Electric Cars

[kc3]

When this comes out, I want one haha
http://www.zapworld.com/node/1068

[dragos240]

When this comes out, I want one haha
http://www.zapworld.com/node/1068

For only 1000 bucks? Nice! And it looks really cool too!

[kc3]

Well, I think that's just $1,000 to reserve one :P If that was the case holy hell, yeah it's supposed to be like $35,000

[SuperSonic4]

who holds back the electric car...

Looks nice enough but without specifications I'm reserving my opinion

[kc3]

Well, it includes a few on the right side, just performance though-
Performance Specifications:


0 – 60 mph : 7.8 seconds
Max Speed: 75+ mph
Range: 100+ miles

The Tesla is supposed to be really good, sadly a bit out of my budget haha

[magmon]

Looks pretty cool. A tad off topic, have you heard of the air-cars (http://www.mdi.lu/english/)? I think they could be the future of transportation.

[cb951303]

I can get used to 100 mile range but who would wait 3 hours to recharge a battery?

For this reason, changeable battery cars are the logical choice. First we need battery stations though :) If I'm not mistaken Renault is working on such a car and they are starting to build battery station on some countries with Better Place (http://www.betterplace.com/solution/)

[t0p]

It's a nice looking car. And at $35000 it's priced a little more realistically than the Lotus-built Tesla Roadster (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1047579/Green-machine-The-92-000-electric-sports-car-does-125mph-complete-silence.html). Maybe I'll get me one! ;)

[kc3]

Definitely :D I've heard of the air powered ones, that'd be cool too, I've saw one that used air for up to 35mph than after that started using gas. And as for the charging, you can get solar panels to charge them when parked and if you don't have to drive much during the day you can just charge at night :D

[magmon]

Definitely :D I've heard of the air powered ones, that'd be cool too, I've saw one that used air for up to 35mph than after that started using gas. And as for the charging, you can get solar panels to charge them when parked and if you don't have to drive much during the day you can just charge at night :D

Exactly! I think that is the most simple, yet efficient solution for the situation lol.

[kc3]

Yep and the advantage is that unlike alternative fuels that aren't available everywhere, it's a lot easier to integrate than say, switching all the gas stations to something else

[speedwell68]

With all this talk of electric cars, it makes me think of Sir Clive Sinclair and the C5, people laughed at it's very concept. I personally think the guy was a genius and well ahead of his time.

http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/images/c5onroad.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Sinclair

[MikeTheC]

So, my question is this...

And mind you, I'm a guy who is not particularly passionate about cars in the first place, but...

Who in their right mind would spend $35K on a car that can't go more than 100 miles between charges and top-ends at 75MPH?

[speedwell68]

The actual trouble with electric cars is this. The design and building of the thing would emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than running and maintaining an older car. Also, how is the electricity actuakky generated in the first place?

[MikeTheC]

The actual trouble with electric cars is this. The design and building of the thing would emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than running and maintaining an older car. Also, how is the electricity actuakky generated in the first place?

See, the problem with your logic, speedwell, is that you've actually thought the matter through. You're not supposed to do that. :p

[swoll1980]

Electric cars are for hippies. I can't see any reason to spend $35,000 on a car that can't even get me to my mothers house, which is only 130 miles away. I don't even see how it would save the environment, because as someone else said, were still using dirty fuel, we're just doing it indirectly.

[starcannon]

The Aptera (http://www.aptera.com/index.php) will be out this year, I wish I could afford one.

And Volkswagen created a really cool gas miser car called the VW 1L (http://gas2.org/2008/03/12/the-worlds-most-fuel-efficient-car-285-mpg-not-a-hybrid/), that gets an incredible 285mpg on diesel.

The TRIAC EV (http://gas2.org/2008/05/27/an-electric-car-you-can-buy-today-the-20k-triac-ev/) looks tastey as well.

I think within 5 years there will be a relatively nice assortment of average consumer model EV's and Ultra High MPG cars available. I can't wait till I can have one of my very own.

[MikeTheC]

I think within 5 years there will be a relatively nice assortment of average consumer model EV's and Ultra High MPG cars available. I can't wait till I can have one of my very own.

Most impressive. As the expression goes, "I'm down with that, yo."

Maybe in the future we can also have some American car makers who aren't as dumb and belligerent as a box of rocks. Although, at this point, I'd be willing to settle for Santa Clause being real instead.

[Skripka]

The actual trouble with electric cars is this. The design and building of the thing would emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than running and maintaining an older car. Also, how is the electricity actuakky generated in the first place?

The other problem is we do not have anywhere NEAR enough grid capacity in the US to recarge large numbers of electric vehicles nationwide in the US.

[MikeTheC]

The other problem is we do not have anywhere NEAR enough grid capacity in the US to recarge large numbers of electric vehicles nationwide in the US.

Forget grid capacity, in all seriousness we don't have the outlets to do so! I mean, where are you supposed to go and plug these things in, your house? Come on!

The only state I know which could, in theory, handle this is Alaska, and that's because they have electrical outlets everywhere to power up people's engine and transmission heater systems during winter.

[starcannon]

The actual trouble with electric cars is this. The design and building of the thing would emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than running and maintaining an older car.
Citation please.

Also, how is the electricity actuakky generated in the first place?Waterpower, Coal Power, Wind Power, Solar Power, Nuclear Power to name the largest contributors in random order. If the question is rhetorical, then something to consider is how gasoline is actually produced. For those who insist on continuing to promote archaic petro technology, even that can be made a more viable solution. Gasoline Turbine/Electric hybrids give all the range one could desire, insane mpg in the 100+mpg, though that is based on a 2 seat design. There is also the VW 1L that is getting 285mpg on diesel. We don't have to gluttonously and wantonly just waste our planets resources, and there is no ethical or moral argument to support doing so.

[thisllub]

Electric cars will become common when cost of ownership is demonstrably lower.
The first step to that will be replacable battery packs.
It should take less time to change batteries than to fill with fuel.
These batteries can then be recharged by alternative methods such as solar and wind.
Companies are already gearing up to provide the facility.

[MikeTheC]

That's all fine and well, but I hope they also put in some electrical outlets, because otherwise this whole conversation becomes moot.

[Skripka]

Electric cars will become common when cost of ownership is demonstrably lower.
The first step to that will be replacable battery packs.
It should take less time to change batteries than to fill with fuel.
These batteries can then be recharged by alternative methods such as solar and wind.
Companies are already gearing up to provide the facility.

Get back to me when there are plans to help convert a significant portion of the 110,000 gas stations in the US to being able to deliver some other kind of fuel for some other kind of engine for a car.

[MikeTheC]

Ok, just had another thought about this.

Based on past performance of companies in the transportation sector as well as the fuel sector, I would be willing to bet a month of Sundaes on the batteries and charging systems being locked down with some kind of form of DRM or otherwise DMCA-actionable technology that it will be just as costly -- if not moreso -- than present technology, and it'll only be our government shoehorning us into it that will even cause there to be sales of these things.

They'll make it just like how defeating DRM on DVDs is trivial to do, but illegal and prosecutable and all that crap.

Don't get me wrong, I live on this planet too and like everyone else I want it to be liveable and clean and nice and all the rest. However, all these folks going around thinking that electric cars are the way of the future, just remember that the liberty you think you will have with the "plug it in anywhere" mentality is not likely to be the reality you'll find at the end of this journey.

I mean, do you seriously believe that the whole of the fuel industry is willing to just go along with this and give up the ghost or fall on their swords just because *you* want an electrically-powered car instead of a gasoline-powered one?

[starcannon]

My favorite choice would be hydrogen, it allows for transition period in that motors designed to burn petro can be converted to burn hydro. Fuel delivery systems have already been designed, and current fuel stations could be converted in a transitional way. There are several really great ideas for providing relatively clean and economical sources for the hydrogen; my favorite is the idea of using the technology that http://www.oregonwave.org/ is involved with to turn ocean water into hydrogen using the electricity from the wave generator to power the electrolysis to free hydrogen from water. We have several viable choices that are cleaner, renewable, and would break the worlds dependence on middle eastern fuel supplies, allowing for a planet that won't be fighting over an energy source.

I have high hope that we as a species will finally leave petro in the history books, it was great for its time, but its time has passed, we can do better.

[MikeTheC]

My own personal favorite would be fuel-cell powered cars, with some kind of discrete and highly-protected tankage for oxygen and hydrogen. One could actually kind of do the HHO thing in a sense, but start out with distilled water, baking soda, use that to convert into hydrogen, bleed off the oxygen separately and then recombine them to produce water vapor out the tail pipe.

My guess is that this will be shot down because it's a LOT harder to try to restrict and control water and baking soda than pure straight electricity. However, even sitting here I've just thought up a pretty brain-dead simple way to restrict and control that, too, so...

What we really need is the F/OSS "hacker spirit" out there and then we can build our own cars where the manufacturer's agenda is strictly to sell cars, not to be in cahoots with anyone else. The better and more customer-friendly you make the car, the more successful you'll be.

[Skripka]

My own personal favorite would be fuel-cell powered cars, with some kind of discrete and highly-protected tankage for oxygen and hydrogen. One could actually kind of do the HHO thing in a sense, but start out with distilled water, baking soda, use that to convert into hydrogen, bleed off the oxygen separately and then recombine them to produce water vapor out the tail pipe.

My guess is that this will be shot down because it's a LOT harder to try to restrict and control water and baking soda than pure straight electricity. However, even sitting here I've just thought up a pretty brain-dead simple way to restrict and control that, too, so...

What we really need is the F/OSS "hacker spirit" out there and then we can build our own cars where the manufacturer's agenda is strictly to sell cars, not to be in cahoots with anyone else. The better and more customer-friendly you make the car, the more successful you'll be.

Building cars is easy.


Converting a multi-billion dollar refeuling infrastructure that is entirely geared to delivering petroleum products?

No one has even bothered thinking about it. The infrastructure peeps are waiting for vehicles to make it worthwhile. And the car builders are waiting for infrastructure.

[starcannon]

Building cars is easy.


Converting a multi-billion dollar refeuling infrastructure that is entirely geared to delivering petroleum products?

No one has even bothered thinking about it. The infrastructure peeps are waiting for vehicles to make it worthwhile. And the car builders are waiting for infrastructure.
Norway did it http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/14/first-hydrogen-highway-opened-in-norway/

[MikeTheC]

Actually, that might just give us the room we need to maneuver.

I mean, seriously, why can't we just start designing and building our own cars, and then just let the auto industry and fuel industry sit there and stew and holler-n-complain?

There's people out there with money to invest. We're looking in many countries for good and solid and legitimate ways to revitalize our economies. Well, why not take the reins for ourselves? Hmm?

[swoll1980]

I think we've had the technology forever. I'm sure the big 3 have their thumb on this. When we run out of oil the cars, and infrastructure, will suddenly be ready for everyday use. If you try to accelerate the process they have ways of dealing with you.

[starcannon]

Actually, that might just give us the room we need to maneuver.

I mean, seriously, why can't we just start designing and building our own cars, and then just let the auto industry and fuel industry sit there and stew and holler-n-complain?

There's people out there with money to invest. We're looking in many countries for good and solid and legitimate ways to revitalize our economies. Well, why not take the reins for ourselves? Hmm?
Which is exactly What Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/) and Aptera Motors (http://www.aptera.com/) and many other startup companies are doing.

[Skripka]

Norway did it http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/14/first-hydrogen-highway-opened-in-norway/

That is one stretch of highway 360 miles long, with 12 stops for fuel.

The US has 110,000 stations and gawd knows how many miles of frequently traveled roads.



It is a step. Yes. But is still only a novelty. There have been lots of these since Chrysler made the 1st fuel cell car prototype, about 50 years ago.

[mamamia88]

theres no reason we shouldn't be off of gasoline cars by now. we can put a man on a moon but we can't find a way to create a electric car? it's just pressure by the oil industry that's slowing progress

[MythAaron]

Electric cars will become common when cost of ownership is demonstrably lower.
That is the thing, isn't it? If electric cars were mass produced in the same numbers as gas burning cars they would be cheaper wouldn't they? They just need a battery and a motor. Look at all the millions of dollars of technology thrown at the internal combustion engine just to eek out another percent or two of efficiency. I think alone this tells us something.

The thing is there will be no demand for electric cars until the price is low and the price will not be low until they are mass produced by the thousands per day and that will not happen until there is demand. An electric car must be a 100% drop-in replacement for a gas-powered car, too. 99% is not good enough.

Personally, I think at the dawn of the 22nd century we will still be driving on gasoline and diesel and will continue to do so until the last barrel of oil of squeezed from the ground. Of course when that happens it means the end of plastics, computer chips, paints, non-dairy creamer, and everything else on which modern society depends.

Humans never change their ways until they are forced to change. My youthful optimism has been replaced in recent years by the more realistic George Carlin view of humanity on the world. I can't wait for that comet...

[starcannon]

That is one stretch of highway 360 miles long, with 12 stops for fuel.

The US has 110,000 stations and gawd knows how many miles of frequently traveled roads.



It is a step. Yes. But is still only a novelty. There have been lots of these since Chrysler made the 1st fuel cell car prototype, about 50 years ago.
I remember hearing the same fud about how it would be impossible to switch to unleaded. And here we are today, try to find some leaded regular gasoline at a fuel station here in the U.S.
It is not only possible to switch out fuels, it has been done in the past, is being done now, and will eventually happen, even here in the U.S.
The "all or nothing" approach is not how these things work, it wasn't how unleaded was switched, and its not now Norway is doing it either. 1 new fuel pump per fuel station, thats how it started then, and thats how it should be started now. As more hydrogen burning vehicles hit the roads, more demand will require more pumps, more pumps will be installed; again this is how unleaded made the transition. I highly disagree that Norway is investing in a "novelty", it looks like serious business to me.

[Skripka]

theres no reason we shouldn't be off of gasoline cars by now. we can put a man on a moon but we can't find a way to create a electric car? it's just pressure by the oil industry that's slowing progress

It has been lots of things. The boom and bust nature of the US economy in the last 40-50 years has killed a great many projects. Heck Chrysler spent 30 years trying to make a jet turbine powered car--in 1962 they had a car that could run of kerosene or vegetable oil. It couldn't sell at the time because alternative fuels were laughed at due to the price of cheap gas. That project was (finally) killed in the gas crisis of the 70s-after $150 million had been sunk into it, and Chrysler needed a gov't bailout then.

[Skripka]

I remember hearing the same fud about how it would be impossible to switch to unleaded. And here we are today, try to find some leaded regular gasoline at a fuel station here in the U.S.
It is not only possible to switch out fuels, it has been done in the past, is being done now, and will eventually happen, even here in the U.S.
The "all or nothing" approach is not how these things work, it wasn't how unleaded was switched, and its not now Norway is doing it either. 1 new fuel pump per fuel station, thats how it started then, and thats how it should be started now. As more hydrogen burning vehicles hit the roads, more demand will require more pumps, more pumps will be installed; again this is how unleaded made the transition. I highly disagree that Norway is investing in a "novelty", it looks like serious business to me.

Norway's is a serious venture for them I'd wager. I'd also wager it has high levels of government subsidies and that the fuel-cell cars cost $80,000USD or so too. But I'd wager there are more miles of highway and more gas stations in my rural state alone than in Norway-and they are far more spread apart too.

There's a similar effort underway in California, by Honda I believe, that is a pilot program, IIRC....involving 200 or so vehicles and 40 or so fuel stops spread across dense urban areas.

I am not saying it is impossible-I'm saying it will take a VERY long time to implement on any kind of meaningful scale on this side of the pond. Unleaded and leaded gas are FAR more similar than hydrogen and unleaded gasoline--need this be said?

[kc3]

Well whoever said it was correct that we don't have the power plants to generate enough power HOWEVER, it's still cheaper per mile though more plants would need to be built, after that instead of worrying about infrastructure we just need to worry how to generate the power (which is doable) if we needed to change to a different source of energy, we can change a select few sources and that source generates the electricity for the cars.

[thisllub]

Get back to me when there are plans to help convert a significant portion of the 110,000 gas stations in the US to being able to deliver some other kind of fuel for some other kind of engine for a car.

http://www.betterplace.com/

[gn2]

What's often overlooked are the batteries for rechargeable cars.

How often will they need to be replaced?

How much will they cost?

What's the environmental impact of all the nasty chemicals in them?

[kc3]

Well, that's a really good point :P

[Slug71]

It's a nice looking car. And at $35000 it's priced a little more realistically than the Lotus-built Tesla Roadster (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1047579/Green-machine-The-92-000-electric-sports-car-does-125mph-complete-silence.html). Maybe I'll get me one! ;)

The Tesla Model S is SEXY!! :p

And its half the price of the Roadster.

[Swagman]

I can get used to 100 mile range but who would wait 3 hours to recharge a battery?

For this reason, changeable battery cars are the logical choice. First we need battery stations though :) If I'm not mistaken Renault is working on such a car and they are starting to build battery station on some countries with Better Place (http://www.betterplace.com/solution/)


I think Battery EXCHANGE stations are the way forward. Same as a Calor Gas fire / BBQ etc.

That would be quicker than a Gasoline fill.

[cpetercarter]

In England, at any rate, marginal increases in demand for electricity are met by burning more coal in power stations. In environmental terms, this is a bad thing! Any car which relies on periodic recharging from the mains should more accurately be described as a coal-fired car.

[Swagman]

In England, at any rate, marginal increases in demand for electricity are met by burning more coal in power stations. In environmental terms, this is a bad thing! Any car which relies on periodic recharging from the mains should more accurately be described as a coal-fired car.


Kewl

I ride a Coal Fired Pushbike !!

[HavocXphere]

How much will they cost?
Under most models the car is purchased but the battery packs are loaned.


What's the environmental impact of all the nasty chemicals in them?
The size & cost of the things provide an incentive to recycle.


In England, at any rate, marginal increases in demand for electricity are met by burning more coal in power stations. In environmental terms, this is a bad thing! Any car which relies on periodic recharging from the mains should more accurately be described as a coal-fired car.
Only half true.

It provides a central point to make changes. Replacing technology in 5 million cars is more difficult than replacing tech in 50 power stations.
Provides a central point for filters and potentially carbon sequestration {sp?}.
Compatibility. You say marginal increases are met with coal. True. But they can theoretically be met with say solar/wind/wave/whatever. Powering a petrol engine with wind/whatever is tricky.:biggrin:
Potentially higher efficiency. High temp burn. Supercooled transmission lines. No idling cars. etc
Future tech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor (Not to be confused with fission i.e conventional nuclear power)

[Skripka]

Only half true.

It provides a central point to make changes. Replacing technology in 5 million cars is more difficult than replacing tech in 50 power stations.
Provides a central point for filters and potentially carbon sequestration {sp?}.
Compatibility. You say marginal increases are met with coal. True. But they can theoretically be met with say solar/wind/wave/whatever. Powering a petrol engine with wind/whatever is tricky.:biggrin:
Potentially higher efficiency. High temp burn. Supercooled transmission lines. No idling cars. etc
Future tech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor (Not to be confused with fission i.e conventional nuclear power)


1) It depends on where you live. In the US a new power plant has not been built in nearly 30 years due to regulations. So that would be a YES, replacing 5 million cars is easier than building a power plant.

2) In the US, our electric grid is falling apart and grossly underpowered during the summer....I'd settle fo a well maintained what we have-now...getting super-cooled transmission lines is a relative pipe-dream

3) Even with Fusion you'd still have radioactive waste, as anything inside the reactor containment would be irradiated. And considering that it has been impossible in the US to build a fission plant in the last 30-40 yrs, I wouldn't place any money on when NIMBY would let a fusion plant get built.


Did I mention BTW, that most of the fission plants, which give about 20% or so of US electrical power--are far past their design lifetime and are nearing retirement? That will be 20% of our electrical supply-gone.


The bottom line: TANSTAAFL.

[gn2]

The size & cost of the things <batteries> provide an incentive to recycle.

Has any study been done to compare the level of pollution/toxicity per mile for an electric car or a conventionally fuelled one over it's service life?

It's all very well just saying "recycle" but often the recycling process can cause more pollution than disposal.

[HavocXphere]

1)In the US a new power plant has not been built in nearly 30 years due to regulations. So that would be a YES, replacing 5 million cars is easier than building a power plant.
Are you sure about that 30 year thing? Cause net output has almost doubled.:confused:(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0802a.html).

Regulations are not really a problem imo. Hell one could always build them in Mexico. Or just change the regulations.


getting super-cooled transmission lines is a relative pipe-dream
Right now yes....but its not about now. Who knows whats feasible in 5-10 years time.


Even with Fusion you'd still have radioactive waste
True.


Did I mention BTW, that most of the fission plants, which give about 20% or so of US electrical power--are far past their design lifetime and are nearing retirement? That will be 20% of our electrical supply-gone.
Every major auto manufacturer has a program to build them. Hell, they've even agreed on a standard plug (Actually two. One for 230v and one for 110v). Electric cars are going to happen. Everything else (Grid, power generation) will be forced to adapt.

[Chronon]

3) Even with Fusion you'd still have radioactive waste, as anything inside the reactor containment would be irradiated. And considering that it has been impossible in the US to build a fission plant in the last 30-40 yrs, I wouldn't place any money on when NIMBY would let a fusion plant get built.


Did I mention BTW, that most of the fission plants, which give about 20% or so of US electrical power--are far past their design lifetime and are nearing retirement? That will be 20% of our electrical supply-gone.


The bottom line: TANSTAAFL.

Yes, but it's waste of a very different nature. The half life isn't on the same order of magnitude at all. I certainly don't have the same waste management reservations about fusion that I do about fission.

[Skripka]

Yes, but it's waste of a very different nature. The half life isn't on the same order of magnitude at all. I certainly don't have the same waste management reservations about fusion that I do about fission.

Magnitudes are irrelevant, insofar as PR is concerned. NIMBY is the problem for fission and ALL radiological materials.



Do you remember the media FRENZY over the dreaded RTG units used aboard the Cassini probe? If magnitude were really important, would so many people have lost sleep over it?

People were fine with "fusion" bombs in the 1960s--as they were under the impression there was no fallout. Once it was leaked after the Castle Bravo Test mess, that fusion bombs are really fusion-boosted fission weapons...well...

[Skripka]

Are you sure about that 30 year thing? Cause net output has almost doubled.:confused:(http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0802a.html).

Regulations are not really a problem imo. Hell one could always build them in Mexico. Or just change the regulations.


Right now yes....but its not about now. Who knows whats feasible in 5-10 years time.


You dreadfully underestimate the damage that Ralph Nader has done to attempts to building generators.

At this point in time, I feel quite comfortable saying that I will not see super-cooled transmission lines in my area in my lifetime. I'd LOVE to be wrong--but considering what terrible shape the US electric grid is in I do not see reason to think otherwise.

[cpetercarter]

Under most models the car is purchased but the battery packs are loaned.


The size & cost of the things provide an incentive to recycle.


Only half true.

It provides a central point to make changes. Replacing technology in 5 million cars is more difficult than replacing tech in 50 power stations.
Provides a central point for filters and potentially carbon sequestration {sp?}.
Compatibility. You say marginal increases are met with coal. True. But they can theoretically be met with say solar/wind/wave/whatever. Powering a petrol engine with wind/whatever is tricky.:biggrin:
Potentially higher efficiency. High temp burn. Supercooled transmission lines. No idling cars. etc
Future tech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor (Not to be confused with fission i.e conventional nuclear power)

We are a very long way from a situation where marginal changes in electricity demand are met by running more or fewer renewable generators. A renewable generator has almost no variable costs (costs of fuel etc) and will price to run in almost all circumstances. So - in England at least, more electric cars = more coal burnt in power stations.

[cb951303]

CEO of Better Place talking about electric cars: http://www.ted.org/index.php/talks/shai_agassi_on_electric_cars.html

[ukripper]

Looks pretty cool. A tad off topic, have you heard of the air-cars (http://www.mdi.lu/english/)? I think they could be the future of transportation.

Very ugly look for these vehicles.

[etnlIcarus]

The actual trouble with electric cars is this. The design and building of the thing would emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than running and maintaining an older car.Why has no one facepalm'd this comment?


Ok, just had another thought about this.

Based on past performance of companies in the transportation sector as well as the fuel sector, I would be willing to bet a month of Sundaes on the batteries and charging systems being locked down with some kind of form of DRM or otherwise DMCA-actionable technology that it will be just as costly -- if not moreso -- than present technology, and it'll only be our government shoehorning us into it that will even cause there to be sales of these things.

They'll make it just like how defeating DRM on DVDs is trivial to do, but illegal and prosecutable and all that crap.

Don't get me wrong, I live on this planet too and like everyone else I want it to be liveable and clean and nice and all the rest. However, all these folks going around thinking that electric cars are the way of the future, just remember that the liberty you think you will have with the "plug it in anywhere" mentality is not likely to be the reality you'll find at the end of this journey.This is what I've been saying for years. Electric cars = communism!


My favorite choice would be hydrogen, it allows for transition period in that motors designed to burn petro can be converted to burn hydro. Fuel delivery systems have already been designed, and current fuel stations could be converted in a transitional way. There are several really great ideas for providing relatively clean and economical sources for the hydrogen; my favorite is the idea of using the technology that http://www.oregonwave.org/ is involved with to turn ocean water into hydrogen using the electricity from the wave generator to power the electrolysis to free hydrogen from water. We have several viable choices that are cleaner, renewable, and would break the worlds dependence on middle eastern fuel supplies, allowing for a planet that won't be fighting over an energy source.

I have high hope that we as a species will finally leave petro in the history books, it was great for its time, but its time has passed, we can do better.I like hydrogen in the same way I like fusion: may be a viable option in the future but at the moment, the technology either doesn't exist or, in the case of hydrogen: gives you energy efficiency comparable to that of the petroleum you were trying to get away from to begin with.


theres no reason we shouldn't be off of gasoline cars by now. we can put a man on a moon but we can't find a way to create a electric car? it's just pressure by the oil industry that's slowing progressMost unintentionally ironic post in thread?

(hint: think of the technology that got us to the moon)


I remember hearing the same fud about how it would be impossible to switch to unleaded. And here we are today, try to find some leaded regular gasoline at a fuel station here in the U.S.
It is not only possible to switch out fuels, it has been done in the past, is being done now, and will eventually happen, even here in the U.S.
The "all or nothing" approach is not how these things work, it wasn't how unleaded was switched, and its not now Norway is doing it either. 1 new fuel pump per fuel station, thats how it started then, and thats how it should be started now. As more hydrogen burning vehicles hit the roads, more demand will require more pumps, more pumps will be installed; again this is how unleaded made the transition. I highly disagree that Norway is investing in a "novelty", it looks like serious business to me.I'm actually not sure how to interpret posts by people like Shripka: it's unclear whether he's a pragmatist, a cynic or (less likely) someone just trying to find an excuse to shoot-down proposals he misguidedly finds ideologically objectionable. I don't personally think he falls into that last category but there are many people that do.


In England, at any rate, marginal increases in demand for electricity are met by burning more coal in power stations. In environmental terms, this is a bad thing! Any car which relies on periodic recharging from the mains should more accurately be described as a coal-fired car.This is a real issue in Aust as well. Most of our electricity comes from coal, making plug-in hybrids and electric cars an environmental nightmare before you factor in energy conversion efficiency. It's almost a worse-before-it-gets-better situation: getting enough electric/hybrids on the road to create the impetus necessary for the gov't to pursue policy measures drastic enough to make a significant difference.