Slashdot Mirror

This is a much better example of the potential of electric car technology than that fugly little nose-on-wheels.

tgd stated:

It isn't very hard to find references online to that being the specific reason all the big auto manfacturers dropped their electric car programs and switched to hybrid, that combined with the fact that the total envorinmental damage when the depletion of battery packs is taken into account is more than an order of magnitude worse than the worst cars have ever been.

Your original post referred only to the generation of electricity, not disposal of the batteries. Obviously, the batteries matter, but that's not what I disputed.

If finding online references is so easy, could you post a couple? The 1st one I found was from a GM site:

The EV1 helped contribute to a cleaner environment. In California, for instance, there were 97% fewer emissions with the EV1 than a conventional gasoline engine -- this included the electricity-generating emissions from the power plant.


I think this 97% came from a CARB report- haven't found the original, although everyone and their brother seems to cite this 97%.

Also, here's an EPRI study that looks at plug-in hybrids. A quote:


Plug-in HEVs provide additional benefits because, on a gram per vehicle mile basis, emissions from power plants are much lower than that from the same vehicle running on gasoline.


As for your examples: SO2 emissions are quite dependent on the pct. of electricity that comes from coal, and what kind of coal you're burning. So in some cases EVs could be worse. But they win with regard to smog precursors and CO2.

I can't really quarrel with the lead battery argument, except that 1) you didn't specify batteries in your original post and 2) there are non-lead, non-cadmium options these days. But I honestly don't know about the environmental impact of, e.g., NiMH batteries.

Finally, my impression is that automakers weren't interested in EVs was that batteries, flywheels, etc., can't compete with the awesome energy and power density of gasoline- relative cost and performance of EVs just wasn't competitive, and was unlikely to be anytime soon.

OK, your turn.

Someone already did.

The crying shame is that they only leased (not sold) them and when GM ended the lease program they forced the drivers to return the cars (even though the majority repeatedly appealed to GM to outright sell them the cars).

Your post is modded as funny but here's what I see happening:

Oil will become too expensive for use in automobiles. Now, companies like GM have faked electric vehicle efforts only to revert back to good ole oil. Because of the Big Company reluctance to supply EVs en masse, clever companies will eventually step in and supply bolt-in EV retrofit kits and you'll be able to plug in that 84 Rabbit instead of gassing it up.

Eventually, the BigMotorCos will have to supply EVs. The EV1 was great in the respect that it required very little maintenance (no oil changes, air filters, spark plugs, head gaskets, transmission, etc). But how can GM make money when owners can rebuild the drivetrain so easily?

Already tried, it was a flop You can read the corp info here It gave them about as much real world experience as the Chrysler turbine cars did.

What cracks me up is the FRENCH building an electric car, I mean they cant even build a half decent gas powered car using a technology that is far more refined than electric, could you imagine an electric renault, oh the service departments of dealers just have to be cringing at that one.

Admittedly electric has been around nearly as long as internal combustion tech but it stopped for a long period in between. I am about 90% sure the first car to break 100 mph was electric, but too lazy to google it

Isn't EV1 a trademark of General Motors?

0-60mph in 9 secs
Top speed(electronically regulated): 80 mph
Range: 75 to 130 miles per charge

This is the car GM says it could not sell. Maybe it's because it was only for lease... Or maybe because there was a 6-month waiting list to get one...

0-60mph in 9 secs
Top speed(electronically regulated): 80 mph
Range: 75 to 130 miles per charge

This is the car GM says it could not sell. Maybe it's because it was only for lease... Or maybe because there was a 6-month waiting list to get one...

GM's EV1 battery electric was 0-60mph in about 4.9sec

Right. Lets just monopolize the market and set insane pricetags, then finally close the division saying it didn't work out. Case and Point

The sources used for this post: A government study of power plant efficiencies, The EV1 specs page and a government report on the efficiency of the 2002 mazda 626 (the most efficient non-HEV sedan this year).

-A coal powered power plant produces 920 kg of CO2/MWh -> 920/1000 = .92 kg / KWh

-An EV1 uses 26 KWh/100 miles -> 26*.92 = 24 kg CO2/100 miles

-average car produces 9 kg CO2/gallon of gas

-A 2002 Mazda 626 gets 1 gallon/26 miles -> 9kg/26 miles.

-Compare: an EV1 gets .24 kg CO2/gallon, a car gets .35 kg CO2/gallon...

So the difference exists, and is actually quite significant, but ultimatly the EV1 gets better fuel mileage. (Mind you, this does not count any of the inefficiencies introduced in the transmission of the electricity, nor does it account for highway driving, i used city driving stats only.)

It's great to see one of these cars that actually looks cool, even if the models posing with the car don't.

Who exactly are bringing electric cars to reality, eh? Who?

Well, I'm glad I was able to start a tiny discussion, unfortunately most of you who responded chose to call me names instead of making valid points. Luckily, there are a few intelligent people that actually came up with valid arguments.

1. What to do with dead batteries.
2. Emissions are just switched from the car to the power plants.
3. Limited range of batteries
4. Batteries don't work well in cold

I have been reading about GM's electric car. According to them, their batteries are 98% recyclable. And here is a quote from their environment page:

The EV1 helps contribute to a cleaner environment. In California, for instance, there are 97% fewer emissions with the EV1 than a conventional gasoline engine -- this includes the electricity-generating emissions from the power plant. Also, when you use electricity at night to charge the EV1, it actually helps power plants operate more efficiently because of power plant load leveling.

That leaves limited range, and battery performance- both of which are strong arguments. But for those people who only need a car to get to work every day, an electric car seems like a step in the right direction- certainly better than gas cars.

Well, I'm glad I was able to start a tiny discussion, unfortunately most of you who responded chose to call me names instead of making valid points. Luckily, there are a few intelligent people that actually came up with valid arguments.

1. What to do with dead batteries.
2. Emissions are just switched from the car to the power plants.
3. Limited range of batteries
4. Batteries don't work well in cold

I have been reading about GM's electric car. According to them, their batteries are 98% recyclable. And here is a quote from their environment page:

The EV1 helps contribute to a cleaner environment. In California, for instance, there are 97% fewer emissions with the EV1 than a conventional gasoline engine -- this includes the electricity-generating emissions from the power plant. Also, when you use electricity at night to charge the EV1, it actually helps power plants operate more efficiently because of power plant load leveling.

That leaves limited range, and battery performance- both of which are strong arguments. But for those people who only need a car to get to work every day, an electric car seems like a step in the right direction- certainly better than gas cars.

• the next step has to be electric vehicles

Sure, if you don't mind me dumping 1310 pounds of lead acid cells in your backyard every couple of years. OK, maybe only 1147 pounds if I go for the nickel-metal hydrides.

• and their electricity should come from nuclear power plants in the United States

Now here we do agree. We should probably build them now, because given our past record, we'll wait until we're scraping the bottom of the crude barrel before realising that we're screwed and throwing them up in a hurry.

Hey, did you know that a solar cell manufacturing plant powered by solar cells couldn't produce enough energy to replace its own cells, let alone produce cells for anything else? I don't know whether that's funny or scary. Nuclear or biodiesel for me, please.

The electric car I used for comparison is the GM EV1. This is not a "tiny little car crawling along at 5 mph"; it's a sports car that does 0-60 in under 8 seconds, with a top end of 80mph. I use mine for nearly all of my driving.

As for EVs making more power available for other uses, I tried to explain that in my first note. Here's an example. Suppose that by driving an EV1 for 100 miles I cause a generating plant to emit 2.8 grams of nitrogen oxides. If I had driven those 100 miles in an average gasoline car, I would have emitted 249 grams of nitrogen oxides, nearly 100 times as much. Now suppose I could sell that emission "credit" to the power plant operators. That would let them produce nearly 100 times as much energy as it would take to charge my car.

This is not just an abstract idea. There are power plants shut down right now because they have run out of nitrogen oxide emission credits.

BTW, the EV-1 is a pretty stupid idea. The problem is not that cars burn gasoline, the problem is reliance on the personal automobile in the first place.

Most electric vehicles to date have no transmission. Electric motors have the most torque at stall, and torque diminished exponentially with rotation speed. Though it does not diminish enough to require it to pull another gear. An operating range of 0 - 80 mph is good for a city car. (and it will hit the speed limit in rural areas.)

All electric cars will have to have some form of transmission, unless there is an electric motor located at each drive wheel. A single speed transaxle will still contain some form of differential system for maximum traction. The GM Impact has a 2-speed transaxle, and other electric vehicles might start using multispeed transaxles as well. The multi-speed transaxles help EVs with acceleration, as well as raise the vehicles top speed (no longer electric motor limited, now gear limited).

What about lights, radio, and HVAC? Turning off everything while in rush hour is not very conveinient for most people. That's why I'd like a [serial] hybrid car better. I don't (usually) worry about running out of gas when I sit at a long light or in traffic, I don't want to worry about taking 30 miles off my trip because I want to keep the lights on.

Everything you mentioned above still applies to cars of today. If you're low on gas, you'd better start looking for a gas station... If you're batteries are getting low, well... Go find an outlet! ;-)

People who are going to push the limits on the range of electric cars are no different from the people who run out of gas on the highways. If there's a major backup on the expressway, hang out at the office for a little while, wait for things to clear up. Either that, or take an alternate route home.

It would be nice if it was that simple. But just because you will not need oil changes and tune ups, does not mean all that much less work. Batteries don't last long, the lithium-ion battery in my laptop lasted less than two years, and I took care of it. NiCads are no better.

But it will have to be that simple in order for automakers to sell these cars. I don't think it will be that hard to build an electric car that is virtually maintenance free. The GM Impact (the one EV that I've done a lot of reading on) is already at that point... There's really nothing to check except the air in the tires and the battery status on the dash.

Again, the EV I'm most familiar with is the GM Impact, and its batteries are covered under a 3 year/36,000 mile warantee. That's not too bad.

Yes, battery technology needs to be improved. However, I feel that today's technology is sufficient for short ranged EVs.

In short pure electric is not a good idea. Electric traction is great. But what I would like to see is electric energy provided on board the car.. bateries charged by the sun, gas engine, or other more efficient source.

Electric cars ARE a good idea for those people who can use them to their full potential. I am one of those people. I have a very short commute to work, and rarely leave a 10 mile radius of home during normal days. I run a lot of errands for work and for my home business, otherwise I'd take the bus every where.

Yes, there are a lot of people who wouldn't be able to use an electric car because of the distances they drive, or other factors. That doesn't mean they aren't great solutions for those of us who can use them.

Hybrid cars (gas/diesel powered cars with electric assist) should fill the gap between fully electric and regular gas powered cars of today. 70MPG-90MPG is definately a big improvement over today's cars! I'll probably own a hybrid powered car, as soon as they're for sale in my state and reasonably affordable.

For more info on the GM Impact EV, take a look at http://www.gmev.com/

Remeber the electric car? The one that never got out of the showroom?

This one? Looks out of the showroom to me.

It was cheap, sleek.

I agree with sleek, but cheap??? The one linked to above costs $33,995, or $43,995 for one with a larger driving range. Are you talking about some other electric car I'm not aware of?

And no and no fossil fuels = no icky CO2...

And the electricity came from... the electricity fairy? Sure, in areas where the power plants are zero emission, you're not putting CO2 in the air, but most of the time you're just shifting the source of emissions.

My husband and I have a GM EV-1, an all-electric car, which we love. It has great acceleration and sufficient range (about 120 miles)for commuting. Usually, we charge it in our garage, but we've also used public chargers, such as the ones at my husband's workplace (NASA) and at Fry's.