Slashdot Mirror
Washington State Legalizes NEVs on Public Roads
ptorrone writes "Washington State just passed NEV legislation, legalizing them for in-road use. NEVs are neighborhood electric vehicles. This is a big deal with more and more consumers having the choice of a variety of non-car solutions, we'll see charging stations and more people in general considering alternative transportation means. It'll also be fun to geek out some NEVs." From zero to twenty in 9.8 seconds!
so do you think that all bicycles should be off the road? they can't keep up with traffic either. modern working cars -do- pollute, in fact that's where over half of the pollution comes from in my state (wa).
The problem with this is that there aren't really any road-capable NEV's or whatever you want to refer to them as.
The segway hits a top speed of what....11MPH? Do you really want to get stuck behind some yuppie and his $5000 segway inching along the street when you are in a rush to get to the office?
We already have enough traffic problems with vehicles that CAN do the speed limit, lets not worry about alternative transportation until it can at least keep up with normal means of travel.
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
Well this is one way to combat gas prices. Not to mention you can always find plugs around in public property ^_^;
Have a look at the Ultra project for a more creative solution to electric mass transport :-)
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
Why you hate-in on the auto this weekend
Story 1
Story 2
Stroy 3
I hope it doesn't screw up the paint on my Dually when I start running these things over
How is a bike a danger? It typically weighs 20-30lbs and travels 20-30 mph cf a car that weights 100 times as much, and travles about 2wice as fast Cars are much more dangerious.
Bikes can travel near the shoulder and do not obstruct the flow of faster moving traffic. Indeed in stop and go traffic bikes can 'white-line' and are faster than cars.
Pedaling 45 mph (posted speed limit) is not the problem. Pedaling 45 mph and having traffic merging to your right at 60mph is the problem. Doubters can take East Cahuenga from Burbank to Los Angeles, running alongside the 5 Freeway (Cahuenga Pass), by bicycle - I did that for several months as part of a 15 mile commute (that's 15 miles each way, 30 miles a day.) Face it, you're always going to have normal car traffic going way faster than any other traffic (ie, semi trailers, campers, old people in cadillacs, bicycles) unless there just happens to be a cop there. Then EVERYBODY slows down...
Frankly, bikes can travel faster than NEVs can (NEV's, by DEFINITION have a top speed of 25mph - and are speed governed to ensure that speed...) A more useful speed would have been 40mph - that way an NEV could keep up with most traffic in the slowest lane. Unfortunately, I doubt many people want to chance 40mph in a souped up golf cart without doors (yes, I know you can buy doors as an option), and very little in the way of crash-collision engineering.
Ever test drive one of these things? It's incredibly irritating to floor the accelerator and feel like you're on a Disneyland Autotopia car - only slower (although there is noticable absence of motor noise and gasoline exhaust fumes.) The price isn't too shabby if you need a utility cart - $5k. But no, they clearly are not designed to blend in with normal traffic - something that many cyclists (assuming they're obeying traffic laws) can do easily on most city streets.
Modern, working cars don't pollute enough to make a difference either
Oh yea right. I guess all that COx and NOx compounds spewing out of millions are cars are in no way causing an enviromental impact.
For those not familar with the State of Washingon, most of our power comes from hydroelectric plants. We tried for nuclear power once in western washington, known as I believe " Washington Public Power Supply System" aka or WoPPSS. While it can be argued about the enviromental impact of hydro power, it indeed is a fuck of alot cleaner then internal combustion engines. Additional supplimental power plants are being constructed that burn natural gas, which again tends to be a fuck of alot cleaner then petrol.
I see a major application of electric vehicels for in town commuting, on roads where the posted limits are between 25-35 mph. Many of these vehicels can achieve 25mph, while considered slow... perfectly within acceptable limits esp on days with heavy trafic conjestion. While the posted limit may indeed be greater then 25mph, 10mph is often times more typical in downtown areas.
While you have a point, a city's road system can be accomidated to actually support the use of these sub 30mph cars reasonably. Most major cities here are setup in a convienent grid like patern, dedicate a road parelell to the 35mph zones to things that can travel that fast, and slower residental streets to the sub 30mph crowd.
Given that the eco-friendly road alterntive is manual powered bike, I see there being less of an issue with conjection actually.
Infact, I don't see them being a major issue on our interstates between Seattle and Tacoma during rushour, as the average speed tends to be sub 25mph, unfortunatly.
There are those of us who would actually use cheeper more eco-friendly forms of transportation if it was available. People like my self would invest the the expence of using natural gas if it wasn't for the lack of filling stations. But I personaly can't refuel on it unless I drive roughly 40miles away, making it none too practical. Electric is a viable alternative for us who need more cargo room then a motorcycle, but less cargo room then a typical car.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
NEV = Neighborhood Electric Vehicle
So yeah, Segways, those fancy golf carts, the expensive little motorized scooters, and maybe even some metermaid mobiles all fall into this category.
But I have a question for anyone else:
Why are electric vehicles considered zero emission?
You burn fossil fuels to make electricity, then transfer that power into chemical energy in the batteries, then turn that energy back into electricity later to turn an electric motor to drive to the store... how is this not causing emmissions? Oh, and don't forget that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you've lost energy at every step in that process, so you are probably not as efficient as a good gasoline engine (by good, I mean efficient - not a V-12 Dodge monster).
I have always been sceptical of calling electric vehicles "zero-emission." All you're doing is removing yourself a few steps from the emissions. It's like having a really long exhaust pipe, and then claiming that since the exhaust fumes are nowhere near your car, you aren't the one causing them.
If someone's say, charging their electric vehicle via solar panels, that would be completely different.
Woah, that went a little offtopic, didn't it?
Ahh well, as long as I've started, I might as well keep going: Linux is SOOO much better that Windows! Go opensource!
The biggest problem with electric cars is recharging them - it takes hours.
Instead, I've seen other solutions that provide similar capabilities as electric cars, but without the recharge headache. The one that I find most promising is the air car.
It's about the size of a Geo Metro, and goes ~200 miles on $2 worth of electricity, and you can refuel in under 1 minute! It also has a small built-in compressor which takes a few hours, which means that at its worst, it's no worse than an electric vehicle.
The best part - they are apparently already being manufactured in France and South Africa. If I had the money I'd definitely want to get one.
No pollution, dirt cheap to operate, and the engine should be more reliable than a gas engine because there's no combustion.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Modern, working cars don't pollute enough to make a difference either.
Until you have your car modified so that the exhaust feeds into the cabin, you're a fucking liar and you know it.
They do not cause traffic congestion, since the areas they tend to be used the most in areas with stop every block or two. While military bases make for an ideal location to use these I have seen the same types GEMS on the streets in Los Vegas. You can rent one for a night on the town. They've all been done up with extra neon lighting so you can't miss them. Even loaded down with four large and usually very drunk males, they kept up with traffic just fine on the main strip.
The only bad thing is if you live in areas such as Calfornia, you are going to get raped on the cost of electricity.
Quote form Unregistered: "Modern, working cars don't pollute enough to make a difference either."
Modern cars do pollute enough to make a difference, especially when you are talking about a couple of million of them opperating in the same area. Come out here to LA and drive down the 405 and try saying that again with a straight face.
Like I said NEV have their place, and hopefully cities being more friendly towards these vehicles will help stir up interest in EV's and maybe the end of the excuses that the technology is not ready coming form the auto manufactures.
The exact cause of asthma is unknown, but, there is a relationship with alergies. Often though an asthmatic may not be alergic to anything at all. For some it's stress. For others food allergies may be the cause. For many asthmatics there is little to no warning of an approaching attack. Additionally the common treatment for asthma is steroids which work to weaken ones immune system which is causing the imflamation in the air passages.
In fact some "studies" indicate that the sterile environments provided for children by over-anxious yuppy parents prevent proper development of the immune system. A link has also been shown between asthmatics and premature births. But to pretend that a link to arbitary pollution can be made is dishonest at best, and a disservice to those with the disease at worst.
Slashdot readers interested in this stuff should read EV World regularly. Support its dedicated editor by purchasing a subscription if possible.
1. uncouple the regenerator/motor on downhills. My bicycle can go 40+ mph on a downhill. I don't see why a NEV can't, as long as you beef up the brakes for safety.
2. Lower it and re-do the roof. Most of the NEVs I've seen are built for comfort, not speed. They have high roofs and look like expensive golf carts, which is really what they are. Close those windows too. Plenty of room to reduce wind resistance on these babies.
3. DIY pulsejets. 'nuff said.
4. I'm already sick of Monster Garage, but as long as that show's on the air, they might was well stick one of their chromed bike motors in a NEV.
Of course, these last two suggestions take the E out of NEV, but what they heck.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
They're called that because they are zero-emission. What a silly question. You could always replace the dirty burning coal and oil power plants with much more efficient nuclear power. Or in the cases where the idiotic enviro-hippies have brainwashed the population that nuclear power is evvvviiiil you can use solar, hydroelectric, wind, etc. It's much easier to upgrade and replace one central source of something instead of trying to replace 100 million end nodes.
There is a low cost option that exists today in the Seattle area--Biodiesel. I recently sold my '96 Honda Accord and with the proceeds bought a '79 Mercedes diesel. I now drive the Mercedes on biodiesel-a fuel made from vegetable oil. Why would I do such a thing?
- This car does not contribute to global warming as the CO2 it emits was fixed from our current atmoshpere, not a Jurassic atmosphere like petro fuels
- It has 50% the CO emissions of a regular diesel engine
- It has 10% the total hydrocarbon emissions
- It has a 100% reduction in sulphides compared to standard diesel fuel
- There are 4 pumps in the Puget sound area
- If I can't get a hold of biodiesel, I can just put regular diesel in the pump, with no problems
- The car gets 27 MPG
- I don't rely on foreign oil to get around town
- I don't support Exxon/Mobil/Texaco
- I support the American economy by using fuels grown in America
Biodiesel is here today, is inexpensive to get into, has no switching costs, has great political and economic ramifications, and I look suhweet rolling in my Benzo.
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
That's why cars have brakes, should you ever come across a situation like you described, just hit the brakes, glance around (optional), reverse over the hapless biker and render him unable to sue anyone ever again, finally a worthy use for a SUV :)
Has anyone driven one of these? I've been told they are cool. They are only 60lbs, made of a carbon fiber, and look bad ass. I've often thought it looked like the perfect local commuter vehicle.
There is a distributor in Cali from what I hear.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Sure it has an internal combustion engine... but have you considered the enviromental costs of producing all those batteries or solar cells in your electric vehicles? What are their expected life spans? These scooters will still be put-putting along when the apes take over, and they are made from almost all recycled steel and aluminum. The environmental costs over their expected life spans will put almost any electric vehicle to shame.
I just bought one for my wife New Scooter and it's an amazing little vehicle.
The best solution is rarely the highest technology one.
--Mark
In 1992 I lived in Peachtree City, GA, just a little south of Atlanta. One of the things that made the city interesting was that all publicly accessable buildings had to be accessable via the golf-cart road system in the city. New sites had to be linked into the golf-cart roads. This was a golfing community, and residents could drive anywhere in town on these little roads. The only city roads you drove on were residential roads to get onto the golf-cart roads.
:)
It was the only place I know of where KMart sold golf carts and there were used golf-cart lots on the side of the road.
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
But I have a question for anyone else:
:-)
Why are electric vehicles considered zero emission?
Even apart from the fact that the electricity might come from a 'clean' source there is still a reason why zero emission can be considered important: smog. Cities like Athens or New Mexico have become nearly unlivable because of it and smog is a valid consideration for almost any big city (except when you have a windy day in the midwest, then it is dust
This is uninformed FUD. Utility-scale power plants are more efficient at producing energy and pollute less, per unit of energy produced, than the internal combustion engine in your car.
Do traditional power plants (coal, natural gas, even nuclear) producing energy for a million electric cars still generate pollution? You bet - but less pollution than a million cars burning fossil fuel. In my book, less pollution seems like a good idea.
Plus, there is at least the theoretical option of recharging your electric car with power from a renewable source - solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
If you build neighborhoods correctly, you don't need to rely on any external forces to get you the food you need.
Aye, there's one big source of our dependance on the auto. The U.S. has an *enormous* installed base of poorly-designed neighborhoods. Winding streets with no sidewalks, strict segregation of residential and commercial activities, and sprawling development (single-story houses on 3/4 acre lots. gag!) make it almost a requirement to drive to get any sort of outside input! NEVs are a stopgap solution, what we need in the long term is better urban planning. We need more mixed-use development, more compact residential areas, etc. The guiding principle should be to have everything needed on a daily basis within easy walking (or bicycle) distance from every home.
0 1 - just my two bits
How much more efficient?
Total efficiency?
Lets see, move gas to car. Burn gas(moderately efficient)
vs
Move gas to power plant, run turbine (efficient), generate electricity (low efficiency), transmit to car (ok), recharge battery (generally ok), turn electric motor (a little more efficient then a gas engine, depending on duty cycle).
I think that it might be a slight improvement, but mostly it is a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).
I also again question the longevity of the car, more waste comes from the production of the vehicle then its tailpipe emissions anyway.
Take a quick look at efficiencies, the generation of electricity is quite inefficient, and hurts the overall efficiency of the system.
Yeah, I'm sure that they use tons of solar power in Washington State. Ah, Washington, where the sun's always shining and it's 75 degrees year-round.
Be awesome if they can get the room temp super conducting .
to work with NEV's, would make them super efficient
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/4/5
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
-"I talked to God and here's the deal/ He said to floss between each meal" -- Uninvited
Assume a power plant is 80% efficient. Assume electricity distribution is 95% efficient. Assume lead-acid columetric efficiency is 70%. Assume larger electric motors are 90% efficient.
Your total efficiency still exceeds the brake efficiency of most car engines by several percentage points. Also, car engines lose energy at the clutch and transmission, must waste energy while idling, and cannot recoup energy from braking.
The assumptions above are from quick google searches - if you have better/conflicting info, let me know.
It may not be practical for us here in Seattle to use solar but Washington state make most of it's electicity via hydro. Washington has more hydro-electric than any other state, consisting of 87% of our energy production, amounting to over 88 billion kwh a year. Traditional thermal is only 7% of state production and 6% Nuclear. Eastern Washington even has an up and coming wind power industry too. So eat dust you sun loving pansy.
We use more renewable enrgy than you thank,
not nearly enough of course. Besides, there
are two arguments for using electric even
though that energy clearly has to come from
somewhere
1) It is cheaper and easier to make a more
efficient, cleaner single large power plant
than it is to try to make millions of small
efficient clean vehicles
2) electric vehicles are source agnostic,
they don't care what the source of the energy
is and it would make it that much easier to switch the economy over. Only a few key players would
have to change vs. every ignorant or mis-informed
Tom, Dick and Harry.
PS> And for something like an NEV with low
energy requirements it would be quite easy
to setup a photovoltaic system for charging.
Were that I say, pancakes?
I probably know more about race car design than you do, having wrenched on them myself.
You seem to be making the argument that helmets play an insignificant role in preventing death in auto racing accidents. That is, simply put, absurd. They were saving lives long before many of the safety innovations you cite were ever invented.
First of all, the cars are made to absorb energy. This means that big crash you see where the car gets torn apart, that's the car material sacrificing itself, taking in all the kinetic energy.
It's what they call "crumple zones" in passenger cars.
Then the driver is encased in a 5 point harness.
And in a passenger car, the speeds are lower and the driver has a lap/shoulder belt and an airbag.
Then there's the Han/Hutchens device, which prevents the whiplash effect (what killed Earnhardt, he could have used one).
No, there are two different devices and they are know as the HANS (Head and Neck Support) device and the Hutchens Device.
Just simply wearing a helmet doesn't afford instant protection
Yes, it does. It may not be absolute, but it is instant. Helmets have saved the lives of thousands of motorcylcists over the years. The motorcyclists whose lives were saved had no roll cages, crumple zones, HANS-type devices, or five-point harnesses.
I never claimed that the use of helmets in automobiles would eliminate deaths, did I? It would just drastically reduce the number of deaths caused by brain injuries -- one of the leading causes of death in automobile accidents on public roads.
Why are electric vehicles considered zero emission?
Probably because the vehicles don't have any emissions (duh).
You burn fossil fuels to make electricity, then transfer that power into chemical energy in the batteries, then turn that energy back into electricity later to turn an electric motor to drive to the store... how is this not causing emmissions? Oh, and don't forget that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you've lost energy at every step in that process, so you are probably not as efficient as a good gasoline engine (by good, I mean efficient - not a V-12 Dodge monster).
The point of zero emission is not to conserve energy or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is to improve air quality in crowded cities.
However, electric vehicles may, as a side-benefit, with both. Regenerative braking and other features mean that EVs can operate more efficiently in city traffic. Furthermore, centralizing power generation makes it easier to clean emissions and to choose among a wide variety of renewable fuels.
With gas-powered vehicles, every vehicle needs to contain emission control equipment, and changing from one fuel to another is next to impossible because so many private owners have to replace their vehicles.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."