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!
This is NOT about Segways. It's about light-weight electric cars. A "car like" golf-carts, I suppose. See some examples here.
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
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.
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.
The real problem is that alternative fuel vehicles of every sort, woefully underperform even the most humble gas powered vehicle
This is a common misconception spread by people too lazy to think. If you read up, you'll find most alternative fuel (AF) vehicles outperform gasoline. GM's EV1 battery electric was 0-60mph in about 4.9sec, faster than a 5.0L mustang, and a heck of a lot more fun to drive. Check out Nedra.com for a selection of battery electric drag racers.(Electric drivetrains produce instantanous torque, over a wide range, much more power than gasoline)
Its true that most prototype AF vehicles have been slugs, alternative fuel vehicles are often designed for efficency, not performance, and the two tend to be mutually exclusive.
As for NEV's, they have a nitch, but I really don't see a huge market beyond the city center or retirement/closed communities. American's mostly buy cars based on perceived need :
"I commute to work alone in this monsterous gas guzzling SUV becuase I might buy a boat and need to tow it, or haul the soccer team to Dallas, even though I don't have kids or climb a giant mountain that might spring up in the middle of Nebraska" Advertising encourages this irrational line of thinking.
"I don't want to drive a clean, fast electric car, becuase I might want to road trip 500 miles to Tijuana on impulse once a year." Ignoring the idea that a rental car works nicely for long trips and is considerable cheaper than owing unused capacity)
The other problem is that none of the major auto manufactuers are doing anything but dabble in the AF market Its impossible for a new car company to emerge today, safety regs require you crash test quite a few cars before selling, and selling a car for 10-20k$ is nearly impossible unless you sell 100,000 of them. So the automotive newcomers/innovators are tackling the NEV market, which require less units to be profitable, safety requirements are lighter, and margins are larger.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.