporting their work in such a way as to hide its deficiencies.

Very interesting, but unfortunately not terribly surprising. And it also unfortunately feeds into the perception that technology is being squelched: if researchers are promising more than they can deliver in order to get (non-refundable) research grants, and people look at the kind of claims being made and take them at face value, then they'll think the technology is much better than it really is. So when it fails to appear on the market, the conclusion is that there's a conspiracy, rather than a realization that the claims exceeded the reality.

[Peskanov]

For those interested, here is another newcomer to the EV bussines:

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Ziggurat,

it's the battery. No amount of engineering can make an electric car commercially feasible with current battery technology, and no battery technology on the horizon is going to change that soon.

Are you sure about that? Some interesting ideas seems to come from nanotechnology, which is growing right now.

For example, recently I read an history about new ultracapacitors using nanotubes. The surface of the plates is enhanced hugely thanks to the aplication of nanotubes, obtaining a 100x capacity grow.

(Edited to add a link for this tech)
http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/5192/

[Bikewer]

It does seem from the arguments above that the plug-in type hybrid adresses many of these issues. Electric power only for short-haul trips or commuting, while the gasoline or diesel engine is available for longer distances.
As I understand it (I have not driven one myself) the two switch back and forth rather seamlessly.
I would think that the design involving an internal combustion engine dedicated to charging the batteries would work as well.

The big problem, as pointed out, is the battery. Even in efficient designs, the best have rather short lifespans and must be replaced regularly. The newer designs like nickle-metal-hydride and lithium may be somewhat better, but still do not offer long life.
Conventional lead-acid batteries can be reconditioned fairly cheaply; firms have been selling rebuilt automotive batteries for a long time. Perhaps some sort of regular exchange system, with the battery design optimized for re-cycling?

Slightly OT, but I recall seeing a design in Popular Science or some similar rag wherin the fixed-speed internal combustion engine was used to power a high-intensity lamp, which was surrounded by photovoltaic cells. The resultant electricity powered the car. Sounded kind of complex...

[jimlintott]

I didn't say "no market". I said "niche market". And that's all those owners represent: they are the ultimate in a self-selected group, and their love for the car they chose says absolutely zero about how many other people would be willing to make a similar choice. A niche market is not enough for a vehicle that costs a billion dollars to develop. A niche market will not make a significant impact on infrastructure or oil consumption. A niche market cannot support more than a niche product, which means development costs, efficiencies of scale, and service infrastructure can never compete with the alternative (fuel-based cars).

This is so true. The amount of support required for any new tech that will be sold market wide is huge. Wasn't the EV1 leased into a small market area? If it was made available to all GM customers throughout the U.S. then all GM service departments have to be up to speed on it. As a GM customer you would expect your GM product to be serviced at any GM dealer, Technicians have to be trained. Repair and parts information made available. They are still in the business to make money and without enough vehicles hitting the road it doesn't make sense.

If you look at the big three Ford, GM, Chrysler are all having trouble selling small econo boxes. Ford doesn't offer a model smaller than Focus. Chrysler the Neon and GM rebadges Toyota Yaris as the Aveo. Their best sellers are full size pick up trucks. I don't know how well the hybrids are selling. I hope it's positive though.

In North America the penises are still too small for little electric cars. :D

[Ziggurat]

Are you sure about that? Some interesting ideas seems to come from nanotechnology, which is growing right now.

For example, recently I read an history about new ultracapacitors using nanotubes. The surface of the plates is enhanced hugely thanks to the aplication of nanotubes, obtaining a 100x capacity grow.

(Edited to add a link for this tech)
http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/5192/

That is indeed interesting, and very much worth researching. But note that what this is really an advance in capacitors (which currently have much lower energy densities than batteries) and NOT batteries themselves. According to the article, "This configuration has the potential to maintain and even improve the high performance characteristics of ultracapacitors while providing energy storage densities comparable to batteries".
Such a capacitor has a number of very significant advantages, but the energy density limit would still exist. Plus, manufacturing such a capacitor large enough to power a car for long distances would likely be fantanstically expensive for a long time to come. We've made some pretty darned impressive advances in nanotech research, but what we do NOT have yet (and probably won't for a good number of years) is anything approaching efficient manufacturing of something like carbon nanotube devices. That's what I mean by not being on the horizon: the prospects aren't good enough or near enough to justify large investment by car manufacturers.

[tkingdoll]

I keep reading this thread title to the tune of the 'Don't Whiz on the Electric Fence' jingle from Ren and Stimpy.

That is all. Carry on.

[fsol]

That is indeed interesting, and very much worth researching. But note that what this is really an advance in capacitors (which currently have much lower energy densities than batteries) and NOT batteries themselves. According to the article, "This configuration has the potential to maintain and even improve the high performance characteristics of ultracapacitors while providing energy storage densities comparable to batteries".
Such a capacitor has a number of very significant advantages, but the energy density limit would still exist. Plus, manufacturing such a capacitor large enough to power a car for long distances would likely be fantanstically expensive for a long time to come. We've made some pretty darned impressive advances in nanotech research, but what we do NOT have yet (and probably won't for a good number of years) is anything approaching efficient manufacturing of something like carbon nanotube devices. That's what I mean by not being on the horizon: the prospects aren't good enough or near enough to justify large investment by car manufacturers.

*Once* they get them scaled up they will probably aim to use the capacitors in Fuel Cell hybrids to help cover transient loads.

Speaking of nanotubes...a few years ago some people, I forget who, announced that they had found a super efficent way of storing hydrogen at very high density using carbon nanotubes. As far as I know the results haven't been replicated independently but research is ongoing...you can store hydrogen in this way but no one has managed to replicate the figures from the original research.

[Ziggurat]

Speaking of nanotubes...a few years ago some people, I forget who, announced that they had found a super efficent way of storing hydrogen at very high density using carbon nanotubes. As far as I know the results haven't been replicated independently but research is ongoing...you can store hydrogen in this way but no one has managed to replicate the figures from the original research.
There's lots of funky methods being researched for hydrogen storage. Carbon nanotubes are indeed one avenue of research, another is a whole class of materials known as metal-organic frameworks (MOF's), which create cage-like structures that hydrogen molecules can penetrate and bind to. Here's a site with some info on MOF's, as well as "decorated" nanocarbons, as potential hydrogen storage:
http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/staff/taner/h2/
The "decorated" nanocarbon ideas (where transition metal ions are bonded to the surface of nanotubes or buckeyballs) look very promising from a theoretical point of view, but we don't know how to really make them yet.

[Peskanov]

Ziggurat,

Such a capacitor has a number of very significant advantages, but the energy density limit would still exist.

True, but if I understood correctly you can recharge capacitors very fastly, so it could be possible to "fill" your batteries in long travels.
This is a meaningful difference, recharging energy would improve seriously the usability of an electric car.
There are proposals also for fast, mechanical exchange of common batteries, but it seems too complex (useful lead-acid batteries weight hundreds of kilograms).

Plus, manufacturing such a capacitor large enough to power a car for long distances would likely be fantanstically expensive for a long time to come. We've made some pretty darned impressive advances in nanotech research, but what we do NOT have yet (and probably won't for a good number of years) is anything approaching efficient manufacturing of something like carbon nanotube devices.

Who knows...Few years ago nanotubes where amazingly dificult to produce, but things started to change very fast.

[Peskanov]

dupe

[Anti_Hypeman]

The tired jokes about cars and penis size are not accurate. We only buy the guzzlers because women rate our value as a person based on our material possessions.

[Anti_Hypeman]

I went speed dating once it was a interesting experience. When women are give only 2 minutes to evaluate you every single one of them asks what kind of car you drive. Its on the short list of qualifications maybe even #1. Until that changes we will continue to but the penis cars at any and all cost.

[Ziggurat]

True, but if I understood correctly you can recharge capacitors very fastly, so it could be possible to "fill" your batteries in long travels.
This is a meaningful difference, recharging energy would improve seriously the usability of an electric car.

That would definitely help, though the range issue still exists. Road trips would be possible, but you'd still be making a lot of stops. And specialized infrastructure would still need to be put in place (an expensive proposition), because you can't draw the kind of power needed to charge such a capacitor within a minute or so from existing electrical infrastructure at gas stations.

[nemo]

I would like to thank everyone for this discussion - it's the first time any of my threads has taken off. One of the arguments posted here is that electric cars need to be profitable for the car companies. ICE cars certainly have that advantage right now. There are many more parts to replace (oil filters, spark plugs, etc) than on an electric vehicle. I still think that electric cars could be just as profitable, although it will take time for the accessory and after-market products to take hold. I hope the current gas crisis will spur more people toward electric cars, eventually reaching a critical mass that will make the car companies take notice.

[jimlintott]

I would like to thank everyone for this discussion - it's the first time any of my threads has taken off. One of the arguments posted here is that electric cars need to be profitable for the car companies. ICE cars certainly have that advantage right now. There are many more parts to replace (oil filters, spark plugs, etc) than on an electric vehicle. I still think that electric cars could be just as profitable, although it will take time for the accessory and after-market products to take hold. I hope the current gas crisis will spur more people toward electric cars, eventually reaching a critical mass that will make the car companies take notice.
Maybe the car companies are stuck in a certain paradigm that doesn't allow them to see ways to make money on electric cars, I'm sure they are working on it though, but your point about service is important. I sold cars at a GM dealer at one time and the sales manager basically told me that his mandate was to put cars on the road because all the money was made in service.

Luckily, the way people drive, means that the body shop is here to stay, no matter how cars propel themselves.

In regards to what I bolded. This is a bit of Catch-22. It's the car manufacturers who have the infrastructure and know how to sell, maintain and repair vehicles. How can it reach critical mass without them? It would be pretty difficult for someone else to step into this industry, market an electric car and set up the network of dealerships to spur the current car companies to take notice.

Not saying it couldn't happen, it's just hard for me to see.

[uruk]

What's really holding electric cars back is battery technology.
Batteries still have a bad output to recharge ratio. They're also expensive. Replacing the battery on a hybrid (civic, prius, escape etc.) runs about $7000.00. (I checked at a dealership for the current price.)

Feul cells are still expensive and industry is still reluctant to set up hydrogen stations.
I saw a show on the Dicovery/Times Channel (I believe the show was called "Addicted to Oil") where a family volunteered to use a hydrogen car for a few years to see what the impact was on the family. The car cost $1mill (a prototype) and they used a series of refilling stations that used solar power to separate Hydrogen from water. The station could only produce one tank (the car's capacity) of hydrogen every 24 hours. And I think they only got about 200 - 300 miles on one tank.
They also intervied a representative for Honda who said that they purposly marketed thier hybrid to the american public on the basis that the hybrid does not need to be plugged in. A rep for GMC said that the American public has an aversion to cars that plug in. (the Japanese and european version can be plugged in)
The honda hybrid can actually be driven on the electic motor only. There is a switch, which is disabled on the American version, which can put the car into "stealth" mode or fully electric. The gas motor never engages.
There is a company, however, that will, for $10,000., re-engage the switch add a recharge circuit (or make it pluggable) and replace the battery with a more recharge friendly one.

You solve the battery problem and the electric car will dominate the roads.

[Peskanov]

Ziggurat,

That would definitely help, though the range issue still exists. Road trips would be possible, but you'd still be making a lot of stops. And specialized infrastructure would still need to be put in place (an expensive proposition), because you can't draw the kind of power needed to charge such a capacitor within a minute or so from existing electrical infrastructure at gas stations.

Well, that's the downside of all electric alternatives... But the same happened in the past with coal and steam engines. Steam locomotives lived longer than they should thanks to the big support systems built around coal. But this is not desirable, it's just market's inertia.
However the electric grid already reaches all gas stations! That's not enough, I know, but it's a beginning.

Also, there are several reasons which make electric cars interesting:
- Non polluting: I guess everybody would prefer cities without gasoline combustion gases.
- Long life, minimal maintenance. EV have few moving parts, and electric engines have really long lifes. Batteries are not so good, but some alternatives like ultracapacitors and high performance flywheels could fix that. I don't know about fuel cells using hydrogen.
- Cheap energy. Electricity is cheaper than oil,and we always have nuclear energy in the horizon in case of high prices for oil.
- Not so weak: EV are less powerful, much less in fact. But there is an important fact ignored by many people: the relation between speed and energy consumption for cars is not linear; reaching more than 100 mph is a terrible waste of energy. When keeping normal speeds like 60 mph, EV works quite ok.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The tired jokes about cars and penis size are not accurate. We only buy the guzzlers because women rate our value as a person based on our material possessions.Correction, that would be the women you are attracted to?, the ones dripping makeup and Barbie clothes. The rest of us prefer the car that got the best crash test ratings and gets up the hill in the snow.

:D

[jimlintott]

Ziggurat,

Well, that's the downside of all electric alternatives... But the same happened in the past with coal and steam engines. Steam locomotives lived longer than they should thanks to the big support systems built around coal. But this is not desirable, it's just market's inertia.
However the electric grid already reaches all gas stations! That's not enough, I know, but it's a beginning.

Also, there are several reasons which make electric cars interesting:
- Non polluting: I guess everybody would prefer cities without gasoline combustion gases.
- Long life, minimal maintenance. EV have few moving parts, and electric engines have really long lifes. Batteries are not so good, but some alternatives like ultracapacitors and high performance flywheels could fix that. I don't know about fuel cells using hydrogen.
- Cheap energy. Electricity is cheaper than oil,and we always have nuclear energy in the horizon in case of high prices for oil.
- Not so weak: EV are less powerful, much less in fact. But there is an important fact ignored by many people: the relation between speed and energy consumption for cars is not linear; reaching more than 100 mph is a terrible waste of energy. When keeping normal speeds like 60 mph, EV works quite ok.
Well they are not exactly non-polluting as there is a certain amount of pollution associated with the generation of electricity. However, even if all electricity was from oil fired generators then all the oil is burned in one spot and the polltution can be controlled at a single point. If new technology that reduces emmisions comes along it can be placed at that point and all cars benefit. So while it isn't non-polluting it is potentially much cleaner. The manufacture and recycling of batteries could be a problem pollution wise.

Electric vehicles are quieter which may be one of the most pleasant side effects.

[Pidge]

Just carrying on with the tzero, there's a result document for the 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum which the tzero participated in - and scored the highest GPA.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf
or http://gestdoc.webmichelin.com/repository/backoffice/DocumentRepositoryServlet?codeDocument=227&codeRepository=CHALLENGE&codeRubrique=DOSSIERS2003 for the complete official grades.

Highlights:
Efficency run used 21.7kWh over 101 miles, or 153.2 mpg using 33.8 kWh per gallon energy equivalent.

Range of 240 mile (miscalculated) - although the car was driven 260 miles between charges on the way to the challenge...

"Well-to-Wheel " CO2 (min) 0 g/mi (electricy can be generated from renewables)
"Well-to-Wheel " CO2 (max) 23.09 g/mi (I've not got a comparitive number for ICE or hybrids)

[Peskanov]

Looking for the energy densities of different technologies, I found this rather nice page. Enjoy:

http://www.thewatt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=926&mode=nested

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
What do you mean, disseminating the information that the cars are impractical? They ARE impractical if you want to go long distances, and a LOT of consumers want the ability to go long distances. Are you advocating tricking customers into believing something to the contrary?


Red Car Line was a competitor. Why would GM dismantle their own car if they thought they could make money off it? It simply doesn't make sense as a conspiracy. And if there IS a conspiracy, chances are it will come out, just like the campaign against Red Line Car was uncovered. But accusations of crushing electric cars have been around for a VERY long time, and yet nothing substantive ever comes out. Why is that? Maybe because there really isn't a conspiracy, the technology simply cannot compete.The Red car Line wasn't a competitor once Firestone bought it.


The image of a trilateral commission out there fooling the masses is not a correct description of what occurs. It's a complicated picture but the basics are, messages that go out as news, docutainment programs, and advertising. Some is direct and purposeful, some is indirect and purposeful, and some results from the first two and takes on a life of its own.

Suppose there is the niche market you speak of. That would indeed be what was expected with new technology such as a radical change in the automobile fuel source. Marketing could act as a catalyst to expand the niche, or as brakes to limit the niche market. If you can market something successfully, certainly you ought to be able to kill it with marketing messages just as well.

Consider now big auto makers either want no electric car competition, or they want to be the producers of the electric cars, they don't want to compete with new auto producers. So the big car producers have R&D going on in the field of electric cars. They determine it is going to take a big investment to produce these cars. They don't want to invest, (short sighted bad decision, not unlike many made in the corporate world). But they also don't want someone else to invest because that could lead to competition. What to do? Make sure you get the message out that it is a waste of time to invest in the R&D for electric cars.

There is a continuum of scenarios here. On one end the message was not manufactured and the R&D issues were 100% real. On the other end of the continuum it was discussed in the board room and a conscious effort was made to discourage the niche market from gaining any ground.

You can add to the equation a continuum of how in bed the oil companies and car companies are with each other. How many of the board members and CEOs are interchangeable at the top (the revolving board room doors) and how much cooperation between the top people pad each others' stock portfolios, pay checks, and other various bonuses?

I don't think the real world would have either of these continuums at either far end. In other words it isn't a trilateral commission conspiracy but it isn't completely innocent either.

Maybe the car companies didn't need to do much to kill the electric car. Or, maybe they really have buried plans for working autos that get fantastic gas mileage because there is so much money to be made in the oil industry and the tentacles are incredibly far reaching.

After recently watching the movie, "Why We Fight" about the far reaching tentacles of the military industrial complex and the oil companies, after seeing the corruption revealed in the Enron trial where employees were caught on tape taking power stations offline to fake an energy shortage and increase prices, after the top officials of Tyco have been caught cooking the books, after the Abramoff confession and other recent events which revealed corruption in Congress is at an all time high, after our current administration which clearly has ties to the oil industry took the country to war based on manipulating the information about WMDs and Iraq's connection to 9/11, after watching the news media become corporate poodles over the last decade not investigating much of anything the administration has done, the evidence certainly suggests killing the electric car could have easily been the result of actively manipulating the market rather than just reacting to it.

Note: I'm not going to hijack this thread with arguments refuting the above political statements. If you want to argue those, feel free to PM me. I have lots of specific examples I'll be happy to share.

[Ziggurat]

Maybe the car companies didn't need to do much to kill the electric car. Or, maybe they really have buried plans for working autos that get fantastic gas mileage because there is so much money to be made in the oil industry and the tentacles are incredibly far reaching.
If that were the case, why would they allow hybrids? Well, if you believe in conspiracy (or even ill intent), the only possibility is simply that the price premium for hybrids exceeds the gas savings, so they can still make a net profit. But by that logic, the lost gas revenues from other advanced technologies can also be made up for with a price premium on the vehicle. And that's rather easy to do, since gas really isn't that expensive, and oil companies are often involved with electric generation as well so they're not likely to be cut out of the equation entirely anyways.

After recently watching the movie, "Why We Fight" about the far reaching tentacles of the military industrial complex and the oil companies, after seeing the corruption revealed in the Enron trial where employees were caught on tape taking power stations offline to fake an energy shortage and increase prices, after the top officials of Tyco have been caught cooking the books, after the Abramoff confession and other recent events which revealed corruption in Congress is at an all time high,
I'm not familiar with the movie "Why We Fight", so I can't comment. But I am familiar with Enron. And I'll note that Enron didn't stay secret. Conspiracies don't stay secret if they involve more than a handful of people, and what you're suggesting (even a subtle marketing campaign alone) would take a whole lot of people. But a conspiracy to suppress, or even discourage, advanced car technology has never been uncovered. And the most likely reason is simply that such a thing never existed.

after our current administration which clearly has ties to the oil industry took the country to war based on manipulating the information about WMDs and Iraq's connection to 9/11, after watching the news media become corporate poodles over the last decade not investigating much of anything the administration has done,
That belongs in the politics forum, not here.

the evidence certainly suggests killing the electric car could have easily been the result of actively manipulating the market rather than just reacting to it.
What evidence? You haven't presented any evidence evidence that this actually happened, and the claim that it "could" happen is vague and meaningless. Your argument basically rests on your perception of how you think things operate, and your assumptions about why things have turned out the way they have. There has never been anything more. All it takes for your argument to come tumbling apart is one simple thing: an actual technological limitation that we cannot overcome yet. That's all it takes to produce every instance you can cite about how electric cars have been squashed, with no malice or conspiracy on the part of automakers or oil companies. Is there a candidate limitation? Yes, I already gave it. You've claimed, with only reference to a TV show, that this isn't a limit, but it really is.

[Ziggurat]

Looking for the energy densities of different technologies, I found this rather nice page. Enjoy:

http://www.thewatt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=926&mode=nested

Interesting. And it pretty much shows my main point: the only contender to internal combustion engines for sufficient energy density is the hydrogen fuel cell, which is an advanced fuel technology rather than a battery technology. Add some supercapacitors to boost the peak transient power output and you've got a contender (provided you can solve the storage problem). There's a reason the car manufacturers are investing heavily in fuel cell vehicles and not electric-only vehicles, and it's not because of any conspiracy: the former have some promise, but the latter have been a dead end for over a century.

[Ziggurat]

Suppose there is the niche market you speak of. That would indeed be what was expected with new technology such as a radical change in the automobile fuel source. Marketing could act as a catalyst to expand the niche, or as brakes to limit the niche market. If you can market something successfully, certainly you ought to be able to kill it with marketing messages just as well.

No, marketing cannot expand a niche market. Products that start in a niche market can sometimes break out of that niche, but only if the product itself manage to serve the needs of the larger market. Marketing cannot do this for the product. And the reason electric cars are a niche market is because they cannot serve the needs of the larger market, because they're too short ranged and take too long to recharge. Those are genuine technological limitations which consign all-electrics to obscurity. No amount of marketing can change that, and if you try you're just throwing money down a hole.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If that were the case, why would they allow hybrids? No one allowed hybrids, the electric car could only be discouraged while the oil supply wasn't in crisis which it now is or will be soon. Killing the electric car was short sighted.

I'm not familiar with the movie "Why We Fight", so I can't comment. But I am familiar with Enron. And I'll note that Enron didn't stay secret. Conspiracies don't stay secret if they involve more than a handful of people, and what you're suggesting (even a subtle marketing campaign alone) would take a whole lot of people. But a conspiracy to suppress, or even discourage, advanced car technology has never been uncovered. And the most likely reason is simply that such a thing never existed.The movie, Who Killed the Electric Car is out isn't it?

That belongs in the politics forum, not here.Only trying to give examples of documented conspiracies. People often simply disbelieve this kind of stuff is possible.

What evidence? You haven't presented any evidence evidence that this actually happened, and the claim that it "could" happen is vague and meaningless. Your argument basically rests on your perception of how you think things operate, and your assumptions about why things have turned out the way they have. There has never been anything more. All it takes for your argument to come tumbling apart is one simple thing: an actual technological limitation that we cannot overcome yet. That's all it takes to produce every instance you can cite about how electric cars have been squashed, with no malice or conspiracy on the part of automakers or oil companies. Is there a candidate limitation? Yes, I already gave it. You've claimed, with only reference to a TV show, that this isn't a limit, but it really is.The evidence I referred to was the documented evidence of the examples I gave. I was only referring there to the evidence such practices are common for corporations.

As for evidence specific to killing the electric car, that is in the movie and in the SAFrontier program.

I understand you and I have a different perspective here. That's why I described the continuum of possibilities. I think the real story is in the middle of that continuum. I don't think in this case, the conspiracy is deep. I suppose it wasn't hard to portray the electric car as infeasible. But I also don't buy the decision to shred the cars that were leased out instead of selling them was an innocent decision.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, marketing cannot expand a niche market. Products that start in a niche market can sometimes break out of that niche, but only if the product itself manage to serve the needs of the larger market. Marketing cannot do this for the product. And the reason electric cars are a niche market is because they cannot serve the needs of the larger market, because they're too short ranged and take too long to recharge. Those are genuine technological limitations which consign all-electrics to obscurity. No amount of marketing can change that, and if you try you're just throwing money down a hole.
Zig, you defined this car market as Niche, then set parameters. Such parameters may or may not apply to the actual market for electric cars.

Marketing can create markets for lots of things you never knew you needed.

[Ziggurat]

No one allowed hybrids, the electric car could only be discouraged while the oil supply wasn't in crisis which it now is or will be soon. Killing the electric car was short sighted.
Sure someone allowed hybrids. Those vehicles cost a lot of money to develop. Someone high up in the company, as in the CEO, had to say yes, let's spend all that money developing a new, more fuel-efficient car. The CEO's of Toyota and Honda allowed hybrid cars. And the reasons they allowed hybrid cars apply equally to electric vehicles, PROVIDED that they can be sold at a profit and in sufficient quantities. But there's no reason to think that they can. Was it short-sighted to kill off the electric car? I don't see why: they won't become viable until a better battery technology comes along (if ever), if such a battery technology is developed it will be easy to reintroduce electrics, and hydrogen fuel cell cars might pass them in the mean time anyways.

But I also don't buy the decision to shred the cars that were leased out instead of selling them was an innocent decision.
All that takes, though, is a tiny bit of stupidity on the part of some middle manager, and stupidity has never been in short supply anywhere. Suppose you're the GM CEO and you want to kill electric vehicles. What do you do? Nothing. You don't research them, you don't build them, that's it. It takes no more than that to kill them off, because none of your competitors are willing to take the financial risk. GM only ever took the risk because of the peculiarities of California law (since negated), not because of actual market demands. Destroying the cars? You don't need to bother. I find it more plausible that some middle manager just thought that it would simplify their book keeping if they didn't have to worry about this strange, low-volume, high-cost vehicle was still floating around, presenting possible liabilities or repair demands.

Why was it done? I don't honestly know, but it doesn't really further any conspiracy to prevent electric vehicles, and no such conspiracy is necessary to come up with a possible explanation.

[WildCat]

For rechargable vehicles, nightly plug-in would be a normal component of life. Workplaces, even public parking lots could provide chargers. But what about battery swap? If it takes time to recharge batteries, just swap them out. Pull into the "filling station" and "dock" with an automated battery exchanger? What are the hurdles? Leaping out into the blue, here is my short list. Feel free to add to it or shoot these down.
That's really the only practiocal way to do it IMHO. Especially here in the big city, where most people don't have a garage space and street parking often means your car is a block or 2 from your home.

[Ziggurat]

Zig, you defined this car market as Niche, then set parameters. Such parameters may or may not apply to the actual market for electric cars.
It's really quite simple: when a consumer looks to buy a car, what fraction of them are going to choose a car that can only travel within a given metropolitan area versus a car that can be driven anywhere? The fraction that would make that decision for ANY reason other than a huge price differential (except the differential is in the wrong direction in real life) is miniscule. That's a niche market.

Marketing can create markets for lots of things you never knew you needed.
But we're not talking about something you never knew you needed: we're talking about something people already know they need, namely a car. What is it that electrics provide that gasoline cars cannot? Saving the planet, perhaps, but that's really it in terms of advantages that aren't just matters of degree to existing considerations in car buying. But that's simply far too abstract an idea to sell to more than a small number of consumers (especially when you're getting reduced functionality at a price premium), regardless of how you market it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's really the only practiocal way to do it IMHO. Especially here in the big city, where most people don't have a garage space and street parking often means your car is a block or 2 from your home.The very cold climates have solutions to that already. In Colorado we had to plug in our engine heaters at night in the winter. There are places to plug in even in parking garages.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ziggy, we are clearly born of two opposite political ends of the spectrum. My memory is that my facts snuffed your facts on the claim exiles were returning to Iraq (they weren't) but perhaps I have a mixed memory of who that discussion was with.

No matter. I ask, have you bothered to look at what the movie even has to say? All the material in the movie including sources of information is available on the movie web site (http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html) and easily accessible with a few minutes time. No need to watch the flick or read volumes of material.

I am not an expert on the issues of the electric car. I do consider myself well informed about current politics, corporate malfeasance, and threats to freedom of the press via corporate controlled media. The cynicism I have due to what I know about current events leads me to suspect the makers of the movie have valid points.

However, rather than argue facts about batteries and transportation technology which I certainly understand but don't wish to argue from a position of understanding but not one of special expertise, I instead give you the following from the movie's website. The rebuttals to your points so far seem to be covered in the following material. I suggest you go to the website and post your critiques of that material rather than to second hand reports in the posts here. There is quite a bit more there besides what I have excerpted here.The oil guys
Why did oil companies fight so hard to stop funding of public charging stations? Why did Mobil take out full-page national newspaper ads critiquing the merits of electric cars? Why did oil industry lobbyists pressure legislators? Electric cars may not have been a short-term threat, but if they caught on, they certainly could have become one.

The oil industry sells nearly 3 billion gallons of gasoline per week in the U.S. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, commuters alone spent $60 billion on gasoline in 2004. As the world demand for transportation fuel increases, a lack of alternatives keeps prices and profitability going up.

Combined Profits of Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Conoco-Phillips
2003: $33 Billion
2004: $47 Billion

The car guys
GM, Ford, Honda, Chrysler, Nissan, and Toyota all developed electric vehicle programs in response to California’s zero emission mandate—and most ended up crushing at least part of their EV fleets. Even as the automakers launched their EV programs, they undermined their success every step of the way. Why?

Electric cars are a threat to the profitability of the conventional gas-powered auto industry. GM said that it spent more than $1 billion to market and develop the EV1. Not only would a successful electric car program cannibalize sales of conventional cars, but the electric car costs the auto industry in other ways: lacking an engine, it saves the driver the cost of replacement parts, motor oil, filters, and spark plugs. The EV1’s regenerative braking system, in which the car’s electronic controls handled much of the work of slowing down the car, spared the car’s mechanical brake system from wear. Brake parts and repair is a billion-plus dollar industry alone. The EV1’s efficiency was a winner for consumers but a loser for the auto industry.

When GM introduced the EV1, it was years ahead of American and Japanese competition in electric car technology. In the coming years it could have capitalized on its lead by developing these cars and advanced hybrids. Instead GM and other US carmakers would focus on battling with the State of California to kill electric vehicles. The consequences of these decisions reverberate today.

The government
In October 2002, the Bush administration joined automakers and car dealers in their lawsuit against the California Air Resources Board’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, arguing that it amounted to an attempt to regulate fuel economy, which only the federal government has the authority to do. From 1990 to 2004, seven other states adopted California’s stringent ZEV mandate. Then, in April 2004, the California Air Resources Board further modified its ZEV mandate, effectively eliminating electric cars from the clean air equation.

The Bush administration’s antagonism to the electric vehicle is perhaps unsurprising, given its links to the oil and automotive industries. For example, Bush’s former Chief of Staff Andrew Card had been a GM Vice President, and was President and CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association during its assault on the ZEV mandate in California (see “Bush Administration Links to the Oil and Auto Industries” in the Fact Sheet).

The last time fuel efficiency was really a federal priority came during the Carter administration as a result of the OPEC oil embargo. Under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, fuel economy increased by more than 50% between 1975 and 1985. Then in the mid-80s, the price of oil plummeted. Some saw this as a deliberate strategy by the Saudis and OPEC to ensure America’s continuing dependence on oil. With cheap oil and a Reagan administration that was, at best, indifferent to conservation (signaled when it tore solar panels installed by Jimmy Carter off the White House roof), advances in fuel economy were stopped cold. Fuel economy and alternatives to oil have been politically unattractive for ever since.

Even under the Clinton administration, CAFE standards remained unchanged. Clinton gambled on a “Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles” (PNGV), a public-private collaboration involving automakers, universities and the federal government. PNGV put forth $1.5 billion dollars to develop, by 2004, a family-sized car that could get 80 miles per gallon. Half a billion in government funds were earmarked to develop hybrid vehicle technology. But critics noted that the program was a convenient way to avoid raising corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. In January 2002, with George W. Bush now in office, Clinton’s program was terminated and replaced with the FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research), a federal program that subsidizes the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology.

Japan, meanwhile, was continuing to make strides with hybrid vehicle technology, and Toyota and Honda grabbed the first and largest hybrid market share, with the American launch of the Toyota Prius in 2000 and Honda Insight in 1999. American car companies have responded to the success of the Toyota Prius by developing their own hybrid vehicles, but they are far behind. In fuel efficiency, American hybrids are barely an improvement over conventional gas cars.

With the American public increasingly alarmed over the price of oil and the war in Iraq, the Bush administration signaled a policy shift in the January 31, 2006 State of the Union Address. President Bush called for increasing research on better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and for development of alternative energies for cars. Whether this will be pursued remains to be seen.

California Air Resource Board
While the California Air Resource Board’s leadership galvanized the development of the electric vehicle, CARB failed to steer the ZEV initiative to success. Beset by industry and political pressure, CARB ultimately let the auto and oil industries off the hook by eliminating electrical vehicle production from the mandate. CARB Chairman (1999-2004) Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D., in particular may bear the brunt of the guilty verdict: the board operates on a consensus mode, in which the chairman directs policy and other board members follow his lead. Four months before the CARB meeting that effectively killed the electric car, Lloyd became the chairman of the California Fuel Cell Partnership, a consortium of automakers and public agencies that promotes the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure. In his interview filmed for this documentary, Lloyd states that he remains convinced that the ZEV mandate was not feasible.

Batteries
The battery is often the scapegoat in justifying the failure of the EV. Not powerful enough. Too many technological hurdles. Too expensive. Just shifted the burden of pollution from the car’s tailpipe to the power plant’s smokestack. These charges are unconvincing.

Battery power: The GM EV1 was commercially released in 1996 with an underperforming lead-acid battery that powered the car only 60-80 miles to a charge. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Americans drive an average of 29 miles a day. But the range of the first generation of EV1s was still seen as inadequate and impractical for many drivers, and led analysts and the public to dismiss the technology. Two years later, the nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) battery, developed by Stanford R. Ovshinsky’s Ovonics battery company, was used in second-generation EV1s. With the NiMH battery, the EV1 was able to travel 100 - 120 miles per charge. In 1994 GM had already acquired a 60% interest in the Ovonics, and could have adopted these powerful NiMH batteries more quickly, given the demonstrated performance of NiMH batteries in prototype electric vehicles.

Technological hurdles: GM claimed that the NiMH battery required extensive flammability testing, the development of a cooling system, and other technology solutions before it could be used in the EV1. All true. But if GM had had the will and commitment to pursue an innovative, practical, and successful electric vehicle, it could have made the effort to quickly and efficiently overcome these hurdles.
Battery expense: The NiMH batteries used in later-version EV1s were expensive—but less costly, in the long run, than an internal combustion engine. With no moving parts to maintain or repair, the battery lasted the life of the car (especially since the car’s life was abruptly terminated before its time). GM never mass-produced the NiMH batteries, which would have reduced their cost. Toyota currently uses NiMH batteries in the highly successful Prius.

Pollution at the power plant: See “The Long Tailpipe Theory” in the Fact Sheet.

Battery Postscript: A new generation of Lithium-ion batteries power electric cars in development today. They are twice as energy efficient as hydrogen fuel cells and can provide 250 to 300 miles per charge. Currently they are extremely expensive.

The consumer
While consumers failed to embrace the electric vehicle in the era of cheap gas and big SUVs, auto producers and opinion makers like the press did little to convince them otherwise. Questionable advertising, limited availability, weak first-generation battery technology, and simple lack of awareness gave consumers little incentive to consider EVs as a practical alternative to gas cars.

It was also argued that the EV was elitist by “grassroots” organizations like Californians Against Hidden Taxes, which was funded primarily by the Western Petroleum States Association oil lobby. With the EV1’s launch in December 1996, the organization’s spokeswoman, Anita M. Mangels, wrote a newspaper commentary entitled, “Electric vehicles: Everyone pays, but only the elite will drive” wherein she claimed that “the EV-1 is the flagship of what promises to be an armada poised to cruise Easy Street at taxpayer expense.” Although the cost of a monthly lease was moderate, many EV drivers considered it a commute car, and had another conventional gas car for longer-distance trips. But the EV’s benefits to air quality were shared by everyone, regardless of income level.

The Hydrogen Fuel Cell
The electric car “mandate” in California was abandoned in favor of a new zero emission vehicle technology, the hydrogen fuel cell. Proponents, like the California Air Resources Board, argued that it could prove a better technology. Unlike battery electric cars, however, it was far from being a proven technology. And supporters and detractors both agree that a practical H2 car is decades away from reality (See “5 Conditions Required for a Viable Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicle” in the Fact Sheet).

Hydrogen has another issue. At this time, it is much more efficient and non-polluting to use electricity directly in a battery than to turn it into a hydrogen fuel. The hydrogen fuel cell is attractive to the oil and auto industries because most hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. Even if hydrogen were made from renewable electricity, it would still be delivered as a fuel—instead of via an electric utility. By touting Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars as the great hope of the future, political leaders who are beholden to the oil and auto lobbies can appear to value innovation and conservation while promoting these lobbies’ interests.

[Ziggurat]

I ask, have you bothered to look at what the movie even has to say? All the material in the movie including sources of information is available on the movie web site (http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html) and easily accessible with a few minutes time. No need to watch the flick or read volumes of material.
I appreciate the link, but I'm on a Linux computer that doesn't want to cooperate with Flash, or pretty much anything other than text and still images. I cannot access the material.

The rebuttals to your points so far seem to be covered in the following material. I suggest you go to the website and post your critiques of that material rather than to second hand reports in the posts here. There is quite a bit more there besides what I have excerpted here.
I'm afraid your excerpt is all I can address, since I cannot access the site.

The oil guys Why did oil companies fight so hard to stop funding of public charging stations?
I don't know, but I'm not keen on arguments from ignorance. And that's what this seems to boil down to: not a real analysis of what motivated them in this instance, not evidence of what they said to each other or how they arrived at a decision, but essentially a question with the intended answer of "I don't know", to be followed up with an accusation of ill intent. But that accusation is poorly founded, and unevenly applied. If corporations are guilty because they turn a profit from oil, what about governments? The US government has earned far more from taxing oil and petroleum products than the oil companies have made in profits. If there's a conspiracy to maintain the stranglehold of oil, why aren't people looking to government as a possible PRIMARY culprit, rather than just the bribed stooge? It's inconsistent.

The car guys GM, Ford, Honda, Chrysler, Nissan, and Toyota all developed electric vehicle programs in response to California's zero emission mandate-and most ended up crushing at least part of their EV fleets. Even as the automakers launched their EV programs, they undermined their success every step of the way. Why?
Undermined their success every step of the way? In what way? By lobbying to get rid of the laws? Of course they did. And for good reason: they could not sell EV cars at a profit. They were looking at possibly billions of dollars in losses had the laws stayed on the books. In order to sell them in sufficient numbers to satisfy the law, they would have had to subsidize them heavily, selling each one at a loss. That loss would have to be made up for by higher prices on non-EV vehicles. Not good for business.

Electric cars are a threat to the profitability of the conventional gas-powered auto industry. GM said that it spent more than $1 billion to market and develop the EV1. Not only would a successful electric car program cannibalize sales of conventional cars, but the electric car costs the auto industry in other ways: lacking an engine, it saves the driver the cost of replacement parts, motor oil, filters, and spark plugs.
Oh, please. This is economic illiteracy at its finest. GM spun off their parts business precisely because their parts business was NOT a source of profits. And so what if it cannibalizes sales of conventional cars: it'll also cannibalize sales of your competitor's cars, giving you a bigger market if you get there first, and you better jump on that opportunity before your competitor does or you're screwed. The "cannibalize" argument, if followed logically, actually leads to the conclusion that car makers should be racing there to make sure they don't get locked out. Whoever wrote this doesn't have a clue.

When GM introduced the EV1, it was years ahead of American and Japanese competition in electric car technology. In the coming years it could have capitalized on its lead by developing these cars and advanced hybrids.
But hybrids are a different technology than all-electrics, so they couldn't "capitalize" on EV1 to get a jump on hybrids. And the idea that the EV1 would be significantly more advanced now if they kept pouring money into it is also not based in reality. The limit was and still is the battery, and nothing GM was working on would likely have changed that, no matter how much they poured on the problem. They were wasting money to satisfy a California law, and once the law was gone, they stopped wasting money.

The Bush administration's antagonism to the electric vehicle is perhaps unsurprising, given its links to the oil and automotive industries.
First time I've heard they're linked intimately to the automotive industry. But whatever. If this is really about protecting cronies, why is Bush pushing so hard for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles? He's poured a lot of money into that, and so have the automotive companies. And they could end up being just as independent of oil as all-electric vehicles.

With the NiMH battery, the EV1 was able to travel 100 - 120 miles per charge.
Which still isn't close to good enough.

Battery Postscript: A new generation of Lithium-ion batteries power electric cars in development today. They are twice as energy efficient as hydrogen fuel cells and can provide 250 to 300 miles per charge. Currently they are extremely expensive.
Let me respond to this part by referring to an earlier post in this thread: I spent about eight years in research and development of lithium ion batteries, four of which was with a company that was working in the US Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC). USABC was a joint effort by the U.S. Department of Energy and the "Big Three" automakers. I saw first hand all the problems with lithium-ion batteries, and why they never came to fruition in an electric car.
Bindamel details some of those problems in his post, and they have not been overcome despite a lot of money and effort. They are either ignorant or dishonest about the true difficulties with battery technology.

While consumers failed to embrace the electric vehicle in the era of cheap gas and big SUVs, auto producers and opinion makers like the press did little to convince them otherwise.
Yeah, yeah. You've been making essentially the same claim for a long time now. But even if true, it's irrelevant if convincing the public to go for electric cars wasn't possible. And given the REAL limitations of the vehicle, I have every reason to think it wasn't possible, and still isn't possible. I attribute the lack of "effort" to convince the public to buy into electric vehicles as simply a lack of desire to waste advertising money.

Although the cost of a monthly lease was moderate, many EV drivers considered it a commute car, and had another conventional gas car for longer-distance trips. But the EV's benefits to air quality were shared by everyone, regardless of income level.
That's not a winning argument. The lease cost was done at a LOSS to GM, and still they had few takers. And benefits to air quality? That's not good enough. When an individual asks what's the marginal cost to ME in terms of air quality from ME driving a gas-powered vehicle, the answer is essentially zero. That may be selfish, that may not be how people should behave, but it is how people DO behave. You cannot mandate a change in human behavior by government fiat and expect it to just work.

[fsol]

The EV1’s regenerative braking system, in which the car’s electronic controls handled much of the work of slowing down the car, spared the car’s mechanical brake system from wear. Brake parts and repair is a billion-plus dollar industry alone. The EV1’s efficiency was a winner for consumers but a loser for the auto industry.

Why are car manufacturers still using regenerative braking systems now then? If it was so bad for business why didn't they hide them away under the carpet with the battery tech?

[WildCat]

The very cold climates have solutions to that already. In Colorado we had to plug in our engine heaters at night in the winter. There are places to plug in even in parking garages.
Huh? How do you plug in when you're parked a block away? Residential neighborhoods don't have parking garages. Also, street cleaning, snow routes, and daily parking restrictions (such as rush hour lanes) mean when you park on the street you frquently have to move your car. I really don't see a plug-in electric being practical for more than a small percentage of people here.

[EHocking]

Huh? How do you plug in when you're parked a block away? Residential neighborhoods don't have parking garages. Also, street cleaning, snow routes, and daily parking restrictions (such as rush hour lanes) mean when you park on the street you frquently have to move your car. I really don't see a plug-in electric being practical for more than a small percentage of people here.The alternative being an inductive charger - no coupling required.

Apparently already in place in California, USA and (perhaps a faulty memory) Paris, France.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Huh? How do you plug in when you're parked a block away? Residential neighborhoods don't have parking garages. Also, street cleaning, snow routes, and daily parking restrictions (such as rush hour lanes) mean when you park on the street you frquently have to move your car. I really don't see a plug-in electric being practical for more than a small percentage of people here.
And this is essentially the problem with electric today, besides technical limitations with the battery.

Skeptigirl, YOU may absolutely love an electric car. Your friends may love an electric car. Is it feasible? Would you be able to use the EV1 as your primary car? Would all of your friends and family? How about Joe Sixpack? How about the inner-city drivers? How about people like me who commute 200km every day?

I love the IDEA of an electric car, but I would need a second car to make it feasible... And I believe I'm in the majority. The fact is that the EV1 is not a magic fix-all solution that the producers of the movie would have you believe! It is for a niche market, but why in the hell would GM or any auto manufacturer sink billions and billions of dollars into a new class of automobile that would only appeal to a niche market?

Are you familiar with the history of the Segway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway)? Steve Jobs claimed that "cities would be built around this new method of transportation". The reality has been quite different. Why do you think this is?

[TjW]

The alternative being an inductive charger - no coupling required.

Apparently already in place in California, USA and (perhaps a faulty memory) Paris, France.
An inductive charger still requires a coupling -- there's no exposure of the conductors, but there's still phyically a wire coming up to a paddle that is "plugged in' to the car. This is not as efficient as a direct connection. It was, I believe, this type of charging system that burned in the EV1 tests.

[TjW]

Here's a more interesting question -- to which I certainly don't know the answer:
Who conspired to subsidize the electric car?
The EV1, and the other manufacturer's EV programs were essentially forced by the passage of a California law.
I somehow doubt that just one California legislator came up with this great idea on his own and promoted it to the rest of them. I suspect that there was lobbying that went on.

I tend to interpret the fact that the other automakers also had electric car programs as evidence that there is NOT collusion between the automakers.
Actual collusion would have resulted in a very funny scene:
"You can't sell cars in California unless you sell 2 percent electric."
"Okay. We don't make electric cars. Let us know if and when you want to buy what we sell."

How many politicians would have been supporting the law the day after their constituency started complaining that they couldn't buy new cars?

[Ziggurat]

The alternative being an inductive charger - no coupling required.
Just very lossy. Which pretty much kills any environmental argument in favor of an electric.

[Ziggurat]

Why are car manufacturers still using regenerative braking systems now then? If it was so bad for business why didn't they hide them away under the carpet with the battery tech?

I think you misunderstood: regenerative brakes are good, they reduce wear and tear. But they can only be used on a car with large battery capacity, and preferably one with an electric component to the drive train already (switch the electric motor to a generator mode to do the braking). With conventional cars, you can't store the energy you would recover, and the extra cost, space, and complexity of adding a generator for that sole purpose makes no economic sense (for safety reasons, even in cars with regenerative braking you still need ordinary brakes as well. The argument that auto makers would want to keep ordinary brakes because they're a large service industry doesn't make any sense either, though: if repairs are done under warranty, the manufacturers lose money, and if they're not done under warranty, it's individual mechanics doing the service who pocket most of the profit, not the manufacturers. The manufacturers have absolutely no reason not to cut those people out of the loop if they can do so economically.

[Belz...]

A rep for GMC said that the American public has an aversion to cars that plug in

We don't have that problem in Canada. Half of the year we HAVE to plug the car! ;)

[tableplay]

I don't think this has been posted yet, but GM has a resonpse to the movie that I found interesting. It reiterates many of the points brought up here.

Unfortunately the response doesn't seem to address why GM subsequently sued the State of California. There might have been perfectly valid reasons for the lawsuit, but they are not evident in the response.

[WildCat]

And this is essentially the problem with electric today, besides technical limitations with the battery.
I'll also mention that the greatest advantage to an electric car is in urban driving, because stop-and-go burns up a lot of gas when you're just idling at a light or stuck in traffic. Yet paradoxically it is those same urban drivers most likely to be unable to plug in an electric car. And out in the suburbs or rural areas, longer daily driving distances make driving an electric impractical because of the limited range.

It is indeed a niche market.

[WildCat]

We don't have that problem in Canada. Half of the year we HAVE to plug the car! ;)
Hang in there Belz, global warming is just around the corner. Even Canada will be inhabitable before too long. :boxedin:

[Skeptic Ginger]

Huh? How do you plug in when you're parked a block away? Residential neighborhoods don't have parking garages. Also, street cleaning, snow routes, and daily parking restrictions (such as rush hour lanes) mean when you park on the street you frquently have to move your car. I really don't see a plug-in electric being practical for more than a small percentage of people here.I don't know how large cities in the far North manage this. It may very well need innovation and new infrastructure. I'm just pointing out that where I lived in the Rockies, we all plugged in our engine heaters at night in the winter, including at the hospital I worked at. Had I not plugged in I wouldn't be able to start the car after an 8 hour shift. Your oil gets too sluggish and the engine literally will not turn over fast enough to start.

Perhaps someone on the board from Anchorage or other cold winter big city can tell us what facilities they have.

Wait, I see others have commented.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Skeptigirl, YOU may absolutely love an electric car. Your friends may love an electric car. Is it feasible? Would you be able to use the EV1 as your primary car? Would all of your friends and family? How about Joe Sixpack? How about the inner-city drivers? How about people like me who commute 200km every day?

I love the IDEA of an electric car, but I would need a second car to make it feasible... Sure I could use one for most of the year. Then when I wanted to drive to Oregon or elsewhere, I could always rent a car. Why not? I rent a car when I fly somewhere.

Are you familiar with the history of the Segway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway)? Steve Jobs claimed that "cities would be built around this new method of transportation". The reality has been quite different. Why do you think this is?Steve Jobs? He wasn't the inventor. So Jobs and other potential investors overestimated the speed with which the Segway would be adopted. The company (http://www.segway.com/) appears to be in business and has dealers in the majority of states. So what about it?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a more interesting question -- to which I certainly don't know the answer:
Who conspired to subsidize the electric car?
The EV1, and the other manufacturer's EV programs were essentially forced by the passage of a California law.
I somehow doubt that just one California legislator came up with this great idea on his own and promoted it to the rest of them. I suspect that there was lobbying that went on....Yes, from the people breathing the air. :rolleyes: The air was pretty bad in LA and still isn't great. Why wouldn't people want something done about it? Even now CA has stricter vehicle emission standards than other states.

How many politicians would have been supporting the law the day after their constituency started complaining that they couldn't buy new cars?Not everyone in CA drives a Hummer.

[Ziggurat]

Unfortunately the response doesn't seem to address why GM subsequently sued the State of California.

Why did they sue California? Easy: they didn't want the state to require them to sell cars at a loss just to meet essentially arbitrary government percentages.

[aggle-rithm]

What's really holding electric cars back is battery technology.
Batteries still have a bad output to recharge ratio. They're also expensive. Replacing the battery on a hybrid (civic, prius, escape etc.) runs about $7000.00. (I checked at a dealership for the current price.)

Feul cells are still expensive and industry is still reluctant to set up hydrogen stations.
I saw a show on the Dicovery/Times Channel (I believe the show was called "Addicted to Oil") where a family volunteered to use a hydrogen car for a few years to see what the impact was on the family. The car cost $1mill (a prototype) and they used a series of refilling stations that used solar power to separate Hydrogen from water. The station could only produce one tank (the car's capacity) of hydrogen every 24 hours. And I think they only got about 200 - 300 miles on one tank.
They also intervied a representative for Honda who said that they purposly marketed thier hybrid to the american public on the basis that the hybrid does not need to be plugged in. A rep for GMC said that the American public has an aversion to cars that plug in. (the Japanese and european version can be plugged in)
The honda hybrid can actually be driven on the electic motor only. There is a switch, which is disabled on the American version, which can put the car into "stealth" mode or fully electric. The gas motor never engages.
There is a company, however, that will, for $10,000., re-engage the switch add a recharge circuit (or make it pluggable) and replace the battery with a more recharge friendly one.

You solve the battery problem and the electric car will dominate the roads.

I saw that show. It made some good points, but I could tell in a few places that crucial information was being withheld to strengthen the arguments against oil and the American auto industry. In one scene the host confronted a representative from an auto maker at a trade show, who was describing an environmentally friendly car. When he asked him what mileage it got, he replied, "On gasoline...? 12 mpg".

The host of the show ridiculed this answer, saying "no wonder we're behind the Japanese!" However, is it possible, considering the "On gasoline...?" reply, that the vehicle runs on fuel other than gasoline, and perhaps THAT's why it's environmentally friendly, and not because of superior gas mileage? He never explored this possibility, not surprisingly.

[tableplay]

Why did they sue California? Easy: they didn't want the state to require them to sell cars at a loss just to meet essentially arbitrary government percentages.

Agreed, but odd that the GM Executive didn't include this fact in the GM response -- he should have addressed all the major points of contention in the movie and the lawsuit was one of them.

[jimlintott]

I don't know how large cities in the far North manage this. It may very well need innovation and new infrastructure. I'm just pointing out that where I lived in the Rockies, we all plugged in our engine heaters at night in the winter, including at the hospital I worked at. Had I not plugged in I wouldn't be able to start the car after an 8 hour shift. Your oil gets too sluggish and the engine literally will not turn over fast enough to start.

Perhaps someone on the board from Anchorage or other cold winter big city can tell us what facilities they have.

Wait, I see others have commented.
It is not uncommon for us in the dead of winter to not be able to plug in the vehicle. Some work places with staff parking lots will have outlets, public parking doesn't. You have to make sure that your car is in good running order and / or carry booster cables. When it gets really cold, tow truck operators are very busy. There certainly isn't the facilities for everyone to plug in all the time.

Another reason your car barely turns over is because cold kills batteries. A wet cell car battery loses something like 35% of its power at 0C (32F). At the coldest temps here over 75% of the batteries power is lost. This is even worse in a battery that is weak.

Cold kills batteries. Apparently some types less than others but it would be a big concern to me in an EV.

The argument that auto makers would want to keep ordinary brakes because they're a large service industry doesn't make any sense either, though: if repairs are done under warranty, the manufacturers lose money, and if they're not done under warranty, it's individual mechanics doing the service who pocket most of the profit, not the manufacturers.
Quick note: Normal brake maintenance from normal brake wear is not a warranty item under most warranties. There may be exceptions.

[Ziggurat]

Agreed, but odd that the GM Executive didn't include this fact in the GM response -- he should have addressed all the major points of contention in the movie and the lawsuit was one of them.

Yeah, it would be nice if the response was more comprehensive, but considering the response was written without having seen the movie, but only second-hand reports, I can't really fault it for that.

[fsol]

I think you misunderstood:..
No, I get it. I just didn't see the value in the argument I quoted. Hybrids use regenerative braking *now.* I don't see the car companies bemoaning the increase in brakes life span because of it. You'd think if it was a factor in the demise of the EV-1 they wouldn't have gone and used the same tech again, unless maybe there perhaps was no conspiracy afterall...well that and that the tech actually works.

[Ziggurat]

No, I get it. I just didn't see the value in the argument I quoted. Hybrids use regenerative braking *now.* I don't see the car companies bemoaning the increase in brakes life span because of it.

You're right, I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

[Peskanov]

Ripley Twenty-Nine,

And this is essentially the problem with electric today, besides technical limitations with the battery.

Skeptigirl, YOU may absolutely love an electric car. Your friends may love an electric car. Is it feasible? Would you be able to use the EV1 as your primary car? Would all of your friends and family? How about Joe Sixpack? How about the inner-city drivers? How about people like me who commute 200km every day?

With adequate support (plugs in streets and parking lots) an EV could cover that range, and would save you a lot of money in fuel. The problem would be the speed.
You surely run a lot, if you are doing 200 kmh each day. An EV would be a nighmare for you.
But I am no sure this an EV problem, I would say that it's mostly a problem of your way of life. Wasting 2/3 hours each day in transports is not a good way of living. I tasted it once, and I don't plan to repeat...

[Peskanov]

jimlintott,

Another reason your car barely turns over is because cold kills batteries. A wet cell car battery loses something like 35% of its power at 0C (32F). At the coldest temps here over 75% of the batteries power is lost. This is even worse in a battery that is weak.

Cold kills batteries. Apparently some types less than others but it would be a big concern to me in an EV.

That's one of the reasons ultracapacitors and flywheels are so interesting; they stand cold weather perfectly. Also, they have longer lifes...

[Ziggurat]

With adequate support (plugs in streets and parking lots) an EV could cover that range, and would save you a lot of money in fuel.

This argument amounts to "If you don't have to pay for massive infrastructure development but can pass that bill onto other people, then you would save a lot of money." Which may be true, but it doesn't actually solve the problem.

Are all these sockets going to be free to use? Or do you need to build some sort of billing process on top of it? If it's for free, well, you're looking at a tragedy of the commons in the making. And if it's metered, you're talking about a VERY expensive infrastructure. Who foots the bill?

[Ziggurat]

jimlintott,

That's one of the reasons ultracapacitors and flywheels are so interesting; they stand cold weather perfectly. Also, they have longer lifes...

Any flywheel that can get close to the same energy density as a battery is going to be fantastically expensive (not to mention difficult to engineer safely, especially for crashes). And ultracapacitors cannot get close: even those fancy nanotube capacitors, which are likely at least a decade away from commercial production (if they even can be mass-manufactured cheaply enough), would only reach parity with current batteries. Both flywheels and ultracapacitors can serve a purpose because their peak power output can be very high compared to batteries (meaning you can move energy into or out of them very quickly, which you can use to even out transient loads to the battery), but they don't solve the energy density problem.

A quick google search turned this up:
http://www.evworld.com/archives/interviews/cellis.html
It talks about a flywheel design (a cylinder in this case) for hybrid cars. They're basically taking the approach I suggested above: use the high power output potential of flywheels, for transient power needs (accelerating quickly on an onramp, for example), but don't even try to get the energy density high enough to replace the fuel engine. You can get efficiency and performance advantages that way, but you can't eliminate the fuel without running into basically the same problems that all-electrics face: the energy density just isn't high enough.

[Peskanov]

Ziggurat,

Interesting. And it pretty much shows my main point: the only contender to internal combustion engines for sufficient energy density is the hydrogen fuel cell, which is an advanced fuel technology rather than a battery technology. Add some supercapacitors to boost the peak transient power output and you've got a contender (provided you can solve the storage problem). There's a reason the car manufacturers are investing heavily in fuel cell vehicles and not electric-only vehicles, and it's not because of any conspiracy: the former have some promise, but the latter have been a dead end for over a century.

I am aware of the difference of power between EV and internal combustion, but I don't agree about the lack of competitiveness.

Check the horsepower of some popular european cars along the years:

- Citroen 2CV (1955): 9 hp
- Fiat 600 (1945): 21 hp
- Renault 4 (1961): 35 hp
- Fiat Panda (1980): 50 hp
- Volkswagen beetle (1960): 45 hp
- Volkswagen beetle (1970): 60 hp
- Citroen CX (1982): 75 hp (least powerfull)
- Citroen CX (1982): 150 hp (most powerful)

It's important to notice that very low hp is necesary to have an useful vehicle; a 10x increment in power does not provide a 10x increment in speed, and that's the reason internal combustion engines are better, but not as much as many believe...

At 9 hp, one person could use an EV with solar photovoltaic cells and drive 1 hour each day, without recharging. This is an extreme example, I know. But think about plugging the vehicle to the electric grid or using small fuel cells for peak consumption.
I certainly see the advantages in an EV, I would like to buy one with the right pricing.

[Peskanov]

Zigggurat,

This argument amounts to "If you don't have to pay for massive infrastructure development but can pass that bill onto other people, then you would save a lot of money." Which may be true, but it doesn't actually solve the problem.

Are all these sockets going to be free to use? Or do you need to build some sort of billing process on top of it? If it's for free, well, you're looking at a tragedy of the commons in the making. And if it's metered, you're talking about a VERY expensive infrastructure. Who foots the bill?

errr...I didn't know that gas stations and oil distributions were cheap to build...And the people working there seems to want me to pay the gasoline each time I fill the tank. ;)

Obviously, I am talking about pay-per-watt system. Of course I expect to pay for the energy I buy from the electric grid, which is (btw) much cheaper than oil.
I don't think this is so difficult: cities are already wired with high power lines...

Any flywheel that can get close to the same energy density as a battery is going to be fantastically expensive (not to mention difficult to engineer safely, especially for crashes). And ultracapacitors cannot get close: even those fancy nanotube capacitors, which are likely at least a decade away from commercial production (if they even can be mass-manufactured cheaply enough), would only reach parity with current batteries. Both flywheels and ultracapacitors can serve a purpose because their peak power output can be very high compared to batteries (meaning you can move energy into or out of them very quickly, which you can use to even out transient loads to the battery), but they don't solve the energy density problem.

I know, but there is room for improvement in both technologies. As I said, the advantage is fast recharging, long life, and bearing cold temperatures.

A quick google search turned this up:
http://www.evworld.com/archives/interviews/cellis.html
It talks about a flywheel design (a cylinder in this case) for hybrid cars. They're basically taking the approach I suggested above: use the high power output potential of flywheels, for transient power needs (accelerating quickly on an onramp, for example), but don't even try to get the energy density high enough to replace the fuel engine. You can get efficiency and performance advantages that way, but you can't eliminate the fuel without running into basically the same problems that all-electrics face: the energy density just isn't high enough.

Yes, flywheels are used in lots of hybrid techologies. But the interesting thing is not current uses, but possible future ones. The best flywheels have better wh/kg than the best of the batteries. New materials will improve power density.
Security certainly remains a problem for flywheels...

[Regnad Kcin]

I went speed dating once it was a interesting experience. When women are give only 2 minutes to evaluate you every single one of them asks what kind of car you drive. Its on the short list of qualifications maybe even #1. Until that changes we will continue to but the penis cars at any and all cost.My response to such a woman would be, "Thanks for giving me an up-front heads up on just how superficial, shallow, and empty you are, so I don't have to waste any time and energy whatsoever trying to live up to your sad little unrealistic expectations for... Oh, wait a minute, I just noticed the size of your breasts. Strike what I just said."

[Ziggurat]

errr...I didn't know that gas stations and oil distributions were cheap to build...And the people working there seems to want me to pay the gasoline each time I fill the tank. ;)

Indeed. The price of the gas station is already factored into the gas you buy, though. Have you priced what it costs to make the kind of electric grid required for what you proposed?

Obviously, I am talking about pay-per-watt system. Of course I expect to pay for the energy I buy from the electric grid, which is (btw) much cheaper than oil.

It's much cheaper as delivered by the current infrastructure. That says nothing about the price if you need to build a new infrastructure and scale up capacity.

I don't think this is so difficult: cities are already wired with high power lines...
Difficult? No. Expensive? Yes. Who pays? The government? Then you're doing what I said you're doing: making someone else pay for your driving preference. Private enterprise? Good luck getting anyone to take that kind of financial risk.

I know, but there is room for improvement in both technologies. As I said, the advantage is fast recharging, long life, and bearing cold temperatures.
Yeah, there's "room" for improvement. Just like there's room for materials advances for a space elevator. Just don't hold your breath, because it can't be done within the next ten years.

The best flywheels have better wh/kg than the best of the batteries.

So what? They aren't safe to put in a car. Are you aware of what happens when a high-energy fly wheel fails? Do you understand how hard it is to guarantee that it doesn't fail if you crash? Security isn't just a problem, it makes high-energy flywheels as the primary energy source an impossibility for cars for the forseeable future.

I am aware of the difference of power between EV and internal combustion, but I don't agree about the lack of competitiveness.

Check the horsepower of some popular european cars along the years:


You're confusing power and energy density, which leads you to false conclusions. They are not the same thing. Energy density is the amount of energy per unit mass. Power is how fast that energy can be converted, but says nothing about the total available energy. Ever since cars started using gasoline, they've had basically constant energy density. That applies whether you've got a 1/2 hp gas-powered lawnmower or a 300 hp truck. The size of the engine may determine how fast you can usefully consume that fuel (power), but the energy density is still the same: the energy density of gasoline itself. And it's that energy density which all-electrics can't compete with, because batteries simply don't store enough energy. The power of electric engines, or batteries, is not the limiting factor, and I never claimed it was.

[The Don]

Ziggurat,

I am aware of the difference of power between EV and internal combustion, but I don't agree about the lack of competitiveness.

Check the horsepower of some popular european cars along the years:

- Citroen 2CV (1955): 9 hp
- Fiat 600 (1945): 21 hp
- Renault 4 (1961): 35 hp
- Fiat Panda (1980): 50 hp
- Volkswagen beetle (1960): 45 hp
- Volkswagen beetle (1970): 60 hp
- Citroen CX (1982): 75 hp (least powerfull)
- Citroen CX (1982): 150 hp (most powerful)

It's important to notice that very low hp is necesary to have an useful vehicle; a 10x increment in power does not provide a 10x increment in speed, and that's the reason internal combustion engines are better, but not as much as many believe...

At 9 hp, one person could use an EV with solar photovoltaic cells and drive 1 hour each day, without recharging. This is an extreme example, I know. But think about plugging the vehicle to the electric grid or using small fuel cells for peak consumption.
I certainly see the advantages in an EV, I would like to buy one with the right pricing.
Except for a few things...

I have driven a number of the vehicles you have listed and as a practical form of transport for my purposes all bar the Citroen CX are a complete failure. The reasons are may and varied but include:

(1) The inability to travel at speed (> 120 km/h) for distance (> 150 km) which I need to visit my clients (cannot get to many places by public transport)
(2) The level of safety equipment I require (airbags, abs etc.) which means that unless exotic (expensive) materials are used the vehicle will be heavy
(3) The level of comfort I require (those old "deckchair" seats in the Panda were a joke)

I would consider that for a practical car, 50 hp is the very bare minimum, 100 hp closer to the mark


Remember, the top speed of the original 2cv was around the 60 km/h mark and the accelleration glacially slow

[The Don]

Oh, and as an answer to the OP "Who Killed the Electric Car ?"

The Consumer - hardly anyone wants one

[Belz...]

Hang in there Belz, global warming is just around the corner. Even Canada will be inhabitable before too long. :boxedin:

Right, and then we can all get out of our igloos...;)

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Right, and then we can all get out of our igloos...;)
I'm from southern Ontario (About 1 hour from the most southern point of Canada). Once while I was in northern Michigan, I was asked where I was from. When I said I was from Ontario, Canada, the lady said,
"Oh wow, Ontario. Is that anywhere near Toronto? It must be pretty cold up there now." (I think it was in May).
I said, "No, actually, it's colder here than it is where we live. We're down south, you guys are a few hours north of us."

She could not wrap her head around this. Wasn't Canada all igloos and polar bears? :)

[articulett]

The one true benefit from using biodiesel is that the emissions smell like popcorn. Yay.

I wonder if this might lead to hunger--then fatness...

Anyhow, I did hear that Bush is on top of things:

Bush: I'm 'solving' global warming debate

WASHINGTON, July 6 (UPI) -- In an interview with People magazine, President George W. Bush said there is "a worthy debate" on whether global warming is caused by human activities.

"It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline," he said.

(Solving???)

[Ziggurat]

(Solving???)

Hey, if Al Gore gets to create the internet, we should let Bush solve a debate or two.
:boggled:

[articulett]

Hey, if Al Gore gets to create the internet, we should let Bush solve a debate or two.
:boggled:

Yeah, except Gore was at the Department of Defense and was instrumental in creating the first "communicating" computers which became the internet...of course, he also went to Vietnam--so that may have cut into his time.

On the other hand, this President has had a major role in favoring big business and oil companies--and his policies are directly contributing to the worsening warming problem--that makes "solving" doublespeak-- a lie. It reminds me of preachers that tell you that you'll be punished eternally...but they have just the thing to save you--

I believe Bush also said that he didn't know the levees in Louisiana would be breeched--and then a CNN tape shows him being told just that--he promised the people of New Orleans they could count on the government being there to help rebuild and he also "prayed there would be no loss" of life. The prayers didn't work. This man hasn't solved anything at all--he has made both this country more divisive and caused other countries to feel disdain as well. I'm guessing a brain embolism and death of the guy would solve more problems then he ever did.

[kevin]

Oh, and as an answer to the OP "Who Killed the Electric Car ?"

The Consumer - hardly anyone wants one

Hmm, interesting view point considering that a) very few of the public ever had a chance to even drive one, and b) no consumer has been able to buy one from a major manufacturer in the US (the EV-1 was lease only with a mandatory return to GM at the end of the lease. and they were available in one part of southern california.)

Free market forces have never had an opportunity to prove or disprove the viability of the electric car in the market place.

Not to mention that todays marketplace is very different than when the EV-1 was introduced. Even back in 2002 when I bought my hybrid it looked like hybrids would fail due to lack of demand. I paid less than list for mine (and if I had been smarter I could've paid a lot less than list for it). A year later gas prices started going up and i couldn't park the thing without someone asking me what I thought of it.

When the EV-1 was brought out in CA it was a reluctant response to a government mandate. Today Toyota plans on offering hybrid versions of most of it's car because consumer's are more willing to pay to stick it to the oil company.

[TjW]

Hmm, interesting view point considering that a) very few of the public ever had a chance to even drive one, and b) no consumer has been able to buy one from a major manufacturer in the US (the EV-1 was lease only with a mandatory return to GM at the end of the lease. and they were available in one part of southern california.)

Free market forces have never had an opportunity to prove or disprove the viability of the electric car in the market place.

Not to mention that todays marketplace is very different than when the EV-1 was introduced. Even back in 2002 when I bought my hybrid it looked like hybrids would fail due to lack of demand. I paid less than list for mine (and if I had been smarter I could've paid a lot less than list for it). A year later gas prices started going up and i couldn't park the thing without someone asking me what I thought of it.

When the EV-1 was brought out in CA it was a reluctant response to a government mandate. Today Toyota plans on offering hybrid versions of most of it's car because consumer's are more willing to pay to stick it to the oil company.

Why does an electric car have to come from a "major manufacturer"? If there is indeed a pent-up demand for them, the providers should become major manufacturers.

[epepke]

Hmm, interesting view point considering that a) very few of the public ever had a chance to even drive one, and b) no consumer has been able to buy one from a major manufacturer in the US (the EV-1 was lease only with a mandatory return to GM at the end of the lease. and they were available in one part of southern california.)

I don't remember if I said this before, but the reason that the EV-1 was only leased on a limited basis was that the body, though originally designed to meet safety standards, fell behind higher safety standards, and GM thought it would be too expensive to redesign. They were only permitted by the Federal government to lease it on a limited basis.

[Peskanov]

Ziggurat,

Indeed. The price of the gas station is already factored into the gas you buy, though. Have you priced what it costs to make the kind of electric grid required for what you proposed?

Nearly. I have electric grid in my house, my office, and mostly all the inhabited places I have visited. The cost of installing and maintaining the service was factored in the price of the electricity (I guess) and still is much cheaper than oil (at least here in Europe).
I really don't understand your argument, sorry.
The original installation of the electric grid, one hundred years ago, was surely difficult. Installing some plugs here and there for an small fleet of EV seems ridiculous task compared to that one.

It's much cheaper as delivered by the current infrastructure. That says nothing about the price if you need to build a new infrastructure and scale up capacity.

The scale-up is needed when is needed. Nobody is talking about changing all ICE to electric engines in a year.
Face it, installing some plugs is nearly trivial in any modern city, and would be an small fraction of the common infrastructure (street lights, parking meters, etc...)

Difficult? No. Expensive? Yes. Who pays? The government? Then you're doing what I said you're doing: making someone else pay for your driving preference. Private enterprise? Good luck getting anyone to take that kind of financial risk.

Yes, those steam-powered trains will never work. Slow, expensive things... And who is going to buy all those lands and install the rails? The goverment? Private enterprise?Good luck, I will continue with my horses thanks....

Yeah, there's "room" for improvement. Just like there's room for materials advances for a space elevator. Just don't hold your breath, because it can't be done within the next ten years.

Jesus, I was just pointing to areas of research...Nobody expects to see nanotubes-based flywheels tomorrow.

So what? They aren't safe to put in a car. Are you aware of what happens when a high-energy fly wheel fails? Do you understand how hard it is to guarantee that it doesn't fail if you crash? Security isn't just a problem, it makes high-energy flywheels as the primary energy source an impossibility for cars for the forseeable future.

The first commercial cars used to break the arms of the drivers at startup (that famous handle). Explosions and fire were not uncommon also.
But this is a another question, I mentioned ultracapacitors and flywheels as research technologies. Flywheels will need very exotic materials for the wheel and the shield to be safe, and we are not at that point. Ultracapacitors also have security concerns. And also gasoline, btw.

ou're confusing power and energy density, which leads you to false conclusions. They are not the same thing. Energy density is the amount of energy per unit mass. Power is how fast that energy can be converted, but says nothing about the total available energy. Ever since cars started using gasoline, they've had basically constant energy density. That applies whether you've got a 1/2 hp gas-powered lawnmower or a 300 hp truck. The size of the engine may determine how fast you can usefully consume that fuel (power), but the energy density is still the same: the energy density of gasoline itself. And it's that energy density which all-electrics can't compete with, because batteries simply don't store enough energy. The power of electric engines, or batteries, is not the limiting factor, and I never claimed it was.

I am not confusing those terms, but we were talking about energy storing and autonomy for long travels.
In a long travel, using today's highway speeds, you waste a lot of energy in air drag and tire friction. To overcome those forces, you need a lot of horsepower, so you consume the energy very fast. For high speeds you get less and less efficiency from your energy. The speed you obtain from incremental horsepower is not linear, and that way most of the gasoline advantage in energy storing is wasted (speaking in terms of mileage).

Ovbiously, ICE can be optimized for low/medium speeds and achieve fantastic autonomy. The record is something like 10000 miles per gallon. An EV cannot even dream to get near that, but this question has no interest to me anyway, I am not so interested in crossing asia without refueling.

The question here is can an EV work as a good city car? Is it economic, has it enough autonomy? Current numbers look interesting to me, because I don't need to travel hundreds of kilometers each day like Ripley, and I don't need to run at 120 km/h as The Don.
What's is lacking, for me, is a cheap EV and a minimal plug-in service.

[Peskanov]

The Don,

Except for a few things...

I have driven a number of the vehicles you have listed and as a practical form of transport for my purposes all bar the Citroen CX are a complete failure. The reasons are may and varied but include:

(1) The inability to travel at speed (> 120 km/h) for distance (> 150 km) which I need to visit my clients (cannot get to many places by public transport)
(2) The level of safety equipment I require (airbags, abs etc.) which means that unless exotic (expensive) materials are used the vehicle will be heavy
(3) The level of comfort I require (those old "deckchair" seats in the Panda were a joke)

I would consider that for a practical car, 50 hp is the very bare minimum, 100 hp closer to the mark

I am sure we don't share the same opinion about what is a practical car. I don't have any clients to visit, and I don't drive hundreds of kilometers (and I hope I will not have to, ever). For my way of life, even an old 2CV is more than enough.
BTW, take a look at some popular cars sold in Spain. They are quite expensive, totally underpowered and still sell well:

http://www.minicoches50.com/

[Ziggurat]

Nearly. I have electric grid in my house, my office, and mostly all the inhabited places I have visited. The cost of installing and maintaining the service was factored in the price of the electricity (I guess) and still is much cheaper than oil (at least here in Europe).
Your oil is heavily taxed. Any consumer savings that come from tax differentials in the energy source is not real, but artificial. Using such a differential to justify major structural changes doesn't make any sense. As for the cost, well, the current electric grid was installed over decades, and its cost was largely defrayed over those decades. Much of the infrastructure (namely all the wiring in your house) is factored into the construction cost of your house, rather than your electric bill. Who's going to cover the cost of deploying a whole new electric grid to all those parking lots and street corners? Government or private enterprise? You still haven't answered. Where is the extra generating capacity going to come from? Electric power plants don't run on oil. Increasing capacity significantly will not only cost a lot for the plants themselves, but will also drive up the price of natural gas and coal, which means that your current per-kW price will have to go up when all these electric cars plug in. Why do you have any certainty that the savings will be real?

The original installation of the electric grid, one hundred years ago, was surely difficult.
It was also something that happened gradually, it was driven by consumer demand, and it was profitable from the start.

Installing some plugs here and there for an small fleet of EV seems ridiculous task compared to that one.
Where is "here and there"? How small is this fleet you propose? EV vehicles for commercial fleets make some sense, because the buyer may have very particular needs that can be met by an EV, and they have more controlled use of the vehicles so that the number of charging stations necessary is small. But a consumer isn't going to buy it if there are only a few scattered plugs "here and there": he's going to want plugs wherever he goes, or an EV simply won't be nearly as practical as a gas-powered car. But as I've already pointed out, car makers CANNOT make an EV that competes effectively, no matter how badly they want to, unless they can sell them in large numbers. Economy of scale matters critically, and your "small fleet" simply won't cut it.

The scale-up is needed when is needed. Nobody is talking about changing all ICE to electric engines in a year.
Doesn't matter. EV's cannot take off, and will not take off, until you can get literally hundreds of thousands sold. Short of that, you simply cannot get sufficient economies of scale. And don't bother with pointing out the existence of small-volume gas-powered cars: they're really just minor alterations to large-volume cars, all the technology and the manufacturing processes are the same.

Face it, installing some plugs is nearly trivial in any modern city, and would be an small fraction of the common infrastructure (street lights, parking meters, etc...)
No, it's not trivial. Recharging a car takes a lot of power, a lot more power than a street light. Current electric grids for things like street lights cannot handle the increased load, because they weren't BUILT to handle higher loads, and would need to be upgraded. Wires have load limits on them.

Yes, those steam-powered trains will never work. Slow, expensive things... And who is going to buy all those lands and install the rails? The goverment? Private enterprise?Good luck, I will continue with my horses thanks....
The comparison is simply not equivalent. Trains offered a capability that horses simply could never provide, even from the start. The calculation of whether or not to invest in them was completely different on the most basic level. Electric vehicles do NOT provide a different capability, ONLY a different way of achieving the same thing. Replacement simply isn't the same.

The first commercial cars used to break the arms of the drivers at startup (that famous handle). Explosions and fire were not uncommon also.
Horses were dangerous too, and the first cars were very indeed small volume productions. They only got bought at all because, as I already mentioned, they provided new capabilities that horses could not provide. Electric cars do not provide any such new capability, but rather have REDUCED functionality.

In a long travel, using today's highway speeds, you waste a lot of energy in air drag and tire friction. To overcome those forces, you need a lot of horsepower, so you consume the energy very fast. For high speeds you get less and less efficiency from your energy. The speed you obtain from incremental horsepower is not linear, and that way most of the gasoline advantage in energy storing is wasted (speaking in terms of mileage).
That doesn't matter, because consumers WANT to drive fast, and they're willing to pay more to do so (as evidenced by the fact that they do drive fast even though it decreases their fuel economy). The fact that electrics aren't necessarily as pathetically short-ranged as gas vehicles based solely on an energy-density calculation doesn't matter, because they're still pathetically short-ranged.

[Ziggurat]

I'm guessing a brain embolism and death of the guy would solve more problems then he ever did.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were trying to be funny. I took your post to poke fun at Bush's trouble with language: you can "have" a debate, you can "win" a debate, but you can't "solve" a debate. You "solve" problems. So I tried to be a little funny too (though admittedly my joke doesn't work that well). I had no idea you were trying to be serious, but your original post is much less interesting that way.

[Ziggurat]

BTW, take a look at some popular cars sold in Spain.

Here's a question: Europe appears to be a much better market for electric cars than the US (if for no other reason that countries are smaller). There's all this talk about a conspiracy to keep electric vehicles off the roads. But if they could be profitable, they SHOULD show up in Europe before they hit the US. Why aren't European automakers jumping on electric vehicles? Hell, it's not like European governments aren't willing to pour billions of euros into subsidizing a vehicle based upon top-down decisions of how transportation should work (see: Airbus 380). They're perfectly poised to take the lead. Why don't they? Well, either they're as nefarious as we Yanks are, or it really doesn't make any economic sense at this point.

[TjW]

Let's not forget the Chinese. They're sophisticated enough to build a mag-lev train, they have lots of coal for powerplants, and yet they're not on the electric car bandwagon either.

Also, if EVs did, by some technological breakthrough, scale up to become a significant part of the fleet, many of the expense-differentials would have to go away. Some equivalent of the gas tax would have to be levied, or they would be using the infrastructure without paying for its maintenance.
As long as they're hobby vehicles, that's okay. It would cost more to tax them than would be recovered.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh, and as an answer to the OP "Who Killed the Electric Car ?"

The Consumer - hardly anyone wants oneUnless it was the egg before the chicken. Or was that the chicken before the egg?

Why didn't consumers want them is the issue, was it the car itself as Zig is convinced, or market manipulation as the film describes?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why does an electric car have to come from a "major manufacturer"? If there is indeed a pent-up demand for them, the providers should become major manufacturers.That's the whole point of not just 'not making them', but putting out the message they aren't worth making. You don't want electric cars competing with your oil driven gravy train.

[Ziggurat]

That's the whole point of not just 'not making them', but putting out the message they aren't worth making.

You keep saying this, but I don't think consumers need to be told that EV's are useless. They are perfectly capable of concluding that themeselves. And why shouldn't car companies talk about the very real disadvantages of electric cars when activists push for disastrous laws like California's EV mandate? If they are right about EV cars (and I think they are), then such laws are a huge mistake for the public to make, and the public SHOULD be informed about it before using government force to push the market in a high-cost, low-benefit direction. Whether you realize it or not, everything in your argument is predicated on the idea that electric vehicles are practical for large numbers of people. Take that assumption away, and pretty much none of your arguments withstand even basic scrutiny.

You don't want electric cars competing with your oil driven gravy train.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument in this regard. If electric cars really were good enough and economic enough, then electric vehicles would themselves be a gravy train, and businesses rarely have qualms about jumping from one gravy train to another. The companies that do are the companies that don't survive. And oil companies nowdays tend to actually be ENERGY companies. So what if they make less on gasoline sales? They can make it up with natural gas sales, for example. Or just grab a stake in those electric vehicle manufacturers and make up the losses directly. Or even just the battery manufacturers. You can easily spend more on a gasoline-powered car than you will on the gasoline needed to drive it for the life of the vehicle - and that's with much more government taxes on that gas than on the vehicle. The idea car manufacturers would try to protect someone ELSE's market at the cost of refusing to advance their own just doesn't make sense, regardless of how intertwined their boards are, unless there's an explicit conspiracy between ALL the major car manufacturers (and not just in the US) and the oil companies. What are the odds that all these players are guilty, that no one has broken rank for decades of such conspiracy? The amount of economic illiteracy and paranoia floating around to support the contention that electric cars are being suppressed is amazing.

[Dcdrac]

hummers what ridiculous stipid seriosuly braindead objects

[Skeptic Ginger]

Round and round the mulberry bush the arguments start repeating....

Zig, do you not believe people are manipulated by marketing? To what degree can they be manipulated?

[Ziggurat]

Zig, do you not believe people are manipulated by marketing? To what degree can they be manipulated?

Of course they are, but in all sorts of different directions. For example, people are currently being manipulated by marketing, in the form of a movie, to believe that electric vehicles are more practical than they really are. But I don't think the marketing really matters, because marketing cannot change the reality: electric vehicles are far less functional than internal combustion vehicles (hybrids are included in the latter category). No amount of marketing can make an electric vehicle succeed, and no marketing at all is required to ensure it fails, as long as that's the case. The decision to not build such vehicles, as well as the decision to oppose legislation requiring such vehicles, is really the only sensible option available to car manufacturers right now.

[Ziggurat]

hummers what ridiculous stipid seriosuly braindead objects
:confused: Is the irony here accidental or intentional?

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Of course they are, but in all sorts of different directions. For example, people are currently being manipulated by marketing, in the form of a movie, to believe that electric vehicles are more practical than they really are. But I don't think the marketing really matters, because marketing cannot change the reality: electric vehicles are far less functional than internal combustion vehicles (hybrids are included in the latter category). No amount of marketing can make an electric vehicle succeed, and no marketing at all is required to ensure it fails, as long as that's the case. The decision to not build such vehicles, as well as the decision to oppose legislation requiring such vehicles, is really the only sensible option available to car manufacturers right now.
Well said.

[kevin]

Why does an electric car have to come from a "major manufacturer"? If there is indeed a pent-up demand for them, the providers should become major manufacturers.

Sorry I meant a manufacturer large enough to sell them nationwide, I didn't mean to imply that it would be one of the large current manufacturers -- someone becoming a large manfucturer of them is possible but I don't think an upstart car company won't have much chance against the big players without getting bought up (or undercut by a price war).

I don't think you can judge the viability from a consumer demand point of view until consumers actually have that choice to make. To date they haven't.

[articulett]

I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were trying to be funny. I took your post to poke fun at Bush's trouble with language: you can "have" a debate, you can "win" a debate, but you can't "solve" a debate. You "solve" problems. So I tried to be a little funny too (though admittedly my joke doesn't work that well). I had no idea you were trying to be serious, but your original post is much less interesting that way.

I'm sorry. That is funny. I misread you. One cannot solve a debate. Thanks for clarifying.

[TjW]

Sorry I meant a manufacturer large enough to sell them nationwide, I didn't mean to imply that it would be one of the large current manufacturers -- someone becoming a large manfucturer of them is possible but I don't think an upstart car company won't have much chance against the big players without getting bought up (or undercut by a price war).

I don't think you can judge the viability from a consumer demand point of view until consumers actually have that choice to make. To date they haven't.
Considering the internet exists, how large a company does one have to be to sell anything nationwide?
As I recall, a company called Solectria was building electric cars before GM got into the business. People were staying away in droves. They still are. Solectria has changed their name, or merged, and is now azuredynamics. You can see their products page at: http://www.azuredynamics.com/fleet_sales.htm

Note that none of those is a private automobile. Electric propulsion can be viable in certain markets where the trips are short and predictable and either the downtime can be fairly long, or the battery packs can be switched out, as in electric forklifts.

After looking up Solectria, I did a little more general search on "electric cars", and found, after great toil, www.electriccars.com.
People are, in fact, selling electric cars right now. Why not go buy one?

Here's the funny thing. Although there are advertisements for electric cars you can buy, there are also advertisements for electric cars that will be available Real Soon Now. As I have looked in on electric cars now and again over the years, I have noticed most of the companies make it much easier to find the "Investment Opportunities" than the "Products" page.

If I were of the paranoid Conspiracy Theory frame of mind, I might consider these Real Soon Now companies as part of a conspiracy to kill the electric car. After all, why buy a lower-performing car, when this great one will be out just next year? Year after that at the latest. But Real Soon Now.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course they are, but in all sorts of different directions. For example, people are currently being manipulated by marketing, in the form of a movie, to believe that electric vehicles are more practical than they really are. But I don't think the marketing really matters, because marketing cannot change the reality: electric vehicles are far less functional than internal combustion vehicles (hybrids are included in the latter category). No amount of marketing can make an electric vehicle succeed, and no marketing at all is required to ensure it fails, as long as that's the case. The decision to not build such vehicles, as well as the decision to oppose legislation requiring such vehicles, is really the only sensible option available to car manufacturers right now.How do you explain the large number of people who believe Listerine actually improves dental health when it doesn't really do anything?

The examples are endless.

[The Don]

The Don,

I am sure we don't share the same opinion about what is a practical car. I don't have any clients to visit, and I don't drive hundreds of kilometers (and I hope I will not have to, ever). For my way of life, even an old 2CV is more than enough.
BTW, take a look at some popular cars sold in Spain. They are quite expensive, totally underpowered and still sell well:

Here in the UK the only reason that these vehicles sell at all (in tiny numbers) is that they can be driven on a motorcycle licence.

How many cars of that type are sold in Spain ?

How does this compare to the number of more traditional superminis ?


I am glad that your lifestyle can be accommodated by a 2CV. You do realise that those things are death traps don't you ?

You also realise that the later 2CVs had 4 times the power of the electic motor mentioned earlier.

[Peskanov]

Ziggurat & TjW,

Here's a question: Europe appears to be a much better market for electric cars than the US (if for no other reason that countries are smaller). There's all this talk about a conspiracy to keep electric vehicles off the roads. But if they could be profitable, they SHOULD show up in Europe before they hit the US. Why aren't European automakers jumping on electric vehicles? Hell, it's not like European governments aren't willing to pour billions of euros into subsidizing a vehicle based upon top-down decisions of how transportation should work (see: Airbus 380). They're perfectly poised to take the lead. Why don't they? Well, either they're as nefarious as we Yanks are, or it really doesn't make any economic sense at this point.



Let's not forget the Chinese. They're sophisticated enough to build a mag-lev train, they have lots of coal for powerplants, and yet they're not on the electric car bandwagon either.

Also, if EVs did, by some technological breakthrough, scale up to become a significant part of the fleet, many of the expense-differentials would have to go away. Some equivalent of the gas tax would have to be levied, or they would be using the infrastructure without paying for its maintenance.
As long as they're hobby vehicles, that's okay. It would cost more to tax them than would be recovered.

Well, I first saw an EV in a travel to France. The vehicle was incredibly primitive compared to the EV1 for example.
It was very similar to this "Citicar":

http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/event.php?id=3456880&lid=1

I guess the reason for using that little car was ecologic activism, I cannot think of any other one at that time (the eighties).
These days we have another reason, fuel price rocketing upwards...

You ask why don't we use more EV... Well, you already seem to have the answers but my experience is different. In my city, the goverment installed especial bycicle roads around 20 years ago. The first years nobody used them, as there were not a bycicle culture on my city (few people wanted to risk his life pedaling between cars and trucks).
Some years later, maybe 10, people started to use mountain bikes, which worked quite well in the city and had reached a good price.
And few years ago (maybe 3 or 4) cheap chinese electric scooters started flooding the market, and now is quite normal to see an executive in an scooter travelling to the office in bycicle road.

I read that these days, electric powered bycicles are very popular in China (a bit like the old Solex engines). It's a cheap transport without hassles that works well in the city. And mind that Chinesse don't give a **** about pollution! (which is, imo, the real competitive feature of EVs).

It's interesting to note that both scooters and bycicles are useful because they fit in the elevators and can be recharged home, so I wonder about the potential of street pay-per-watt plugs. As I said minicars are also popular now, but the lack of infrastructures makes them non-practical.

My personal experience says that not all the appropiate technology can reach the market. You need a mix of key componentes to make it possible.

[Peskanov]

Ziggurat ,

Your oil is heavily taxed. Any consumer savings that come from tax differentials in the energy source is not real, but artificial. Using such a differential to justify major structural changes doesn't make any sense. As for the cost, well, the current electric grid was installed over decades, and its cost was largely defrayed over those decades. Much of the infrastructure (namely all the wiring in your house) is factored into the construction cost of your house, rather than your electric bill.

Yes, my oil is heavily taxed because I am Europen. And my electricity also is. I bet you knowed that, but you seem to like being argumentative for the sake of it...
The average price in Europe is 13 cent. of dollar / KWh. In the USA, 9.

Who's going to cover the cost of deploying a whole new electric grid to all those parking lots and street corners? Government or private enterprise? You still haven't answered. Where is the extra generating capacity going to come from? Electric power plants don't run on oil. Increasing capacity significantly will not only cost a lot for the plants themselves, but will also drive up the price of natural gas and coal, which means that your current per-kW price will have to go up when all these electric cars plug in. Why do you have any certainty that the savings will be real?

Electric power plants don't run on oil? What did you mean with that??
I didn't answer the "who's is doing to built that?" questions because I dont see any interest in that question. In Spain, it would be probably the government financing some private companies interested in the bussines. So what?

Let me ask you another question: how do you factor city pollution in the cost? You don't, don't you? Why does my city build bycicle roads? I don't see anybody making money with that, and it costs a lot of it.

It was also something that happened gradually, it was driven by consumer demand, and it was profitable from the start.

False. Lots of companies lost money in that race. Same with gasoline. Technology startups are never easy.

Where is "here and there"? How small is this fleet you propose?

We will put one plug in Gibraltar, and another in the North Pole. Another one in your house, just to annoy you. We will paint all of them green, as symbol of ecologism. Do you also want the measures of the plugs and a description of the material?

Economy of scale matters critically, and your "small fleet" simply won't cut it.


Doesn't matter. EV's cannot take off, and will not take off, until you can get literally hundreds of thousands sold. Short of that, you simply cannot get sufficient economies of scale. And don't bother with pointing out the existence of small-volume gas-powered cars: they're really just minor alterations to large-volume cars, all the technology and the manufacturing processes are the same.

Any new technology trend starts with an small level of adoption. Next.

No, it's not trivial. Recharging a car takes a lot of power, a lot more power than a street light. Current electric grids for things like street lights cannot handle the increased load, because they weren't BUILT to handle higher loads, and would need to be upgraded. Wires have load limits on them.

It's trivial and you know it. The load of a few KW plugs in some points in the city or parking lots is nothing compared with the growth of consumption of, for example, air conditioning in my city.
Ziggurat, this is starting to get boring. Why don't you stop with the "it-is-new-tech-it-is-too-complex-to-be-possible" arguments?

The comparison is simply not equivalent. Trains offered a capability that horses simply could never provide, even from the start. The calculation of whether or not to invest in them was completely different on the most basic level. Electric vehicles do NOT provide a different capability, ONLY a different way of achieving the same thing. Replacement simply isn't the same.

EVs provide a different capability. No city pollution, smaller cost per mile.
In fact, EVs today are much more useful than the original ICE vehicles in their time, wich were much worse than horses in all aspects and were only useful as toys for rich people.

Horses were dangerous too, and the first cars were very indeed small volume productions. They only got bought at all because, as I already mentioned, they provided new capabilities that horses could not provide. Electric cars do not provide any such new capability, but rather have REDUCED functionality.

Same argument. No city pollution, less cost per mile. Less maintenance. Good enough for a lot people.

That doesn't matter, because consumers WANT to drive fast, and they're willing to pay more to do so (as evidenced by the fact that they do drive fast even though it decreases their fuel economy). The fact that electrics aren't necessarily as pathetically short-ranged as gas vehicles based solely on an energy-density calculation doesn't matter, because they're still pathetically short-ranged.

And what happens with the people who does not want to drive fast or pay for it?
I am one of them and I don't have so many options. The gas price, and the maintenance of ICE cars are very expensive. My best bet right now is a second hand car, so I can employ used part for repairments, and try to drive as less as posible to save on gas.

[Ziggurat]

How do you explain the large number of people who believe Listerine actually improves dental health when it doesn't really do anything?

You can fool yourself into believing that bacteria in your mouth, which you can't see and as an individual can't measure, are being killed. It's much harder to fool yourself into believing that your electric car can travel 400 miles on one charge, and that it can recharge in a few minutes. At least, not for very long. Products like Listerine get sold only because you CAN'T really tell if they're doing what you think they're doing, but it's VERY easy to tell if a car is providing the functionality you expect from it.

Try again.

[Ziggurat]

Yes, my oil is heavily taxed because I am Europen. And my electricity also is. I bet you knowed that, but you seem to like being argumentative for the sake of it...
The average price in Europe is 13 cent. of dollar / KWh. In the USA, 9.
Actually, I assumed that electricity is not taxed as heavily as gas. And from your figures, I think this is true. I believe gas is around two times more expensive in Europe than it is here, while electricity is only about one and a half times more expensive, according to your numbers. I'm not just trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to point out what I think is a genuine issue.

Electric power plants don't run on oil? What did you mean with that??
Fossil fuel-based power plants are pretty much all either coal or natural gas. If you change from gas-powered cars to electric-powered cars, you don't simply reduce demand for fossil fuels, you decrease demand for gas and INCREASE demand for coal and natural gas. Meaning those latter two will go up in price.

I didn't answer the "who's is doing to built that?" questions because I dont see any interest in that question.
Well, you're going to need an answer if you ever want it to actually get done.

In Spain, it would be probably the government financing some private companies interested in the bussines. So what?
In other words, government will pay for it. And if it doesn't work out, you've basically forced taxpayers to pay for your driving preference. I'd rather not do things that way.

Let me ask you another question: how do you factor city pollution in the cost? You don't, don't you?
No, I don't, because neither will most individual consumers trying to decide between an electric powered vehicle and a gas-powered vehicle. Dealing with external costs is certainly a problem, but there are no simple solutions.

False. Lots of companies lost money in that race. Same with gasoline. Technology startups are never easy.
Doesn't matter if some lost money: some made money too. The profit incentive is still what drove development. It's not driving development here not because there's a conspiracy, but because there's no indication that there is profit to be had.

Any new technology trend starts with an small level of adoption. Next.
I've already pointed this out, though: from the consumer perspective, it's NOT new technology. Consumers don't really care about how a product does something, they care about WHAT it does. And an electric car does LESS than a gas powered car. It is, from their perspective, not new technology at all (in fact, electric cars have been around for over a hundred years, so even from a technology perspective they're not really new). Truly new technologies can take off with small initial adoption because they provide new functionality. People will pay a premium, even for a spotty product, if it does something that no other product can do, and that premium allows small-volume markets to survive despite the R&D overhead. But nobody pays a premium to buy something that does less than existing products.

It's trivial and you know it.
No, it's not. Ripping up a street to install power lines is expensive. The power lines going to a street light cannot handle that much more power. Houses, in contrast, are generally BUILT with excess capacity in the lines because the builders know beforehand that power demands are likely to increase. Street-light power lines were not.

EVs provide a different capability. No city pollution, smaller cost per mile.
The no pollution argument is irrelevant to the consumer, because they don't bear the cost. And the smaller per-mile cost is also irrelevant, because the overall cost is still higher. That's why hybrids haven't replaced conventional cars: the price premium is still more than you'll save in gas over the lifetime of the vehicle.

And what happens with the people who does not want to drive fast or pay for it?
I am one of them and I don't have so many options.
You're out of luck. Complain to your fellow Spaniards. Try and see if you can get your government to force your driving preferences on the rest of the population. Just don't try to pretend your fellow citizens aren't driving electrics already because of some conspiracy, rather than the simple fact that they don't WANT to drive electrics. And don't expect the world to revolve around your needs either.

[TjW]

Ziggurat & TjW,
Well, I first saw an EV in a travel to France. The vehicle was incredibly primitive compared to the EV1 for example.
It was very similar to this "Citicar":

http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/collection/event.php?id=3456880&lid=1

I guess the reason for using that little car was ecologic activism, I cannot think of any other one at that time (the eighties).
With very, very few exceptions, EVs are either an industrial tool, or a hobby.

These days we have another reason, fuel price rocketing upwards...

You ask why don't we use more EV... Well, you already seem to have the answers but my experience is different. In my city, the goverment installed especial bycicle roads around 20 years ago. The first years nobody used them, as there were not a bycicle culture on my city (few people wanted to risk his life pedaling between cars and trucks).
Some years later, maybe 10, people started to use mountain bikes, which worked quite well in the city and had reached a good price.
And few years ago (maybe 3 or 4) cheap chinese electric scooters started flooding the market, and now is quite normal to see an executive in an scooter travelling to the office in bycicle road.

I read that these days, electric powered bycicles are very popular in China (a bit like the old Solex engines). It's a cheap transport without hassles that works well in the city. And mind that Chinesse don't give a **** about pollution! (which is, imo, the real competitive feature of EVs).

It's interesting to note that both scooters and bycicles are useful because they fit in the elevators and can be recharged home, so I wonder about the potential of street pay-per-watt plugs. As I said minicars are also popular now, but the lack of infrastructures makes them non-practical.

My personal experience says that not all the appropiate technology can reach the market. You need a mix of key componentes to make it possible.
It's mostly an answer to why I don't think there's some kind of conspiracy against the EV.
I don't know how you missed the point, because you actually mention it four times in the above post. Forest and trees I suppose. Let me copy four sentences and see what the similarities are. Your words, my bolding

These days we have another reason, fuel price rocketing upwards...
<snippage>
Some years later, maybe 10, people started to use mountain bikes, which worked quite well in the city and had reached a good price.
And few years ago (maybe 3 or 4) cheap chinese electric scooters started flooding the market, and now is quite normal to see an executive in an scooter travelling to the office in bycicle road.
<snippage>
It's a cheap transport without hassles that works well in the city.

When EVs are the cheapest solution for their utility, there are EVs. So there are electric delivery vans, there are electric forklifts, there are cheap Chinese scooters. The delivery vans and forklifts are more expensive to buy but have lower overall costs over their long lifetime. Performance, for them, is measured differently. The cheap Chinese scooters are -- cheap. No one demands high performance of them.
When the price/utility of EVs competes with ICVs, there will be EVs. For example, there are IC engine versions of those same Chinese scooters. Some people like the additional range and speed of ICs, some like the convenience of not mixing fuel.
But with larger EVs, it's harder to convince people to pay MORE money for LESS utility. No conspiracy required, just as there was no conspiracy to keep mountain bikes off the bike trails in the period between their being built and people starting to use mountain bikes.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You can fool yourself into believing that bacteria in your mouth, which you can't see and as an individual can't measure, are being killed. It's much harder to fool yourself into believing that your electric car can travel 400 miles on one charge, and that it can recharge in a few minutes. At least, not for very long. Products like Listerine get sold only because you CAN'T really tell if they're doing what you think they're doing, but it's VERY easy to tell if a car is providing the functionality you expect from it.

Try again.Can you fool yourself that you need a big 4 wheeler or Hummer that you have never and will never take off road?

Can you fool yourself you are safer in such a car when accident stats show rollovers more than make up for any advantage being in a larger car affords? And, in some of those big 4X4s they only need meet cab safety standards of trucks, not passenger autos so the cabs were unsafe. (Don't know if that's still the case but it was.)

[Ziggurat]

Can you fool yourself that you need a big 4 wheeler or Hummer that you have never and will never take off road?

Who said they buy those things because they need them? They buy those things because they want them, and want != need.

Advertising works at getting people to spend more to buy more (more horsepower, more size, more luxuries, more flaunting), even when they don't need it, but it's much less effective at getting people to spend more to buy less. And an electric car provides less, not more. Advertising cannot change that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who said they buy those things because they need them? They buy those things because they want them, and want != need.

Advertising works at getting people to spend more to buy more (more horsepower, more size, more luxuries, more flaunting), even when they don't need it, but it's much less effective at getting people to spend more to buy less. And an electric car provides less, not more. Advertising cannot change that.You are separating marketing of want with marketing of need. I doubt that are separable.

[Ziggurat]

You are separating marketing of want with marketing of need. I doubt that are separable.

Marketing is ONLY about want. Anything to do with need requires no marketing, or else it isn't really a need at all. And before you say it, yes, people do market products which you need (such as food). But what they're marketing is aspect of the product that you want (it's tasty), not the aspects that you need (it'll keep you from starving to death), because nobody needs to be convinced of their needs. I'm not separating out marketing of wants and marketing of needs, because only one of those two exists.

[Belz...]

I have a question, and I don't know if it's been discussed or not:

How much time would it take to recharge and electric car ?

Obviously, this would also be a factor. Refueling only takes a minute.

[Belz...]

How do you explain the large number of people who believe Listerine actually improves dental health when it doesn't really do anything?

Doesn't it ?

[Ziggurat]

How much time would it take to recharge and electric car ?

Many hours. It's been discussed. There was even some discussion about having battery swap-outs instead of recharges at gas stations, but I doubt such schemes could work practically in the real world.

Ultracapacitors can charge up very quickly, but do not approach even battery energy densities with current technology. Flywheels also charge up quickly, but are not safe for vehicles at energy densities comparable to batteries.

[Belz...]

Many hours. It's been discussed. There was even some discussion about having battery swap-outs instead of recharges at gas stations, but I doubt such schemes could work practically in the real world.

Ultracapacitors can charge up very quickly, but do not approach even battery energy densities with current technology. Flywheels also charge up quickly, but are not safe for vehicles at energy densities comparable to batteries.

Sorry for missing that, then.

Obviously, no one wants to stop at a "gas" station and charge their car for many hours.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Doesn't it ?The alcohol in it isn't high enough to qualify as an antiseptic. Killing germs willy nilly in your mouth isn't useful anyway. The Dental Floss Association successfully sued to have them quit claiming or implying Listerine could prevent plaque since that takes flossing and brushing. And the makers of Listerine are thinking of (or have) added fluoride to be able to reinstate the plaque claim which would mean it is no more nor less than a fluoride rinse. And they have had to remove past commercials claiming to prevent and or decrease "colds and flu" as it was a false claim.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Marketing is ONLY about want. Anything to do with need requires no marketing, or else it isn't really a need at all. And before you say it, yes, people do market products which you need (such as food). But what they're marketing is aspect of the product that you want (it's tasty), not the aspects that you need (it'll keep you from starving to death), because nobody needs to be convinced of their needs. I'm not separating out marketing of wants and marketing of needs, because only one of those two exists.This is silly. You don't "need" anything but food and water and sleep. You don't need a gas car if you have an electric one. Your rationalization here is getting far fetched.

I can use an electric car most of the time so I don't need a gas one.

It's all a matter of want.

[Ziggurat]

This is silly. You don't "need" anything but food and water and sleep. You don't need a gas car if you have an electric one. Your rationalization here is getting far fetched.

You're grasping for straws here. I'm not talking about needs in terms of pure survival, and neither were you. You can define "need" much more loosely than that, but it doesn't make any sense to define it so loosely that a person would not buy a product they needed unless it was advertised to them. If they wouldn't buy it without such external pressure, then they don't need it - that's really not a silly proposition at all, nor is it rationalization. I have a transportation need, for example, which means that I will buy a car, regardless of advertising. The only role advertising plays in my buying decision is what kind of car to buy (namely, what about a car do I want besides the basic requirements of what I need). So going back again to your earlier posts, most people who buy hummers do not need hummers, they don't even think the need hummers, they just WANT hummers. Just like people who buy luxury cars, or high-performance sports cars, don't really need those things either, but want them. I really don't see why that's a controversial claim on my part.

People need cars. Electric vehicles may fulfill a lot of peoples needs, but they fulfill very few people's wants, and that's where you got it wrong on the Hummers. Advertising may be able to exploit, magnify, and in some case even create wants, but no amount of advertising is going to make those wants go away. In fact, I've never seen advertising for any product that worked by making a want go away - the closest is those anti-drug and anti-smoking commercials, but even there, they work (if at all) by creating a competing want to try and override an existing want (to get high, look cool, etc). The only case you've made for a competing want is reduced pollution, but that doesn't work for individuals because it's an external cost. Even your gas savings argument won't work, because that competing want is really the want to save money, but electric vehicles cost more, so you can't set that up as a competing want. No amount of advertising could make the electric vehicle succeed in the mass market, and even making the effort doesn't come free. Car manufacturers didn't try to not because of some desire to suppress the electric vehicle, but merely because they knew something you either haven't figured out or won't admit: they just can't compete with gasoline-powered cars in the consumer market, and will never be able to without a major battery breakthrough (and don't hold your breath for that to happen anytime soon).

[Peskanov]

The Don,

Here in the UK the only reason that these vehicles sell at all (in tiny numbers) is that they can be driven on a motorcycle licence.

Same here; minicars are slow, light vehicles used mostly by old persons, students, etc... And I think that's a good fit for EVs.

How many cars of that type are sold in Spain ?

I have no idea. A few thousands?

How does this compare to the number of more traditional superminis ?

Does it matter? If you want to show me that powerful cars are more popular than weak ones, then you are loosing your time. I already know that.

I am glad that your lifestyle can be accommodated by a 2CV. You do realise that those things are death traps don't you ?

No, I don't know. Are we talking about the old 2CV, about low horsepower cars, or what? Please, elaborate.

You also realise that the later 2CVs had 4 times the power of the electic motor mentioned earlier.

Are you talking about the GM EV1? If that's the case I think you are wrong. The horsepower of the EV1 is very high, but you better don't use it if you want the batteries charge to last.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are only repeating the same arguments Zig and there is no sense for me to repeat mine.

If you don't think the corporate media owners manipulate opinion that could conceivably extend to Killing the Electric Car, then have a look at how far they go manipulating other opinions on the thread I started on the subject, Corporate controlled news, how extensive is it? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59677)

[Peskanov]

TjW,

With very, very few exceptions, EVs are either an industrial tool, or a hobby.

I can be wrong, but if memory serves me well, most of the EV practical tests made in Europe has been a response from ecologist demands (like garbagge clasification programs, etc).

It's mostly an answer to why I don't think there's some kind of conspiracy against the EV.
I don't know how you missed the point, because you actually mention it four times in the above post. Forest and trees I suppose. Let me copy four sentences and see what the similarities are. Your words, my bolding

That "forest and trees" comment is not very kind of you. I have not mentioned any conspiracy, I don't believe in any, and I already mentioned why I find EVs atractive and why I think they not selling. You don't have to respect my opinion, but calling me blind is a bit too much.

When EVs are the cheapest solution for their utility, there are EVs. So there are electric delivery vans, there are electric forklifts, there are cheap Chinese scooters. The delivery vans and forklifts are more expensive to buy but have lower overall costs over their long lifetime. Performance, for them, is measured differently. The cheap Chinese scooters are -- cheap. No one demands high performance of them.
When the price/utility of EVs competes with ICVs, there will be EVs. For example, there are IC engine versions of those same Chinese scooters. Some people like the additional range and speed of ICs, some like the convenience of not mixing fuel.
But with larger EVs, it's harder to convince people to pay MORE money for LESS utility. No conspiracy required, just as there was no conspiracy to keep mountain bikes off the bike trails in the period between their being built and people starting to use mountain bikes.

Nice. As Ziggurat, you insist in forgetting the advantages. which are:
A) The price per kilometer is a fraction from the ICEs one.
B) Does not pollute metropolitan areas. I know you don't probably care, but I am an urbanite and I DO care.
C) EVs are low maintenance systems. Unlike ICEs.
Do you think I am incredibly strange for finding these virtues appealing?

Forklifts and other EV which work indoors are electric because people don't like to breathe toxic gasses. Shocking, isn't?

[Ziggurat]

You are only repeating the same arguments Zig and there is no sense for me to repeat mine.

If you don't think the corporate media owners manipulate opinion that could conceivably extend to Killing the Electric Car, then have a look at how far they go manipulating other opinions on the thread I started on the subject, Corporate controlled news, how extensive is it? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59677)

Well, you certainly didn't repeat your argument here, I'll give you that. You came up with a whole new one, out of nowhere as far as I can tell. Earlier you said it was car companies, in collusion with oil companies, which were killing demand for electric vehicles. Now you're talking about "corporate media owners" killing electric vehicles. Pardon me, but I'm now quite confused as to who exactly you think the culprits are, and what relationships and motives they really have to each other. And since Europe has so many state-owned media companies - the rational for which is precisely that they should be immune from such "corporate" influence - why isn't the electric vehicle taking off there, where the public should be less influenced by such nefarious schemes? Never got an answer on that one.

[Ziggurat]

Nice. As Ziggurat, you insist in forgetting the advantages. which are:
A) The price per kilometer is a fraction from the ICEs one.
Irrelevant. Hybrids, for example, do not sell based upon economic considerations, because the price premium is generally higher than the gasoline savings over the lifetime of the car. All-electric cars have even larger price premiums, and similarly aren't likely to provide any net savings.

B) Does not pollute metropolitan areas. I know you don't probably care, but I am an urbanite and I DO care.
But that's an external cost, which means that most consumers will not factor that into their decisions. And that's a rational choice for the individual.

C) EVs are low maintenance systems. Unlike ICEs.
Do you think I am incredibly strange for finding these virtues appealing?
No, you're not strange for wanting those things. But you're strange if you think these advantages are close to enough to overcome the disadvantages for all but a miniscule fraction of the public.

Forklifts and other EV which work indoors are electric because people don't like to breathe toxic gasses. Shocking, isn't?
Such vehicles also don't travel long distances, or at high speeds, and can be parked for recharging in the same area every day. Shocking that the functional limitations of electric vehicles as consumer cars (in particular the short range) don't apply to the markets in which electric vehicles do manage to be successful, isn't it?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, you certainly didn't repeat your argument here, I'll give you that. You came up with a whole new one, out of nowhere as far as I can tell. Earlier you said it was car companies, in collusion with oil companies, which were killing demand for electric vehicles. Now you're talking about "corporate media owners" killing electric vehicles. Pardon me, but I'm now quite confused as to who exactly you think the culprits are, and what relationships and motives they really have to each other. And since Europe has so many state-owned media companies - the rational for which is precisely that they should be immune from such "corporate" influence - why isn't the electric vehicle taking off there, where the public should be less influenced by such nefarious schemes? Never got an answer on that one.

You were arguing that the corporations involved here aren't capable of manipulating people into believing the electric cars are a bad idea.

People are easily manipulated from believing a war in Iraq is a war on "terrorism" to believing Listerine does something besides taste bad. If it wasn't so successful you wouldn't see the trillion dollar industry that has sprung up in the field of manipulating beliefs. The market of marketing has gone far beyond simply selling a product.

[Peskanov]

Ziggurat.

Actually, I assumed that electricity is not taxed as heavily as gas. And from your figures, I think this is true. I believe gas is around two times more expensive in Europe than it is here, while electricity is only about one and a half times more expensive, according to your numbers. I'm not just trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to point out what I think is a genuine issue.

The relation between Spain and USA for electricity is around 1.44 (night discounts are another question) more expensive in Spain. For gasoline, the relation is 1.77

The usual cost per mile claim in EVs is about 3-4 cents/mile, with the best ones claiming 1 cent/mile. The average for ICEs is 10-12 cent mile, but that changes a lot depending on the price of the gasoline. Electricity prices don't change so much thanls to nuclear, coal and hydro.

5.5 cents/mile for hybrids.

Fossil fuel-based power plants are pretty much all either coal or natural gas. If you change from gas-powered cars to electric-powered cars, you don't simply reduce demand for fossil fuels, you decrease demand for gas and INCREASE demand for coal and natural gas. Meaning those latter two will go up in price.

Or a demand increase in nuclear power. And there is not a lack of coal production, as far I know. There has been a constant demand grow in electricy for decades in Spain (or in the USA, or anywhere) and the prices have not changed too mucho over the years.
BTW, in Spain most of the thermoelectric power plants run on fuel oil. I don't have exact numbers, but the use of coal and oil for producing electricity is quite similar.
It does matter anyway. The efficency of the procces, the advantage of controling the pollution and the flexibility of using differente energy sources plays in favour of EVs.

In other words, government will pay for it. And if it doesn't work out, you've basically forced taxpayers to pay for your driving preference. I'd rather not do things that way.

Ok. Let's play with your rules. Pre-caveman way of life. Let's forget society wellfare. We don't want anybody forcing me the cost of his driving preferences.
I am an urbanite, all my life living in big cities. Each time I walk in the streets, I breathe ICEs results, carcinogenic benzopyrenes.
Explain me (in your political vision) how do we avoid everybody forcing me to pay the cost of his driving preferences. Do I sue everybody and wait for the money?

No, I don't, because neither will most individual consumers trying to decide between an electric powered vehicle and a gas-powered vehicle. Dealing with external costs is certainly a problem, but there are no simple solutions.

However, you seem to insist that EVs have no advantages at all. A EV can remove a big chunk of that cost, but you will never accept it for some reason or another.

Doesn't matter if some lost money: some made money too. The profit incentive is still what drove development. It's not driving development here not because there's a conspiracy, but because there's no indication that there is profit to be had.

Which conspiracy? I never said anything about conspiracies. My only sin seems to be seeing some advantanges in current state of the art EVs, although I am totally incapable of making you accept any of them.

I've already pointed this out, though: from the consumer perspective, it's NOT new technology. Consumers don't really care about how a product does something, they care about WHAT it does. And an electric car does LESS than a gas powered car. It is, from their perspective, not new technology at all (in fact, electric cars have been around for over a hundred years, so even from a technology perspective they're not really new). Truly new technologies can take off with small initial adoption because they provide new functionality. People will pay a premium, even for a spotty product, if it does something that no other product can do, and that premium allows small-volume markets to survive despite the R&D overhead. But nobody pays a premium to buy something that does less than existing products

Like saving you money on oil and avoiding pollution? You seem to forget that at least in Europe, most consumers CARE for the environment.

The no pollution argument is irrelevant to the consumer, because they don't bear the cost. And the smaller per-mile cost is also irrelevant, because the overall cost is still higher. That's why hybrids haven't replaced conventional cars: the price premium is still more than you'll save in gas over the lifetime of the vehicle.

The sales of hybrids grow without pause. Bad argument.
A pair of week ago I tested one, a Prius, and found it very pleasant. In a pair of years I will probably buy one.

You're out of luck. Complain to your fellow Spaniards. Try and see if you can get your government to force your driving preferences on the rest of the population. Just don't try to pretend your fellow citizens aren't driving electrics already because of some conspiracy, rather than the simple fact that they don't WANT to drive electrics. And don't expect the world to revolve around your needs either.

Please show me where did I talk or suggested anything about conspiracies. Thanks.

[Ziggurat]

You were arguing that the corporations involved here aren't capable of manipulating people into believing the electric cars are a bad idea.

No, actually, I was arguing the converse, that they are not capable of convincing people that electric cars are a good idea. Car companies have been accused of sins of ommission in that regard (that they didn't market them sufficiently), and my claim is that this was never possible, and that they didn't push electric cars because it would have been a waste of money to try.

[Ziggurat]

My only sin seems to be seeing some advantanges in current state of the art EVs, although I am totally incapable of making you accept any of them.
Perhaps you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I'm not claiming electric vehicles have no advantages. My claim is that because of their disadvantages, they cannot and will not replace ICE cars for the forseeable future, and that no course of action available to us can change that basic reality.

The sales of hybrids grow without pause. Bad argument.
Not really: hybrids sell because they don't have the disadvantages that electrics have, but it's NOT because of dollar savings on gas. Overcome those disadvantages and you can enter the market, even with a price premium. Fail to overcome them, and you cannot make a successful car. Electric vehicles have no prospects of overcoming those disadvantages anytime soon. The only real hope for an alternative to the ICE cars within the next decade or two is not all-electrics, but hydrogen fuel cells. If sufficient storage densities can be achieved (and that may indeed be a solvable problem), then they'll probably take off. And I hope they do, because they'll offer most of the same advantages you see in all-electrics (which I never denied) while at the same time overcoming the limitations that doom all-electrics to failure.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, actually, I was arguing the converse, that they are not capable of convincing people that electric cars are a good idea. Car companies have been accused of sins of ommission in that regard (that they didn't market them sufficiently), and my claim is that this was never possible, and that they didn't push electric cars because it would have been a waste of money to try.Well the point made by the film and at the website you can't see was the opposite. Who killed the electric car, not who didn't succeed in promoting it.

Your whole assumption is that they didn't have to kill it, but the evidence is they certainly didn't promote it and they did take some actions to discourage it's use.

[EHocking]

Just very lossy. Which pretty much kills any environmental argument in favor of an electric.(and TjW) - I sit corrected.

[Old man]

Peskanov & skeptigirl,

Since you're both so defensive of EVs, I'm wondering how you two folks go about satisfying your individual transportation needs. Would you mind explaining what you're currently doing?

Ziggurat & TjW,

Thank you for the reasoned responses I see here. Keep up the good work.

[Peskanov]

Yeah, good work indeed. Both of them have suggested that I am into conspiracy theories, while this is patently false. I explained my opinions as clear as possible. "Market inertia" is hardly a conspiracy theory, don't you think? And I made it clear this is just my opinion.

Guess what, they probably think I am into conspiracy theories because they are confusing my posts with skeptigirl ones.
Plus, I am trying to back up my claims while Ziggurat make unsuported claims often and forget them as fast as possible.Is this a bona fide debating attitude?

Yes, really good work. Keep it going!

Oh, and explain me why I should answer your question, when you show yourself as a partisan in your first contribution to this thread. If you are not even trying to debate bona fide, look for another person to speak with, ok?

[Peskanov]

EHocking,

(and TjW) - I sit corrected.

No, you stand misinformed. You are accepting a claim at face value. Why don't research the numbers by yourself? You will be surprised.
Or ask Ziggurat to back up his claim. It shouldn't be so difficult, right?

[Ziggurat]

Your whole assumption is that they didn't have to kill it, but the evidence is they certainly didn't promote it and they did take some actions to discourage it's use.

What significance can you place on the decision not to promote it if promoting it would just be a waste of money? They didn't take significant action to discourage its use, but massively subsidized its use at something like a billion dollar loss. What they discouraged, and rightly so, was a bad law that required its use. The closest accusation to any wrongdoing in the whole affair was the decision not to sell the vehicles but terminate the lease. But that was both insignificant (the car was already a demonstrated failure with regard to satisfying mass-market needs, regardless of how much their owners loved them) and actually fairly understandable (liability concerns often make companies act far more protective than they optimally should).

[Ziggurat]

Guess what, they probably think I am into conspiracy theories because they are confusing my posts with skeptigirl ones.

I admit that did happen to a degree. Similarly, you made wrong assumptions about my position when you stated that I did not acknowledge any advantages for electric vehicles. The debate has been sliding towards being personal, which it shouldn't be, and some of our difference may be more a matter of emphasis than substantive difference. So let's both try to keep things mellow. :cool:

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Well the point made by the film and at the website you can't see was the opposite. Who killed the electric car, not who didn't succeed in promoting it.

Your whole assumption is that they didn't have to kill it, but the evidence is they certainly didn't promote it and they did take some actions to discourage it's use.
It was GM's car to kill. You are correct that the evidence shows that they didn't actively promote it, and that they took actions to discourage it's use.

The question is: Why? Again, if we're looking at evidence, it shows that it was a niche market that would not be worth the trouble for GM to promote. Once California's emission laws were changed, GM probably breathed a sigh of relief that they were allowed to shoot what they considered was a lame duck of a car. They knew it's technical limitations going into it, and it appears that the only reason they made the car in the first place was to satisfy the California emission requirements. The only reason.

GM is in no way obligated to champion the electric car.

[Ziggurat]

No, you stand misinformed. You are accepting a claim at face value. Why don't research the numbers by yourself? You will be surprised.

Surprised at what? The efficiency of inductively coupled chargers? Of course they're lossy, because the fields cannot be contained, but inevitably have large stray components, and these oscillating stray components mean radiative losses. You can't eliminate those losses, and even trying to reduce them significantly requires larger coils within the car, meaning significant added weight (the last thing you want for electric vehicles). Transformers can achieve high efficiency because the coils literally sit on top of each other, they can form completely closed loops with very little stray field, and they have large paramagnetic metal cores to amplify field magnitudes. The first two cannot be done with inductively coupled chargers, and the last one adds significant weight to the vehicle (which is bad). Inductively coupled chargers make sense for electric toothbrushes, where charge times can be very long (so you can operate them at very low power), efficiency is unimportant, but waterproof sealing is critical. The make a lot less sense for a car, where power requirements are high, efficiency matters, and weight matters. Even if they did operate at close to 100% efficiency with low weight, it wouldn't make sense simply because the advantages wouldn't outweigh the added costs and complexity.

[Peskanov]

No Ziggurat, I know inductance charging is not 100% efficient. This one is the claim you must back with numbers:

Just very lossy. Which pretty much kills any environmental argument in favor of an electric.

Show the mpg equivalents for EV, show inductance losses, and show how these loses kill environmental arguments. I am not Claus-like, I just ask for minimal evidence, but I will not accept just claims without evidence (and nobody should).

BTW, I agree about lowering the agression of the thread. But I would thank some well thought arguments instead of continous firing against all targets.

[Ziggurat]

No Ziggurat, I know inductance charging is not 100% efficient. This one is the claim you must back with numbers:

http://www.evworld.com/archives/interviews/magnecharge.html

It looks like I'm wrong about the extent of the inefficiency. Apparently inductively coupled chargers were in fact planned for GM's EV1 (and maybe even deployed, I don't know). Price, however, is still very much an issue. Several hundred dollars for the charging unit, which is fine for a single home charger, but is completely impractical for deploying to other parking locations (such as garages or appartment complexes). And that was the context in which inductively coupled chargers was originally suggested in this thread by EHocking after WildCat noted that plugging in to recharge doesn't work for a lot of people and situations. Inductively coupled chargers apparently did solve a number of challenges (one of the biggest ones being proper grounding with direct electrical connections), but don't really help with making widespread deployment more practical.

[Old man]

I’m sorry if I’ve offended you, Peskanov. I made the “good work” comment in part so that people would know which side of the ‘conspiracy’ debate I’m on, not because I think that you’re a believer in it.

My question is, if you’ll recall -

“Since you're … so defensive of EVs, I'm wondering how you … go about satisfying your individual transportation needs. Would you mind explaining what you're currently doing?”

You see, I’ve been a big believer in reducing energy consumption for about forty years. I actually live a very frugal life, energy wise. I was commending Ziggurat on his very reasonable discussion of the many reasons other than ‘negative marketing’ that people might have for not jumping on the EV bandwagon. I’ve considered (and dismissed) EVs a number of times in the last forty years, for exactly the reasons that Ziggurat has mentioned (I’ve rejected motorcycles for the same reasons), and I was curious if you practiced what you preached. I do.

So, do you drive an EV, and, if not, why not?

[Peskanov]

Ziggurat,

It looks like I'm wrong about the extent of the inefficiency. Apparently inductively coupled chargers were in fact planned for GM's EV1 (and maybe even deployed, I don't know). Price, however, is still very much an issue. Several hundred dollars for the charging unit, which is fine for a single home charger, but is completely impractical for deploying to other parking locations (such as garages or appartment complexes). And that was the context in which inductively coupled chargers was originally suggested in this thread by EHocking after WildCat noted that plugging in to recharge doesn't work for a lot of people and situations. Inductively coupled chargers apparently did solve a number of challenges (one of the biggest ones being proper grounding with direct electrical connections), but don't really help with making widespread deployment more practical.

How do you want me to "keep things mellow" when you are incapable of letting an argument go? You just made a far fetched claim, and missed it totally. Inductive recharging does not render environmental reasons valid, or invalid or produces any meaningful effect in the whole picture. The real problems of EVs, as you said and I readily admited, is recharging time and autonomy.

Jesus, just let it go. Accept it, you were trigger happy with your arguments and missed. That's all, just accept it and let's discuss something worthy.

[Peskanov]

Old man,

Since you're … so defensive of EVs, I'm wondering how you … go about satisfying your individual transportation needs. Would you mind explaining what you're currently doing?”

You see, I’ve been a big believer in reducing energy consumption for about forty years. I actually live a very frugal life, energy wise. I was commending Ziggurat on his very reasonable discussion of the many reasons other than ‘negative marketing’ that people might have for not jumping on the EV bandwagon. I’ve considered (and dismissed) EVs a number of times in the last forty years, for exactly the reasons that Ziggurat has mentioned (I’ve rejected motorcycles for the same reasons), and I was curious if you practiced what you preached. I do.

So, do you drive an EV, and, if not, why not?

Your question is partially answered in several of my previous post. I don't own a car but I will probably need one in one or two years from now due to my professional career. I am pondering about Prius, because as I said, I favor low pollution and low consumption. I also liked the one I tested. I don't know of any medium-sized EV car like the EV1 in Spain. Yes, I am disposed to risk my money with a good EV if the characteristic go near the EV1. The thing I dislike about hybrids is that they look expensive to maintain to me; they share the fragile mechanics of a ICE car, with the big electronics of an EV. And I don't really need so much powerhose.

My family possesed 2 cars, the "old" one, a SEAT, which was shared among my brothers, and the big one, a second hand "deluxe" car named Rover Van Der Plas or something like that. It was quite nice for long travels, but we don't miss it and never tried expensive cars anymore. Maintenance was nearly as expensive as the car itself!

Along the years I have used the cars from my brothers and friends. I usually need cars for transporting things and pay some visits to my friends living in the suburbs. I have been tempted to buy a motorcycle or an old car, but I didn't really need them.

The last years I have been working for different companies in Madrid and Barcelona as a programmer, and now I am realizing I will probably have to settle outside my city, Valencia, because there are no oportunities for me there. I just cant use the vehicles of my family anymore when I need them, so I guess I will have to surrender and buy a car for myself pretty soon. Anyway I prefer not to drive large distances; to travel between cities I prefer train or plane.

The Prius I tested pertains to one of my uncles. He didn't buy it to save money in fuel, but just for reducing pollution. He would probably never buy an EV because from time to time his work involves visiting serveral villages the same day. But that's not my case...

I know that an Hybrid or an EV will probably will not save me money at the end. I really believe the tech. numbers are good enough, but the market rules: they are expensive because they are either not really mass produced or experimental. But, as many persons, I am disposed to loose some money and, as you say, "preach with the example". And I confess I am a bit of a technophile too...

[Ziggurat]

How do you want me to "keep things mellow" when you are incapable of letting an argument go? You just made a far fetched claim, and missed it totally. Inductive recharging does not render environmental reasons valid, or invalid or produces any meaningful effect in the whole picture. The real problems of EVs, as you said and I readily admited, is recharging time and autonomy.

Jesus, just let it go. Accept it, you were trigger happy with your arguments and missed. That's all, just accept it and let's discuss something worthy.

Slow down, and reread my post. I just DID let it go, I conceded your point regarding efficiency, and furthermore provided EVIDENCE that you were right and I was wrong. The point about the expense of the charger is a different argument, and plays into the autonomy argument, NOT the environmental cost argument. If you could create a ubiquitous grid of such chargers then it would help increase the autonomy of such vehicles. But because such a grid would be a massive infrastructure cost, it will not happen for a small-volume market. As far as I can tell, you don't even disagree with that assessment. So why are you still jumping on me? I'm really hoping you just went through my post too fast, and if that's the case that's fine, I've done it before too, but if not I don't know what else to say.

[Peskanov]

Ok then, sorry.
I read your post two times and still thinked you were not really conceding the point. But I reckon I am not very proficient in English, so I probably messed the meaning.

I will try to post tomorrow some interesting links and numbers, for those interested in the usefulness (and lack of it) of EVs.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I drive all over in my gas guzzling Subaru, since you asked, old man. I have a medical practice that is based in a home office and I provide occupational health services at other people's places of employment across 3 counties. So I drive a lot and there is no mass transit alternative though I try to take the bus whenever I go downtown and can afford the extra time. It is so much preferable than driving there.

My next auto will be one that uses less gas. It will depend on what's out there when it's time to buy one. I would consider an electric car. I love my electric lawn mower, no loud motor, no fumes, just turns on and off, no rip cord.

As to the conspiracy theories I am being saddled with, I believe the points brought out in the movie, (which I have read on the website and not seen the movie), are credible. I have not invested enough time to investigate whether or not the points are true, but history has revealed similar behavior by corporations. The example of the Red Car and Firestone was one such case and I provided a source documenting that incident.

[The Don]

If I recall correctly, for may years the French government has been very supportive of electic vehicles including:

Offering to make up any difference in price: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7D91E38F932A25757C0A9639582 60

Establishing various initiatives for their development: http://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?tg=articles&idx=More&topics=4&article=79

Doing all kinds of things to support them: http://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/emeddiat/article.php3?id_article=21&date=2004-11

And yet electric cars still don't sell. Now this could be because of some massive conspiracy between oil companies, auto makers and governments or it could be because there isn't an electric vehicle on the market that could do what I did yesterday (which is to drive around 200 miles across country with Mrs Don at speeds between 30 and 70 mph).

[Skeptic Ginger]

If I recall correctly, for may years the French government has been very supportive of electic vehicles including:

Offering to make up any difference in price: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7D91E38F932A25757C0A9639582 60

Establishing various initiatives for their development: http://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?tg=articles&idx=More&topics=4&article=79

Doing all kinds of things to support them: http://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/emeddiat/article.php3?id_article=21&date=2004-11

And yet electric cars still don't sell. Now this could be because of some massive conspiracy between oil companies, auto makers and governments or it could be because there isn't an electric vehicle on the market that could do what I did yesterday (which is to drive around 200 miles across country with Mrs Don at speeds between 30 and 70 mph).
This I consider the best argument here for the film being wrong. It's evidence instead of opinion.

The plug in spot on the street looks like a solution to the no garage problem though.

[Belz...]

I love my electric lawn mower, no loud motor, no fumes, just turns on and off, no rip cord.

Don't try to mow cross-country with it, though.

[Belz...]

This I consider the best argument here for the film being wrong. It's evidence instead of opinion.

The plug in spot on the street looks like a solution to the no garage problem though.

I don't know how good all-electric vehicles would be in Canada or other northern countries, though. We have snow about half of the year, which means we also have temperatures that are bad for batteries.

And the only reason we plug our cars is because we want it to start in the morning. With EVs, we'd have to plug them pretty much always, unless the car's moving.

[ZirconBlue]

I love my electric lawn mower, no loud motor, no fumes, just turns on and off, no rip cord.


I'm in the market for a new mower, but really don't know much about electrics. Is yours a rechargeable mower, or do you have to drag an extension cord arround the yard?

[Peskanov]

Just to make it clear: I have not seen the "who killed the electric car" film, and I have no opinion about it.
I think the best EV technolgy is useful for a good chunk of the market, and I just try to defend that idea and refute common missconceptions about EVs.

Said that, there is a very good link from a EV hobbyst which explains in a blog how to build EVs. It shows all the parts of the vehicle, maintenance issues, some prices, etc... the blog explains the particularities of EVs torque, horsepower, battery techs, and more. He also used his first one some years and provide insightful commentaries about it's everyday-use.

http://jerryrig.com/convert/

He is now building a second one, and made a second blog:

http://www.evconvert.com/

Keep in mind that this is a hobbyst EV. General Motors EV1 is on a diferent, much higher level of autonomy and speed.

Belz, you can find how he solved his problem with cold temperatures in these entries:

http://jerryrig.com/convert/step45.html
http://convert.jerryrig.com/step42.html

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Just to make it clear: I have not seen the "who killed the electric car" film, and I have no opinion about it.
I think the best EV technolgy is useful for a good chunk of the market, and I just try to defend that idea and refute common missconceptions about EVs.

Said that, there is a very good link from a EV hobbyst which explains in a blog how to build EVs. It shows all the parts of the vehicle, maintenance issues, some prices, etc... the blog explains the particularities of EVs torque, horsepower, battery techs, and more. He also used his first one some years and provide insightful commentaries about it's everyday-use.

http://jerryrig.com/convert/

He is now building a second one, and made a second blog:

http://www.evconvert.com/

Keep in mind that this is a hobbyst EV. General Motors EV1 is on a diferent, much higher level of autonomy and speed.

Belz, you can find how he solved his problem with cold temperatures in these entries:

http://jerryrig.com/convert/step45.html
http://convert.jerryrig.com/step42.html
I certainly agree with you that EV technology is extremely useful to a certain portion of the market. I would love to have an electric car sitting in my garage if it was fairly cost effective and could travel the kind of distances that I drive every day. I don't think anyone has been arguing against EV technolgy itself.

I think what it all boils down to is if an EV could be cost effective to an automobile manufacturer. If you factor in technological limitations, manufacturing costs, training costs, etc, it still looks as if it's not there yet.

I would like nothing better than for one of the big automobile manufacturers to prove me wrong. I'd probably be the first in line to buy one.

[jimlintott]

I'm in the market for a new mower, but really don't know much about electrics. Is yours a rechargeable mower, or do you have to drag an extension cord arround the yard?
I have a corded electric mower and really like it. If you have lots of strange obstacles a cordless would be nicer. If your patch of grass is pretty straightforward you just learn to start near the outlet and work back and forth away from it. The 'dragging an extension cord around' is actually less hassle than fussing with a jerry can that always seems empty. Electric mowers are almost maintenance free. I simply squeeze a lever to start it, some of my neighbours seem to have to work like dogs just to get their gas unit started. Gas mowers are noisy too. Get an electric.


Belz, you can find how he solved his problem with cold temperatures in these entries:
In all fairness he really only deals with getting cabin heat in a New Hampshire winter. Canucks are more concerned with how it will work at -40.

[Ziggurat]

Gas mowers are noisy too.

They're also usually two-stroke engines which means they tend to pollute more than a car, too. Mowers are a much better market for all-electrics (corded or battery-powered) to make inroads into than cars.

[Old man]

Thank you, Peskanov, for a very reasonable and well-written reply. I did think that you were an urbanite with no car at all.
Good luck in your quest for a vehicle that meets your needs (wants?), and I hope that you continue to "preach with the example".

And, thank you, Skeptigirl. You mention your "gas guzzling Subaru", but I've always had the impression that Subaru’s were generally pretty good on gas. Why did you choice what you drive now, instead of, say, a 'better' performing diesel by another automaker?

FYI, I too had an electric lawn mower (corded) many years ago, when I was still on the grid. Worked great on a small lawn. I still can't understand why so few other people use them. Maybe most people really do use the logic that Ziggurat has mentioned. (Or did Sears just suppress that technology, too? :jaw-dropp)

[jimlintott]

FYI, I too had an electric lawn mower (corded) many years ago, when I was still on the grid. Worked great on a small lawn. I still can't understand why so few other people use them. Maybe most people really do use the logic that Ziggurat has mentioned. (Or did Sears just suppress that technology, too? :jaw-dropp)
Oddly I think it is a macho thing, similar to what makes EV less desirable in many eyes. I think there is a perception that electric motors are wimpy and that real men use gas. Seriously, why else is 4 or 5 hp printed so plainly on a gas mower while an electric makes little mention of power.

Guys, trust me, it doesn't take 5 hp to cut your lawn.

I'm actually considering a push type reel mower which uses only my own power.

[Belz...]

Gas mowers are noisy too.

Sure, nowadays they're heavy and cumbersome.

Ah, but those old two-strokes were so much more fun!

[Old man]

Originally Posted by jimlintott:
Oddly I think it is a macho thing, similar to what makes EV less desirable in many eyes. I think there is a perception that electric motors are wimpy and that real men use gas. Seriously, why else is 4 or 5 hp printed so plainly on a gas mower while an electric makes little mention of power.

I fully agree. I'm amazed when I see people on 15 - 16 HP riding mowers circling around a little 50' by 60' lawn. I have an 11 HP walk behind brush mower that will chew up 10' tall trees that are 1.5" in diameter.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm in the market for a new mower, but really don't know much about electrics. Is yours a rechargeable mower, or do you have to drag an extension cord around the yard?I drag the cord around and I swear there's a simple solution of something that keeps the cord out of the way just waiting for some inventor to make millions on.

I'd get the battery model unless heavier is an issue for you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

In all fairness he really only deals with getting cabin heat in a New Hampshire winter. Canucks are more concerned with how it will work at -40.It's the oil in the engine that gets too viscous and causes the problem. Electric or gas fuel isn't the issue.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And, thank you, Skeptigirl. You mention your "gas guzzling Subaru", but I've always had the impression that Subaru’s were generally pretty good on gas. Why did you choice what you drive now, instead of, say, a 'better' performing diesel by another automaker?I was being sarcastic about the guzzling but the mileage isn't ideal. It's an Outback.

I used to drive one of those mini-pickups with a camper shell until I found out they didn't meet passenger car safety standards. I switched to a Toyota Tercel. Then one day I had my wheels lock and went sailing down a hill with no steering. (Yes I know to tap the brakes, I lived in the Rockies before.)

So I went with the Outback. I live on a hill and we have snow in the winter. Safety was a big factor. My boyfriend was killed in a car accident when I was 16 and it leaves its mark on you. I have the wagon because I use the cargo space and we car camp sometimes.

But I'm willing to rent a vehicle to car camp now that I'm older and have more money. I'd like to decrease my part in global warming and I think gas prices are too unstable.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm actually considering a push type reel mower which uses only my own power.I don't mow often enough. It's a good 6+ inches by the time I get to it. Electric cuts fine, it's the catcher that also needs a redesign. You have to empty it too often. And I wait too long between mows so my goal of mulching never seems to be reached.

[Pidge]

I drag the cord around and I swear there's a simple solution of something that keeps the cord out of the way just waiting for some inventor to make millions on.


I remember pushing around a mains-powered electric mower, oh, 25 years ago. 2kW motor, with a auto-winding spool mounted on the top to reel in and out the power cord as you move towards and away from the power outlet. Oh, and a wooden stake in the ground to secure the power cord to with a hitch knot...

Very quiet compared to a gas mower, which it got converted to once the electric motor and/or spool gave up after 15+ years. Oh, and one or two power cord changes as the power cord got stretched - no thought went into a ruggedised power cord, unfortunately.

[jimlintott]

It's the oil in the engine that gets too viscous and causes the problem. Electric or gas fuel isn't the issue.
Of course there is some increase of viscosity but many people here will use a very light multi-weight oil or a synthetic which really works well. The real problem is how much the cold knocks power out of batteries which when coupled with the thickening of oil makes starting a bear. This is why when we get our -40 stuff cars often don't start even when plugged in. The battery simply has no power left.

It's the power loss from the cold that concerns me. However, if there was little to no power loss then electric would actually be better than gas motors in cold weather.

[ZirconBlue]

I'm actually considering a push type reel mower which uses only my own power.

I had one of those at my last place, but it never did a great job, and was horrible if you accidentally let your grass get too long. It might just have been that particular mower, though. I always suspected that it wasn't assembled correctly.

[Mechbob]

I saw and sat inside an EV-1 at a state fair when I was in California back in the 90's. It reminded me of an AMC Avanti, (another car ahead of it's time). General Motors did not give the cars to anyone, they loaned them out for long-term testing and when the comapny wanted them back, the drivers took GM to court. The drivers lost, and GM went ahead with their advanced vehicle developement plan.
The cars were neat, but trunk/passenger space was limited, and the batteries could be damaged if charged improperly. The cars performed well and their drivers loved them.
The one point overlooked is that gasoline has huge advantages over just about every fuel known. It's relatively cheap, fairly safe, and very efficient as an all weather fuel. Diesel requires high compression to be efficient, hence heavily built engines with heavy flywheels, strong valve gear etc. Diesel engines are nortoriously bad cold weather engines, and can be a real pain to get going and warm up. They can also be noisy and smelly, so special exhausts and intakes have to be built for them.. I love the smell of a Cummings 855 in the morning, but most people would hate it!
The point is, in order for the cars to change, we need another Ford Model_T.
Henry Ford prduced a car that was cheap to buy, cheap to own and when and if it wore out, you sold it for junk and bought another. We need an "Alternative Model_T" to replace our Internal combustion powered system. When that happens it will be like when Tape replaced LP records!

[Peskanov]

The Don,

And yet electric cars still don't sell. Now this could be because of some massive conspiracy between oil companies, auto makers and governments or it could be because there isn't an electric vehicle on the market that could do what I did yesterday (which is to drive around 200 miles across country with Mrs Don at speeds between 30 and 70 mph).

I found the last article you linked very interesting; here is google's traslation, I hope the link works for a while:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecologie.gouv.fr%2Fem eddiat%2Farticle.php3%3Fid_article%3D21%26date%3D2 004-11&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

While I accept existing EVs are unappealing (and the appealing ones are extremely expensive), I must say that I never saw anything close to GM EV1 for it's price. For example, that old Citicar I saw in France was a really small minicar, and the market for those is very small. I see that kind of vehicles as a good fit for EVs, but just to make inroads in the market and justify a minimal infrastructure. As bad as the French EV support program has worked, I am still glad they tried and now invest in new battery technology.

There is another question here , and is technical evolution; is fine and dandy to say "EVs don't work", but the real thing is batteries are improving. It seems the huge mobile phone industry brings to market several battery technologies previously considered exotic.

Hybrid cars use previusly uncommon NiMH batteries, like the most functional version of the EV. Advocates of the EV1 claims 120 miles on a charge, but 60-80 looks more like it. This, imho makes it appealing to a good number of Europeans looking for a clean urban vehicle (I am talking about the technology, not the EV1 in particular).

Most of the upcomming EVs uses Li-Ion technology. I don't really know how much is "promises" and how much a reality, but my feeling is that the tech is batteries are getting better.

Some announcements and technicals details about Li-Ion:
This one is a Japanese car protoype with Li-Ion batteries developed by NEC. Charges in 15 minutes (will require special charger obviously, that's a lot of energy passing).

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/06/tepco_and_fuji_.html

This company has a similar, fast charging Li-Ion technology:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07/altair_nanotech.html

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course there is some increase of viscosity but many people here will use a very light multi-weight oil or a synthetic which really works well. The real problem is how much the cold knocks power out of batteries which when coupled with the thickening of oil makes starting a bear. This is why when we get our -40 stuff cars often don't start even when plugged in. The battery simply has no power left.

It's the power loss from the cold that concerns me. However, if there was little to no power loss then electric would actually be better than gas motors in cold weather.
I could have been ignorant of the proper oil weight the night I forgot to plug in and couldn't start my car. Minus 35F, engined turned over and battery wasn't dead but she wouldn't turn over fast enough to start. I defer to the Northerner with much more expertise in this area than I have.

[Peskanov]

jimlintott,

In all fairness he really only deals with getting cabin heat in a New Hampshire winter. Canucks are more concerned with how it will work at -40.

Whoa...I din't know people dared to exit home at -40 degrees :)

I don't know too much about the problem. Hybrid cars use big battery packs like EVs, and somehow they manage to keep them working. The Honda Insight seems to perform worse that the Prius in very cold weather, I heard.

Some googling about Hybrids can help.

[Mechbob]

I just saw some posts that I'd like to add to.
Electric cars don't use lead acid batteries so they perform quite well in cold weather. They also use a reactive brake system, which is a really neat way to stop! Most of the cars I've seen or read about have a reserve battery and plenty of gauges and warning lights to let you know when your batteries are running low.
The batteries and motor are mounted lower in the car and that lower center of gravity improves handling and saftey. The mass of batteries also act as a giant shock absorber in the event of a mishap.
The last place I worked had two Ford Ranger-E pick-ups for test purposes. We let each department drive them for a week or so. No one wanted to let them go! Not once did they break down, run out of power or give any trouble during the winter.
They were smooth, quiet and powerful, and a real joy to drive. However, they needed a special plug for recharging. I suggested a standard 120volt plug with a meter that you could set for your utilities rates. Then if you were at a friend's house, you could recharge and pay him based on your meter reading.

[Peskanov]

Oldman,

Thank you, Peskanov, for a very reasonable and well-written reply. I did think that you were an urbanite with no car at all.
Good luck in your quest for a vehicle that meets your needs (wants?), and I hope that you continue to "preach with the example".

Thanks; I reckon I could be too optimistic about the real life functionality of EVs. But I am willing to try...

[jimlintott]

I could have been ignorant of the proper oil weight the night I forgot to plug in and couldn't start my car. Minus 35F, engined turned over and battery wasn't dead but she wouldn't turn over fast enough to start. I defer to the Northerner with much more expertise in this area than I have.

I'll bet it would have started with a boost. The thick oil makes the starter motor work harder but the loss of power from the battery is a big culprit. It will turn over but the starter is eating all the available current leaving no juice for spark. At -35 a fully charged car battery has less than 25% of its power available. Drop in a fresh warm battery and it probably would have fired right up.

Yes, I have way too much experience with starting gas engines in very cold conditions. :(

[Peskanov]

Mechbob, do you have any idea about the maintenance of these vehicles? It's often mentioned that EVs need lower maintenance an need less repair, a feature I find very positive. But I don't really to know how much difference really exist.

[jimlintott]

I just saw some posts that I'd like to add to.
Electric cars don't use lead acid batteries so they perform quite well in cold weather.

I pretty much assumed they didn't use lead acid batteries. They would be a poor choice. But don't batteries in general have problems in cold? As long as they were charging and warm they would be fine. If you had to park for a few hours in our bitter cold or the power went out could be another story.

I'm sure though that with lot's power they would be nicer than gas in very cold. After all we start gas motors with an electric motor and starters aren't as effected by the cold as much as other systems in the car.

Found an interesting little bit (http://hybridcars.about.com/od/hybridcarfaq/f/batterycold.htm) about hybrids and battery temps.

[jimlintott]

Mechbob, do you have any idea about the maintenance of these vehicles? It's often mentioned that EVs need lower maintenance an need less repair, a feature I find very positive. But I don't really to know how much difference really exist.
Well, the bulk of maintenacne on modern cars is oil and filter changes. Brake linings depending on use. Tune ups which really have very long service intervals now.

In an electric there would be almost no engine maintenance. If it sends power via a transmission then it will need service. Braking systems are different and would need less maintenance. So in normal use it would be wiper blades. :) (Check your wiper blades.)

I always thought the way to do electric would be to put a small motor at each wheel and operate the whole thing through a central computer. Of course you would mount the motors on the chassis and use a short half shaft to send power to keep unsprung weight down. You could have traction control, anti skid, anti lock, virtual differentials. All kinds of groovy cool driver aids and way fewer mechanical systems to muck with.

[TjW]

I saw and sat inside an EV-1 at a state fair when I was in California back in the 90's. It reminded me of an AMC Avanti, (another car ahead of it's time). General Motors did not give the cars to anyone, they loaned them out for long-term testing and when the comapny wanted them back, the drivers took GM to court. The drivers lost, and GM went ahead with their advanced vehicle developement plan.
The cars were neat, but trunk/passenger space was limited, and the batteries could be damaged if charged improperly. The cars performed well and their drivers loved them.
The one point overlooked is that gasoline has huge advantages over just about every fuel known. It's relatively cheap, fairly safe, and very efficient as an all weather fuel. Diesel requires high compression to be efficient, hence heavily built engines with heavy flywheels, strong valve gear etc. Diesel engines are nortoriously bad cold weather engines, and can be a real pain to get going and warm up. They can also be noisy and smelly, so special exhausts and intakes have to be built for them.. I love the smell of a Cummings 855 in the morning, but most people would hate it!
The point is, in order for the cars to change, we need another Ford Model_T.
Henry Ford prduced a car that was cheap to buy, cheap to own and when and if it wore out, you sold it for junk and bought another. We need an "Alternative Model_T" to replace our Internal combustion powered system. When that happens it will be like when Tape replaced LP records!
I thought the Avanti was a Studebaker. The EV-1 reminded me a little of the AMC Pacer. (My Mom had a Pacer for awhile. Wide, rounded, too weird for the time styling, but comfortable to drive and easy to park.)
To be fair, every IC engine regardless of fuel type requires high compression for high efficiency. Once low-sulphur diesel fuel is widely available here in the US, I would not be at all surprised to see a plug-in hybrid using a small, completely automated diesel for charging the battery. A small diesel designed to turn at essentially one particular rpm near its torque peak or shut off entirely could be pretty efficient. Currently, I believe they're actually more efficient than fuel cells. With lots of battery and a small engine, an engine block and catalytic converter pre-heater wouldn't be out of the question. There'll be a pretty good sized electrical motor to use to start it. With a very narrow range of operating rpm, active noise cancellation might even be possible.

[Skeptic Ginger]

jimlintott,

Whoa...I din't know people dared to exit home at -40 degrees :)...Someone has to man the hospitals. I didn't have the luxury of snow days most of my career. I will say minus 35F was an experience one can't imagine without being there.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll bet it would have started with a boost. The thick oil makes the starter motor work harder but the loss of power from the battery is a big culprit. It will turn over but the starter is eating all the available current leaving no juice for spark. At -35 a fully charged car battery has less than 25% of its power available. Drop in a fresh warm battery and it probably would have fired right up.

Yes, I have way too much experience with starting gas engines in very cold conditions. :(Nope, tried that actually. My friend with the only running car ended up driving everyone around. We tried to use the battery in the running car using jumper cables to start several others but it wasn't happening.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Advocates of the EV1 claims 120 miles on a charge, but 60-80 looks more like it. This, imho makes it appealing to a good number of Europeans looking for a clean urban vehicle (I am talking about the technology, not the EV1 in particular).

It does, to some extent. It is probably enough for most daily commuting. However the vast majority of people who use their cars for daily commuting also want to be able to use them for longer journeys. Even if these are infrequent.

The choice then becomes having an electric with the extra inconvenience of needing to hire a car every time you want to go on a trip more than 60 miles (people are unlikely to risk running anywhere near the maximum distance due to the inconvenience of running out of power) or getting a convential car that can do both types of journey. So not only does the electric have a higher initial cost but extra costs in hire and inconvenience.

They may find a niche market as second cars in households who are willing to pay the extra cost for the environmental benefits. However that may not be a real environmental gain as some of those households may not have had a second car at all if electrics were unavailable, so the energy consumption in manufacturing and increased congestion may mean an overall environmental cost.

[Skeptic Ginger]

They may find a niche market as second cars in households who are willing to pay the extra cost for the environmental benefits
....Or save money on gas around town. An awful lot of people have at least 2 cars in the family. Around here people have as many cars as drivers in the family.

[Ziggurat]

I pretty much assumed they didn't use lead acid batteries. They would be a poor choice. But don't batteries in general have problems in cold?

Yes, I think cold is a killer for batteries in general, though I'm sure there are some kinds that get affected worse than others. But lead acid batteries are actually still, for the moment, one of the better choices for all-electric cars, at least in warmer climates. Li-ion batteries are fantastically expensive in such large capacities, they have safety problems, and they handle cold temperatures even more poorly than lead-acid batteries. And NiMH batteries, despite their better performance, actually had a lousy reliability record when put in service with EV1 cars. According to this guy (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.fandom/msg/01b5d27d94622692) who worked on EV1 cars, the NiMH batteries were often failing in six months under real-world driving conditions because of overheating, and lead-acid batteries, despite their lower energy densities, were much more reliable. Perhaps in Alaska, the NiMH batteries would have done better, but in LA, lead acid batteries were still the best option.

[Peskanov]

Jaggy Bunnet,

It does, to some extent. It is probably enough for most daily commuting. However the vast majority of people who use their cars for daily commuting also want to be able to use them for longer journeys. Even if these are infrequent.

The choice then becomes having an electric with the extra inconvenience of needing to hire a car every time you want to go on a trip more than 60 miles (people are unlikely to risk running anywhere near the maximum distance due to the inconvenience of running out of power) or getting a convential car that can do both types of journey. So not only does the electric have a higher initial cost but extra costs in hire and inconvenience.

They may find a niche market as second cars in households who are willing to pay the extra cost for the environmental benefits. However that may not be a real environmental gain as some of those households may not have had a second car at all if electrics were unavailable, so the energy consumption in manufacturing and increased congestion may mean an overall environmental cost.

I agree with most of what you said, but I differ in a few points.
- When I say I think the tech fits a good chunk of the market, I really mean "the technology for what is worth, not for the price the market imposes". The parts of an EV are not produced in big numbers, and engineering know-how is also scarce, so the competition with ICEs is not based on the real cost of the technology.
Basically, I agree with comment Mechbob made about the need of a new "Ford T".
- Nearly all families I know have 2 cars, usually one of them less powerful and mostly used on the city.

[Peskanov]

Jimlintott,

always thought the way to do electric would be to put a small motor at each wheel and operate the whole thing through a central computer. Of course you would mount the motors on the chassis and use a short half shaft to send power to keep unsprung weight down. You could have traction control, anti skid, anti lock, virtual differentials. All kinds of groovy cool driver aids and way fewer mechanical systems to muck with.

I think a few years ago a company developed and patented something which can be described as motor-wheel. The electric motor was inside the wheel itself, without any kind of gearbox. However the scheme showed a system more complex than the typical electric motor, I think it had a large number of coils.
The numbers for torque and sustained hp were very good, If i remenber correctly.

[Peskanov]

skeptigirl,

Someone has to man the hospitals. I didn't have the luxury of snow days most of my career. I will say minus 35F was an experience one can't imagine without being there.

I will remenber that the next time I feel the temptation to migrate to the north for a better job... There a few places on Spain where you can get minus 20, but that's all (and it's very rare).

[Peskanov]

Ziggurat,

Yes, I think cold is a killer for batteries in general, though I'm sure there are some kinds that get affected worse than others. But lead acid batteries are actually still, for the moment, one of the better choices for all-electric cars, at least in warmer climates. Li-ion batteries are fantastically expensive in such large capacities, they have safety problems, and they handle cold temperatures even more poorly than lead-acid batteries. And NiMH batteries, despite their better performance, actually had a lousy reliability record when put in service with EV1 cars. According to this guy who worked on EV1 cars, the NiMH batteries were often failing in six months under real-world driving conditions because of overheating, and lead-acid batteries, despite their lower energy densities, were much more reliable. Perhaps in Alaska, the NiMH batteries would have done better, but in LA, lead acid batteries were still the best option.

The Prius offers a warranty of 8 years for it's big pack of NiMH batteries, and they really seems to work ok.
I think the problem you mention on the old EV1 NiMH batteries has been fixed in the Prius adding a cheap microcontroller that controls the battery pack.

In this link there is more information about how the Prius NiMH batteries work in cold weather. It looks quite positive; it claims hybrids start much faster & better than normal ICE vehicles in cold weather:

http://john1701a.com/prius/prius-misconceptions.htm

It's the text about the myth "The cold engine is strained in the winter".

A note about Li-on batteries; not all of them have so many security problems. Polymer and thin film versions offer less problems in that area.
Research in Lithium-Ion seems to move fast, with several important advances unveiled the past year.

[jimlintott]

Jimlintott,

I think a few years ago a company developed and patented something which can be described as motor-wheel. The electric motor was inside the wheel itself, without any kind of gearbox. However the scheme showed a system more complex than the typical electric motor, I think it had a large number of coils.
The numbers for torque and sustained hp were very good, If i remenber correctly.

It almost seems obvious doesn't it. I've thought of it myself, a motor in the hub. For high performance suspension the effort is always to keep unsprung mass to a minimum but if you are just building a little city commuter car then you would only need two and possibly one driven wheel.

The automotive enthusiast in me almost giggles at the thought of what could be accomplished with an electric motor at each wheel controlled by sophisticated software. Hey, you could drive with a joystick. I'm not even sure you would need the front wheels to turn anymore. I'm looking forward to what comes up next.

:D

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Nearly all families I know have 2 cars, usually one of them less powerful and mostly used on the city.

An awful lot of people have at least 2 cars in the family.

Maybe a better environmental solution would be to reduce the number of cars, rather than replace some of them with electric cars?

[Peskanov]

Jimlintott,
Here it is; or at least something resembling what I rembenber:

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/NEWS/images/20050824seb.jpg

Seems a really elegant solution, although that way the motor must suffer more mechanical stress.


The full article,
http://media.mitsubishi-motors.com/pressrelease/e/corporate/detail1321.html

[Ziggurat]

I always thought the way to do electric would be to put a small motor at each wheel and operate the whole thing through a central computer.

That's been proposed for a possible hybrid replacement for the hummer. The military isn't primarily interested in fuel economy, but the increased survivability (no driveshaft to break) and especially the stealth mode (drive up on the enemy with the diesel engine off) provide serious advantages.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Shadow,,00.html