Slashdot Mirror

" Doesn't this just shift the burden of pollution and disposal to a different party? The net effect is unchanged. Li-Ion batteries use a lot things that aren't good for the environment and a lot of energy to do so. Someone else is using more energy so you can use less. Net of zero.

Give me a TDI motor any day over this hybrid stuff."

"In a story in the Toronto Star, William Tahil, research director with Meridian International Research asserts that there isn't enough lithium available to mine to support the world's 900 million vehicles."

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/30/beyond-peak-oil-are-we-facing-peak-lithium/

TDI makes way more sense. But that doesn't play as well in the church of green where facts are sometimes optional.

1) There is already enough juice in the grid at night to power 80% of the 220 million cars without any further need for more power plants. (According to the DoE).

2) The average commute for people is far less than 100 miles, which means the only thing you could be missing out on is a truck for hauling or a car for road trip vacations.

Now, the price hasn't been released. If it's under 30K, it's a winner. As the summary said, there's no details on the charge, but as long as I can plug it in at night and it's charged in the morning, it will not only save me gas, but I don't have to bother with filling up.

Thank you for your reply.

You are correct, of course, in an upstanding and legitimate world.

But please consider:
What font do you think Enron used for their Annual Reports? What about AIG?

I know - it's not the fonts fault that it gets used. But like those examples you gave, it lends an air of credibility to whatever it portrays.

Maybe the large bailed-out American companies should be compelled to use some sort of 5-year-old-with-Crayon font for the next 10 years.

Bonus car analogy angle:
A font created with a car - gives a whole new meaning to 'printer driver':
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/07/17/video-toyota-iq-small-car-font-jockey/

Exactly, those that have worked on alternatively powered cars have a portfolio that will allow them to produce such cars. Those who have not are going to be left behind. This is right and proper. The companies include GM and Chrysler. Though it was probably ok to bail out these companies to assist semi-skilled semi-educated employees who would have otherwise been left with little hope of gainful employment, we do have to admit that the technical and management expertise seems so antiquated that there seems little hope that they will be able to compete. And don't complain about the expensive pay to workers. That is why they existed, to allow the semi-skilled high school graduate to enter the middle class. It did not prevent them from better funding appropriate research. A year ago the volt would have been a lifesaver. Now, who is going to buy a car from a company that may not be able to back it up?

Sure. Ridiculous.

Ridiculous, like covering 40% of your average city with ugly, black, heat-island-creating road tar? (Which, btw, could conceivably eliminate your "ugly solar farm" argument entirely)

You don't realize just how much of a city is parking lot until you see it from the air at low altitudes. Google maps helps, but it's just not close because you don't really get the sense of scale. So it's a double-benefit: Parking lots create power, and by putting solar panels above them, keep your car at a comfortable 80-90 instead of an energy-sapping 140.

My point is that this thing has way, way too much acceleration and that as a result, there are gasoline cars that come close to it in terms of ongoing operating costs. The whole point of going electric is to lower your costs, and if it isn't doing that, why not buy a luxury gas-powered car? Give me 0-60 in 7-8 seconds and that's plenty.

And your estimate of the performance of a $10k conversion is likely way off. For the $30,000+ price difference, you can get comparable energy consumption and acceleration by converting a Hummer....

These days fuel cells are not a lot more expensive than batteries.

Simply untrue. Fuel cells are available in small quantities at $10/W and in bulk at as low as $4/W. For a minimal cruising power of ~15kW for a small car, that's $60,000, *plus* the cost of a ~6kWh li-ion battery pack or supercapacitor to buffer your charge (otherwise, you need more like 60kW of fuel cells, at $240k), *plus* the cost of the H2 storage tank. Even the ultra-expensive Tesla Roadster pack is under $20k. There's a reason nobody is selling FCVs today, only offering subsidized leases for them. Only one company is offering an unsubsidized FCV lease: Toyota. Guess how much it costs. Try $7,700 per month. That's not a typo: per *month*.

Remember, to get more range out of a fuel cell, all you need is a bigger tank, to get more range out of batteries, you need more batteries.

Irrelevant unless you're talking of ranges in the upper thousands of miles. The real cost in a FCV is the fuel cell stack.

So an electric car with a 300 mile range is pretty much impossible to build at any price

You mean like the T-Zero, which predates the Tesla Roadster? Or like the upcoming Tesla Model S?

but a hydrogen car with that range is not much more expensive than a hydrogen car with a 1 mile range.

And that 1-mile range hydrogen car costs upper 5 or lower 6 figures for a normal, mundane sedan, and lower 6 figures to mid 6 figures for an SUV. And then factor in that the fuel cells last under 5 five years. Most upcoming EVs have their packs *warrantied* for 10 or so years.

It's just not a competitor. They don't even win in fueling times. The Fuel Cell Equinox takes about 25 minutes to fill; rapid charging EVs can fill in under 10 minutes. The only way to make FCVs competitive with rapid-charge EVs on fueling time is to store the hydrogen at the ridiculous (~5 *tons* per square inch) pressures found in the vehicle, *in bulk at the station*. Which is obscenely dangerous and, not to mention, expensive. Of course, not like there are any relevant number of even *low pressure* stations anywhere around.

That's the problem with rumors, now isn't it?

Not only is the "battery life problem" a complete myth (as was pointed out to you below), but so is the replacement price. It is not "a significant cost of the vehicle". Battery prices for *new* batteries on the Prius are $2,299 for the 2000-2003 model years and $2,588 for the 2004-2008 model years. You can get used ones for under $1k.

We can always produce plastics from other substances, too... like castor oil.

Certainly we can. But at what cost, and on what kind of scale?

The fact that you can do something in the lab, doesn't make it feasible for global adoption.

We can always produce plastics from other substances, too... like castor oil.

What part of "estimates have ranged" are you having trouble with? $30000 $35000 $40000 $45000. Here's my favorite: the price of the Volt will depend on the price of gas.

I think the only bad impression I did get from it was the mileage on the battery. Sure, they were driving the car hard, but the life span didn't seem up to par.

Top Gear admitted that it didn't actually run out of charge. The entire "pushing it back" scene was staged.

They "estimated" that it would only last 55 miles sprinting at top speed... but you know what? A Bugatti Veyron will only go about 60 miles or so if you sprint *it* at top speed. Track driving ranges have nothing to do with normal city/highway driving ranges.

which subsequently overheated and then had some major subsystem failure....

The vehicle never heated; that was faked, too. The "system failure" was real, but way overplayed. In the process of thrashing it on the track, they blew one brake fuse (of several). It took a matter of minutes to swap out the fuse. At no point during the filming was Top Gear without a fully working Roadster.

Don't be surprised; they fake tons of things, and Clarkson is a huge hydrogen fanatic (he's admitted that he would have trashed the Roadster even if everything had been flawless because he sees hydrogen as being the future)

Don't trust everything you see on TV.

I assume you know that Top Gear *admitted* to faking the ep -- not that this is something new for them. They're an entertainment show. They never ran out of electricity and were never without a working car. The only thing that actually did go wrong was with the brakes -- but it was merely a blown fuse from the abusive track duty they put it through, and the replacement was a nothing task. Their charge time statements were horribly misleading, too.

Clarkson stated that even if the Roadster had performed flawlessly, he still would have been hard on it because he believes that hydrogen is the future.
 

They are using the high end market to drive the technology until it's cheap enough to work for everyday cars. This is a much better approach than the EV1 that started cheap.

Even better is TWILL

If you want an electric motorcycle, why would you pick this? If you're on a budget, I'd go for something like this. If you've got coin to spare, perhaps this (gotta love G-forces almost as high as those on the Space Shuttle ;) ).

That's very insightful of you, you know.

Indeed, EnerDel's current pack prices for the Th!nk are about $500/Wh -- half of what this study assumes. And they've stated that at volumes of several hundred thousand packs a year, it'd be half as much.

Oh, and as for electric cars in Walmart? How about electric motorcycles in Best Buy?

Quote: ""What we're selling is a lot closer to consumer electronics than to transportation," he said, suggesting that on-board cameras that can link up to the internet would be one likely add-on. Basic repairs and maintenance will be carried out by the Geek Squad crew while more intensive work would be performed at various service centers around the country."

There appear to be a few common myths being repeated here.

US gasoline is lower octane than European gasoline

No, it isn't. Octane rating methodology is different. Read Octane Rating

I would much rather have (some diesel vehicle) that gets this (some incredible number)

1. Please make sure your are not quoting UK gallons - they are bigger than US gallons, and therefore get more miles.
2. Please understand that fuel efficiency measurements in Europe are quite different than in the US. The 2008 US EPA measurement methodology is much more conservative.

cheap (diesel)

Diesel in Europe is cheaper than gasoline only because it gets vastly preferential tax treatment.

We have some bizarre unxplained fear and loathing for diesel in the US

It may have something to do with poor diesel history in the US, but also with health side effects. Even with ULSD, the nanoparticles are suspected contributors to pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases.

BTW, I love diesels. I love driving them, I love the torque, I love increased fuel efficiency. However, it is important to know the whole story because the other side has very good points as well.

As for hybrids and plug-in hybrids, yes, I will likely buy the new Honda Insight when it becomes available even if it costs more than a regular vehicle of the same kind, and even if I cannot recoup the extra price. I would rather pay more money for R&D into technology than drop coins into Al Qaida's collection box.

I watched a British BBC car show (Top gear) a couple of weeks ago. Their main complain was the weight of the car (extremly heavy) but more importantly the time you need to recharge it (16 hours! Tesla said you "just" need 3.5 hours) http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/16/tesla-clarifies-some-of-top-gears-mischaracterizations/

That's right. Contact your Congressional representatives, your Senators and your state legislators and demand they raise the gas tax.

Someone doing that, Oil refiner CEO advocates for higher fuel taxes. To tell the truth what I like more is to tax mileage instead. When a person renews their license plate tags their odometer is read then they pay a tax on how much they drove. This way even those who make or buy biofuels on the side pay.

Falcon

Yes it is not reasonable to you or me, however there are many who would like nothing more to "punish" people who drive cars

It's not only environmentalists who want to raise the fuel tax, even an " Oil refiner CEO advocates for higher fuel taxes".

Falcon

Yes, you can subsidize a hydrogen vehicle down to whatever price you want for PR. Want to see what hydrogen vehicles cost unsubsidized? $7,700 a month corresponds to about $500k purchase price. And that's not just a radical case; bulk fuel cells cost over $10/W, and one horsepower is about 750W, so that's about $7,500 per horsepower; I'll let you do the math. Just for the fuel cell stack. And then we get into efficiency -- or more appropriately, the complete lack of it in hydrogen-fuelled vehicles. A fuel-cell vehicle takes 2-4 times as much energy as an EV per mile travelled. A H2 ICE takes 3-6 times as much. Then there's hydrogen itself; it really is a nasty substance. Not toxic, but ozone depleting, metal-embrittling, explosive in almost any fuel-air mixture, readily undergoes deflagration-to-detonation transitions, burns clear, leaks through almost anything, incredibly non-dense (i.e., expensive to store), and on and on down the line. Then there's storage density, which now is barely better than li-ion (hasn't advanced nearly as fast as battery tech), and the filling time for hydrogen vehicles has actually been *increasing* as they try to up the storage density, to the point where it takes longer to fill one of the latest generation of hydrogen vehicles than it does to charge titanate batteries, and nearly as long as it takes to charge phosphates and spinels. Then there's longevity, freezing, moving part count, fuel purity, and on and on... read the link I provided; there's a lot more in there.

In short, hydrogen is the perfect answer if you can spend someone else's money and want to do three times as much environmental damage for no real benefit but increased complexity and risk.

Nevermind....

Found it:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/24/aptera-switches-to-front-wheel-drive-delivery-date-still-unknow/

DST has been studied many times over the years and the informed consensus is that it just doesn't work. Here's a good link about it: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/03/11/think-daylight-saving-time-saves-energy-think-again-or-not/

The long and the short of the matter is this. It's good for business - it gets people out of the house and into the stores after work. So business lobbies government for the required legislation and pushes the energy saving myth to snow the public into going along with it (despite it being an inconvenience in the minds of many).

I'd like to see what happens to the drag coefficient(and the dent in the wallet of the owner) if that thing gets a ding

My mother in law laughed off the suggestion of damage to the Aptera when it came up in a conversation. She used to work at a place that built fiberglass hovercraft and said that they're pretty easy to repair. This is a 6th generation quilter in her sixties. Besides, composites are a lot more resistant to damage than steel. As for taking out a wheel, do you really think a thin metal skin on your car around your wheels is offering any relevant protection?

In other words, nerds, think about this: If you were at a party

Your insight into the mind of women is stunning. Really.

Sorry.. post was bad A couple of years ago jeremy clarkson did just this test. He found the following... Low rpm i.e. 2000rpm Turing off electronics (heating etc...) Turning off air-con (3/4mpg!) Maintaining throttle position not rpm & speed (you slow down slightly going up hill and speed up going down... physics wins!) And _in_ gear coasting when coming to a halt these give the best improvements... He did this driving a huge audi a8 from london to edinbrough and back again on a single tank of fule. All that and it's fabulously entertaining to watch! http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/26/video-london-to-edinburgh-and-back-on-one-tank-of-diesel-in-an/ enjoy!

Thank you for your scepticism, as it tests ideas and either validates or refutes them. Please see the following links: http://www.impactlab.com/2007/03/14/prius-outdoes-hummer-in-environmental-damage/ http://www.evworld.com/library/rmi_hummerVprius.pdf http://thesocialage.com/blog/2007/09/10/better-for-the-environment-hummer-or-prius/ and two articles that support your point of view: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9750840-1.html http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/01/forbes-says-prius-ben-and-jerry-s-ice-cream-bad-for-the-environme/ My contention is that several factors should go into whether to buy a hybrid or not.

$19,000 is the MAX price for the low end model. They refuse to make a car like that so they only end up as curiosity toys for the rich.

Your under-$19k idea is a good one, and it appears that Honda realizes it with the new Insight. Around 50mpg, $18,500. Sure, it kinda looks like a Prius, but if Honda can build a Prius-clone for $3k less than a Prius, they'll still have a winner.

The RAV4 EV which they discontinued and even tried to have destroyed was a perfectly fine vehicle, and many are still running today. I wish they would just re-introduce that vehicle, perhaps with modern batteries.

Heck, Toyota re-furbed a couple of RAV4 EVs just recently for more testing in Portland, OR.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/09/24/toyota-brings-refurbished-rav4-evs-to-portland-for-infrastructuc/

The technology is there to drop in some modern batteries and upgrade the electronics so that it will do 0-60mph in 10 seconds and travel 100 miles at 70mph... Those types of specs would be sufficient for the vast majority of commute and errand type running. I bet you'd sell a couple thousand of those a month or more depending on the price.

I'm not saying the Mazdaspeed3 or Japanese cars in general are bad cars. No doubt stock for stock, the Mazdaspeed3 would totally blow the doors off all but heavily modded TDI Jetta's performance wise. I was just pointing out how your "torque conspiracy" argument was totally flawed.

Diesel cars only make sense here in the US for two kinds of people: ones that drive over 15,000 miles a year who refuse to drive a gas-powered bottom of the line econobox (this could change if US auto makers and foreign subsidiaries bring more appealing economy cars here), or diesel enthusiasts. Show me a gas car available here in the US that can accelerate from 0-60 in 8 seconds or less, has heated leather interior, power everything, stability control; that can manage 42+ MPG even when you accelerate like a banshee and set the cruise at 80 with the A/C on, and I'll ditch my TDI in a heartbeat.

FYI: Honda and Subaru are two Japanese companies that are already bringing their diesels over to the US.

No, that is not the fact you're wrong. First of all, your Mazdaspeed3 has a 2.3L engine. The VW TDI's in cars here in the US are mostly either 1.9L or 2.0L. That is not equivalent to the TDI you're comparing it to above.

Do you think it is by mere coincidence that almost every piece of heavy machinery is powered by a diesel engine as opposed to a gas engine? Quite simply, diesel engines make more usable torque.

What follows is a broad generalization. Look at the dyno charts for a turbodiesel engine, and you'll notice they have a fat torque curve almost immediately off of idle all the way up until about a grand short of redline. Gas engines on the other hand build their peak torque up slowly until right before redline. Translation? The gas engine wastes more time and energy downshifting to keep you inside of that torque curve.

The VW diesels we have here in the US are a poor example anyways because they're designed with emissions and economy as the top priority, not performance. In Europe there are a wide variety of VW TDI options to chose from, for example: a 2.0L 4-cyl Common Rail diesel that pounds out 197HP/295lb-ft at 1,800 RPMs stock. By the way, It's not uncommon for someone to merely change the ECU firmware on a completely otherwise stock TDI, to bust out an additional 30HP/75lb-ft while still managing 45+ MPG. You can go even farther if you're willing to upgrade the clutch and other driveline components.

P.S. Let us know when your turbocharged Mazdaspeed3 hits 300,000 miles with only routine maintenance and no major engine work. There are some diesels that have logged over a million miles!

No idea whether it'll actually come true, but I believe that both GMC and Ford are set to release hybrid trucks next year.

GMC Sierra Hybrid
It's to be a 'light' hybrid, with a full size V8 to maintain towing capacity.

Ford F-150 hybrid
Hydraulic?
Note: Closer to vaporware, it's an older article, may have been canceled. Though with current gas prices, might be starting up again.

As others have noted, electric motors are actually quite good at providing low RPM torque, and it's not like you don't have plenty of mass and area with a truck to put a big battery and electric motor in capable of doing things like pull a stump out of the ground. If nothing else, all the proposals I've seen are for 'mild' hybrids, with full size engines.

Naturally, it's too expensive to produce.

Most manufacturers actually have this technology, it's just something VW pursues a bit more intensively.

Stay away from lion-ev. Haven't seen any good results from people dealing with lionev or Ken Curry

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ken+Curry+fraud&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lionev+scam&btnG=Search

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/evdl-lionev-7699.html
http://austinfarm.org/homegrown/downloads/lionev.txt
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/461/461.F3d.452.05-5173.05-5090.html

Also stay away from Spark-EV
http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/spark-ev/

Show me a technology suppressed by the oil companies

Large format NiMH batteries.

Marketed as the Panasonic EV-95. Or rather, not marketed. You can't buy them. The only vehicles they are currently in now (no pun intended) are three hundred some-odd Toyota RAV4-EVs.

If they are ever sold for use to power traction motors in an electric vehicle, Cobasys will slap Panasonic with an injunction to stop. And you can't buy them at any price other than in very large quantities, and the only people who can buy such large quantities are automakers. Some would say "Not a scam" but the licensing of the technology to exclude certain forms of transportation is REAL.

Who's Cobasys? Just the joint venture between the inventor of the battery, ECD Ovonics, and -- wait for it -- Chevron.

Here are a few citations and examples. Although things seem to be getting better, as they are being licensed in some hybrids now, and they may be expanded to more applications in the future...

As is usual whenever electric cars comes up, it's time for some mythbusting.

No, they don't increase pollution and overload the grid; precisely the opposite (more specifically, the only pollutant that goes up is particulate matter, and it's displaced away from population centers. NOx and SOx remain the same, CO2 drops, and CO and VOCs are nearly eliminated; the grid gets to make use of its surplus off-peak capacity and, with smart charging, can eliminate the supply/demand fluctuations that are currently so troublesome).

Yes, they are far more energy efficient than their alternatives.

No, modern batteries don't take forever to charge. The phosphates, titanates, modern spinels, and others can all charge in 5-20 minutes, given sufficient power.

Yes, fast chargers exist. The SAE J1772 standard covers Level 3 charging at hundreds of kilowatts. Yes, chargers as strong as 250kW exist. Yes, there's already a network of 60kW Level 3 chargers in place around Oahu. Install one yourself.

No, the batteries are not toxic. Current li-ions are only mildly toxic, and this only because of their cobalt-based cathode. The phosphates and spinels eliminate this cathode in favor of nontoxic elements.

No, lithium is not running out.

Yes, the batteries last a long time. The phosphates last 7000+ gentle cycles, having only 20% capacity loss after 1000 abusive cycles. The titanates? 20,000 cycles. Accelerated aging tests suggest LG Chem's packs will last 40+ years in typical use.

Yes, both rapid charging stations and EVs make financial sense.

Hmm, did I miss any?

True these are snake oil too I guess ?

Valcent Vertigro Algae Oil:

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/10/vertigro_algae_.html

Coskata $1/gal Ethanol partners with General Motors:
(non-crop oriented ethanol)

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/13/gm-and-coskata-announce-worldwide-cellulosic-ethanol-partnership/

Bacteria the eats waste and releases petroleum:

http://thegoodcity.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/bacteria-that-eat-waste-and-poop-petroleum/

They've just planted 1100 acres near Guymon, OK. That's a pretty desert like area.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/25/oklahoma-bioenergy-center-gets-1-100-acres-to-plant-switchgrass/
http://www.noble.org/Press_Release/2008/08-011.html/

Hmm. I'd admit I was wrong, but I hear that when that happens here on /. it opens up a spacetime rift and ends the universe :)

But srsly, the more I think about it, it would probably be carbon negative. It's totally impractical, and there are other issues with lots of algae. As far as solar-powered energy sources, it seems like it's a bad tradeoff between efficiency and ease of storage.

As for the car, are you thinking perhaps about one with a variable compression ratio?

The global warming flap was the last straw for me.

It's fundamentally not a fair comparison. For example, per kilogram, hydrogen has a lot more energy than gasoline. And fuel cells are more efficient than internal combustion engines. Of course, to make that hydrogen, a lot more energy was wasted than when making gasoline. And that hydrogen is bulky, hitting range. But that wouldn't hurt it here; by your rules, hydrogen vehicles would win easily.

Anyways: to those who think these vehicles are whimsical and whose tech can't readily be applied to streetlegal cars: As I posted over on Autobloggreen.com, compare This eco-marathon winner with this car due out this fall.

Of course, you see the problems with commercializing these eco-racers as-is. They're not stable enough for high speeds (hence Aptera's need to broaden the front wheelbase, increasing the drag coeff, as well as wider tires for better handling), there's too much ground turbulence at high speeds (hence the higher body), they're not comfortable for passengers (hence the larger cross section), and they're not streetlegal (hence things like the truncated, not-completely-tapered tail). Also, there's the fact that by their very nature, things like "normal driving cycles" and "highway speeds" greatly increase drag. And all of this adds weight, too. Hence, "thousands of miles per gallon" turns into "130 miles per gallon" (in the Typ-1h). Still impressive, mind you.

Not to mention that corn and ethanol production has expanded to areas where it requires irrigation and ground water for industrial use.

We have been mining Ogalala Aquifer ground water for decades. Now, with increased subsidies, we have expanded the area and rate at which we are depleting the resource.

ZAP, the company as a whole, is just a publicity stunt. Their vehicles are almost all profit margin, and they're generally utter pieces of junk. Cramped, top speed of just over 30mph (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2Ke1VWhZJA

"I just spent a couple of minutes driving the Typ-1 around, and what's interesting about it is, it's really quick! I mean, you step on the gas and it goes, and that's the torque of the electric motor. It's also got great visibility, and it's also kinda fun! People stop and stare at you in this thing; it's better than driving a Lamborghini in my opinion."

Gee, which to pick... piece of junk Chinese golf cart that barely moves, or car that Popular Science's reviewer thinks is better than driving a Lamborghini...
----

1) The Prius isn't an electric car. It's a hybrid. It's just an efficient user of gasoline.

2) Priuses aren't largely driven by "the affluent". They're mostly a middle class car. And they've been a stunning success; Toyota has said not to expect any more increases in sales next year because they can't produce them any faster.

3) "In the end" is hardly applicable; the adoption of hybrids keeps expanding, and automakers are offering more and more options. GM, for example, plans to release a new hybrid modelevery three months for the next four years.

4) As for electric cars, there are a lot of myths. Here they are, all broken down for you.

5) Yes, you are correct that there was no conspiracy to kill the EV1. The EV1 was never designed to be profitable; like all of its competitors, it was solely a byproduct of the CARB mandate. It was produced in tiny numbers, with tech far worse than what is available nowadays, based on a design that shared no common infrastructure with other GM vehicles (a "one-off"), and so forth. The leases were heavily subsidized. GM wanted nothing to do with actually making EVs, and as soon as the CARB mandate was overturned, they were quite glad to be rid of them. So were the other manufacturers who also had similarly unprofitable EVs. It was a horrible PR move, and GM realizes that now, but it made sense on the books, especially since GM was bleeding money at the time. And as for the "liability" argument, GM was 100% correct; lawsuits add hundreds of dollars to the cost of every car made in the US, and an owner can't disclaim liability for *someone else's* lawsuits. And as for the battery argument, please -- if GM cared about the EV1, they wouldn't have *sold the batteries* in the first place. They had already shut down many other part lines before CARB was overturned anyways; even if they had the batteries, they still couldn't have made more. The conspiracy arguments get crazier and crazier from there (like GM destroying the EVs because they wanted to "hide" them, yet in a fit of insanity they donated them to museums, but then they put pressure on the museums to hide them...)

1) The Prius isn't an electric car. It's a hybrid. It's just an efficient user of gasoline.

2) Priuses aren't largely driven by "the affluent". They're mostly a middle class car. And they've been a stunning success; Toyota has said not to expect any more increases in sales next year because they can't produce them any faster.

3) "In the end" is hardly applicable; the adoption of hybrids keeps expanding, and automakers are offering more and more options. GM, for example, plans to release a new hybrid modelevery three months for the next four years.

4) As for electric cars, there are a lot of myths. Here they are, all broken down for you.

5) Yes, you are correct that there was no conspiracy to kill the EV1. The EV1 was never designed to be profitable; like all of its competitors, it was solely a byproduct of the CARB mandate. It was produced in tiny numbers, with tech far worse than what is available nowadays, based on a design that shared no common infrastructure with other GM vehicles (a "one-off"), and so forth. The leases were heavily subsidized. GM wanted nothing to do with actually making EVs, and as soon as the CARB mandate was overturned, they were quite glad to be rid of them. So were the other manufacturers who also had similarly unprofitable EVs. It was a horrible PR move, and GM realizes that now, but it made sense on the books, especially since GM was bleeding money at the time. And as for the "liability" argument, GM was 100% correct; lawsuits add hundreds of dollars to the cost of every car made in the US, and an owner can't disclaim liability for *someone else's* lawsuits. And as for the battery argument, please -- if GM cared about the EV1, they wouldn't have *sold the batteries* in the first place. They had already shut down many other part lines before CARB was overturned anyways; even if they had the batteries, they still couldn't have made more. The conspiracy arguments get crazier and crazier from there (like GM destroying the EVs because they wanted to "hide" them, yet in a fit of insanity they donated them to museums, but then they put pressure on the museums to hide them...)

"Since utilities have built enough power plants to provide electricity when people are operating their air conditioners at full blast, they have excess generating capacity during off-peak hours. As a result, according to an upcoming report from the Pacific Northwestern National Laboratory (PNNL), a Department of Energy lab, there is enough excess generating capacity during the night and morning to allow more than 80 percent of today's vehicles to make the average daily commute solely using this electricity. If plug-in-hybrid or all-electric-car owners charge their vehicles at these times, the power needed for about 180 million cars could be provided simply by running these plants at full capacity."
http://www.evpowersystems.com/PHEVs%20Save%20Grid.htm

Or, "PG&E's experimental EV tariff would likely deter PHEV owners from charging during summer afternoon hours..."
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/10/phevs-cost-more-to-operate-than-gas-cars/

Or, the following PHEV fact sheet from Wisconson Public Power...
http://www.wppi.org/media/PHEV_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Or, "The next step would be to add smart meters that would track electricity use in real time and allow utilities to charge more for power used during times of peak demand, and less at off-peak hours."
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17930/

Or, " A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of these 198 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics. ... Researchers found, in the Midwest and EAST [emphasis mine], there is sufficient off-peak generation, transmission and distribution capacity to provide for ALL [emphasis mine] of today's vehicles if they ran on batteries."
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

BTW, the phrase "quoted" for emphasis of "SUBSTANTIAL GRID EXPANSION WOULD BE NEEDED" occurs NOWHERE in the linked article.

If I were you I wouldn't post anything more on this topic either...

Wrong again. Almost all car companies looking at li-ion are not looking at conventional "laptop batteries", but the alternative chemistries that sacrifice a little energy density in exchange for a very long lifespan and a high degree of safety. These include phosphates, titanates, spinels, etc. You can generally even shoot these battery packs with no fire occurring (there've been some nice demonstrations to this effect). The two notable exceptions that come to mind are Tesla and Lightning Car, but they're targetted at a different kind of consumer. GM, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Aptera, and on and on are all using safe li-ion chemistries in their next gen electric vehicles.

And yes, Toyota *will* put them in the Prius. There have been some delays due to QC, however.

Autobloggreen has garnered a number of comments on this concept, most of them negative. To sum up:

* The thermodynamic efficiency of air cars is worse than gasoline engines, often far worse, meaning that you *hurt* the environment by driving it.
* The overwhelming majority of the performance of this vehicle comes from gasoline, not air
* The company has a very bad reputation of making ludicrous claims and misrepresenting stats
* It's made by Indian manufacturer Tata motors, not known for quality

In short, don't bother. If you want an affordable (100 mile range without burning any gasoline, that will be on the road in a year or two, there are really three good options I can think of off the top of my head right now: the Aptera, the VentureOne, and the MiEV. The Aptera is for if you want the absolute limit in energy efficiency modern tech can currently provide and want to look like you're driving a spaceship, the VentureOne is for if you want to feel like you're driving a motorcycle, and the MiEV is for if you have more than two people. I've probably missed a couple other good options, I'm sure.

To potential EV buyers: keep an eye out for scammers. Two big ones are LionEV and Spark EV.
To potential hydrogen car buyers: hydrogen cars are worse for the environment than gasoline cars, so don't bother.

Or, rather than jump through all of these hoops and lower the range of conventional cars, we could simply transition to electrics. Let's look at the facts: the charge time issue is already solved (there are no fewer than a dozen li-ion battery chemistries that can charge in minutes). There are at least three techs out there that would 2-3x the range and have the potential to be extended a lot further (lithium vanadium oxide or silicon nanowires for li-ion, barium titanate for ultracaps). Modern automotive li-ions have no lifespan or fire problems. If all of our vehicles were suddenly transformed into EVs overnight, 84% of them could be powered by our existing grid thanks to the fact that most would be charging at off-peak via timers (and get a discount for it to boot). Even if that weren't the case, it's not like power infrastructure is somehow harder to build than, say, developing new oilfields and refining infrastructure.

Even Wal-Mart wants to get in on the charging business. Fast charges can be provided via battery banks (certainly no more expensive than a gas pump/tank), and since most people would off-peak charge at home except on long trips, there wouldn't be a huge amount of people charging at once at a given charging station. Delivering the charge that fast isn't a problem if you use active cooling on the wires. Safety can be easily guaranteed by having no current delivered until a connection is verified by the plug, and have an outer sheath that if damaged cuts all current delivery.

Electric cars typically cost a penny or two per mile in energy costs (my Aptera will end up costing me about half a penny per mile where I live), and have very little maintenance (my Aptera's drivetrain's total moving parts are: three wheels, one motor driveshaft, and one belt; plus the batteries are designed to outlive the vehicle). EVs are quiet, convenient, emit half the greenhouse gasses of a conventional car even when charging from "dirty" power, emit none when charging from "clean" power, any emissions from "dirty" power charging being displaced to out of the city, and so on.

Really, once mass production kicks in and drops prices -- five to ten years from now -- what reason will there be to be concerned about things like onboard carbon sequestration? Why not just go straight to an EV? Even with current prices, I can easily defend the purchase of a $27k Aptera Typ-1e over a gasoline car with similar features. Slash the battery prices in half and mass produce the cars, and you're looking at widespread adoption.