Slashdot Mirror
Mercedes To Phase Out Gasoline By 2015
arbitraryaardvark sends in a story a couple of weeks back in Yahoo's Ecogeek blog, reporting that Mercedes will phase out petroleum-powered cars by 2015 (mirror), and notes: "Story is unconfirmed but well sourced." "In less than 7 years, Mercedes-Benz plans to ditch petroleum-powered vehicles from its lineup. Focusing on electric, fuel cell, and biofuels, the company is revving up research in alternative fuel sources and efficiency."
In other news, the public will phase out Mercedes purchases by 2015.
Maybe this precedent (if true) will prompt the other automakers to follow?
GM failed to appreciate the coming change.
Good for Mercedes to be acting ahead of the curve. That is how you build technology and establish markets and presence.
Nobody killed the electric car. They killed their own opportunity.
Gentlemen, redouble your efforts!
Anybody want my mod points?
As this isn't an official announcement, I'm not holding my breath. Sure Mercedes have been at the forefront of vehicle technology for quite some time, but do you really see their entire truck line going non-petroleum in 7 years? Maybe the passenger cars, but not the trucks.
><));>
Well if a blog says it's "well sourced," that's good enough for me!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
are still left in the 70's building 5 litre v8 guzzlers with solid rear axles
though looking at GM and Fords financial statements they wont be building much of anything if they dont change, fast.
> Focusing on ... biofuels, the company is revving up research in
> alternative fuel sources and efficiency.
Haven't they heard? Biofuels are now officially evil.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Nobody really gives a damn what fuels their cars, they care about cost and acceptable performance (can I make 70-80 on the freeway, or will I have a top speed of 40). If they can solve the problem of refueling infrastructure and sufficient mileage per refuel, there's no reason why not to go with a non-gas car.
you want this
Great so we will use our already short supply of corn to create ethanol. So we have green cars but half of the world will starve to death.
Until we convert to completely non-combustive and non-fissile energy production, all vehicles will continue to use a certain amount of nuclear, petroleum and/or carbon-based fuels as a source of power.
All that these so-called electric and fuel-cell vehicles do is shift the point source of the pollution and fuel consumption away from the vehicle and onto the electrical grid (and by extension to coal, nuclear, and natural gas generating stations), because charging vehicle batteries and capacitors (or splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, so the hydrogen can be used as a fuel) takes electricity.
Besides, the vehicles will still probably depend on petroleum-based products for lubricants.
As if we could afford an electric car now.
-516
Now we need these three big boys to jump on board with the same claim.....gas prices will be barely over a dollar within weeks.
Got Code?
Since this isn't an official announcement coming from MB themselves, I'm going to guess that "phasing out gasoline" and "focusing on biofuels" still means that they will still be running on diesel for their internal combustion engines. Not knowing much about automobile engines, or diesel in particular, I'm going to guess that they'll focus on the lower-sulfur diesel fuel that Europe has mandated (I believe, again, too lazy to look this stuff up), but it doesn't mean "no petroleum products ever"
Not to mention, there's still going to be plenty of oil in that engine, not to mention plenty of petroleum products in the rest of the car.
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
tremendous energy density, easy to transport, not even hazardous when spilled, near-identical performance to diesel /50 mpg in my VW
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
No matter how we choose to generate power in the future, we have very few options for switching to anything other than gasoline for transporting that power.
Gasoline has a fantastic energy density. A 14 gallon tank of the stuff contains 491.2 kilowatt-hours of energy ($68 in electricity at New York rates), and the gasoline itself only weighs 81 pounds. If you fill up the tank in five minutes, you're transferring power at 7.368 megawatts. Can you imagine what kind of electrical infrastructure you would need to transfer the same power over mere wires?
About the only alternative I can imagine that would be comparable would be to hot-swap whole huge batteries at gas stations.
No, I think we'll be using gasoline, or at least a similar liquid fuel, for quite a while.
As owners of new Mercedes can't find places to fill up their cars.
Look, I'm all for alternative power sources, (I've been driving a Honda Civic hybrid since 2004), but a unilateral decision like this is just silly. Mercedes just isn't a big enough player (even in Europe) to force the construction of the infrastructure needed to support common use of fuel cells, etc. by 2015.
And don't biofuels lead to worldwide food shortages? A better route for Mercedes would be to ease the transition with regular hybrids and plug-in hybrids, then take the leap into leaving gasoline and diesel.
Me? When I sell my Civic Hybrid in a few years (like, say, six or so), I'll probably get a Chevy Volt. 40 miles on batteries only = never having to use gas on my way or going home from work.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Mercedes invented the modern automobile, now they're leading in innovation again. Now if only American automakers would muster up the grit to do the same. Electric motors have been around since 1881 for Pete's sake. Howabout it folks?
Even if a car manufacturer is serious about going to alternative fuels, I don't see it happen within 7 years for the major brands. Because the alternatives are not at the point where they could do as well as gasoline motors in all aspects. A small company might choose to make only electric cars and sell enough to make a profit, but I doubt the market would absorb the numbers a large manufacturer makes.
Besides, it is Mercedes we're talking about. Historically they tend to be late to adopt technology trends. With direct injection diesels and cars that could use unleaded gasoline, they were among the last on the German market.
Which is not to say Mercedes are incompetent, my impression of their cars is that they offer solid quality and a friend of mine who is a car mechanic agrees. But they are rather conservative, which means they offer mature technology but are rarely the first to do something.
C - the footgun of programming languages
So here is the key sentence in all its diplomatic finery: "We seek to share with all parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving ** at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050**, recognising that this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities."
You notice that there is not mention of the baseline year, and that it is "global", sounds like an average to me.
This is absurd. Maybe they made a typing mistake and meant to say that petroleum cars would stop being made by Mercedes by 2115.
Change happens slowly, even when it is anticipated and expected. No giant car company is going to stop making petroleum vehicles by 2015, least of all a German company. Some little schmuck (Yiddish: penis; stupid person // German: jewel) in their Press Relations department is talking out of his ass.
This is the most absurd statement to come out of German car company since Daimler announced that they had 'great syzygy' with Chrysler.
Wait.... isn't Mercedes Daimler in disguise? Are these the same bozos as before?
It's NOT true.
... Will I even be alive when that finally happens? I have hope."
Fraud Alert: This is just a technically ignorant person's blog post. He wrote an attention-grabbing headline, and the Slashdot editor apparently didn't read the entire story.
Even the writer, Jaymi Heimbuch, doesn't believe the heading. Quote: "While car models may be able to run on fuels other than gasoline or diesel, we have yet to find a method of both running and producing vehicles entirely free of fossil fuels. I'm waiting for a mainstream car line that creates renewable fuel, clean-running vehicles out of 100% recycled materials in plants run on 100% renewable, clean power
Electric cars are NOT "clean power". The electricity generation plant uses coal or oil or nuclear fuel, and those are as dirty as before.
Mercedes truck division is way bigger than its car division.
And plenty of Italian farmers drive a Lambo to work.
No sig today...
If the main focus of this is going to be diesel engines running on biofuels, there doesn't seem a lot of extra work to be done. Their light commercial diesels, especially the 2.1L fitted in the Sprinter van, is a phenomenal engine: quiet, powerful, economical and very tractable.
I don't have direct experience of their diesel-engined cars (except seeing them go past me on the motorway), but I would imagine the technology is pretty similar.
The switch from petro- to bio-diesel is a lot more straightforward than with gasoline, so I would expect this to be the area they focus on.
[ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
I hate environmentalists who want us to stop using gas. I hate them with a great passion becuase they cannot see that switching from one type of fuel to another single type of fuel is equivalent to shooting ourselves in the foot. Running out of oil and gas prices are not the problem. The real problem is seeing gas/oil as the only source of energy that can be used for transportation. So let's ditch gas and start using biodiesel. How long do you think it will take until we start running out of biodiesel?
I have a friend who converted an older Benz into a car that runs on french fry oil. He gets his fuel for free so essentially he is not affected by the current gas prices. Twice a month he goes to a local college, gets a barrel of used oil and there you go. This was tits while he had the only veggie car in town. Guess what is happening when gallon goes past $4? That's right, everybody wants free oil from french fries. We are back to square one. While local restaurants may be able to supply enough oil for a hundred cars, there is no way in hell we can get enough products for everybody. Exactly the same thing will happen to people who jump from one source of energy to another. The answer to the problem is diversification.
What we have to do is to realize that everybody's needs are different. People who want to commute 40 miles per day can get away by using an electric car. Guys who want to target Rubicon trail will benefit from Diesel/electric combo (due to torque) and in some cases gasoline will be appropriate. And while I am highly pleased with the fact that a car company wants to step away from gas, I hope that this world is not going to jump on the bandwagon to find out that in 100 years we are back to exactly the same spot: Running out of fuel.
flying pigs.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
It is going to be with an electric car. I'll admit, the electricity distribution system needs a drastic overhaul, but it is for all intents and purposes, in place. Can Mercedes do it? Absolutely. As previously mentioned, Tesla Motors is doing it right now, and that's with a sports car faster than almost all exotics off the line. Toning down performance and allowing the technology to mature will all attribute to a successful conversion.
Given that nobody has a clue what the future infrastructure will be at the moment (though electric would seem a good guess *now*) this would be a brave to the point of suicidal move on their behalf.
It probably won't be feasible to have a common body-work and slot in different fuel regimes, so this will shoot costs right up.
Irrespective of whether or not such a transition is desirable, I'm not convinced that it's practical.
I doubt the article is even true, BUT in typical corporate speak they *could* revert to all diesel engines which *could* be biodiesel...or not...depending on local availability. That's a pretty huge loophole.
Cheers,
But hopeful. If just 1 or 2 big players in the automotive industry make a real push, there's no reason gas cars couldn't be a thing of the past in the near future.
I'm tired of hearing about these crap "hybrids" that only get like 2 mpg more then their non-hybrid counterparts.
Plenty of people are already running their Benz on the stuff the local chip-shop would have thrown away. How hard is it to ramp that up a bit?
No sig today...
There's a huge movement in CA right now of folks using old cooking oil to fuel diesel engines. The bio fuel guys run around to restaurants and pick up their old cooking oil and then process it - without ANY petroleum or other fossil fuels.
The problem is that those companies that collect the old oil for a fee (restaurants pay $$$) are lobbying the CA legislature to make it illegal except for a licensed company to pick up the oil - in effect putting the biofuel guys out of business - or forcing them to buy the old oil from the companies that pickup. These companies are telling the CA legislature that they should be the only ones to pick up old oil because the public's safety is in jeopardy. Of course with enough $$$ the politicians will be on board.
It's amazing how low folks will stoop to save their business.
Oh! The favorite car that the bio fuel guys use is a Mercedes Diesel - unmodified.
Also, the link to HCCI in the story is broken. Use the one here instead.
The discussion about HCCI is written by someone named named Benjamin Jones. He obviously does not have much technical understanding.
Toyota are already selling hybrids and were the first to do it on a significant scale. ;-)
Now those are not as spectacularly "green" as some people think, but they are a good start. This makes Toyota one of the few major brands that have taken the risk of releasing something really new as product (as opposed to waiting until someone else does it and then copying it
C - the footgun of programming languages
You know, GM really stepped on it's dick when it decided to crush the EV1. Here they had the chance to become the biggest auto manufacture on the planet, design a fully electric car, nearly maintenance free. Nickel metal hydride batteries that would outlast the life of the car, a motor good for a 1,000,000+ miles, regenerative breaking, would go 130+ miles between charges (NiMH), 300+ with L-ion.
If I had the chance I would buy a fully electric car, my commute is 60 miles round trip. However, not using gas would get me labeled as a thief by the state and federal governments since I wouldn't be paying the gas tax that never seems to go towards it's intended purpose (and never goes down when said road project is finished).
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
MB doesn't event have a hybrid out. How do they plan on R&D in 10 years that'll save there tails? This is just white noise trying to stir up marketing. As stated by someone earlier, "MB is ahead of the curve". Since when has MB been ahead of the curve? I haven't see anything in the last 5 Mercedes I've been in that wasn't in a Honda.
Ranting. Ignored.
You forseeing a massive crop failure the rest of us don't see coming?
Okay, we'll use nice, virgin oil made from surplus soybeans/corn/whatever vegetable - although it won't have that "french fried" smell . . .
Hey, you got one right!
Uh, hence the term renewable energy resources. Renewable. Not like fossil fuels (which are NOT renewable). Like crops.
Now, if you wanna look at the problem, it's not entirely our energy infrastructure; in large part it's our energy gluttony which is doing us in.
As usual, people assume that the problem is the fuel. Its not. Its the lifestyle. People are right to say that nothing can replace gasoline for the lifestyle we currently live. That is why the lifestyle is going to change, because there is not going to be affordable gasoline enough to live like that, and there are going to be no substitutes.
Folks, the 20th century is over. It was great while it lasted, suburbs, drive ins, shopping malls, long distance commutes. But its over. What is going to replace it will not be different fuels, electric cars, whatever. What will replace it is commuting by mass transit, living closer to where you work, moving into high density cities, walking to shops. Biking to work in some places. It will be a lot like Europe in the fifties. The suburbs will vanish.
And you won't like it.
Hence the focus on finding renewable energy sources. Biofuels are renewable.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Anybody who says they can't do it has never been to Germany.
Germany is unbelievably green. The people will buy into anything which weans them off gasoline and the USA-led wars which go with it.
Algae-grown biodiesel is about as eco-friendly as you can get (put in garbage, get fuel out). The Germans will go for it 100%.
The rest of the world? They'll catch up eventually.
No sig today...
I own two very fuel efficient vehicles. Not the MOST, but very.
A 2006 Cummins Turbo powered Diesel. 8K pound truck, I can get 26 mpg, depending on speed, in town. Pulling 15K pounds, I can get 16 mpg. Pulling 26K pounds, it gets > 10.
Also a 2007 Highlander Hybrid. It's pretty fuel efficient itself, averaging a total of 24.8 mpg honestly. Of course, it's heavy as hell (never had it on a scale, but have had it on my 40 foot trailer pulling it, and it pulls like a pair of Volkswagen beetles on the same trailer. Them batteries are HEAVY).
That being said, I believe I can point the future direction of autos. (oh yeah, also graduated from WyoTech with an AS in "auto mechanics", for lack of better terms.).
Hybrids with diesel generation. Same exact thing locomotives are doing, but instead of burning off the electric generated during braking, charge the batteries (the top of a locomotive is typically a large resistor. The drive motors / electric brakes supply drag by energizing them with a small amount of voltage, causing them to act just like an alternator). During exceleration, apply electric and indirect drive, using a continuously variable transmission (a la Highlander Hybrid).
This causes a couple things to happen. A. You get to use that energy that actually causes you to slow down to excelerate. ALMOST like getting something for nothing (you have to carry them batteries, and that's drag). B. An engine can be designed to be SUPER efficient when that engine only as to turn at a single or small range of RPMs. A diesel, with a small turbo charger could be designed to put mad amounts of torque to push that car (when needed) or to turn an alternator to power them wheels, coupled with stored battery power. Run that engine at it's most efficient point (Pin vs Pout), and you get the picture.
You can do a simple conversion to get it to biofuel status by just switching to (and this creates a host of other problems) biodiesel.
Diesel (and biodiesel) is NOT explosive. Score one for diesel, kill one for hydrogen / other hydrocarbon fuels.
Diesel has more power per liter / gallon than regular refined fuel has. This increases the volumetric efficiency of the engine, designed right.
The more diesel you shove into an engine, the more power it produces (to the point of completely flooding the cyls and preventing detonation of the fuel / air mixture). However, finding that "sweet spot" really makes them wake up. There is a reason big trucks and ships, etc. run on oil / diesel. Mo Powah = Mo Bettah!
Anywho, I'd be willing to bet that will be the direction auto industries end up taking us. The original diesel engine ran on peanut oil, for crise-sakes! How much more bio can you get than that?
--Toll_Free
...a green push it certainly within their capability, I believe.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz#Innovations
Innovations
The "Safety cage" or "Safety cell" construction with front and rear crumple zones was first developed by Mercedes-Benz in 1951.[25]
Anti-lock brakes (ABS), traction control and airbags in the European market, were Mercedes-Benz innovations. These technologies were introduced in 1978, 1986 and 1980 respectively.
In September 2003, Mercedes-Benz introduced the world's first 7-speed automatic transmission called '7G-Tronic'.
Mercedes-Benz was the first to introduce pre-tensioners to seat belts on the 1981 S-Class. In the event of a crash, a pre-tensioner will tighten the belt instantaneously, preventing the passenger from jerking forward in a crash.
Stability control, brake assist (Press Release) , and many other types of safety equipment were all developed, tested, and implemented into passenger cars--first--by Mercedes-Benz. Mercedes-Benz has not made a large fuss about its innovations and has even licensed them for use by competitors--in the name of improving automobile and passenger safety.
Mercedes M156 engine
Mercedes M156 engine
The most powerful naturally aspirated eight cylinder engine in the world is the Mercedes-AMG, 6208 cc M156 V8 engine. The V8 engine is badged '63 AMG' and replaced the '55 AMG' M113 engine in most models. The M156 engine produces up to 525 bhp (391 kW), and although some models using this engine do have this output (such as the S63 and CL63 AMGs) specific output varies slightly across other models in the range.[26]
The (W211) E320 CDI which has a (VTG) turbocharged, 3.0L V6 common rail diesel engine, set three world endurance records. It covered 100,000 miles (1.6×105 km) in a record time with an average speed of 224.823 km/h (140 mph). Three identical cars did the endurance run (one set above record) and the other two cars set world records for time taken to cover 100,000 km and 50,000 miles (80,000 km) respectively. After all three cars had completed the run their combined distance was 300,000 miles (4.8×105 km) (all records were FIA approved).
Mercedes-Benz's pioneered a system called Pre-Safe which uses radar to detect an imminent crash and prepares the car's safety systems to respond optimally. It also calculates the optimal breaking force required to avoid an accident in emergency situations and makes it immediately available for when the driver depresses the brake pedal. Occupants are also prepared by tightening the seatbelt, closing the sunroof and windows, and moving the seats into the optimal position.
Mercedes Benz is developing a fatigue-detection system that warns the driver when they are displaying signs of micro-sleep (when the eyes stay closed for slightly longer than a natural blinking action). The system will use a variety of data including the individual driving style, the duration of the journey, the time of day and the current traffic situation. Fatigue mostly sets in gradually.[27]
The fastest (production) automatic road car in the world is the Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren at 334 km/h (208 mph). The car was co-developed by DaimlerChrysler and McLaren Cars. The fastest street-legal saloon car in the world is the Mercedes-Benz Brabus (tuned) W211 'E V12' - based on the E-Class saloon.
That's right, all of the "buy American" dolts destroyed the American auto industry. That is, the American-based carmakers, I'm not talking about foreign companies that build cars in the US like Honda and Toyota and BMW and Mercedes and.. well, probably just about everyone. For what it's worth, my BMW was built in South Carolina, and the quality is identical to the previous one built at the Motorsport factory in Germany, which is to say pretty damn good.
My car's in the (body) shop and I ended up with a Ford Taurus rental. 2 miles down the road and I concluded that every person involved in the Taurus should be immediately fired. The car sucked so much that I took it back the next day and ended up with a Mazda 6 instead (which I know from previous rentals to be a decent car).
The Taurus is a wholly incompetent car. I shudder to think that it was built in 2007. It droves like a 1984 Lincoln. Wallows all over the place, can't turn, can't brake, slow as hell, doesn't track straight, hard to see out of, big enough to require its own zip code, and ugly as sin, inside and out.
So, thanks for continuing to "buy American", thereby allowing our auto industry to maintain sales despite utterly worthless products.
Though I admit the Focus is a pretty decent car, that's actually what I had hoped to get in exchange for the Taurus.
1.21 Jigawatts, Where am I going to come up with 1.21 Jigawatts!!?!?
when corporations begin the transesterification of the corpulent.
Wrong on several levels.
First, the math:
491 kilowatt-hours = 0.491 megawatt-hours.
0.491 MWh over 5 minutes = 5.892 MWs of energy.
Second, you are ignoring efficiency:
5.8 MWs of energy is far more than it takes to move a car. Gasoline engines are remarkably ineffecient at converting all that energy into actual power.
Third, and most importantly:
"If it were possible for human beings to digest gasoline, a gallon would contain about 31,000 food calories -- the energy in a gallon of gasoline is equivalent to the energy in about 110 McDonalds hamburgers!"
Soure: http://science.howstuffworks.com/gasoline1.htm
(Okay, so maybe not most importantly, but it's the coolest.)
"Besides, it is Mercedes we're talking about. Historically they tend to be late to adopt technology trends."
You must recheck your auto knowledge. Mercedes is the forefront of automobile excellence. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-AMG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_(automobile)
If you want to see how common cars will be in 5/10 years, see the Mercedes class S.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_S-Class:
"the S-Class has debuted many of the company's latest innovations, including advanced safety systems, drivetrain technologies, and interior features. Notably, the S-Class introduced the first airbag supplemental restraint systems, seatbelt pretensioners, and electronic stability control"
Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
If this article said phasing out gasoline but keeping diesel powered cars I could believe it. Biofuels can't do it and the only way electricity makes sense is if it is nuclear. Everybody needs to take a tour of a large refinery and look at the huge storage tanks of crude oil that get processed in just a few days and then ponder the number of refineries there are in this world to realize how difficult it will be to replace gasoline and diesel. I bet we are still using gasoline in 2050 if not much later.
Fuel cells still use fuel. That fuel will likely be gasoline.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Get back to us when it is more than blog spam because this makes no sense at all.
Mercedes big money in fossil fuel burning engines that probably will just be coming on the market in that time frame.
Look into DiesOtto for one.
I don't know. The problem is that almost every story about the subject is, like this one, full of enthusiasm but also full of mistakes. I haven't done a fundamental analysis.
There is considerable energy loss when transmitting electricity, especially since it is usually transmitted over long distances.
but I still can't afford one.
Look up the numbers. Total oil from oil crop production versus gasoline+diesel consumption.
And what about their faster models? Will they ditch at the same time? I'm going to miss the sound of the supercharged v8.
You don't sound like a person who knows a thing or two about farming. Jumping into "we can make it from corn" bandwagon is no better than relying only on oil for all engergy needs because crops are not renewable. See my other posts under the partent.
Sooner or later you will run out of land and resources. You will have to make choices between growing crops for food or growing crops for fuel. This is happening in Brazil already! Farmers choose to cut down rain forest and in order to grow crops for Ethanol production. Do you not see how stupid this is? You damage rain forest and stop food production in order to make fuel. This makes little sense especially to people who do not have luxury of having a grilled chicken every day. While millions of people starve, we turn food crops into fuel...
Yes, biofuels are a great idea as long as we can diversify them correctly. =
Good point. But, you also have to consider that, instead of building new power plants every time we get a newer and better way to generate electricity (which will happen anyways), you have to modify factories to build the new engine, modify all the fuel stations to accommodate the new fuel, and then wait for the cars to get out on the road. Note that California's own air resources board notes that it takes 16 years for 50% of the passenger cars produced in that year to be off the road. That jumps up to 18 years for light duty trucks. Unless we find a catalyst for carbon fixing in a cheap and usable form, I think that electric is probably the better way to go.
Cynical Idealist
People don't want to change their lifestyle and if somebody comes up with a plan where they don't have to, they'll jump on it.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I have read recently (no cite, sorry) that there is some thought that if all these cars are charging at night when demand is usually lower, then the additional generation load may not be too bad.
Also it was said in the same article that perhaps by having so many batteries tied into the grid it could actually stabilize peak generation requirements, or something like that.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
What are they going to do? Build a nation of new fuel stations in their largest market to handle Mercedes-Benz only fuel?
PR For Dummies:
Step 1: Make grandiose statement about something that will happen 7 years from now.
Step 2: Enjoy the PR boost now.
Step 3: There is no Step 3. You don't even have to do what you said in Step 1. Nobody will remember the claim by then! And even if someone digs it up, it will be dismissed as an inconsequential footnote, something someone wistfully said 7 years ago.
'a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM DATA WHERE name LIKE '%'... if you're reading this, it didn't work.
The problem with this is that there is really no replacement for oil out there. We can talk up all the alternative fuels we want but they are simply not as convenient as pumping oil out of the ground. Now I'm all for hurrying along the inevitable changeover, but there is no way in hell barring a major advancement we don't know about yet that they are going to stick to this. I give it 5 years before they move the date out past 2020. Of course, this is probably all bullshit anyway...
Ack, the post got messed up... I should have previewed. Replace that second paragraph with:
Okay, so these are the outlets found all across the country. The RV ones are especially interesting, since RV parks can often be found in even the most remote places, and I'm sure your average RV park owner would love a new revenue stream, what with RV travel down due to high gas prices. Now, let's take an upcoming EV like the Aptera Typ-1e -- 2+1 seating, 120 miles@55mph, 70 miles@80mph, 90mph top speed, 0-60 in under 10 sec, 15.9 cubic feet of cargo space, etc for $27k. It has a 10kWh battery pack. Charger efficiency isn't known, but 93% or so is standard for slow charging (i.e., charging in more than half an hour or so). Li-ion batteries range from 96% (fast charging) to 99.9% (trickle charging) efficiency. Let's say 99%. Let's ignore the slowdown at the end, since that's more significant with .
For ~2 hours worth of moderate speed driving or ~1 hour of high-speed driving, and assuming an appropriate onboard charger, you get the following charge times:
NEMA 5-15R (15A): 6.2h
NEMA 5-15R (20A): 4.6h
NEMA TT-30R: 3.1h
NEMA 10-30R or 14-30R: 1.5h
NEMA 10-50R or 14-50R: 0.92h
Now, these are with standard outlets that you can already find across the country. Thanks to modern batteries and chargers, fast charging is not only possible, but already available in places, such as Oahu. They use 60kW PosiCharge fast chargers by Aerovironment. Aerovironment already makes them as big as 250kW.
The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
I'll hazard a guess and say that they are going to support biodiesel across their product line. Diesels have been able to put out more power than petrols for several years now, and with common rail technology they just as smooth and quiet now. It's not a big step to support biodiesel on top of existing diesel technology.
What I want to see is councils offering free parking if you pay for using the inbuilt charging socket on the parking meter...
Oh, that and electric conversion kits for my classic cars
Cars in the future will run on love.
Phase out cars like the SLK65 AMG? Not likely. This is most likely a bogus report. Mercedes may convert a portion of its fleet to alternative fuels/architectures, but not its entire fleet. There are way too many rich people who will continue to buy their petroleum based cars.
If the cost of private transportation continues to rise...
I could very easily see all routine transport done without private vehicles, and people renting cars, or using a car share, when they need to take the odd trip somewhere to which public transit is infeasible. That is how a lot of NYC people operate...
Of course the rich would likely keep private vehicles...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
selling cars here in the USA?
Lets face it petroleum based vehicles have the benefit of the very high energy yield of gas/diesel, superior delivery infrastructure and are well understood by the public. Bio-fuels are great but they either suffer from low possible yield or impede something even more important, the ability to afford food. There is not now nor will there been in the foreseeable future a reliable means to produce, deliver and store vast quantities of hydrogen. Finally what do you think will happen to your electricity bill when every Tom, Dick and Harry on the block plugs in their golf cart? Better yet will our antiquated electrical grid even survive? We are simply not ready to go off oil. If we stopped today, you would starve, if we stopped 5 years from now you would probably starve, if we busted our asses and took on a live style similiar to the 1800's we might be able to still eat, go to the mall occasionaly and surf the net in 10 years.
What we need is a solution that will mirror oil with out the pollution and without enriching terrorist states. Best possibility I've read about is bio engineered fuels using organic waste products, it can be treated used like conventional fuel, has a low carbon foot print and doesn't effect food production.
But of course your car has to be able to burn it.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Like ethanol, bio-diesel, which I purchase when reasonably priced, suffers from a lack of available production. There simply is not nor will there be in the foreseeable future any way to grow even organic material to both feed the world and power our country. Google it, I was all gung hoo to replace big oil with big soy but it just isn't viable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
I don't like swapping my propane tank because I have a fairly new one. I really don't think I'd like to swap my nice new $5000 battery pack for whatever the last guy left at the station.
Keep two packs...
One nice one, that you don't want to swap out, and get a used one, as cheap as you can. Put the cheap on in when you are going to go on a long trip that would require swapping..
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
As an interesting note, an engine designed with ethanol in mind will actually produce more power than a gasoline vehicle of similar displacement. This is because, while ethanol has a lower energy density per volume of fuel, it has a much higher octane rating and a higher synchromatic reatio (you can burn more fuel for a particular volume of air.) So, you can design an engine to run at a much higher compression for better efficiency (more power from the same amount of fuel,) or you can design a turbo engine to run with more boost (useful in a flex fuel design.)
A great example of this is the Koenigsegg CCXR
There are other issues with Ethanol, however. Some countries with a primarily agricultural economy are converting much of their production to produce bio-fuel. This is exasperating some of the world starvation issues.
we may switch to in the near future (7-15 years), it will most likely have to fit the "filling station" model. If you look at how huge the economics are in the current petroleum based fuel infrastructure, an alternative fuel will need to fulfill: A taxable "disposable" good ($0.47/gal average in the U.S. to State and Federal governments according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax)); A diverse, non centralized distribution for convenience and local job opportunity; The ability to support secondary markets (convenience stores, car washes, etc.); The job infrastructure for creation and distribution of the fuel.
Biofuels are already causing the food price hikes. 80% of the incrase in food prices is due to the increase farmland demand for biofuels. This is causing a food shortage.
Google it.
They should start putting solar panels on the roof of electric and hybrid cars instead of relying entirely on grid power. That way while your car is parked at work (assuming you're not under covered parking or garaged - which is simple enough to manage) your car is charging its batteries. Also while you're driving the car, the batteries are being charged. Of course, it's nowhere near the amount of electricity you're using while driving but it can extend the range if nothing else. I'd like to see a plug-in hybrid with solar panels on the roof and hood. I mean why stop at the fact that it's hybrid? Why not make it even better?
> The people will never give up their cars.
They will if they cannot afford them. And then public transport won't just be for those smelly homeless people you describe.
Agreed, the cars will not go away. However, the USA imports 2/3 of the oil used to power its fleet of automobiles. Shortly after the US economy collapses (2009? 2008? 2012 at the latest), the oil exporters will no longer trade oil for (then worthless) dollars. At this time, the cars will still be there, but they won't be moving. This will mark the end of the American love affair with the automobile.
Enjoy your car while you can, and take a road trip soon. Pretty soon, there will be no more road trips in the USA.
Overwhelming evidence suggests the above statements are true. Overwhelming evidence also suggests that most people will deny it right up until it happens, and possibly for some time afterwards.
Suggested reading:
The Five Stages of Collapse
Jay Hanson's Die Off Resources
Scientific references about peak oil
so, they're switching to diesel ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx92mitp9Os
Of course if you would get your head out of your ass and look around every once in a while, you'd realize that humans are very good at problem solving. A 90 mile range car, plugged in at night when many businesses are closed, would cover the needs of much of the population. Taxi drivers can use technology already in use in one of the poorest countries in the world, and with some sensible urban planning most of us can walk around instead of wasting energy driving. Remember, the same caloric content of a gallon of gas could get you a few thousand miles if you use your legs.
The reason it's not being done is because gasoline cars make a lot of money, because they're extremely inefficient and expensive to maintain. And because the corporate non-hippies bitch and moan about mass transportation subsidies, despite the fact that it's more expensive to maintain roads and fight wars in the middle east, we end up with an extremely inefficient infrastructure that does not improve the quality of life.
Please. That is pure FUD. I don't know where you are getting your secret insiders market information, so right off the bat I will tell you you are being flat out lied to and repeating that lie. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and an excuse though, because I know this is what you are reading, after all I read similar and see it too, but I will now clue you in to reality. I work in poultry and can tell you the big processors are almost all hurting bad, almost without exception they are all losing over a million bucks per week per plant. there's only half a dozen big ones and you know their names if you follow the markets like you say. They are making farmers wait between new flocks, almost up to three weeks now heading towards four soon when it used to be about an 8 day turn around two years ago. *Think* about that one long and hard, extrapolate a little. They need to be getting around 2 a pound wholesale for breastmeat in bulk just to break even with rising fuel~energy costs and feed costs, and that isn't happening, at best they are being offered around a buck fifty. Right now, there are only around 4 months a year in most of the US where the farmers-and therefore the packers and processors- are making a smidgen of profit, barely a tiny profit, certainly nothing like it was just a few years ago, and those months are two months around mid spring and two months around mid fall, any other time, the remaining 8 months out of the year, the electricity for the fans in the summer heat and running the propane for the heat for the winter makes the operation work at a net loss. That's the absolute, no shitting around facts, right now, today, as it stands. 8 months out of the year running into the red, and the worst is yet to come with rising production-energy costs and the bid up prices on feed. This comes directly from guys in suits who are starting to sweat profusely and contemplate mass bankruptcies with most of their growers (almost all poultry operations are grower-contracted, BTW) across huge areas of the nation, then you'll see your cheapest source of animal protein become priced like mid range beef is today. You can then extrapolate what beef will be, I follow that as well(just marginally but adequately) and it is very similar but not as fast changing as the poultry biz is now, but close enough, right behind it. Pork I don't follow at all, can't say, but I can't see why it would be much different. That fast price hit change WILL be hitting consumers by next winter as operations start shutting down, and most of them for good as they get repoed by the banks and then become white elephants because you can't just take any random clueless yuppie banker or "investor" and have them buy up specialty farms at auction and expect them to work any better than the traditional guys were doing, even if they throw all illegal aliens at the operations. Most of the biz is already there with that and it doesn't help much if any. If you can't change the basic operating production numbers, marginally cheaper labor won't change anything either. And it won't be solvable by trying to import poultry, foreign feed costs are the same, equipment is the same, shipping is higher, and those peoples are all demanding help with food prices as well now. Think about it. Labor is way down the list on expenses, contrary to a lot of other industries, if you look at the whole stack. And it won't help the millers if most of their customers go belly up in a year. This is short term profit mania being pushed by a few really big concerns because they know full well the dollar is going to TANK real damn soon now and they want as much as they can get out of it before that happens. You want more clues, the emirates are about to lead a revolt against being tied to the buck. You can google for that, hit last weekend quietly. There ya go. Saudis will be the last holdouts, but just barely, the pressure will be immense on them, and that little 300 thou barrel increase is the best they can do now. I can't even contemplate what will happen if they decide
I come from Houston Texas. It's a city with almost no public transportation whatsoever. Sure we have METRO which is brutally limited and of course I live in the suburbs (thanks to my nice, expensive, and very convenient car) so I get nothing from that. If I worked downtown I could take a bus in using the park and ride system but I don't. There's literally no way to get me from where I live to where I work and back again without a ridiculous amount of time and trouble being involved.
I didn't plan it like that. I'm like everybody else here in Houston. I didn't plan a damned thing. It just worked out that way because it could. I'm am utterly dependent on my car. On top of that I drive a 2006 Pontiac GTO. It gets crap mileage but it's a fun ride and fast. I love my car and I'm never giving up my car. It's just not an option on the table. I'm as indoctrinated into the American cult of the big V8 as you can get.
About three years ago I went on a vacation with my wife to London. We spent 9 days there and didn't use a car or take a cab. We walked and used the underground. It was pure heaven. I'd kill for a system like that in my town. I'd love to leave the goat at home and take a subway like that to work every day. I wouldn't lose the car but I'd drive it a hell of a lot less if I had the option.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
They'll introduce flying cars! It's unconfirmed but believe by many bloggers!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
"Nobody killed the electric car. They killed their own opportunity."
GM killed their electric car because they lost two billion dollars on the project. That's two billion. The EV1 had shit for range, took forever to recharge, and was dangerous to maintain.
From your own source:
There was no conspiracy. The EV1 was a lousy, unprofitable product.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The biofuel, electricity stuff is just blah blah.
It just means that they will switch their product line to Diesel engines which run on biodiesel with some minor modification (which they will include I suppose).
Trucks are already 100% Diesel in the EU and at least in Germany (where Mercedes has it headquarters) private cars are switching to Diesel too (mainly due to tax reasons).
Furthermore the lastest generation of Diesel engines is able to bring a much power to the street (at high speeds) as a petrol one which is extremely important for the German market (no general speed limits on the highways). Hence, it actually does not make much sense to keep their petrol lines.
Now the US is different regarding Diesel, but given the future economic development in the US, I suppose they have just given up that market.
I've never heard of a company having such a long period of self-liquidation before. What next, Microsoft abandoning computers by 2015 ?
sure, a flintstonemobile looks good on paper...
Serenity now, insanity later.
Live and learn.
I didn't know there was any waste fats being thrown out by American restaurants.
No sig today...
The battery pack in the Tesla roadster is about 1200 pounds! And that gets you about 60 miles. So, if (big if) all the automobile manufacturers could agree on a standard battery form factor and method of replacing the battery pack this simply is not workable. This is akin to changing horse teams on a stagecoach. Now think about 150 million stagecoaches running around the United States alone. Sorry, but this is just nutty.
There are some fine examples of successful park and rides in Chicago.
Look no further than the inbound I-90 during rush hour: While creeping along at five miles per hour near Cumberland, you can take the Cumberland exit, drive two minutes, pull into the garage, and board a train within five.
There's nothing quite like relaxing on the train while it speeds past the idle vehicles on its median track.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
The nation's fleet of over 100 coal plants is responsible for 57 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S., more than any other single electricity fuel source. Coal power plants are responsible for 93 percent of the sulfur dioxide and 80 percent of the nitrogen oxide emissions generated by the electric utility industry.
When you plug into the wall, you burn coal. The notion that electric cars are better for the environment is absurd and naive. You don't see the soot coming out the tailpipe, but it's still adding to your local smog level and global warming in general.
The only way to lose the need to burn coal is to REDUCE power consumption so less polluting methods can handle the load. Burning gas is better than tapping the grid harder than it already is, and if everyone bought plug-in cars, electricity would quickly become more expensive than gas!
The global warming crisis is a multi-headed beast. Everyone's trying to chop off the gasoline head while the others continue causing irreparable damage uncontested. THERE IS NO SHORTCUT, YOU MUST REDUCE CONSUMPTION.
Start thinking along the lines of either finding work closer to home or finding a home closer to work, e-commuting, anything to shave miles off your routine. Truly earth-friendly personal transportation is a long way away. Decades.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
This story needs to filed under "Bullshit".
You are correct in that the 20th century is over.
The rest really only applies to lower income families. Volvos will still be using premium to run their turbo-driven steel behemoths, suburbs will continue to be bastions of wealth, and it will not be some bucolic fifties-era European renaissance. Mercedes needs to do this because those who can afford to pollute will continue to do so. Don't expect lifestyles to change at will. Instead, eliminate options with new technologies so that the most wasteful consumers only have low impact technologies at their disposal.
What if gasoline suddenly costed $50 a gallon?
Would your current way of life be sustainable?
Biking uses approximately 500 cal/hr at 12 mph, which gives 42 cal/mi.
1 serving of spaghetti provides approximately 200 cal and costs 12 cents.
Assuming your car averages 25 mpg and $4 per gallon:
Biking: 3 cents per mile
Driving: 16 cents per mile
It seems no electric car is truly available now. Everybody is talking about concept cars, limited production runs, cars that are only available in limited geographic areas and vehicles available to fleets only, and they are promised for 2010. For the Tesla, which is ahead of most, even if you have the 100 K$ burning a hole in your pocket, you better hope you are already on the waiting list, and located in California, or your chances are slim-to-none of getting one. I'm hoping Mercedes will make the electric version of the smart car available in the US. Eventually. Sigh.
- Looking for an Electric Car Before the Gas Price Surge
Computers obey me.
Folks, the 20th century is over. It was great while it lasted, suburbs, drive ins, shopping malls, long distance commutes. But its over. What is going to replace it will not be different fuels, electric cars, whatever. What will replace it is commuting by mass transit, living closer to where you work, moving into high density cities, walking to shops. Biking to work in some places. It will be a lot like Europe in the fifties. The suburbs will vanish.
And you won't like it.
You sir, are absolutely dead wrong. There is too much inertia in the American culture and the infrastructure that has been built up for there to be any massive exodus from suburbia to the city. Mass transit and massive urban rehabilitation projects are expensive and get more expensive with every passing year. Even for transit projects that have net positive revenue, there's so much capital and time involved that it will be decades before any significant difference is made, and by then further-out suburbs replace the older connected ones. Your vision might take place in a very limited sense in isolated areas, but for American cities as a whole, forget it. A lot of people like the quiet of suburbs; the noisy, dirty lifestyle of the city center is not for everyone.
People tend to take the easy way out and will survive this crisis just like fuel prices in the 70's and every other major economic event with the least change (or the least expense) possible. If I had to bet, the future is probably going to involve manufacturing normal gasoline (not biodiesel, ethanol, etc..) from some sort of biomass, or more likely continuing the trend towards battery technology in cars. Or continuing to drive the same oil consuming cars we do now, only with a switchover to cleaner grid electricity (nuclear, solar, wind, carbon-sequestered coal, etc..)
See Gasoline from biomass
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
in your flying car.
The site is Flash, so I can't give you a direct link but check out the Triac.
80 mpg max, 100 mile range. Five hours to go from flat battery to full charge. And they're $20k - slightly cheaper than an A package Prius.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
80 mph, not mpg. Damn typos.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Patents aren't hidden, trade secrets are hidden. Patents are public but require licensing for a finite amount of time.
Electric cars are very inefficient because of the amount of power lost during generation, transmission, and charging. The fact that most of the world's electricity comes from Coal production which puts out thousands of tons of uranium and thorium in to the atmosphere makes electric cars environmentally wreckless. That might change if we convert to a nuclear economy from a coal economy, but that's not here today.
You realize that diesel engine were originaly made to run on vegetable oil, right ? when it was presented at the universal fair (1910?) diesel did not have any petroleum product in mind, he had the german farmer in mind as producer of the fuel source. It is only later when petroleum was found to be more convenient that we switched to use diesel from petroleum refinement. I can imagine a biofuel engine running on vegetable oils instead of ethanol.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I stayed in Germany for a while and had the exact experience you had in suburban paris. They really do have so much going for them over there.
I guess the reason we have such sprawl is at least partially attributable to the cold war and the idea that you needed to spread people out away from population centers.
Imagine standing next to a crowded street at rush hour, with all electric vehicles stopped at a red light. Total silence.
It won't happen, it's just a thought.
It would be quite eerie.
My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
Meanwhile, beyond the borders of False Dichotomy Land, some of us will work out solutions that are even better. Have fun in Defeatistville, though. I hear the shuffleboard is great.
I commuted via bike when I worked in a genetics research lab at the N.I.H. in Washington, D.C., so it didn't matter too much if I was a little sweaty with all the scientist geeks.
Now I am a surgeon, and my appearance really matters quite a bit (do you really want a guy operating on you, if it looks like he doesn't care to iron his shirt? - Maybe he won't care if the bits aren't quite aligned properly.) Corporate business world is much, much more "stiff" in terms of what is allowed. One of my friends who worked for a major accounting firm was not allowed to be seen eating at fast food joints. Why? - because the clients might think he couldn't afford better food because he wasn't very good. - Stupid - yes, but that's how it is.
10-20 blocks I could manage in a suit, but 15 miles - not a chance - I'd look like crap, and would have to shower. Stats also show that bike riding in non-daylight hours is too dangerous, and therefore I won't do it.
Geek/science/engineering/lower ranking jobs can do this. If people are in non-technical fields or if they become more successful, then appearances tend to matter more, and certain behaviors can't be tolerated. In an ideal world, where everyone is recognized solely on intellectual merit this would work, but it's not an ideal world.
..........FULL STOP.
http://www.yogicflyingclubs.org/clubs.html http://tmyogicflying.org/aboutc.htm http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=62257 There are various stages of Yogic Flying. The initial stage is "hopping." The second stage is "floating," and the final stage is "flying." So far, no one practicing the Yogic Flying TM-Sidhi has been observed achieving a stage beyond hopping. Achieving the floating and flying stages is dependent upon the extent to which the practitioner is able to sustain his awareness at the level of the unified field, the level of transcendental consciousness. It is by maintaining one's awareness at this very fine level that one is able to influence the laws of nature to gain support of those laws whereby anything is possible. That is why the unified field is called the field of all possibilities; from that most fundamental and powerful level anything is possible. The author believes that eventually the final stage of levitation (flying) will be a common phenomenon. http://www.amazingabilities.com/amaze9a.html Just get in padmasana and float to work. Could not get cheaper could not get any greener and you would miss the rush hour. Would there be "human traffic" jams then??? Profound question isnts it :-P
Technically speaking people can actually fly.
I like seeing the tags suddenoutbreakofcommonsense and goodluckwiththat used in the same story
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I want my Porsche to be quiet - Why? so I can go faster and not attract attention from cars that are painted black and white.
Ricers put fart pipes on their cars, so they "sound" fast. Stupid. The performance gains are minimal (Improved high end HP, at the expense of losing low end torque, and burned valves).
Sure, it's nice to hear a Porsche CGT or GT3 with straight pipes, but only because I know that that sound is ASSOCIATED with going fast. Just having the sound is stupid, and serves no point.
..........FULL STOP.
Average miles traveled per passenger car in 2006 = 12,427
12,427 / 365 = 34
I've no idea what the distribution curve looks like but there's a big market for bicycles it seems.
i wish i could stop
Don't buy a new car! Instead buy a used car with good millage.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Your numbers assume that the batteries last as long as the rest of the car and no replacement after a few years is necessary. The Tesla, however, is built with Li-Ion batteries which tend to age with or without use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-ion_battery#Disadvantages
Now I presume that this part of the Wikipedia article is based on the Lithium cobalt oxide cathodes that were the first to find widespread use, and newer chemistries could solve the problem. But battery life is something you definitely want to know about before buying an electric car.
C - the footgun of programming languages
I have often contemplated how to get around the problem of power consumption by air conditioning and car stereos in an electric vehicle. This is often overlooked, and people have become spoiled having these conveniences in their car. Some cleverly designed mini speakers in the headrest that consume minimal power could be an option (and no thumping at the stop light either). The hot car problem will still take some pondering.
All cars are white.
All cars work with ipods.
All cars use touch screen steering wheels.
All cars cannot be used during charging.
Batteries not replaceable
Costs $40k in usa, 80k euro.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Friend's have one, a boring black one, not the snazzy Slashdot Cruiser.
We decided to get rid of it after the second engine went bad, apparently they don't know how to properly cast aluminum in Sweden.
Judging the convenience of public transit based on Seattle is like judging the convenience of cars based on an ox-cart.
If you want to look at the effects of a reasonably-available public transit system, most of North America won't give you any guide. Even Manhattan's system was slow, inconvenient, and clunky compared to some of the continental European cities I've been in. If you want to look at functional public transit, I would recommend Prague and the Ruhr Area of Germany as places that've done a pretty good job. With rail/subway every 5 minutes for longer trips and a dense tram network every 2 minutes for shorter trips, I never once had the slightest desire to drive during my week in Prague. For travel inside the city, a car would have been pointless.
Fast, clean, pleasant, and efficient public transit systems not only can exist, they already exist. That's no guarantee they'll be preferable to cars, of course, but they're enormously better than Seattle's system.
Yeah - a bigger one than you'd need.
Those 491.2kWh from 14 gallons of gasoline can take you about 14x25=350 miles. At 0.15kWh/mile, an equivalent electric car would travel those 350 miles using 0.15x350=52.5kWh, or 10.7% as much energy.
52.5kWh / 250kW from the commercially-available charger mentioned here = 12.6 minutes to charge from empty. How many of you run your gas tanks dry and then fill them to the brim on anything other than a rare, long-distance haul? Nobody I know.
Most people I know will get about 3gal each time they go to a gas station, or a little under 20% of their tank's capacity. 20% of 52.5kWh = ~10kWh / 250kWh = 2.5 minutes, which is well under your desired time.
Different equation. Different results. Also, how 'bout biofuels from waste (we've got plenty of that . . .)?
Right up there with buying Chrysler. I'm sure their profits will soar if they stick to their timetable regardless of the availability of batteries, alternative fuels, etc. Perhaps new Mercedes will come with a fuel service, like getting milk in the morning.
.
So what's your next idea?
Once one company does it and succeeds, then patents everything related to the process, others will be unable to follow without paying huge sums which will be passed along to the consumer
There, fixed it for you...
You failed to consider that the power grid has to handle the peak load (usually the hottest most humid summer day). It goes down to just 15-20% at night when most plug in hybrids would be charged. Considering that the grid can handle about 1.6TW at peak (occurs at different times for different regions), that means that at least 1.28TW is available to charge cars over the 8 low usage (off peak) hours. Thats 10 TWH each week day (more on weekends). Thats 40 exajoules (10^18) each year. And we have the power plants to make that much right now. Granted the costs would be high, but electrics are far more efficient than gas powered cars or even diesel powered ones. They don't idle and they can recover some energy wasted in braking. Typical equivalent MPG of electric cars are thought to be in the 120-150MPG range about 5 to 6 times better than gas powered cars. Going by your numbers, that means that 14% of the available power generation just during off peak could power all transportation needs. The nice thing about it is that more base load power plants, which are the most efficient and least costly, can be used to supply the power needed.
Nuclear (HTGCPBFBR) plants would be the cheapest long term option with fuel reprocessing to both reduce the wastes and costs to make that power. It would further reduce costs, if one good design was simply prefabricated in large numbers and placed at remote sites next to existing transmission substations to minimize any risks.
Runners and cyclists are often in denial about the risks.
It has become necessary here to broadcast health and safety advisories for both.
Heat stress. Hypothermia.
That sort of thing. Sometimes they listen. Far too often they don't.