Being an engineer I'm sure you could come up with better reasons then I, a lowly math teacher that massive metropolitan use of EVs is well within our future capabilities
I use to drive into Boston a lot…A good public transit system beats EV’s hands down. Boston and NYC are very easy cities to get around in on the subways and busses.
Texases, I wouldn’t go so far as to say EVs are a “non-starter”. I’m optimistic about EVs, and would (admittedly optimistically) guess that 15 years from now EVs will constitute 5% of the vehicles sold.
Interestingly, I read an article by Jay Leno not lling ago wherein he said that before the Model T, most of the vehicles in the cities were electric and charging stations were everywhere. I realize that these were just toys of the rich then, and went short distances and slow speeds, but I still find irony in that.
Personally, I think Tesla is the elite car of the future. Their sportscar and now their Model S have proven that EVs can be made that will satisfy the daily drive needs of most of the public, and I think the inherant robustness of an electric powertrain will prove itself to be and added plus.
I think it is incumbent upon someone, such as you, who complains about a particular problem, to propose a solution or two to the problem.
Anyone can complain about a problem, but few have the initiative and intelligence to propose constructive solutions. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have the initiative and intelligence to propose a constructive solution, and I ask you to please submit your idea(s).
In the past 40 years, we’ve come a long way in cleaning up our tailpipe emissions, and we’ve seen that the American people are against large infrastructure projects, so high speed rail isn’t going to go far unless it is locally funded.
Perhaps I can propose we raise gasoline taxes to the point where the price of a gallon of gas is so high that it reduces demand. The only problem with that idea is that it would put our economy back into a recession.
I guess whatever solution you propose, it is going to have to balance the concerns of both environmentalists and economists. What ya got?
In opposition to the current head of the Department of Energy, I agree with you that raising the cost of gasoline taxes is defintely not the solution.
Hard-hitting video about the problem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH_TaB4B92s
What do you propose as a reasonable solution Yokel? Or are you just here to post propaganda?
If businesses would install charging stations in their parking lots, EVs could become feesable for longer distance commuting. If you have a 70 mile commute one way, and they have charging stations in their lot, you wouldn’t really have too many problems.
Nope, EVs have no significant future at current costs. Only with a major breakthrough in battery costs will sales justify widespread installation of (EXPENSIVE) charging stations.
$30k for a tin can (MiEV) or $60-80k for an Accord equivalent won’t create a market.
Oh, just saw the ‘hard-hitting video’. What a load of BS. As stated above, this flies in the face of facts - car pollution WAY down, asthma up. Huh?
And it’s not just my opinion on EVs, the industry is moving away from them:
http://europe.autonews.com/article/20130208/ANE/302089999/auto-execs-turn-away-from-evs-focus-r-d-on-downsizing-hybrids#axzz2Obgi6FrE
@dagosa - the Scientific American study indicates the majority (55%) of people live in areas where a (MUCH cheaper) hybrid would have equal or lower pollution to an EV:
"In breaking down the United States region by region, the group concluded that 45 percent of Americans live in areas where EVs emit lower levels of greenhouse gases than a conventional 50 mpg vehicle. That puts them ahead of even the most efficient gasoline-powered hybrids.
Another 37 percent of the U.S. population lives in areas where EVs have emissions similar to those of a vehicle with a 41- to 50-mpg rating, such as the popular Toyota Prius.
“This report shows drivers should feel confident that owning an electric vehicle is a good choice for reducing global warming pollution, cutting fuel costs and slashing oil consumption,” said Don Anair, the report’s author and senior engineer for UCS’s Clean Vehicles Program.
“Those in the market for a new car may have been uncertain how the global warming emissions and fuel costs of EVs stack up to gasoline-powered vehicles. Now, drivers can for the first time see just how much driving an electric vehicle in their hometown will lower global warming emissions and save them money on fuel costs,” he said.
Even in parts of the country where coal makes up most of the electricity supply, EVs produce the same amount of greenhouse gases as the best gasoline-powered nonhybrid vehicles that get about 33 mpg."
@texases
Forgive me for repeating this little rant that I always do when we talk about EVs. The scenerio for developing and selling EVs does not exist now as it did not exist when the EV1 and RAV EV from Toyota were first test marketed. The drivers loved them. They are the best thing since sliced bread for commuters in every way that an iCE fails. Both the EV1 and the RAV EV had real world 100 mile range years ago in moderate to warm climates and RAVs are still running at 80% battery capacity many years later and function perfectly.
But, we have an economic culture built around the internal combustion motor and gasoline that will not be surplanted in our life time. It’s that simple. I have relatives who own several dealerships including GM and Toyota. Neither is interest in ever developing an inexpensively competitive EV… Toyota farms theirs out to Teslar. I said a couple of years ago that the Prius plug in with any range you want on battery is was just waiting in stages of dvelopement, to compete with any combination hybrid or EV that GM or anyone else came up with. So the fake EV Volt comes out…Prius plug in with better numbers pops out that same year. As a new competing model comes out…a Prius hybrid with better numbers and half the price will make it irrelavant.
Simply put, EVs have to cost 35k to 40 k for no other reason then to make up for the profit lost in maintenance. It’s that simple and I get that story talking with relatives in the car business.
Don’t hold your breath soon for some marvelous cheap battery technology, not because the can’t do it, but because they already have, years ago. Plan on years of hybrids or very expensive EV’s that won’t sell in any number to be relavant. It’s all about the profit… and jobs…I will never be convinced otherwise. It ain’t about any battery, though I pretend to agree for the sake of arguement. It’s about the economics.
Nonsense, if company X could build cheap EVs, they would. Why would Fisker fail, and Tesla risk failure, and A123 batteries failure, etc., if cheap batteries were readily available.
Given that electric motive force is decidedly “proven technology,” (aside from the battery)…I wonder if it might be more cost-effective to “bring back the third rail” in urban areas. It worked for trolley cars; it’d work for EVs.
Determining a charge for consumption would be an issue, but hardly an insurmountable one. That way, the battery need be only large enough to hadle travel to the nearest third rail, where it would be constantly topped off.
@texases
"nonsense…" I believe there was an EV1 and RAV EV years ago that worked…?
You believe what you want. But, car companies have the capabilities to build cars that are very inexpensive for you get do so only because of the added profits for maintenance and service. Only small companies like Teslar have the incentive to try to make profits on one time sales and must do o with esoteric sports and luxury sedans…Literally EV s are appliances, like refrigerators whose profits for start up and high volume can only be realized with 35k price tags. People who don’t get that car companies are not interested in building appliances but "monthly " profit making products just don’t look at the capitalistic structure of the world around them.
“If cheap batteries were available…” you got it…but batteries are expensive for cars, because they like cars are made to be replaced. They are in the “early exhaust system mode” . Midas and others were devastated by mandates in polution controls that made car companies add exhaust systems that lasted…comparibly for very little price. You do that with EVs , even with improved lead acid batteries and you can have functional commuter cars for under 15 k that are massed produced and fun to drive with 100 mile ranges. Only the auto companies are capable, they are NOT interested. Right now EVs are not long tem profit makers…no one is biting.
I read your article !! You make my case…EVs are not profitable…they are very functional and the batteries and could be no more expensive for them to sub contract then a transmission. Unlike a trans and ice motor, they need no service which means no profit on maintenance which means 35 k price tags…it’s that simple.
http://m.nbcnews.com/business/nissan-slashing-price-leaf-battery-car-1B7972322
This article shows you how contrived battery car prices are.
One of the professors I work with built his own EV with regular lead-acid car batteries. You don’t need to rely on the market to provide you with an EV if you’re willing to build one yourself.
Texases, your points are well made as always. And the article you linked to made some good points about the European maket. But I remain optimistic. I’m hopeful that the cost of storing the energy will come down and that an infrastructure will develop, at least in more populated areas. There is the yet-unknown area also of the long term maintenance costs of the powertrains. They may turn out to be less costly long term than ICE driven powertrains.
I’m optimistic on this issue. Oddly enough, my enthusiasm has absolutely nothing to do with any “global warming”, emissions, or energy independance agenda, but rather because in its current form it’s an emerging technology with, I think, a lot of inherant advantages. Just a few more hurdles to leap…
Maybe we’ll find out in 2014 when Chevron’s patent restricting use of large format NiMH batteries runs out. You know, the battery still in use by the remaining first generation RAV 4 conversions…10 years and 150k miles later with performance range better then any thing made today that does cost an arm or a leg. And that is ten year old technology ! And the Volt has a 40 mile battery and costs 35 k and still needs a motor…the joke is on us.
Cheaper and COMPLETLY recycleable NiMH battery. The cost will come down when those in control of the technology decide, not before. Potentially, the infrastructure hangs on every telephone pole. Electricity is an available commodity for anyone’s convenience, everywhere. This car has been staring us in the face for ten years and yet, we still argue it can’t be done. The new RAv below it, is proof positive they have little intent selling to you and I…for less then 50 to 100k maybe.
http://www.myrav4ev.com/rav4-ev-history
More dangers of car pollution in the news. Just how many ways are cars killing our children?
Autism and Air Pollution: The Link Grows StrongerVolk and colleagues showed that kids with autism were much more likely than kids without the disorder to have been born to mothers living within 1,000 feet of a freeway.
Read more: Autism and Air Pollution: The Link Grows Stronger | TIME.com
Cars Cause Cancer - Yohen you weren’t wanted in this forum several years ago…you’re NOT wanted now.