"WHO KILLED THE ECLECTRIC CAR" pertinent movie

[alancw3]

i just saw this documentry movie on the starz channel (i give them credit for showing it, albeit not in prime time). very interesting summation of where we are today with respect to the auto industry in our country (sad)(money,money, money and big business). especially pertinent to california. hope everyone gets a chance to see!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/

[saab2000]

I am probably more of a proponent of this stuff than anyone. But I suspect (admittedly without seeing the movie) that it is a movie with a predetermined conclusion and the makers sought the evidence they needed to back up their opinions.

The electric car by itself is not a panacea. There needs to be a quantum shift in everyone's thinking for it to take place.

It is not as simple as GM just deciding they are going to build them.

The technology is simply not there to make them what people want from a vehicle.

[alancw3]

saab funny you mention gm. sounds like a movie you need to see. very informative. gives some great insight about fuel cell cars and how the auto industry has once again dangled the carrot and distorted the facts to give us hope so we continue to buy there petroleum fueled cars.

[stevep]

its an intriguing movie.
i think there was somewhat of a predetermined end in the directors sight.

the interview with the older guy from the company that made the batteries at the time was problematic to me in the movie. they only interviewd him and there was no rebuttal where i think a rebuttal was necessary and pertinent.
he claimed at the time that the batteries were great and could do the job no problem, etc...im not sure it true.
as i read today the toyota engineeers cannot find/ make/ engineer a suitable battery for a battery alone driven vehicle... if there is none now there sure wasnt one then.

as to why gm did what it did to th cars...it woulda been an interesting meeting of the board to sit in on. but overwhelming arrogance and stupidity has been a hallmark of some of these big us corporations for years....and if you look at them 20 years later..i guess we see the results.
but it sure was thought provoking and points int he general direction of why these us companies did not aim a little r & d in this direction when the japanese companies did...

[bhungerford]

i have to agree that it was rather disturbing, they wouldn't even let people buy the cars that wanted them, repo-ed them all and destroyed them, really sad.

after searching for an electric car, and only found these: http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php

http://www.evworld.com/evguide.cfm?evtype=production

and i refuse to spend 100k on a car...

i'm just riding one of my bikes into work now as much as i can (about 4 days a week)

gas sucks, but i'm afraid Saab is right that we need to have a cultural shift to make an impact, but that starts with everyone doing their part, even if you think you're the only person, you'll affect more than you think, and eventually (hopefully sooner rather than later) we'll get that cultural shift

[RPS]

If most drivers are not willing to switch from mammoth SUVs to 2,000-pound economy cars which would save them lots of money, why would they drive an electric car which will cost significantly more?

Electric cars killed themselves – at least twice. A century ago they were popular and were made obsolete because they couldn’t compete in the market place. If there was a demand (at a reasonable profit and not by being subsidized) they would still be around.

It is correct that they were killed because of money. GM had to subsidize them and couldn’t afford to continue doing so on a long-term basis. Let’s not forget how far GM was in the red. Why would they continue to fund projects that have no hope of making a profit when their company is in trouble?

Anyway, where is the electricity coming from, coal power plants? How does that make them zero-emission as many claim? Zero emissions at the point of use does not make them zero emissions IMO.

Please don’t get me wrong – I love the concept of small electric cars as second or third vehicles, particularly if we make a serious effort to fuel them with nuclear power. But for now, the easiest way to cut our dependency on oil and clean the environment is to stop driving 7,000 pound cars to move a 150 pound person around. It’s absurdly wasteful. Other options make so much more sense to me.

[William]

http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/venturieclectic1.jpg



http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/01/15/venturi-eclectic-the-1st-energy-autonomous-vehicle/

"The old men will stop you..."


William

[Ken Robb]

when they first came to the California market Toyota Prius' were selling for several thousand dollars over list due to demand. It seems a lot of the demand was not for the cars per se but for the bumper sticker that came with the first few thousand that authorized these cars to use HOV lanes with only a driver on board. Once those stickers were all gone the "demand" for the Prius dried up. They are frequently advertised at $3,000 under list and they sit on the dealers' lots.

GM and other companies have to make $$ for their stockholders so they build what people buy. It seems to me that only much higher gas prices will get people to buy smaller cars. While $3 per gallon seems very expensive some quick calculations in the retrovision part of my brain suggests that's about in line with the inflated prices of other things. When I was in high school a McD's burger was $.15 and fries were a dime. Levis were $4.25, a good man's dress shirt was $4.25 and gas was about $.32 a gallon. I was making $1.50 working at Krogers and then in a local men's store where our $60 Cricketeer suits were advertised as being "for the man who wants to earn $10,000 a year before he's 30"!!!!!! A really nice Impala went for about $2500.

My first job after college in 1965 was with a Fortune 500 corporation and it paid a very competitive $565 a month.

I still flinch at a $50 fill-up but not as much as the thought of a $10 movie.

[cmg]

from the scooter thread, the Vectrix scooter, all electric with an $11k min. price tag not including tax and license. http://www.vectrixusa.com/Portal/1/Language/47/Page/16/Vectrix_Specs.aspx
What exactly do you save? either spend it on gas in a car and destroy the enviroment or spend it on a non-petrol powered vehicle that spends the first decade of it's production life trying to make up development costs. Better to drive the 2000 lb car in an environment that favors the fuel ineffiecent SUV. the price of gas wouldn't drop if the population switched vehicles. it would go up as they would try maintain profit margins while selling less gas.

[thejen12]

its an intriguing movie.
i think there was somewhat of a predetermined end in the directors sight.

the interview with the older guy from the company that made the batteries at the time was problematic to me in the movie. they only interviewd him and there was no rebuttal where i think a rebuttal was necessary and pertinent.
he claimed at the time that the batteries were great and could do the job no problem, etc...im not sure it true.
as i read today the toyota engineeers cannot find/ make/ engineer a suitable battery for a battery alone driven vehicle... if there is none now there sure wasnt one then.

There were suitable batteries then, and there are now. My neighbor had one of those cars, it had at least 100 mile range. Since he lived less than 50 miles from work, he was able to drive it daily. My husband I drove an electric Ford for 9 months, before they took that away and sent it back to Norway (it was here on a limited-time demonstration program). They were going to crush the Fords, but there was huge demand for them in Norway. Funny that Toyota says they cannot find/make/engineer a suitable battery for a BEV (battery electric vehicle), because there are about 600 all-electric RAV4s out on the road today. They only made that many because they ran out of the RAV4 bodies they had earmarked for the EV version. Many of these RAV4s have gone over 100,000 miles on the same battery pack with little degradation. When these come up on the used market today, they sell for more than the original $42,000 selling price.

As for my own experience with driving an electric car, I'd have to say that once you've done it, there's no going back. That's why I got an electric scooter (EVT 4000e) for my commute, for the days when I don't ride my bike 12 miles each way to work. I couldn't imagine going back to driving a gasoline car on a regular basis. Someday it's going to seem ridiculous that people actually drove to a gas station and pumped that filthy stuff into their cars, instead of just plugging in at home. And, yes, I have solar panels on my roof and generate more electricity than I use. I also signed up for the city's Green Power offering, just in case.

There are thousands of people driving electric vehicles in the US on a daily basis right now, between the RAV4s, conversions, Xebras, NEVs, and others. (Saab, you are nowhere close to being "more of a proponent of this stuff than anyone." There are real proponents out there doing it, not just talking about it and bemoaning that it can't be done. Check out www.pluginamerica.org or www.electricdrive.org for just a beginning. If you're in the US, you can join your local EVA, Electric Vehicle Association, or EAA, Electric Automobile Association, and they probably have similar organizations in other countries as well.)

As for the car companies building what people want, I think the car companies, to some degree, build what they want and advertise the heck out of it. If I could put the advertising budget of the Ford Explorer into advertising an electric car, I bet a lot more people would want one, too. The real stickler is that there is a lot less on-going maintenance in an electric car and that spells less profit for the car companies and dealers.

Okay, sorry to get carried away - yes, I'm passionate about driving electric!

Jenn

[RPS]

...snipped....Okay, sorry to get carried away - yes, I'm passionate about driving electric!

JennPassionate? It doesn't show.

Jenn, with all due respect, the main reason electric vehicles like the EV1 and Toyota RAV4 were made was because Californian’s made it mandatory. And when they didn’t sell as anticipated even though the incredibly high costs were subsidized by the auto companies in order to do business in California, the state backed off and reversed its mandate.

The following straight from Toyota states a significantly different opinion:

“Toyota Motor Corporation discontinued production of the RAV4 Electric Vehicle worldwide in the spring of 2003. Therefore, Toyota will no longer take orders for the RAV4 EV.

Toyota remains committed to developing an "Eco Vehicle," one that will have a minimal impact on the environment. Toyota believes that in order to have a positive environmental impact, a large number of consumers must embrace the technology. In order for this to happen, the vehicle must meet the lifestyle needs of, and be affordable to, the mass market. Although a significant marketing effort was undertaken for the RAV4-EV, we only sold about 300 vehicles a year.

In addition to overall customer acceptance, technical issues tied to electric vehicles remain a major hurdle. Industry practice regards batteries to be at the end of their useful life when capacity decreases to 80% of original capacity. A battery's capacity is the amount of charge that it holds, and is commonly measured by the range of the vehicle. It is cost-prohibitive to replace an EV battery. The cost to replace the battery is more than the value of the vehicle.”

Additionally, for the average American outside of California, a $42,000 RAV4 with limited capabilities is not our idea of affordable.

[Karin Kirk]

Nice facts Jen!
If you were a student in my on-line environmental geology course, I'd give you a "10" for that post!
That's great info and thanks for sharing it. How cool that you walk the talk!

[thejen12]

Passionate? It doesn't show.

Jenn, with all due respect, the main reason electric vehicles like the EV1 and Toyota RAV4 were made was because Californian’s made it mandatory. And when they didn’t sell as anticipated even though the incredibly high costs were subsidized by the auto companies in order to do business in California, the state backed off and reversed its mandate.


RPS,

The state didn't just casually back off the mandate, they were sued by the auto companies and couldn't afford the legal costs to fight it. The auto companies don't want to make these cars because they don't see as much profit in a car that has fewer moving/replaceable parts. They didn't want to make cars with seatbelts, airbags, and other things we take for granted now, too.

Jenn

[thejen12]

The following straight from Toyota states a significantly different opinion:

“Toyota Motor Corporation discontinued production of the RAV4 Electric Vehicle worldwide in the spring of 2003. Therefore, Toyota will no longer take orders for the RAV4 EV.

Toyota remains committed to developing an "Eco Vehicle," one that will have a minimal impact on the environment. Toyota believes that in order to have a positive environmental impact, a large number of consumers must embrace the technology. In order for this to happen, the vehicle must meet the lifestyle needs of, and be affordable to, the mass market. Although a significant marketing effort was undertaken for the RAV4-EV, we only sold about 300 vehicles a year.

What this quote doesn't tell you, is that they sold or long-term leased EVERY RAV4-EV they made, they only made about 600 over two years!

Jenn

[thejen12]

Additionally, for the average American outside of California, a $42,000 RAV4 with limited capabilities is not our idea of affordable.

I'll give you that one! Although there was a $9,000 tax rebate, so the true cost was $33,000. However, to get a large battery pack like the RAV4 uses to a more affordable level, they need to be mass produced. That's where the country is trying to get now. But to get to mass production, you need to give the early adopters a chance to embrace the technology. If you just make 600 cars then stop, it's hard to get there, even if you sell all 600. If you sell 600, could you sell 6,000? We won't have the chance to find out with this model, but hopefully there will be more in the future.

The Tesla sells for about $100,000 and it's a two-seater, but they've already sold over 400 and it's only been available for sale for a few months. That company is planning to use the funding from selling their high-priced sports car to early adopters to build a more affordable 5-seat sedan. They are also licensing their battery technology to other electric car manufacturers, to increase the demand for the batteries further.

I don't think the electric car is quite dead yet.

Jenn

[RPS]

What this quote doesn't tell you, is that they sold or long-term leased EVERY RAV4-EV they made, they only made about 600 over two years!

JennJenn, do you really think that if Toyota (or GM) could have sold a billion of them at a PROFIT that they wouldn't? I really don't get the conspiracy plots. :confused:

FYI: GM also leased their EV1 because of liability. That way if the prototypes had problems it would make it easier to recall and take them off the roads. It also made it possible to stop making spare parts which would have been too costly for such few vehicles.

[gdw]

I read an article which stated that the electric Rav 4 had a 90 mile range and took 8 hours to fully charge. If true, that and the price would certainly limit its appeal to the masses.

[RPS]

The Tesla sells for about $100,000 and it's a two-seater, but they've already sold over 400 and it's only been available for sale for a few months. That company is planning to use the funding from selling their high-priced sports car to early adopters to build a more affordable 5-seat sedan. They are also licensing their battery technology to other electric car manufacturers, to increase the demand for the batteries further.

I don't think the electric car is quite dead yet.

JennA $100,000 car just proves that the people who buy these things are not average Americans. As much as many of us are trying to improve the environment, we can't afford electric cars to drive to work, or solar panels on our roof. It's simply cost prohibitive.

I honestly hope that electric cars are made for some uses, but it will be an uphill battle because it takes about 100 times more weight in batteries to store the same amount of energy as in a gallon of gas. Even high-tech and high-cost batteries are at a significant disadvantage.

[RPS]

.....snipped.......the price of gas wouldn't drop if the population switched vehicles. it would go up as they would try maintain profit margins while selling less gas.That's not the way free markets work. That would never happen if the government stayed out of it.

[thejen12]

A $100,000 car just proves that the people who buy these things are not average Americans. As much as many of us are trying to improve the environment, we can't afford electric cars to drive to work, or solar panels on our roof. It's simply cost prohibitive.

Of course people who buy a $100,000 car are not average Americans. Who do you think owned the very first automobiles? They weren't average Americans, either. Average Americans never used to own computers, or even televisions!

Some people measure cost in other than dollars, and everyone has their own idea of what is cost prohibitive. I have solar panels on my roof, but I think buying a new, custom Serotta is cost prohibitive. ;) As battery costs come down and gas prices go up, more and more people will find BEVs costs are a good value to them (atmo). Maybe you'll be the last on your block. I'll be the second on my block (my neighbor works at Google and is driving one of Google's www.rechargeit.org cars). I'm willing to pay more now so that you can pay less in the future, and I know I'm not the only one.

Jenn

[bshell]

thejen12,

I'm so happy that you added those links. I just started thinking about carving up an old car for conversion a few months ago but had only found one book on the subject which looked pretty dated. I have a lot of good reading/investigating to do now.

even though I link all of my errands together and manage to drive <7000 miles per year it still makes me feel like cr@p every time I turn the key in the ignition of my car. All I can think about are the heat, waste, and fumes I generate.

I wouldn't mind paying for solar panels on my roof one bit. It's the only logical solution, really. Free energy, cooking the planet day after day ready to be harvested.

Thank you!

[thejen12]

I read an article which stated that the electric Rav 4 had a 90 mile range and took 8 hours to fully charge. If true, that and the price would certainly limit its appeal to the masses.
Close to true, they go about 120 miles. It's certainly not a do-everything car, for example, you're not going to drive 250 miles to get to your vacation house. ;) But it's a five-seater, so it works for families on a daily basis. I forget the exact figure, but the average American commutes something under 30 miles r/t, and I doubt most people would drive around another 90 miles on a daily basis. Plug it in at night and you're full again the next morning.

Also, I think some people forget about "opportunity" charging. Taking 8 hours to charge from empty to full, doesn't mean that every time you plug it in you have to wait 8 hours. That's only if you're empty and you need to go 120 more miles. But there are electric car charging stations all over CA, and there would be more if there were more electric cars (Tesla is working with the government on that now - I think they got a grant to pursue putting charging stations in all locations of a certain hotel chain). You could go out to dinner and charge while you're dining, or at the movies, or at work, etc. Many Costco stores in CA have electric car charging stations. It's similar to the people who go to the gas station and only put $5-10 worth of gas in their tank. They don't need to go 300 miles right now, they're only going across town.

Jenn

[gdw]

I'm all for alternative fuel sources but the mileage per charge of electric vehicles is a real deal breaker for the one car family especially in the western US. 90-120 miles per charge is adequate for urban use but would not be sufficient for weekend trips, vacations, or even a trip to the ski areas out here in Colorado.

[bshell]

i don't think the electric car is meant to solve everything overnight. in time, with charging stations and such...maybe, but to dismiss it based on vacations and ski trips is pretty defeatist.

it's like hanging on to falsehoods like "needing" SUV's and/or 4 wheel drive vehicles. how often do people (most people) genuinely utilize the space, power, or off road capabilities? it's image and it's fantasy. it's absurd.

have a second long range vehicle (not like most families don't already) or better yet... rent one for that yearly vacation.

Christ, I didn't know that one car families still existed, especially in the west.
I live in Ca and I don't know a single adult over 18 w/o a car.

I'm a 2 car single person. I have a 22 year old full size truck that gets 12-13 mpg that never leaves home unless it's picking up building supplies(not a dream to drive btw). in addition to my errands by bike i think an EV could be the perfect replacement for my current passenger vehicle.

most trips are well withing the range of these electric vehicles.

[Ken Robb]

I must have missed something because I don't see where we were going to generate the aditional electric power for all the electric cars without creating pollution at the generating plant.

If we had the hydroelectric generation of Norway that would be a great source of clean power. I suppose we could do more hydro power some places in the USA but then we are damming wild rivers and impeding salmon spawning, etc. so there are lots of people against that.

Atomic power is clean but there's that resistance to all things atomic.

Windmill farms are being resisted in California because birds can be killed by the rotating blades. Oh yeah, and the neighbors thought the windmills ruined their views. Too bad because I really thought that technology was a winner-almost free generation and infinitely renewable. Heck if we could get the presidential candidates' debates in front of a windmill farm we could power lots of cars with the extra power generated.

We have a lot of coal but I don't see a lot of supporters of electric vehicles begging for a coal-fired electric plant in there own backyards so where do we get the clean energy we seek?

Hydrogen cells look promising but they are pretty far in the future. BMW is doing a lot of good R+D on that technology.

I drove an EV-1 and was impressed with the instant-torque power delivery but the limited range killed it for me. Even if I had a 30 mile commute and places to plug in at home and work I would never be comfortable knowing I couldn't exceed that in a minor emergency without waiting for several hours for a recharge.

[RPS]

.....snipped......Hydrogen cells look promising but they are pretty far in the future. BMW is doing a lot of good R+D on that technology. ...snippedAgreed. But like electricity, where does hydrogen fuel come from?

[JohnS]

Ken, there you go, injecting common sense into this debate. :D

[RPS]

Jenn, I’m not questioning your motives or judgment; and apologize if that’s the way I came across. In fact, I admire that you are a pioneer in the field.

I know I can be too direct; particularly about technical subjects I’m passionate about. To be clear, I studied engineering at a major university during the time our mechanical engineering department (and a few students on their own) built various electric and hybrid cars and buses; so I have some fondness for electric cars. I’ve even thought about a conversion myself.

Based on my experience most people who try to use batteries to store a large quantity of energy get discouraged and end up giving up because weight and/or cost penalties are usually so high that they become insurmountable deal breakers. Even in smaller applications like battery-powered lawn mowers and weed-whackers they don’t compete well for most of us. I tried a weed-whacker and had to return it.

Just this week I tried to size an inverter/battery system to run a very small air conditioner on a micro-RV I’ve been working on for light camping, and realized that it will take four 50-pound batteries (well over 200 pounds total) to run the AC for just 2 hours. The other option is to buy a Honda generator that weighs 46 pounds and will run the AC for 12 hours on a single small tank of gasoline – and with a lower total cost.

My point remains that short of a major breakthrough, storing energy in batteries will remain too expensive and/or heavy to compete with the internal combustion engine. And if the incremental electrical energy comes from coal, it won’t be too environmentally friendly either.

[gdw]

I'm not being a defeatist but simply pointing out a drawback with the technology which played a major role in the electric Rav 4's demise. Alternative fuel vehicles need to be practical in order to sell. The average driver isn't willing to purchase a $40,000 special purpose feel good car which can just be used around town. Electric cars need to get much better mileage per charge if they are to compete with hybrids, biofuel, and gas powered competitors.

[Ken Robb]

Ken, there you go, injecting common sense into this debate. :D
that's always been a problem for me. I wish there was an easy answer.

[William]

http://www.atspringhill.co.uk/lizridingrosie1.jpg
Keno approved.

[alancw3]

There were suitable batteries then, and there are now. My neighbor had one of those cars, it had at least 100 mile range. Since he lived less than 50 miles from work, he was able to drive it daily. My husband I drove an electric Ford for 9 months, before they took that away and sent it back to Norway (it was here on a limited-time demonstration program). They were going to crush the Fords, but there was huge demand for them in Norway. Funny that Toyota says they cannot find/make/engineer a suitable battery for a BEV (battery electric vehicle), because there are about 600 all-electric RAV4s out on the road today. They only made that many because they ran out of the RAV4 bodies they had earmarked for the EV version. Many of these RAV4s have gone over 100,000 miles on the same battery pack with little degradation. When these come up on the used market today, they sell for more than the original $42,000 selling price.

As for my own experience with driving an electric car, I'd have to say that once you've done it, there's no going back. That's why I got an electric scooter (EVT 4000e) for my commute, for the days when I don't ride my bike 12 miles each way to work. I couldn't imagine going back to driving a gasoline car on a regular basis. Someday it's going to seem ridiculous that people actually drove to a gas station and pumped that filthy stuff into their cars, instead of just plugging in at home. And, yes, I have solar panels on my roof and generate more electricity than I use. I also signed up for the city's Green Power offering, just in case.

There are thousands of people driving electric vehicles in the US on a daily basis right now, between the RAV4s, conversions, Xebras, NEVs, and others. (Saab, you are nowhere close to being "more of a proponent of this stuff than anyone." There are real proponents out there doing it, not just talking about it and bemoaning that it can't be done. Check out www.pluginamerica.org or www.electricdrive.org for just a beginning. If you're in the US, you can join your local EVA, Electric Vehicle Association, or EAA, Electric Automobile Association, and they probably have similar organizations in other countries as well.)

As for the car companies building what people want, I think the car companies, to some degree, build what they want and advertise the heck out of it. If I could put the advertising budget of the Ford Explorer into advertising an electric car, I bet a lot more people would want one, too. The real stickler is that there is a lot less on-going maintenance in an electric car and that spells less profit for the car companies and dealers.

Okay, sorry to get carried away - yes, I'm passionate about driving electric!

Jenn
great post jen!!!! i couldn't have said it better!!!! after watching this documentry movie i realize how much big business tries to influence us in our daily decisions. and yes after watching this movie i too am passionate about driving electric!!!! gm just lost out on my ever buying one of their cars!

[alancw3]

i am not saying that electric is for everyone or even the solution to the problem, but it can be an alternative for those that drive within the current range. what bothers me is that "big business" has tried influenced and politically lobbied society for their best interest and not societies best interest! come on people!! wake up! oh watch the film!!!!! ps. i am surprised that the government did not have this film squashed!!! again money, money, money, big business and politics!!!!!

[Dekonick]

Atomic power is clean but there's that resistance to all things atomic.




So sad. So true.

Nuclear power is probably the best answer we have NOW. The waste isn't that big of a deal as water is the best container and insulator for it. Where the plates meet at the bottom of the ocean, you can actually let mother earth bury the waste and drag it to the core. There it can decay in peace and be rendered harmless until it surfaces at a MUCH MUCH later time.

Before any electric car can really make sense, we first need to upgrade our grid - including power production. We use alot of energy - the solutions are here but the general public is afraid of what is probably our best answer. Until some genius a la Steven Hawking can solve the fusion problem or figure out where to get large quantities of anti-matter, fission seems the only real solution for today. We may not like it, but it is the truth.

[gdw]

A quick reminder.....the movie presents one side of the issue. Do some research before joining the crusade.

[RPS]

A quick reminder.....the movie presents one side of the issue. Do some research before joining the crusade.Good point; so I did a little research. Here are two quotes from proponents:

“Even if a NiMH pack costs $25000, and even if it only lasts 200,000 miles, that's only 12.5 cents per mile; and for those with solar systems, the electric "fuel" is free of further cost. In a pure EV or a serial plug-in hybrid, you can normally drive "oil-free". It's this possibility that seems to bother oil execs.”

The cost of NiMH battery replacement alone is at least the equivalent of $4.00 gas in a Civic or Corolla. Of course, I’d have to add the capital cost of the solar system to get “free” electric fuel, but who is counting?

"The lithium batteries in the plug-in prius cost something like $14,000 for 9 kWh, about six times the equivalent cost of NiMH, and even more expensive when you consider that NiMH last longer than the life of the car -- even a Toyota car -- while the lithium batteries are untried and unproven."

Ouch. Six times more expensive than 12.5 cents per mile? And just for battery replacement? :rolleyes:

The point that is constantly misrepresented by advocates is that the range of electric cars is highly dependent on speed. They will state that a car can go up to 80 MPH and with a range of up to 100 miles; but they won’t clarify that these can’t happen simultaneously. If driven at highway speed, most all electric cars will fall way short of this range. Only by driving at a steady 30 MPH or so under test conditions will often-quoted range be achieved. And that’s not the real world.

[thejen12]

Jenn, I’m not questioning your motives or judgment; and apologize if that’s the way I came across.
No offense taken! Just an exchange of ideas. I just want to let people know that electric cars are a viable solution. Of course, not for everybody, at least not yet, but there are many, many cars on the market that would not work for a single-car family that likes to travel on the weekends - take any two-seater, for example.

It seems like a lot of people diss the electric car because it can't meet every need of every person, and therefore they say it can't have a place in the market. I disagree! There are all sorts of thriving niche markets in the auto industry, including lots of cars that cost over $50,000. Those cars aren't "available" to the masses, but they're still out there.

Jenn

[RPS]

I agree Jenn; for niche markets it’s viable. I would drive an electric city car like the original Sebring with a range of only 30 miles or less if the cost was right – but only as a third vehicle.

What I can’t buy into is the premise of the movie – that GM and Toyota are in cahoots with big oil to screw us all. It doesn’t make sense. Why wouldn’t GM build a 100 MPG car if there was a demand for it since they are not tied directly to the oil companies? Or an electric if it was profitable?

If the EV1 with its excellent aerodynamics and light weight had been produced with a conventional small diesel like the one in the Smart car, it would have a highway rating of about 100 MPG; or a fuel cost of about $0.03 per mile at $3.00/gallon – far less than the equivalent electric car.

However, the problem from my perspective is that if GM produces such a car, consumers will immediately say that at 100 MPG fuel consumption is so insignificant that they’d prefer to replace the skinny high-pressure tires with something a little wider for better grip. And if mileage dropped to say 95 MPG, so what?

Then someone would say that the cost advantage of magnesium alloy wheels and seat frames can’t be justified because aluminum is plenty light. The payback for those rims and seats is just not there when fuel economy is so great.

Then the aluminum frame would be questioned for the same reason – way too expensive to lighten a car that gets such great mileage. And finally, many would ask for a back seat and a larger trunk, along with far more crash protection. And let’s not forget a spare tire.

By the time GM made all the necessary changes to a $50,000 EV1 so that people will buy it in volume, we’d have a $15,000 Civic or Corolla that gets “only” 40 highway MPG. And even then how many would actually buy it when gas is only $3.00 a gallon?

I'm just saying that is why free markets work best. We decide what we want by voting with our wallets.

[Karin Kirk]

Nuclear power is probably the best answer we have NOW. The waste isn't that big of a deal as water is the best container and insulator for it. Where the plates meet at the bottom of the ocean, you can actually let mother earth bury the waste and drag it to the core. There it can decay in peace and be rendered harmless until it surfaces at a MUCH MUCH later time.


Oh dear, that's a bad idea for nuclear waste disposal. (No offense meant, Dekonick! :))

If you were to put nuclear waste in a subduction zone (the place at the bottom of the ocean where one plate slides beneath another - I think this is what you are referring to), the first thing that would happen is that the vessels containing the waste would break open due to being crunched in an earthquake. Then the waste would be freely exposed to ocean water, and that's not a good thing.

The process wherein material gets 'dragged' to the mantle (not the core) is slow and episodic. So the waste would sit there for who knows how long, until there's an earthquake when the plates move. I can't think of any engineering solution that could come up with a container strong enough to be swallowed up in a fault zone without breaking.

I think nuclear waste is a major problem. I'm not saying we shouldn't use nuclear energy, but it's not accurate to dismiss the problem of waste disposal.

[thejen12]

Nuclear power is probably the best answer we have NOW.
Actually, the best answer we have NOW is the power plants we're already running. A power plant is a huge thing and can't be switched on and off like a light switch. Tons of electricity goes to waste at night because there is no use for it. Since electric cars are primarily meant to be recharged in the garage at night, they actually help even out the demand at the power plants, allowing them to charge for the electricity they usually throw away.

It's not like GM is going to come out with an electric car tomorrow and every American home will have one in the driveway the day after tomorrow, suddenly putting a huge strain on the power grid.

Adoption of electric cars will be a very gradual process, giving lots of time to address the change. For example, refining oil into gasoline is a HUGE use of electricity. If we need less gasoline, we'll free up that electricity. Also, more and more people are putting solar panels on their homes (new communities are even being built where all the homes have solar panels). When I put my panels in six years ago, I had three installation companies to choose from. Now, it seems like I see a different installer's truck every day with company names that I never heard of - solar installers are all over the place.

Furthermore, conservation can help. We replaced two old refrigerators in our home with one new one and saved enough electricity on a daily basis to cover the electric car we drove. Switch your lightbulbs to CFLs, dry your clothes on a clothesline... there are lots of things you can do.

Jenn

[thejen12]

thejen12,

I'm so happy that you added those links. I just started thinking about carving up an old car for conversion a few months ago but had only found one book on the subject which looked pretty dated. I have a lot of good reading/investigating to do now.

Thank you!
Glad I could help! :) You would get a LOT of help from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List email list - there are many experienced converters on that list, freely giving out information, help, suggestions, etc. I can't quite remember how to subscribe, but try these two email addresses: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu and/or owner-ev@listproc.sjsu.edu.

Good luck! Jenn

[Dekonick]

Oh dear, that's a bad idea for nuclear waste disposal. (No offense meant, Dekonick! :))

If you were to put nuclear waste in a subduction zone (the place at the bottom of the ocean where one plate slides beneath another - I think this is what you are referring to), the first thing that would happen is that the vessels containing the waste would break open due to being crunched in an earthquake. Then the waste would be freely exposed to ocean water, and that's not a good thing.

The process wherein material gets 'dragged' to the mantle (not the core) is slow and episodic. So the waste would sit there for who knows how long, until there's an earthquake when the plates move. I can't think of any engineering solution that could come up with a container strong enough to be swallowed up in a fault zone without breaking.

I think nuclear waste is a major problem. I'm not saying we shouldn't use nuclear energy, but it's not accurate to dismiss the problem of waste disposal.


No offense taken! Yes - what I meant was using a subduction zone, and the core was an exageration. My point is that the 'waste' is insulated, heavier than water, and can be safely stored that way. There are and always have been radioactive elements in nature - no one is worried about them. Properly contained (I would imagine in something like glass beads - but I will leave that to the engineers out there) waste, while not pleasant, is far better than the polution from present non-nuclear energy production. (except wind, geothermal, and hydro-electric - but that totals to a pittance of production or need) There is no easy 100% clean answer, but the nuclear option is the best we have TODAY. If you go to a nuclear facility today, the waste is stored in pools of water no more than ~100 feet deep. A zone in the ocean could be chosen and used as 'the waste depot' - insulated by vast quantities of water, slowly burried. If the waste is heavier than water (last time I looked radioactive elements are awfully heavy thus will stay at the bottom) it stays there - the only risk is Godzilla or Slithis......

Good point on the non use of generated power at night - thats how Belgium lights its highways - using nuclear power generated but unused.

Anyway - hopefully someone will figure out fusion, but until then we are in a bind - and I like the nuclear option better than coal, oil, snake-oil, etc...

[RPS]

Nuclear power is probably the best answer we have NOW. Other than coal -- which is politically dead -- it is probably the ONLY solution to support growth.

If I had to bet, short term I'd put my money on some form of reprocessing of the spent fuel, like the French do. It has its problems, but in time I trust scientists and engineers can solve them so we could reduce the amount of waste by a significant amount.

[RPS]

Actually, the best answer we have NOW is the power plants we're already running.Aren't power plants in California already over the edge? What about normal population and usage growth? :argue:

Charging at night is definitely a good idea. Some have even proposed that sophisticated future electric cars could be used to store off-peak power and return it to the grid during very high demand -- like 1:00 to 6:00 PM when air conditioning loads are very high in summer.

[JohnS]

[QUOTE=RPS]Aren't power plants in California already over the edge? What about normal population and usage growth? :argue:

QUOTE]
I believe that most "Californian" utilities are now building their plants in NV and UT. Californians want their power, but don't want the pollution so they build their plants downwind...

[Grant McLean]

I must have missed something because I don't see where we were going to generate the aditional electric power for all the electric cars without creating pollution at the generating plant.

If we had the hydroelectric generation of Norway that would be a great source of clean power. I suppose we could do more hydro power some places in the USA but then we are damming wild rivers and impeding salmon spawning, etc. so there are lots of people against that.

Atomic power is clean but there's that resistance to all things atomic.

Windmill farms are being resisted in California because birds can be killed by the rotating blades. Oh yeah, and the neighbors thought the windmills ruined their views. Too bad because I really thought that technology was a winner-almost free generation and infinitely renewable. Heck if we could get the presidential candidates' debates in front of a windmill farm we could power lots of cars with the extra power generated.

We have a lot of coal but I don't see a lot of supporters of electric vehicles begging for a coal-fired electric plant in there own backyards so where do we get the clean energy we seek?

Hydrogen cells look promising but they are pretty far in the future. BMW is doing a lot of good R+D on that technology.

I drove an EV-1 and was impressed with the instant-torque power delivery but the limited range killed it for me. Even if I had a 30 mile commute and places to plug in at home and work I would never be comfortable knowing I couldn't exceed that in a minor emergency without waiting for several hours for a recharge.

Electric power generation is a big concern. (more power warnings in Toronto today...)

Part of the reason why gas is a great power source is the ability to store it.

Burning coal is how a lot of that "clean" electric power gets generated in
North America. Anyone thinking of a summer vacation visit to an open strip mine?
It looks like the cows are having so much fun in the drawings!

http://www.coal.ca/content/images/stories/stripmine.htm


g

[Dekonick]

Moo.

[Karin Kirk]

No offense taken! Yes - what I meant was using a subduction zone, and the core was an exageration. My point is that the 'waste' is insulated, heavier than water, and can be safely stored that way. There are and always have been radioactive elements in nature - no one is worried about them. Properly contained (I would imagine in something like glass beads - but I will leave that to the engineers out there) waste, while not pleasant, is far better than the polution from present non-nuclear energy production. (except wind, geothermal, and hydro-electric - but that totals to a pittance of production or need) There is no easy 100% clean answer, but the nuclear option is the best we have TODAY. If you go to a nuclear facility today, the waste is stored in pools of water no more than ~100 feet deep. A zone in the ocean could be chosen and used as 'the waste depot' - insulated by vast quantities of water, slowly burried. If the waste is heavier than water (last time I looked radioactive elements are awfully heavy thus will stay at the bottom) it stays there - the only risk is Godzilla or Slithis......


The reason today's US nuclear waste is stored in pools of water at each power plant is not because that's the best way to store it. The real reason is that there is no good or permanent option so the water pools were created until a "real" solution is found. We totally put the cart before the horse with nuclear power, enjoying the energy use without planning for or paying for the whole cost of the energy. Imagine what that energy would cost if we factored in the waste disposal!

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the use of nuclear power - just trying to clarify the waste issue.

On the ocean floor idea, I still gotta disagree that mixing radioactive waste with ocean water is an OK thing. The basic concept in waste disposal is to keep the stuff in one place where it can't migrate or mix with other materials and cause harm. Water is the ideal medium for spreading waste around. That's why the two most promising sites for US nuclear waste disposal share one thing in common. They're dry.

Yes, there are radioactive isotopes in nature. But of course people are worried about them, as we should be. That's why every home needs to be tested for radon, that's why no subdivisions are built near uranium mines, and that's why we take all kinds of measures to protect ourselves from all kinds of radiation.

Sorry if I'm coming off to strongly here! I don't mean to sound that way. It's great to be able to have such interesting and varied discussions here, and I'm enjoying the discourse. :)

[Buzz]

Several years ago we shared office space with engineers of an alternative fuel car consortium / public interest group in the Bay Area. Per the engineers the bottom line is that electric powered vehicles are not the answer. Basically, electric power has to be generated in a plant, in fact, A LOT of power plants. Which are currently not in existence. These power plants dump pollution into the atmosphere just like cars. Add in more power transmission lines, etc and you have so many other problems. And then there are the batteries. What do you do with hundred of millions of pounds of batteries and their toxic contents when they are no longer good?

They said that fuel cell technology was the best alternative...however many years down the road.

[Grant McLean]

Several years ago we shared office space with engineers of an alternative fuel car consortium / public interest group in the Bay Area. Per the engineers the bottom line is that electric powered vehicles are not the answer. Basically, electric power has to be generated in a plant, in fact, A LOT of power plants. Which are currently not in existence. These power plants dump pollution into the atmosphere just like cars. Add in more power transmission lines, etc and you have so many other problems. And then there are the batteries. What do you do with hundred of millions of pounds of batteries and their toxic contents when they are no longer good?

They said that fuel cell technology was the best alternative...however many years down the road.

Actually, the bicycle is a pretty great alternative right now!

:)

g

[RPS]

Several years ago we shared office space with engineers of an alternative fuel car consortium / public interest group in the Bay Area. Per the engineers the bottom line is that electric powered vehicles are not the answer. Basically, electric power has to be generated in a plant, in fact, A LOT of power plants. Which are currently not in existence. These power plants dump pollution into the atmosphere just like cars. Add in more power transmission lines, etc and you have so many other problems. And then there are the batteries. What do you do with hundred of millions of pounds of batteries and their toxic contents when they are no longer good?

They said that fuel cell technology was the best alternative...however many years down the road.+1

Furthermore, we are turning a problem of needed efficiency into one of competing technologies; which is drawing attention away from the real problem.

Although I don’t normally support government interference in most things, I’m glad to see that fuel economy is finally being addressed seriously because it affects national security. To me fuel efficiency is the middle ground that is far more effective, easier to implement quickly, and most importantly affordable.

First we need to stop the well-intentioned safety Nazis from killing all efforts to drive small cars. Let’s get the Smart and others like them here immediately; and then work towards making modern versions of BMW’s Izetta microcars available for those who only need to drive a few miles to run errands, or who prefer to commute solo.

We should ask why electric microcars are street legal in many communities and not gasoline ones? Does that promote efficiency? We need a level playing field.

Let’s promote efficiency regardless of its shape. Why not open HOV lanes to microcars as we do motorcycles? What about preferred parking at the local mall or shopping center for 50+ MPG? Maybe some of the drivers who circle for 10 minutes to save walking 100 feet will switch.

Short term (10 to 20 years) we can do a lot better with existing proven technologies. Probably even longer.

[Archibald]

Just this week I tried to size an inverter/battery system to run a very small air conditioner on a micro-RV I’ve been working on for light camping, and realized that it will take four 50-pound batteries (well over 200 pounds total) to run the AC for just 2 hours. The other option is to buy a Honda generator that weighs 46 pounds and will run the AC for 12 hours on a single small tank of gasoline – and with a lower total cost.
You're going "light camping" and you need air conditioning?

That's the perfect example of the energy intensive, overindulgent, demands of our current culture. :crap:

[JohnS]

You're going "light camping" and you need air conditioning?

:crap:"Heavy camping" is what I do. I throw a "heavy" 40lb pack on my back and disappear in the wood for a few days... :D

[97CSI]

The electric car by itself is not a panacea. There needs to be a quantum shift in everyone's thinking for it to take place.

The technology is simply not there to make them what people want from a vehicle.Don't argue that we need the 'paradigm shift' in thinking (out of our cars and on our bikes, properly subsidised mass transit (train/bus/trolley) instead of auto/plane, etc.). But, if the technology were not there then the thriving cottage industry of converting today's hybrids to full electric would not be growing so quickly.

[gdw]

Electric cars are the 650B of powered transportation.

[RPS]

You're going "light camping" and you need air conditioning?

That's the perfect example of the energy intensive, overindulgent, demands of our current culture. :crap:Archibald, you know all about relativity, don't you?

Like relative humidity in southeast Texas, or along the gulf coast?

Or the relative improvement of going from 8 MPG to 16 MPG?

Indulgence is all relative, isn't it? Is it any worse than flying to Europe in an airplane? Or to air condition our homes? :rolleyes:


P.S. -- My camper's AC is only 1/12 the size of that of my home's. Isn't that saving a lot? If I stay home I use much more.

[RPS]

But, if the technology were not there then the thriving cottage industry of converting today's hybrids to full electric would not be growing so quickly.Could this be in part because hybrids haven't delivered what their buyers expected? If it is not cost effective, it may not matter to the very rich looking for a toy, but the auto makers know that there will not be a market for them.

Again, we should differentiate between available technology and affordable technology. We can send people into space, but it's not affordable as transportation. I'm glad and support that some are spending their own funds to advance the technology, but don't agree that it should be forced on us as mandated by California.

[Ahneida Ride]

While $3 per gallon seems very expensive
I still flinch at a $50 fill-up but not as much as the thought of a $10 movie.

gas is 3 frn a gallon or in real Dollars gas about 18 cents / gallon
half the 1970 price. gas will hit 6 frn / gallon

Problem is, we have frns, not dollars and we being diluted alive.
frnacation is the process of creating frns outa thin air to feed gov. debt
too much water in the sports drink ....

frn = fed reserve note. irredeemable notes issued by a private corporation.
frn = private corporation shopping coupon.

Since 1913, the frn has lost 98% of it's purchasing power.

frnacation is the best form of slavery every devised by mankind.
Few know how it works. They just know that can't buy as much as they once did, even though they have more frn.

[alancw3]

hey guys thanks for all the responds. i am not saying that electric is or isn't the solution but that we all need to keep an open mind and not be influenced by the pr of the "vested interests". watch the movie!!!! that was my original intent of this post! what i hope to accomplish here is that you all get to think about how the auto companies have looked out for their best interests!!!!!

[RPS]

....snipped.... what i hope to accomplish here is that you all get to think about how the auto companies have looked out for their best interests!!!!!You make it sound like that’s a bad thing. Is it any different than Serotta looking out for its own best interest? Of course not – if they didn’t they’d go out of business. Why aren’t we upset that Serotta doesn’t make an electric-assisted bike? Isn’t it essentially the same?

Anyway, you need not fret over the future of electric cars. According to the Chronicle, Nancy Pelosi said that “when it comes to energy, we must think big”; so “House Democrats rolled out an energy package that aims to promote greater conservation and use of alternate energy sources but steers clear of raising fuel mileage requirements for cars and trucks.”

Apparently they are going after energy efficiency standards for dishwashers, refrigerators, and other appliances; efficient lighting; more E-85 pumps; and tax incentives for plug-in hybrid cars. I’d have to assume electric cars would be included somewhere.

“While championing energy conservation, House Democrats didn’t wade into the politically treacherous waters of raising fuel mileage standards for cars and light trucks”.

Apparently they caved under pressure from Rep John Dingell, D-Mich., the powerful chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

[Ken Robb]

love that e-85--not! Whatever effect it might have on gas prices or usage it certainly does raise the price of food. All the corn that goes into it can't be fed to livestock, makle the corn syrup that is used in so many foods, or let me eat buttered corn-on-the-cob. Heck even the price of tortillas is up in Mexico and that's really tough on the poor folks there. Not everyone has to drive but we all have to eat, even those who can't afford to drive, so why should we embrace this idea? Oh yeah, congressmen from corn-growing states like it. We don't have e-85 in my area but didn't I read that it contains way less energy per gallon so power and mileage decrease and the pump price is the same or greater than gasoline?

[Karin Kirk]

To me the killer for ethanol is that it takes more energy to produce it than you get from burning it. So it's not an energy source. End of story! I have no idea why it's being pursued, aside from the feel-good notion of it and the corn-state politicians pushing for it.

[Dekonick]

The reason today's US nuclear waste is stored in pools of water at each power plant is not because that's the best way to store it. The real reason is that there is no good or permanent option so the water pools were created until a "real" solution is found. We totally put the cart before the horse with nuclear power, enjoying the energy use without planning for or paying for the whole cost of the energy. Imagine what that energy would cost if we factored in the waste disposal!

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the use of nuclear power - just trying to clarify the waste issue.

On the ocean floor idea, I still gotta disagree that mixing radioactive waste with ocean water is an OK thing. The basic concept in waste disposal is to keep the stuff in one place where it can't migrate or mix with other materials and cause harm. Water is the ideal medium for spreading waste around. That's why the two most promising sites for US nuclear waste disposal share one thing in common. They're dry.

Yes, there are radioactive isotopes in nature. But of course people are worried about them, as we should be. That's why every home needs to be tested for radon, that's why no subdivisions are built near uranium mines, and that's why we take all kinds of measures to protect ourselves from all kinds of radiation.

Sorry if I'm coming off to strongly here! I don't mean to sound that way. It's great to be able to have such interesting and varied discussions here, and I'm enjoying the discourse. :)

Me2!

:)

[Grant McLean]

To me the killer for ethanol is that it takes more energy to produce it than you get from burning it. So it's not an energy source. End of story! I have no idea why it's being pursued, aside from the feel-good notion of it and the corn-state politicians pushing for it.

I agree that ethanol is not an ideal solution, but at least it's not buried underground
in the middle east. There should be a self sufficiency element to any country
that has an energy policy as messed up as the USA. (and Canada too)

g

[RPS]

I have no idea why it's being pursued, aside from the feel-good notion of it and the corn-state politicians pushing for it.Need you say more?

The benefits of a hydrogen economy are not all that clear either:

"Some scientists say that if hydrogen is only extracted from fossil fuels, the environmental impact of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels will outweigh the environmental benefits of a clean-burning energy provider."

"According to John Heywood, director of MIT's Sloan Automotive Lab, "If the hydrogen does not come from renewable sources, then it is simply not worth doing, environmentally or economically."

[Dekonick]

Honest tho - I have several close friends who are engineers and work with power plants. This has been a topic for many debates for probably the last 20 years - and the only solution for future power everyone agrees on is the nuclear solution. The waste containment tanks are that - contaiment tanks until the waste can be dealt with in another matter. The consensus is that the best way to deal with it is first to re-use it (breeder reactors) and then move it for long term storage. 2 common solutions is what the govt proposes (store it in a dark, deep hole) or encase it in glass and dump it in the deep. Believe it or not, most of the radioactive waste today is not from those infernal, dangerous, evil nuclear power plants - but from medical waste. Ill use a favorite saying - the solution to polution is dilution (the haz mat guys live by that rule)

anyway, as far as I know radioactive waste is not water soluble and therefore wont go into solution - it is heavier than water so it should stay down deep (especially if it is encased in glass beads or some other container) - and even the worst stuff is only deadly if you get within 100 feet of it. To me it seems the best solution we have now - I would much prefer fusion (there is more energy contained in one cubic mile of sea water than in all of the fossil fuels ever consumed to date - if someone can just figure out how...fusion would be the best option.)

There is great fear of anything nuclear - unfortunately because people are uneducated about the reality.

:)

BTW - it does sound like you know your stuff... :D

[Grant McLean]

There is great fear of anything nuclear - unfortunately because people are uneducated about the reality.


agreed. but it's hard to discount the fear that was created by Chernobyl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)

Canada was also on the path towards greatly increasing it's own nuclear power
program in the '80s, until it became political suicide to champion nuclear power
after the disaster. Many discussions are ongoing today about Canada's
energy policies. Canada basically abandoned nuclear, as triple cost over runs of the
current nuclear facilities at Darlington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlington_Nuclear_Generating_Station) made it appear
that the economic viability of nuclear power wasn't possible. Only since
oil and gas prices has risen sharply has nuclear power's image bounced
back as the 'savior' of clean energy. Ironically, the high oil prices are
driving Canada's economy now, and making projects like the Alberta oil sands (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/20/60minutes/main1225184.shtml)
(second only to Saudia Arabia's reserve) a better economic investment than nuclear.

g

[Karin Kirk]

I agree that ethanol is not an ideal solution, but at least it's not buried underground
in the middle east. There should be a self sufficiency element to any country
that has an energy policy as messed up as the USA. (and Canada too)

g

No that's just it - in oder to grow the corn, we do use mid-east oil. And then the return on the corn is much less (I think you get back about half of what you put in, but don't quote me on that number) than the oil that's used to grow the corn. We'd be better off just putting the oil into our cars directly.

As for the nuclear waste, Dekonick - I'm not sure about the water solubility of the waste, but you are probably right. You make an excellent point about the dilution factor of the ocean water, too. But even so, I can't imagine the public would go for ocean dumping of nuclear waste. I think the better options are re-processing (even though that has its own set of issues) and then an underground repository like Yucca Mountain. I don't love that idea, but I do think it's our best option at this point.

So Grant, did you know that one way to extract the oil from the oil sands is to inject carbon dioxide? I have seen an interesting proposal to build a coal burning power plant next to the oil sands and then use the CO2 output to help recover the oil. I think that's a decent way to go.

Call me silly, I'm still all for old-fashioned conservation, hybrid cars and further development of renewable energy sources. I know those solutions won't solve our problem completely, but they are all solutions that we have readily available and it could make an appreciable dent in our thirst for energy.

[alancw3]

i am so glad that so many formanites have responded to this post. really everyone has to see this movie. yes, i am sure it is sligthed my those that feel that big business and the government have once again "influenced' society, but i am not sure in this case they are entirely wrong. oh, and i find it interesting what is proprted by the powers to be about the " fuel cell" cars. is this simply another "carrot" to keep the masses quiet? i don't know the answer but it sure makes one think! hopefully that is what this forum is all about "thinking".

[cacatfish]

I am always amazed, upon returning to the USA after travelling, how everything here is so freakin "BIG". Big cars, big trucks, big air-conditioned houses, big people and so on. It's not like what this country needs is some huge dose of new-fangled technology that "may" be tenable in another ten years.....it just needs a dose of common sense: regular old conservation, better fuel conomy in vehicles, better mass transit, more accessible bicycle lanes and more alternative energy development [of the type we already have: solar, geo, wind (we do now have bird-safe windmills)].
You can see this stuff working so well around the world, and it's not ultra-cutting edge, just "common sense practice". Many times the governments madate this, and that is the catalyst. For those who bemoan "government intervention", the governemnt already intervenes in the marketplace quite a lot: large reto-active corporate tax cuts, scaling back clean air act laws, no-bid government contracts, etc. These all have direct impact on the bottom line of corporations as well as corporate and social practices. Hey, why not have the government intervene for betterment of society-at-large once in a while?
As for electric and hydrogen specifically, I remain a little dubious. I remain dubious of any new claim where technology is going to reduce our impact without needing to modify our behaviour in any way. I think the respnsible way forward does involve modifying our behaviour and not sitting on our asses waiting for tech to bail us out: cycle commuting, solar panels, taking the train whatever. Most new technologies that I see are just ways to make power portable (hydrogen) or "cleaner" and quieter (electric) without addressing the fact the the overall energy input is not being reduced considerably (at least not as far as I know).
That's my rant, over and out. Oh, by the way, this is a great forum, I appreciate it lots.
Colin

[Grant McLean]

Call me silly, I'm still all for old-fashioned conservation, hybrid cars and further development of renewable energy sources. I know those solutions won't solve our problem completely, but they are all solutions that we have readily available and it could make an appreciable dent in our thirst for energy.

I hope some bikes are part of the solution too! :)

g

[Karin Kirk]

I hope some bikes are part of the solution too! :)

g

Definitely! I always like the notion that cycling to work solves several cultural problems at once - it helps with obesity, traffic, road rage and with energy use. Now, if only we could figure out how to make this more palatable to the average American. Perhaps cold fusion is more likely! Ha!

BTW, catfish, nice post! I agree! Other cultures seem to make energy conservation look so easy. Hopefully we can learn a thing or two.

[Grant McLean]

Definitely! I always like the notion that cycling to work solves several cultural problems at once - it helps with obesity, traffic, road rage and with energy use. Now, if only we could figure out how to make this more palatable to the average American.

Maybe if Paris Hilton shows up at her next court date on the bicycle,
it will start a new trend. How about Brad and Angelina arriving at the
Oscars on a matching pair of real Hybrids...

g

[barry1021]

Agreed. But like electricity, where does hydrogen fuel come from?

and not as promising as some think. You are still dealing with a very small, volatile molecule. The betting is, maybe for the home, probably not for vehicles and you still have to find an effiecient source of hydrogen other than natural gas.

b21

[barry1021]

No offense taken! Just an exchange of ideas. I just want to let people know that electric cars are a viable solution. Of course, not for everybody, at least not yet, but there are many, many cars on the market that would not work for a single-car family that likes to travel on the weekends - take any two-seater, for example.

It seems like a lot of people diss the electric car because it can't meet every need of every person, and therefore they say it can't have a place in the market. I disagree! There are all sorts of thriving niche markets in the auto industry, including lots of cars that cost over $50,000. Those cars aren't "available" to the masses, but they're still out there.

Jenn

but there would be much more of a positive impact on the environment if cars were properly tuned and tires properly inflated. Niche expensive cars tend to have high margins for the builders too. Probably unpopular to say, but the real gutsy decision which no politician has the cajones to push is to RAISE the gas tax. All this push for alternative cars has been raised several levels simply because oil is now $70 and gas $3. US consumers were SUBSIDIZED by shareholders of energy companies for decades, and now its come home to roost. Hyfrogen is not the answer, electric is not the answer, ethanol is not the answer--people are so negative on present technologies but like it or not they offer the best opportunity for change NOW.

b21

[barry1021]

To me the killer for ethanol is that it takes more energy to produce it than you get from burning it. So it's not an energy source. End of story! I have no idea why it's being pursued, aside from the feel-good notion of it and the corn-state politicians pushing for it.

Ethanol from a non food source or sugar cane like the Brazilians use is much more efficient tho-5 to 7 times- and offers some potential. Meanwhile advocates pushing for more corn ethanol use are doing a great disservice, and a lot of money will be misspent.

b21

[barry1021]

I agree that ethanol is not an ideal solution, but at least it's not buried underground
in the middle east. There should be a self sufficiency element to any country
that has an energy policy as messed up as the USA. (and Canada too)

g

has discouraged oil and gas exploration, forcing more import. We have at least 30 trillion cubic feet of clean burning natural gas in Alaska. Where is the environmental push to develop it?? Instead we import it from Trinidad and Qatar?? That makes sense? When was the last time we had an environmental disaster from a natural gas well in the Gulf of Mexico? I have been to Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope, don't care what some extremists say, it is not an issue (drunk captains on a tanker are another inexcusable story). We are much more likely to have an issue with importing gasoline and oil via tanker than producing it in North America. Yet politicians beat up the oil companies continuously for self aggrandizement, and force more spending internationally and more imports.' The whole natural gas issue is a national disgrace!!

b21

[Karin Kirk]

Ethanol from a non food source or sugar cane like the Brazilians use is much more efficient tho-5 to 7 times- and offers some potential. Meanwhile advocates pushing for more corn ethanol use are doing a great disservice, and a lot of money will be misspent.

b21
Interesting, b21. I've only read one article about non-corn ethanol and it said that corn was the most efficient of all of them, and that the sources like switch grass, sunflowers, etc, were even more of a losing equation. But I don't know all that much about it, so I appreciate your comment here.

I'm right there with you on the properly inflated tires and gas tax.
You may enjoy a book called 'Beyond Oil' by Kenneth Deffeyes. It's an informative, scientific look at petroleum and other fuel sources.

[barry1021]

Interesting, b21. I've only read one article about non-corn ethanol and it said that corn was the most efficient of all of them, and that the sources like switch grass, sunflowers, etc, were even more of a losing equation. But I don't know all that much about it, so I appreciate your comment here.

I'm right there with you on the properly inflated tires and gas tax.
You may enjoy a book called 'Beyond Oil' by Kenneth Deffeyes. It's an informative, scientific look at petroleum and other fuel sources.corn should fall, I believe, at the bottom of efficiency, not the top. Quite sure sugar cane is far more efficient. Many other issues with ethanol too tho. It is corrosive and it cannot be shipped in pure form through the US product pipeline system. It absorbs water, which, as many boat owners are finding, is a problem. And it increases the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline which means in the summer, it will violate environmental rules for RVP which has to do with evaporation issues of gasoline. Thanks for the heads up on the book, will do.

B21

[RPS]

.....snipped..... oh, and i find it interesting what is proprted by the powers to be about the " fuel cell" cars. is this simply another "carrot" to keep the masses quiet?......snipped.....Possible, but not likely IMHO. I see it more as a setback or delay due to concerns over greenhouse gases and their affect on global warming, not as a sinister plan to deceive us once again.

From my perspective serious R&D on fuel cells commenced much before there was widespread consensus over the impact of CO2 emissions on global warming, so the rules of the game changed along the way. I think many initially thought we could support an affordable hydrogen economy with fuel produced from plentiful coal reserves as a means to oil independence; but coal isn’t as acceptable today. I doubt politicians intentionally deceived us (not on that anyway) regarding fuel cells. They just didn’t see the bigger picture as often happens.

[RPS]

A recurring theme seems to be that the masses are kept in the dark in order for “them” to take advantage of “us”. But if so, whose fault is that?

Last time I checked “we” Americans hire and fire politicians that work for us, “we” collectively own most American corporations, and “we” walk right past fuel efficient compacts on the way to buy behemoth SUVs. So who are we actually pointing fingers at here, ourselves?

Granted a few powerful individuals can have greater impact than many of us; but to a great extend it’s because we go along with it. Perhaps if more of our citizens showed interest in energy policies and technologies rather than Paris Hilton’s trash on E-Bay we wouldn’t have such a mess.

[cacatfish]

A recurring theme seems to be that the masses are kept in the dark in order for “them” to take advantage of “us”. But if so, whose fault is that?

Last time I checked “we” Americans hire and fire politicians that work for us, “we” collectively own most American corporations, and “we” walk right past fuel efficient compacts on the way to buy behemoth SUVs. So who are we actually pointing fingers at here, ourselves?

Granted a few powerful individuals can have greater impact than many of us; but to a great extend it’s because we go along with it. Perhaps if more of our citizens showed interest in energy policies and technologies rather than Paris Hilton’s trash on E-Bay we wouldn’t have such a mess.

I think the few wealthy and powerful interests would have that disproportionate power, wether we went along with it or not. Money buys influence, it's the same in any country. If we are quietly watching Paris and Brittney, and not making waves, then it's just a little easier for them.

[JohnS]

I think the few wealthy and powerful interests would have that disproportionate power, wether we went along with it or not. Money buys influence, it's the same in any country.
I'm with RPS. Who are these people? Name names...
We are our own worst enemies. Look at the other thread about William's new wheeels. Everyone is suggesting vehicles that might get slightly over 20mph on the highway. Get real, people...

[Karin Kirk]

I'm with RPS. Who are these people? Name names...
We are our own worst enemies. Look at the other thread about William's new wheeels. Everyone is suggesting vehicles that might get slightly over 20mph on the highway. Get real, people...

This goes both ways. Can you name some 30 mpg options for William? Why aren't there better choices in the US? I agree we are largely to blame, but seriously, there are not many choices available for a non-tiny high mpg car right now. We have been putting off a new car purchase for years because there is nothing that meets our criteria. Ironically, our 1999 VW Passat gets 31+ in town but new Passats are much worse, so technology is apparently going backwards here. As a consumer that wants to support green products, I'm miffed that there is nothing to choose from at the moment!

[zap]

snipped

Interesting, b21. I've only read one article about non-corn ethanol and it said that corn was the most efficient of all of them, and that the sources like switch grass, sunflowers, etc, were even more of a losing equation. But I don't know all that much about it, so I appreciate your comment here.



Barry is correct. It's more efficient to produce ethanol from sugar cane.

[Karin Kirk]

Thanks to both of you for that update. I'm glad to hear that sugar cane is more promising than corn. Thanks for correcting me! :)

[cacatfish]

I'm with RPS. Who are these people? Name names...


All you have to do is follow the money, as they say. Look at who throwing millions of dollars into political election coffers: large banks: MBNA, B of A, invetsment houses like Goldman Sachs, Pricewaterhousecooper, and then..well...Enron, At&T, Phillip Morris, large pharmaceutical companies, General Motors, Daimler-Chrysler. Let's see...some of these guys are contributing to both republican and democratic candidates in some races. I dont suppose they expect anything in return.... ;)
Take a look at corporate execs who get to sit on goverment panels, like the Cheney energy task force or administration environmental groups packed with higher-ups from oil and coal companies.
I would say these people have more clout per capita than anyone on this board. Political favoritism and kick-back cronyism are rampant in our political system.
Is it our own fault? Of course, if we are not doing everything in our power to stop it, then we have noone else to blame.
As far as cars, I have also noticed that MPG averages are going down much of the time as makers produce bigger cars with bigger motors and more power. There are still options out there, though for decent mileage.
Supply and demand is a weird thing. To some extent, demand is influenced by advertising as well as well....what is available? In the end, we as the consumers can dictate the supply, but we may not do it until "crisis" time...like $4 a gallon gas.

[RPS]

Why aren't there better choices in the US?We don’t have more choices because they haven’t sold in the past. When manufacturers put 4-cyl engines in many models, they didn’t sell in enough volume. Remember what happened to 4-cyl Mustangs? They were quickly replaced by V-6s and V-8s. The same goes for most all 4-cyl mini-vans and European mid-size sedans. We simply didn’t buy the economy models because gas was too inexpensive relative to the total cost of ownership.

We have been putting off a new car purchase for years because there is nothing that meets our criteria. Ironically, our 1999 VW Passat gets 31+ in town but new Passats are much worse, so technology is apparently going backwards here.The new Honda CR-V gets 23 city and 30 highway, much better than my old one ever did, but is bigger, more powerful, and safer. Some models do advance.

As a consumer that wants to support green products, I'm miffed that there is nothing to choose from at the moment!+1 You are doing exactly what more of us should do – stop buying cars until manufacturers make what we want. I’m kind of like that too -- I want more small RWD fuel efficient options; so I may be waiting a while.


For a given car model, there is nothing easier and more efficient IMHO than to drive slower in combination with a smaller (when gasoline) engine. It’s proven and it doesn’t need 10 to 20 years of R&D – just a few extra seconds from 0 to 60 or up a steep hill.

[JohnS]

I don't think that it's all about cheap gas. Americans want HORSEPOWER. I remember the last time I was in Britain. I saw a BMW 520 Diesel. Think of that--- A midsize Beemer with a 2 litre Diesel. It would never sell here.

[alancw3]

let's hope that the times they are a changing. perhaps this time people are finally changing their attitudes about cars and fuel consumption. i could really see a case for every family having one fossil fuel car and one electric car. an all eclectric plug in with a radius of 60 to 100 miles would seem to me to fit alot of families needs.

[JohnS]

an all eclectric plug in with a radius of 60 to 100 miles would seem to me to fit alot of families needs.
Twice (here and in the thread title) the word "eclectric". Is this a wedding of electric and eclectic? Seems kinda Freudian to me... :confused:

[alancw3]

Twice (here and in the thread title) the word "eclectric". Is this a wedding of electric and eclectic? Seems kinda Freudian to me... :confused:

no, purely a wedding of a few beers after a long ride! the old fingers must get a little sloppy!!!

hey everybody, have a great 4th of july!

[nick0137]

I don't think that it's all about cheap gas. Americans want HORSEPOWER. I remember the last time I was in Britain. I saw a BMW 520 Diesel. Think of that--- A midsize Beemer with a 2 litre Diesel. It would never sell here.

It's got a turbo, 6 speed box, 163bhp and 250 lb/ft of torque. Performance has been described as adequate rather than dynamic. But surely that's good enough for going to the shops......?

[RPS]

no, purely a wedding of a few beers after a long ride! Does fueling a bike on ethanol make it greener? :beer: