backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by Eug.. on May 1 at 1:12 PM

Auto exec admits his company may have to develop a hybrid powertrain in the U.S.

Harald Wester -- CEO of Fiat S.p.A.'s (BIT:F) high-end subsidiaries Alfa Romeo and Maserati -- admits his performance luxury car firm may be forced to make a hybrid powertrain to satisfy U.S. CAFE standard regulations.  But while his peers like Ferrari S.p.A.Porsche Automobil Holdings SE (ETR:PAH3), Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) AG (ETR:BMW), and McLaren Automotive are at least feigning genuine enthusiasm about their upcoming hybrid or electric vehicle (EV) sports cars, Mr. Wester didn't candy-coat his opinions: he thinks that EVs are "nonsense".

At the Shanghai Auto Show he said in a keynote:

It looks like something we will have to, but the only reason to do it is to meet regulations. We don't see it as a significant business.

All this discussion about zero emissions is nonsense. Nobody talks about the efficiency of how the battery is charged. It varies strongly from region to region, depending on how the energy is produced, nuclear, coal and so on, but even the best is not ahead of the internal combustion engine.

Diesel and CNG are the more obvious answers if CO2 is the focus. Both are more viable answers than hybrid. If they gave us a CO2 target instead of imposing technology then we would go that way.

If we want a realistic solution to emissions then the regulators need to be more honest in how they calculate emissions. Electric cars are not the answer.

2014 Maserati Ghibli
The 2014 Maserati Ghibli -- not an EV

By his estimates electric vehicles have a plant-to-road lifecycle output of 86g of CO2/km in Europe, 110g/km in the USA, and 191g/km in China.  In other words, he's arguing that EVs are far from zero emissions -- and he's right.

To be fair, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the agency tasked with CAFE regulation, does somewhat take this into effect via its mpg-e (electric vehicle mpg) numbers.  That said, the numbers do seem a bit skewed -- EVs are scoring 100 MPGe or more.  To put that in context the 1.4L engine Chevy CRUZE from General Motors Comp. (GM) puts off only about 161 g/km, meaning that it may produce less emissions in regions like China where much of the power comes from "dirty" sources.

Source: Autocar





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Truer Words
By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/2013 5:24:53 PM , Rating: 5
Seldom spoken:

quote:
It looks like something we will have to, but the only reason to do it is to meet regulations. We don't see it as a significant business.


Nailed it right there. Forcing automakers to provide a product, much to their determent because of basically zero consumer demand, isn't the way to move forward.

How so many people can support this, is just beyond me.




RE: Truer Words
By Shig on 4/25/2013 5:40:43 PM , Rating: 5
Porsche and Ferrari seem to think differently with their new cars. (Both are hybrid supercars)

LaFerrari and the 918 Spyder hybrid.

This technology will come down to cheaper prices over time. Resisting a superior power train is foolish though.


RE: Truer Words
By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/2013 6:01:01 PM , Rating: 4
Yeeeah I don't think you're getting the macro-argument here. At all.

I personally think SSD's are superior to HDD's. They even draw MUCH less power, so hey, the argument could be made that HDD's should be mandated away because they are more polluting etc etc.

Does that mean the Government should come in and mandate that storage device manufacturers meet a goal of 90% SSD production by 2015 or whatever?

quote:
Resisting a superior power train is foolish though.


It's not that simple and you know it...


RE: Truer Words
By sigmatau on 4/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Truer Words
By soulcarver on 4/25/2013 10:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think you need to look at that again. SSDs generally have lower power consumption compared to HDDs across the board. You may find some examples to the contrary, but overall that is not the case.


RE: Truer Words
By Shig on 4/25/2013 10:22:39 PM , Rating: 1
It's just that every major car maker is either hedging themselves with hybrid tech or EV tech or a combination. A company that outright refuses to do what everyone else is doing, I dunno, that just seems bad.

Maserati is only projecting 13,000 cars this year. Tesla Motors is going to move more cars than that.


RE: Truer Words
By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/2013 10:59:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's just that every major car maker is either hedging themselves with hybrid tech or EV tech or a combination.


Because they're being forced to. So what? I bet if I put a gun to your head I could make you do lots of stuff against your will. But you probably wouldn't like it.

Basically the entire industry except for obvious shills like GM, said doing this was crazy, would hurt the industry, and jack up vehicle costs. Of course our benevolent know-it-all Messiah, having such extensive experience in the automotive industry, knew better. But alas, here we are.

quote:
A company that outright refuses to do what everyone else is doing, I dunno, that just seems bad.


I dunno, I think I like living in a world where people can do their own thing. How is that "bad"? You think it's good if everyone does the same thing?

Maserati might have a small customer base, but those customers know what they want. And that is NOT EV's and hybrids. I feel Maserati, as well as everyone, has a right to provide the products the consumers want.


RE: Truer Words
By Nutzo on 4/26/2013 4:35:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I feel Maserati, as well as everyone, has a right to provide the products the consumers want.


How politically un-correct of you :)

People who disagree with this and want these goverment mandates have a general distrust of the free markets.

Central planning (mandates are just a slightly less offensive form of this) always leads to less choice higher prices, and a lower standard of living.

Yes, we do need some regulations, specifically safty and polution controls, but we are so far past basic regulation.


RE: Truer Words
By Kazinji on 4/27/2013 9:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
EPA, and the DoE MPGe varies drastically. DoE makes it seem more realist. http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2010/11/24...


RE: Truer Words
By euler007 on 4/25/2013 10:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
SSD use less power at idle and more at peak power draw.

But they spend a lot more time at idle than a HDD for any amount of work.


RE: Truer Words
By mcnabney on 4/26/2013 10:35:13 AM , Rating: 1
You also have to have a bunch more SSDs to gain the same storage capacity. People are comparing a 480GB SSD with a 3TB HDD.

For example:
3TB Green drive - 3.65W idle, 7.15 load
480GB SSD - 1W idle, 1.5W load

However since you need SIX SSDs to get to 3TB, the power requirement goes up to 6W idle, 9W load - which is much higher than the HDD.


RE: Truer Words
By Etsp on 4/26/2013 11:40:35 AM , Rating: 2
SSDs do save power in enterprises. Generally, the requirements that datacenters have for storage is for IOPS primarily, as the to reach the level of performance they need, they end up with a lot more capacity than they require.

With SSDs, they require less capacity, and a LOT less physical drives.


RE: Truer Words
By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 1:53:19 PM , Rating: 1
I call BS.

First of all SSD are 2.5" drives. You cannot compare it to a 3.5" drive.

Here's some SSD power consumptions
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6710/intel-ssd-525-r...

Here's a comparison between SSD and HDD drives power consumption.
http://techreport.com/review/24487/wd-black-4tb-ha...

Notice there's very little difference between 2.5" HDD and 2.5" SSD? All the big 3.5" HDD take up more power because they're bigger.
Even the 1TB velociraptor only takes 6 watts at load. That thing is spinning at 10k rpm.

Note that the Seagate Momentus XT 750GB is using only 3.1 watts at load. That thing has an SSD AND HDD. If it was only the HDD then it would be 2.x watts. So yeah, you are wrong.

The only thing you got right was that SSD has a lower idle than HDD.


RE: Truer Words
By The0ne on 4/26/2013 2:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
I think you shut everyone up, Nice!


RE: Truer Words
By RedemptionAD on 4/27/2013 9:48:27 AM , Rating: 2
Shhhhhh! This is a non confrontational e-comment discussion and facts have no place here. Let the lashings commence.


RE: Truer Words
By Reclaimer77 on 4/27/2013 11:07:05 AM , Rating: 3
This is hilarious.

The point was do we want the Government deciding what we can buy, use, or what the market can produce.

The point was NOT a technical discussion about storage devices. Analogies are rarely perfect, they are an illustrative literary construct that uses metaphor, to help explain something.

The idea that people are crawling over themselves in an attempt to "pwn" me on trivial facts, that have no bearing on the discussion, is a sad display to be sure. They don't want to discuss anything that doesn't fit their world view, so it's easier to just attack the source, me.

p.s. his "facts" are highly skewed and his approach flawed. Because SSD's perform their tasks much faster than those crappy low-powered 5400RPM 2.5" drives. So in the end SSD's still consume less overall power, which anyone with half a brain already knew!


RE: Truer Words
By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/13, Rating: -1
RE: Truer Words
By MadMan007 on 4/25/2013 11:30:48 PM , Rating: 5
People pick on your analogy because you're generally an asshole. But also, in this case, you're factually wrong:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6884/crucial-micron-...

Lots of SSDs above 2W there.


RE: Truer Words
By slunkius on 4/26/2013 12:54:01 AM , Rating: 3
haha, this is debate strategy gold! if caught pulling arguments from your ass - call everyone douchebag nitpickers.


RE: Truer Words
By superflex on 4/26/2013 5:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
Let's drop the SSD argument. Would you be in favor of the govt setting guidelines for how much power your computer can draw. Perhaps a ban on CPU and GPU overclocking, since the powerplant will have to spew more CO2 so you can get better FPS?


RE: Truer Words
By EnzoFX on 4/25/2013 10:25:25 PM , Rating: 3
False equivalency garbage. That would be comparable if HDD's were stupidly more power hungry... oh and if they happened to pollute the planet lol.


RE: Truer Words
By Rukkian on 4/26/2013 11:07:12 AM , Rating: 2
And fund terrorist regimes around the world.


RE: Truer Words
By Eug on 5/1/2013 1:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
Car analogies never... Oh wait... ;)

Anyways, some SSDs have higher peak AND idle power draws than some platter drives. The several year old Kingston V100 series comes to mind, comparing against low power 2.5" laptop drives.

The Kingston V100 was spec'd at 1 Watt idle and 6 Watts active. That's significantly higher than 2.5" HDD power utilization, and the peak is actually getting into the range for 3.5" green drives.

With SSD, what you gain is speed, esp. random access time, and not necessarily power savings. There are specific SSD models that do sip power, but you can't just buy any SSD model and expect it to save power vs. 5400 rpm laptop drives.


RE: Truer Words
By mars2k on 4/30/2013 2:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
Fiat owns Ferrari as well. The distinction is false in this article. Porsche is owned by VW which also owns Bentley and Lamborghini. What would seem to make more sense would be if the parent corporation were given one café rating overall. Sell a ton of Fiat 500 hybrids and leave the supercars alone.


RE: Truer Words
By Paj on 4/26/2013 8:33:07 AM , Rating: 1
Forcing corporations to adopt standards is definitely the way to move forward. Any time a company has to comply with new safety/efficiency legislation, they complain.

They complained about phasing out leaded petrol, CFCs, asbestos, despite the clear health and environmental warnings. This is no different - it takes time and money to confirm to new legislation, which is why corporations don't like it. But the benefits are clear - they're not just creating new legislation for the hell of it.


RE: Truer Words
By Schrag4 on 4/26/2013 9:50:26 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree. Corporations don't complain about change when it's what their customers want. Perhaps more people today want EVs than are buying them, but that's because of the shortcomings of EVs and the increase in price. Corporations are complaining because they're being forced to produce cars that are largely unpopular. Wouldn't any corporation making anything complain about regulations requiring them to offer a product before the technology is mature enough to be cheap enough to sell? This isn't about some great conspiracy to keep you in a vehicle that uses fossil fuels.


RE: Truer Words
By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 9:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
I remember clearly corporations complain about CAFE standards and it's exactly what the customers want. MORE GAS MILEAGE

Every product regardless of regulations is always offered before the technology is matured. Anybody who buys them are called early adopters. Generally they are bought by the wealthy as there is a premium on them. You don't remember how expensive laptops and cell phones were? What about $5k for a 42" 720p LCD? Carbon fiber? even those stupid toy RC helicopters things used to sell for $60+ each


RE: Truer Words
By Schrag4 on 4/26/2013 12:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I remember clearly corporations complain about CAFE standards and it's exactly what the customers want. MORE GAS MILEAGE


I want more gas mileage too, but I don't want to drop an extra 20k up front to get it.

quote:
Every product regardless of regulations is always offered before the technology is matured. Anybody who buys them are called early adopters. Generally they are bought by the wealthy as there is a premium on them. You don't remember how expensive laptops and cell phones were? What about $5k for a 42" 720p LCD? Carbon fiber? even those stupid toy RC helicopters things used to sell for $60+ each


Totally agree. Only with CAFE standards and subsidies and tax credits, we're all forced to be early adopters to some extent whether or not we want to be.


RE: Truer Words
By Rukkian on 4/26/13, Rating: 0
RE: Truer Words
By Nutzo on 4/26/2013 4:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Without push and previous cafe regs, we would be stuck with cars that get at best 20-24mpg, cause that is all that is available.


I detect a complete lack of faith in the free markets.
You actually think that nobody would be making high milage cars if the government didn't force them to?

I'm not looking at buying a hybrid because of government cafe standards, I'm considering it because of $4 gas.

Without the standards, some companies would have been pushing high milage cars because that is what some people want. When gas prices went up, the other companies would have lost market share and quickly started producing more efficent cars or they would go out of business.


RE: Truer Words
By Paj on 4/27/2013 4:00:00 AM , Rating: 1
By and large, customers don't know what they want, nor do they make optimal choices - they are largely driven by fear, insecurity and one-upmanship. This is one reason why advertising is so effective, and why legislation is so important.

The standards just say that vehicles need to be more fuel efficient. No one is forcing anyone to buy EVs - theyre just one part of it. While I agree that the 'killer app' EV, (with the same versatility as an all round ICE vehicle) has yet to be invented, it wont be long.


RE: Truer Words
By Schrag4 on 4/27/2013 5:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By and large, customers don't know what they want, nor do they make optimal choices - they are largely driven by fear, insecurity and one-upmanship. This is one reason why advertising is so effective, and why legislation is so important.


I couldn't disagree more. If people are too stupid to make the best choice for themselves, we don't need legislation to force them to to what's best for them. I don't need someone 1500 miles away deciding what I should buy. Besides, if advertising works so well on so many people, we wouldn't need anything but advertisements to get people to buy EVs. No, it's just because the tech isn't quite mature enough yet. Those stupid, fear driven people you refer to who are so easily swayed by ads STILL decide not to buy one because they cost too much and don't perform quite well enough. It'll get there, what's the rush?

quote:
No one is forcing anyone to buy EVs...


We're ALL paying for EVs to some extent in the form of tax credits. (well, those of us that pay into the system anyway) As far as I know, there's not a checkbox on the 1040 form for whether or not you want to fund those credits.


progress is never easy....
By jnemesh on 4/25/2013 7:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
The reason governments are pushing for EV and hybrids is that they know that auto makers are not pushing hard enough for the technologies needed on their own! Yes, for now, electricity is mainly generated from fossil fuels, and yes, the efficiencies are not quite there yet. BUT, with further investment in these technologies, battery life and storage density will improve, electric motors will become more efficient, and electricity production will move to sustainable, renewable sources! You HAVE to start somewhere, and better sooner than later!




RE: progress is never easy....
By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/2013 8:09:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The reason governments are pushing for EV and hybrids is that they know that auto makers are not pushing hard enough for the technologies needed on their own!


That's insane! Take crazy pills or you'll end up being the next Marathon bomber. Seriously.

The job of the Government is not to sit around and declare that the private sector isn't pushing technologies "on their own" based on their uninformed time-table.

Auto makers are doing pretty damn good on their own. We have hybrids thanks to them, they developed the technology on their own. No Government involvement.

EV's just aren't ready, and they know it. The Leaf is doing "ok", but certainly not enough to sustain an entire industry. Tesla makes cars nobody can afford, backed by low-volume sales. And Fisker is out of commission. This is hardly evidence of a thriving EV market just waiting to happen, if only the auto makers "pushed harder".


RE: progress is never easy....
By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 8:53:59 AM , Rating: 2
Are you sure automakers did it on their own with no government involvements?

http://www.hybridcars.com/history-of-hybrid-vehicl...


RE: progress is never easy....
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2013 7:09:28 PM , Rating: 3
Yes?

The first production hybrid vehicle was released in Japan, by a Japanese company.

Please explain to me how US Government style mandates and tax rebates caused that...


RE: progress is never easy....
By wookie1 on 4/25/2013 8:32:25 PM , Rating: 3
Of course, the governments know waaay better than the consumers what is best for them. Consumers could never figure out what types of vehicles meet their needs the best without the gentle guiding hand of our benevolent masters!

The reason that governments push for EV's is to funnel money back to their donors and buddies in that industry. Automakers compete to provide the technologies that best align with their customers needs and desires. The government has no incentive to do this. You say better sooner than later, but I don't see anything to support this. Why is sooner better?


RE: progress is never easy....
By fteoath64 on 4/26/2013 7:00:48 AM , Rating: 2
"Of course, the governments know waaay better than the consumers what is best for them. Consumers could never figure out what types of vehicles meet their needs the best without the gentle guiding hand of our benevolent masters!"

Huh ?!!!. Governments know squat!. They rely on thinktanks, consultants, academia and private industries to advise them on things!. Because of self interests large corporations ended up controlling all of these!. And we get the mess we now have yet most people are BLIND to this. It has been decades since there are real innovations in the world of transportation. EVs were shun decades ago while the world focus on telecoms and computers, yet gas is king as an energy source. Instead of gas being cheaper, it rises and rises being controlled by a cartel (yeah, those banksters). Battery and materials technology crawl in a snail's pace for reasons that universities are not seriously looking at them. There is no unified effort to really sole the battery issue and getting renewable energy sources going in a big way. Your science has FAILED you!.


RE: progress is never easy....
By Paj on 4/26/2013 8:35:02 AM , Rating: 3
I think you need to learn about sarcasm!!!!!!!!

(exclamation marks added for sarcasm)


Shenanigans
By Spookster on 4/25/2013 6:24:50 PM , Rating: 5
I swear to God I'm going to pistol whip the next guy who says, "Shenanigans."




RE: Shenanigans
By Totally on 4/25/2013 6:55:30 PM , Rating: 5
I call Shenanigans on your comment.


efficiency
By makken on 4/25/2013 6:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody talks about the efficiency of how the battery is charged. It varies strongly from region to region, depending on how the energy is produced, nuclear, coal and so on, but even the best is not ahead of the internal combustion engine.


What about the efficiency of transporting all that fuel to gas stations around the world?

What about the efficiency of making a detour to a gas station, or idling at stoplights and in traffic?

What about the efficiency of spills and evaporative losses, never mind that VOCs are an O3 precursor.

Don't get me wrong, EVs have problems that definitely need to be solved, but don't pretend that gasoline has a 100% efficiency from when it's produced to when it goes in your tank. Also from a regulatory and control standpoint, EVs make a lot of sense.

Would you rather have millions of sources located in the same areas where people live and work, maintained by... Let's be honest, people who don't know jack about engines, or

A single large point source, located away from population centers, continuously monitored and maintained by a team of well trained specialists with regular inspections?




RE: efficiency
By Spuke on 4/25/2013 7:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather have a choice in how I want to live which, supposedly, was the entire reason the US was formed in the first place. Unless that's all BS (which I really think it is but MANY others tell me it isn't).


RE: efficiency
By DT_Reader on 4/26/2013 7:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree that it's dependent on how your electricity is generated. Ours is hydro and wind (Pacific NW), so for us it's zero CO2. If he doesn't want to sell us electric cars, that's his business - we'll buy from someone else, then. They can't make them fast enough for this market, and there are several small shops that do conversions. Personally, I want one of those electric DeLoreans.


RE: efficiency
By Jaybus on 4/29/2013 3:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's true that BPA's power is currently about 80% hydro. The problem is that this ratio cannot be maintained if there is a lot of additional demand. If everyone drives an EV, then the extra demand has to come from somewhere. We have a similar problem here with TVA. Hydro cannot be expanded because every viable hydro location in the Tennessee Valley is already being used. I suspect that is also the case in the Columbia Valley.


Emissions do not matter
By CaedenV on 4/26/2013 12:11:30 AM , Rating: 2
They do not matter to the general public, and they do not matter to car companies.
Electric cars will only be relevant if they can fit any one of 3 criteria:

1) Ultra powerful, instantaneous power for fast luxury devices. See Tesla, enough said, there is a decent market for this.

2) Cheap daily driver commuter cars for the masses. Sure, you may still need a larger gas vehicle for the family or for long trips, but a car like the Smart ED3 coming out soon has a lot of people like myself very curious. If the promise holds true then my daily transportation costs would drop from $6 per day down to $1 (or possibly less if I get a peak power plan). Saving $1,300 per year on commute costs means a lot to people like myself, and the only thing standing in the way are the up front purchase price which normally negates most or all future savings. But again, I think we are going to start seeing EVs get much closer in price to their gas counterparts, which is exciting to see.

3) If a real gas crisis ever actually hits. For all of the talk about 'peak oil' over the years, it sure seems like oil is still coming out of the ground plenty fast these days. But, suppose that oil ever were to slow down, or even suffer a major distribution issue, then gas prices will no doubt shoot up like nothing we have seen before. On the electric side there is built in safety because the fuel (electricity) is disassociated from source (coal, nuke, solar, wind, natural gas, etc.). If one source of electricity becomes expensive or prohibitive then there are other sources to take its place. The only expensive part about electric is storage, and we are beginning to see that fall finally. Electricity production is cheap, and is much more guarenteed to stay that way than gas is.

Outside of that, I dobut there are many who really believe that their electric car is going to save the world. I mean, the batteries of essentially made via strip mines in China, and we don't know how we plan to recycle the huge ammounts of car batteries 10 years later when cars start coming off of the road. On top of that, while the ideal is to have solar power charge your car, the reality is that most electric cars will be powered by coal, and loose most efficiency long before the power even hits the battery.




RE: Emissions do not matter
By Spuke on 4/26/2013 12:52:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They do not matter to the general public, and they do not matter to car companies.
I don't know one single person that does not care about pollution AND consequently does not care about emissions.


RE: Emissions do not matter
By Nutzo on 4/26/2013 4:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the promise holds true then my daily transportation costs would drop from $6 per day down to $1 (or possibly less if I get a peak power plan). Saving $1,300 per year on commute costs means a lot to people like myself


Except you are ignoring some of the additional cost of an electric car.
Since you are not buying gas, you are not paying to maintain the roads. Some states are talking about a yearly tax on electric cars, so your saving will eventually be a few hundred less.

Also, it really depends on your electical prices. Unless we invest in more hydro-electric and nuclear power, your electrical prices are going to go up. All this renewable energy they keep pushing cost several times as much.

Also, switching to a peak power plan only helps if nobody is home during the day (no young kids or stay at home parent). If I bought an electric car and switched to the peak power plan (to get cheap over night power to charge the car), I would end up spending more due to day time energy usage, especially during the summer. The other option is to install a a dedicated curcuit for the charger, but that would cost even more, and take years to break even.

If you want to buy an electic car, go ahead, but don't expect they are the solution for everyone.
Also don't subsidize the purchases with tax dollars.



Live Free
By hiscross on 4/26/2013 12:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
or be a slave to a looter. Your choice, pick one.




EVs are the future
By foxalopex on 4/26/2013 2:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I think this is just a car maker refusing to change with the times. Or they don't have the money to advance either to Hybrid or EV research. It's like a company that only makes desktops saying that laptops are fragile and expensive and useless compared to a desktop. Each has it's purpose. That said EVs:

1. EVs cause less air pollution than ICEs locally. Since I own a EV, I've noticed that my car doesn't emit any fumes. I doubt however the fumes from all the other non-EVs on the road are doing my health any favours. It's even worse when someone has leaking valves or fuel lines and you end up smelling gas or something burning from them. Even if EVs are coal plant powered at least for most people they arn't right next to you.

2. EVs are quieter. If all cars switched to being EVs then our cities would be much quieter. And guess what noise pollution affects your health too.

3. EVs can potentially get cleaner with time. As technology advances, the push to generate electricity more efficiently will gradually make EVs more efficient. With ICE engines past the initial break in, your engine gets dirtier and less efficient with time as it wears out. Unless your swapping your low tech engine for a higher tech one year after year.

4. EVs can be entirely made with local materials and be powered locally instead of ICE which uses oil in nations which we are less than friendly with or that hate us because we've tampered with their politics to get that oil.

5. I know lots of folks argue that the rare-earth elements used to produce EVs come from China but really? When was the last time you heard of a Chinese terrorist hurting us? The other thing is we have our own rare-earth elements, it's just we preferred using cheap Chinese rare-earth elements than developing our own production. Plus these elements are only needed in production. Once produced the EV uses only local power and if these materials are so valuable you can bet they'll be recycled. We don't toss lead-acid batteries in the dump after all.

6. EVs have massive low end torque which is exactly what you want in a car plus they can easily regenerate some power instead of melting your break pads.

I think if you're a car enthusiast it's hard to argue that EVs are not the future. They are. The only legit argument is if they're advanced enough to be used now.




By Dug on 4/26/2013 4:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
1- we will run out of oil, or it will be too cost prohibitive to use for commuting.

2- There's a reason he was 200,000 cars below sales expectations.




Wrong
By flyingpants1 on 4/26/2013 8:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
No, wrong. Electric vehicles will soon replace all ICE vehicles. They produce no emissions, require almost no maintenance, and you can drive them for free. The way you can charge them without spending money or producing emissions is by using something called a SOLAR PANEL. Get it?




Nonsense
By ERROR666 on 4/26/2013 7:34:17 AM , Rating: 1
It is nonsense, especially for Maserati. I feel their pain. They should just make a few really shitty and very expensive electric cars so nobody buys them and be done. They'll have EV on paper which is good enough to meet regulations. I guess they can consider it a tax for doing business in US.




Seriously?
By web2dot0 on 4/25/13, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously?
By eagle470 on 4/25/2013 6:37:48 PM , Rating: 1
You do realize that EV's draw their power from sources lie Coal and Nuclear refineries, right? EV's USE power, they don't produce emissions first tier, theirs relies on a dated and weak inrastructure that costs more to maintain, is a horribly put together, insecure and produces emissions on it own.

It produces CO2 to dig out the coal.
It produces CO2 to build the machines.
It produces CO2 to put up the power lines.
It produces CO2 to maintain the power lines.
It produces CO2 to make the special charging station.
It produces CO2 to build your car.
It produces CO2 to make the tires (which are made from trees) for you crappy EV.

And if your worried about global warming, think about this one. Everytime you drive down the road your car produces massive amounts of friction, which is the converted to heat. That is transferred to the ground and to the atmosphere.

All so you can feel good about doing, really, jacksh*t for the environment.

If your that worried about it, just curl up and die, that's the most effective way to be sure you don't pollute in someway.


RE: Seriously?
By captainBOB on 4/25/2013 6:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
All those secondary sources will still be producing pollution, regardless of whether there are electric or ICE cars.

It is MUCH easier (and faster) to control the level of pollution from a few sources (power plants) and to improve them, than it is to get a massive, ignorant populace to control the level of pollution with their cars numbering in the billions now.

Neither solution is perfect, but really, the electric solution is much better than the current situation. It doesn't eliminate the problem entirely but it is an improvement.

One step at a time, first get rid of the ICE, then focus on another source, like the tires you mention.


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously?
By Spuke on 4/25/2013 7:04:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But I can't believe I'm even bothering to discuss this with a, literally, crazy person. You're psycho!
LMAO!!!


RE: Seriously?
By Scrogneugneu on 4/25/2013 7:23:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
One step at a time, first get rid of the horse


That's insane crazy talk. Seriously, you're literally mentally unstable to have that opinion. Seek help.

The only way we could "get rid" of the horses would be to destroy the world economy (that's already on the brink) and revert to Stone Age levels of productivity.

But I can't believe I'm even bothering to discuss this with a, literally, crazy person. You're psycho!

Any evolution seems crazy if you see the current state as set in stone. Believe it or not, some day, we might not be using ICE's anymore.


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/2013 7:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
The horse was "destroyed" because something better came along, and people gravitated to it, and the car replaced it.

Some President didn't come out and say "we're mandating the horse into obsolescence"

By the way that analogy is so bad, so poorly illustrates this topic, I'm calling you crazy too!

If you believe in competition and even a shred of free market supply side economics, then have faith! The EV WILL have it's day when it's ready. We don't need to "destroy" the ICE arbitrarily through laws and regulations when the market isn't ready!


RE: Seriously?
By captainBOB on 4/25/2013 9:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
You take one....ONE thing from my post, make outlandish extrapolations from it, and call me crazy.

Your excessively strong reaction is quite humorous. If anything I should've worded that better to protect everyone else from your reaction.

I never meant get rid of ICE as in completely delete it from existence, ICE still has a place in our world, electric powertrains do not have the power to replace heavy duty vehicles like tanks, construction equipment, etc.

Just as the horse still has a place in our world, ICE will probably be around for quite some time.

The EV is very very close the being more than capable of replacing the consumer automobile.


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/2013 10:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
Umm that was your entire post. You just made a parody of my post and substituted "horse" for ICE. While adding absolutely nothing to this discussion.

quote:
The EV is very very close the being more than capable of replacing the consumer automobile.


If people really believed that, they wouldn't be cheering for policies that gave them an artificial leg-up. And there damn sure wouldn't be a need to "get rid" of ICE vehicles for consumer use. Because the market would gravitate to EV's naturally.


RE: Seriously?
By Spuke on 4/26/2013 12:48:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The EV is very very close the being more than capable of replacing the consumer automobile.
No it's not. It's a niche vehicle and will remain so for years to come. Hybrids aren't even close to taking over the market. People still buy gas only cars by the millions. Seriously Ford sold more F Series pickups last year than ALL of the hybrids together. Thinking that EV's are just around the corner is friggin stupid. Especially when they only exist because automakers are mandated to produce them.


RE: Seriously?
By BRB29 on 4/26/2013 10:15:13 AM , Rating: 2
it's not a niche market

EVs have been made since the 1800s


RE: Seriously?
By Etsp on 4/26/2013 11:45:16 AM , Rating: 2
"Niche", that word, you keep using it. I do not think it means what you think it means.

That said, we are getting closer to the point where EVs will not be a small subset of all vehicles, but will make economic sense to many average consumers. Probably won't happen for at least another 10 years, but we are getting closer.


RE: Seriously?
By Spuke on 4/26/2013 2:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
Niche from Merriam-Webster

d : a specialized market

EV's are a specialized market just like sports cars. A non-specialized market would be Camry buyers or pickup truck buyers.


RE: Seriously?
By Etsp on 4/28/2013 10:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
Right. That was exactly my point.


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/26/2013 7:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's not a niche market


lmao you're an idiot.

Anything under 10% marketshare is by definition a "niche" product. Wake me up when they hit ONE percent.


RE: Seriously?
By flyingpants1 on 4/26/2013 8:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
And by "years to come", you mean hopefully less than 5 years, when the Tesla $30k EV is released, and is cheaper to own AND drive than a $20k sedan.


RE: Seriously?
By sigmatau on 4/25/2013 8:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo. Whether electricity for EVs are made my "dirty" energy or not, the same goes for ICE powered vehicles. But for gas burning vehicles, the pollution continues while for the EV it stops at the vehicle. Not sure why others are having such a hard time with understanding this.


RE: Seriously?
By TacticalTrading on 4/26/2013 7:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure why others are having such a hard time with understanding this.

Simple, Batteries are really, really, really, nasty for the environment.
Production of the battery pack is messy; it uses lots of toxic chemicals. But their end of life is even worse.

An ICE, that is just metal, and then it becomes scrap metal, which is recyclable :)

Hybrid battery disposal? Um... anyone?
I'm thinking... specially lined toxic landfill. I believe that kind of space in short supply.

Think beyond the box


RE: Seriously?
By sigmatau on 4/26/2013 8:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
You are referring to one type of batter which gives some validity to your point. The nickel based ones are bad for the environment. The lithium base ones like that found in Tesla vehicles are much better. Even the roadster's batteries were "lithium ion cells contain no heavy metals, nor any toxic materials." I hope we move to these type of batteries more quickly for all hybrids. Google tesla batter toxicity for more information.


RE: Seriously?
By FITCamaro on 4/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously?
By blue_urban_sky on 4/26/2013 3:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Seriously?
By blue_urban_sky on 4/26/2013 3:28:44 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
It produces CO2 to dig out the oil.
It produces CO2 to build the machines.
It produces CO2 to put up the rigs.
It produces CO2 to maintain the fleet of trucks.
It produces CO2 to make the special filling station.
It produces CO2 to build your car.
It produces CO2 to make the tires (which are made from trees) for you crappy car.

And if your worried about global warming, completely pointless ramble about friction.


Fixed it for you.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki