backtop

Print 48 comment(s) - last by Headfoot.. on Oct 18 at 8:57 PM

2011 Chevy Volt  (Source: Car Corner)

Chrysler's Electric Roadster  (Source: Inhabitat)

Mascoma is building the nation's first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.  (Source: Michigan Messenger)
The stakes are high, as are the rewards when it comes to hybrids and alternative fuels

In the 1970s or early 1980s many would have laughed if they were told that GM and Chrysler would go bankrupt and Honda and Toyota would ascend to the top of automotive sales charts.  After all, Toyota was still building its reputation, and Honda was better known for its motorcycles.  However, thanks to a tireless dedication to small, fuel efficient cars, and developing advanced technologies, that's exactly what happened, and the rest, as they say is history.

The current trend, both in the industry and in government mandates, is a push for better fuel economy.  This push was first championed by none other than the Japanese automakers -- with Toyota debuting the first mass produced hybrid with the Toyota Prius.

Now the Big Three look to seize the lead in green cars from the Japanese, and hopefully kick of a new era of prosperity.  GM next year will release the 2011 Chevy Volt in the the U.S. (Nissan will be releasing an all-electric, the 2011 Leaf EV, but its only available in limited markets).  This will be followed shortly by Chrysler, which is anticipated to debut its own electric plug-in in 2010 or early 2011. 

And Ford isn't going to be left out of the show -- it's debuting a battery electric next year and a plug-in hybrid for the 2012 model year.  In short, the American's are about to be on top of the green car market.

Part of this leadership has been thanks to ambitious government guidance.  With 71 percent of our nation's petroleum -- including from unstable foreign sources -- devoted to the auto industry, and with our nation's vehicles generating a fourth of our country's total emissions, the government is determined to enact a change.  Led by new President Barack Obama, they've put forth a bold vision of reducing emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and upgrading fuel economy to new heights while doing it.

Bruce Belzowski, assistant research scientist at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute describes, "Right now, the attempt to find the best battery pack for vehicles is the equivalent in the automotive industry of the moon shot in the '60s or '70s."

With over $1.3B USD of the $2.4B USD in battery grants going to the Big Three, the administration is putting its money where its mouth is and hopes to see 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 as a result.  Meanwhile, 6,800 new high-tech jobs have been created in Michigan, and an estimated 40,000 will be created by 2020, according to state leaders.

Another critical factor to the U.S. trying to regain leadership is alternative fuels.  Congress has set the ambitious goal of 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol (from organic waste) be produced by 2022.  Researchers at Michigan State University and other institutions are hard at work trying to come up with new methods to develop the fuel.  And in the commercial sector Coskata, based in Warrenville, Ill.  and Mascoma Corp. in Lebanon, N.H. are working to build series of commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants.  Mascoma is building one in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, an ideal location given the location's active wood industry (waste wood is one common organic matter source).

If the U.S. regains leadership through the alternative fuel and green car industry it will require a bit of luck.  President Obama, the automakers, and the fuel makers are all betting that electric vehicles and cellulosic ethanol are the short-term future of the automobile.  Meanwhile foreign competitors like Honda and Toyota are eschewing plug-ins and favoring hydrogen.  Toyota wants to release hydrogen cars in 2015, despite the many obstacles to a U.S. launch.  Ultimately, the battle for global auto dominance may become a battle for consumer dollars between cellulosic ethanol and hydrogen.  If the former wins, the U.S. may yet regain its place on top of the automotive pecking order.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hydrogen powered vehicles will not be out in 2015
By Bateluer on 10/15/2009 10:01:10 AM , Rating: 5
When I was in high school, I remember listening to news, tech publications, and automakers claim to have hydrogen powered cars in 10 to 15 years. That was 15 years ago. Now its within ten years. Go back earlier than my generation and you see the same claims, "We'll have hydrogen powered vehicles in 15 years.' 15 years later, no hydrogen powered cars and the statements are the same.

What makes this time any different?




RE: Hydrogen powered vehicles will not be out in 2015
By reader1 on 10/15/09, Rating: 0
By BrandtTheMan on 10/15/2009 10:25:34 AM , Rating: 2
Show me where a credible source has PROVEN global warming. Global Warming is just a business ploy. I'm sorry.


RE: Hydrogen powered vehicles will not be out in 2015
By Shig on 10/15/2009 10:35:26 AM , Rating: 3
Where are the nuclear powered cars? ;)

But seriously, where are the natural gas hybrids? The US just increased our natural gas supplies 40% through shale drilling, let's use that...


By dsx724 on 10/15/2009 11:57:18 AM , Rating: 1
I like neither of these options because of ionizing radiation, heavy metals, and groundwater pollution. Large scale nuclear power generation is dandy. However, I'd rather let natural gas stay untapped than to embrace Made in America(TM).


By amanojaku on 10/15/2009 12:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
They're being stored with the nuclear powered vacuums.

"Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality within 10 years." —Alex Lewyt, president of the Lewyt Vacuum Cleaner Company, quoted in the New York Times, June 10, 1955

http://americansynergy.blogspot.com/2008/01/really...


By Alphafox78 on 10/15/2009 12:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
By Oregonian2 on 10/16/2009 3:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where are the nuclear powered cars?


Go to an area with Nuclear electricity power plants. Plug in one's plug-in electric car (Volt prototype, or one of those Toyota Prius cars that have been modified). That car is now a Nuclear powered one.

:-)


By Amiga500 on 10/15/2009 10:38:38 AM , Rating: 1
The climate is changing.

That is fairly irrefutable - inspite of some of the outlandish hype and headline grabbing antics of the media promoting global warming.

Are we chief contributors?... that's a different story... who knows.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/15/2009 12:28:18 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, annual mean temperatures peaked about 5 years ago and are on the decline. Again. So I don't think we caused anything, especially since Venus, Mars and Jupiter all experienced global temperatures increases over the same period to the same degree felt on Earth. So if we caused it, then we caused it on those other planets, too. Now that is what I call pollution.


By CommodoreVic20 on 10/15/2009 1:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
I would be willing to wager that the information that convinced you about the temperatures in other planets has been far less researched and scrutinized than those of our own Earth.


By Spuke on 10/15/2009 1:44:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would be willing to wager that the information that convinced you about the temperatures in other planets has been far less researched and scrutinized than those of our own Earth.
Unless you have proof to back this up, then you just wasted your money.


By tallcool1 on 10/15/2009 2:00:04 PM , Rating: 3
You want to know where global warming comes from?
"98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun."
That is who the chief contributor is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079....

"Solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject."

Who would have thought that the Sun would affect the temperatures here on Earth! O.o
.
.
"According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature."

My thoughts exactly...


By Starcub on 10/15/2009 10:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who would have thought that the Sun would affect the temperatures here on Earth! O.o

Maybe the scientists, you know, those people who actually study the global environment and know what they are talking about.
quote:
"They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature."

My thoughts exactly...

It's nice that happen to agree with this one person, but you should have noted the following quote FTA you quoted from:

"The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new."

Are you trying to convince people that the scientists that contribute to the IPCC haven't accounted for solar cycles?


By Reclaimer77 on 10/15/2009 3:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are we chief contributors?... that's a different story... who knows.


The Earth has been cooling at a significant rate over the past 5 years or more, but the much vaunted cause of "global warming" ,CO2, has been increasing. Pretty much shattering Gore and the rest of the greenies theory that man made CO2 emissions are the driving force of the climate.


By ArcliteHawaii on 10/16/2009 3:54:33 AM , Rating: 1
Real climate scientists out at realclimate.org say otherwise. Both the 10 year and 25 year trends are still up. Emphasis mine:

quote:
(1) This discussion focuses on just a short time period – starting 1998 or later – covering at most 11 years. Even under conditions of anthropogenic global warming (which would contribute a temperature rise of about 0.2 ºC over this period) a flat period or even cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996) . That simply is due to the fact that short-term natural variability has a similar magnitude (i.e. ~0.2 ºC) and can thus compensate for the anthropogenic effects. Of course, the warming trend keeps going up whilst natural variability just oscillates irregularly up and down, so over longer periods the warming trend wins and natural variability cancels out.

(2) It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per decade – just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.


Full story: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009...


By KCjoker on 10/15/2009 8:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
Of course climate is changing...it's always changing. Global Warming nuts have lost the fight on the issue so now they've tried switched it to "climate change".


RE: Hydrogen powered vehicles will not be out in 2015
By Starcub on 10/15/2009 9:58:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Show me where a credible source has PROVEN global warming.

That's like asking for credible proof that the sun is hot. What's with the troll posts getting modded to +5?

Fact is that nobody debates global warming is real. In fact, the debate over wether or not mankind is responsible for global warming is largely over too. The only question at this point is how much of an impact can we have on reversing the course.


By FITCamaro on 10/16/2009 8:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fact is that nobody debates global warming is real. In fact, the debate over wether or not mankind is responsible for global warming is largely over too. The only question at this point is how much of an impact can we have on reversing the course.


No CLIMATE CHANGE is real. But the climate changes every day. The world will warm up, the world will cool down. This has happened ever since the world existed. Long before we were around and burning gas or coal.

And there is no concrete evidence we cause either of them to happen. Even with all the man-made CO2 emissions and natural CO2 emissions (which outweigh the man-made ones by a large margin), CO2 is still an extremely minuscule portion of our atmosphere. CO2 levels have been far higher in the past than they are now and the temperatures have been cooler. They've been far higher than they are now and temperatures have been hotter.

But hey don't let facts get in the way when forming your opinion. All of your "facts" are assumptions from computer models and from looking at an extremely small sample of data.

If nothing else, the fact that the same people who are pushing global warming as the doom of mankind today were the ones saying global cooling was going to kill us all in the 60s should give you pause.

Global warming is an economic scam. People like Al Gore make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year convincing saps like you of a problem that does not exist. And the scientists who help them do so because it means they get to keep their job.


By karielash on 10/18/2009 12:36:13 PM , Rating: 2

Show one that has proven it false. Given the stakes I think it's better to err on the side of caution.


By Ripvanwinkle on 10/15/2009 10:34:23 AM , Rating: 1
Ok Al, what other names do you post under?


By kattanna on 10/15/2009 12:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What makes this time any different?


not much.

while the tech to produce and use hydrogen has improved since then, the big sticking point is still distribution. and thats not something that will magically change within the next several years. it will take decades to roll out a proper country wide system, just like it did with gas. albeit with gas, it is much easier to transport.


By FITCamaro on 10/16/2009 8:28:46 AM , Rating: 2
Changing gas stations over to hydrogen is far easier than changing over the entire system to electric.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/15/2009 12:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
When I was in High School 30 years ago they were talking about hydrogen powered cars. But THE reason people didn't want them is because of the Hindenberg, believe it or not. That film had them convinced that hydrogen powered vehicles would blow up like that. Of course, if the Hindenberg had been filled with an equivalent volume of gasoline vapor, they would still be putting out the fires in New Jersey.


American On Top?
By chromal on 10/15/2009 10:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
American will be 'on top' of green cars if, by 'on top' you REALLY mean "one and a half decades behind Japan." If THAT'S what you mean, you hit the nail on the head.




RE: American On Top?
By Yawgm0th on 10/15/2009 11:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
With Ford Fusion Hybrid already out and basically being the #3 hybrid in fuel economy and #2 in its class (contrary to Ford's advertising), it's hard to argue that American cars are really fifteen years behind Japan. Maybe five, but even then, there is an argument to be made that we simply have a different market. I want a fuel efficient car, but not one that looks or drives like a Prius. I don't think there is a technological lag here, just a design difference.

Also, Chevrolet Volt is coming out next year. It is overpriced, sure, but it's not behind technologically.


RE: American On Top?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/15/2009 12:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
The Ford Fusion does have good mileage numbers, but can Detroit build a car that lasts more than 5 years with base fuel economy intact, and not fall apart? That is where they are still light years behind Japan. Also, given Ford's track record for exploding cars (Pinto, Mustang, Explorer, Bronco) I am not sure I want to sit in one with a large battery pack. Especially one named "Fusion!"


RE: American On Top?
By Yawgm0th on 10/15/2009 12:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Ford Fusion does have good mileage numbers, but can Detroit build a car that lasts more than 5 years with base fuel economy intact, and not fall apart?
Yes, they can. They have been doing it longer than Japan has been building cars. I know it's fun to jump on what has been admittedly crappy performance from American car companies, but let's not exaggerate. Even the more mediocre American cars generally make it well past five years and 100,000 miles. I don't think there's any technological lag -- just a quality gap.


RE: American On Top?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/15/2009 1:06:33 PM , Rating: 3
I used to sell Fords. Technologically, the engines generally ran a long time, but the car would fall apart around it. The only one that didn't was the F150. It has a bolted and welded frame (like the Crown Vic.) Also, the engines would run a long time, but they would burn more of everything to do it (gas, oil, anti-freeze). The saying in Detroit was, most American cars will run crappy longer than a Japanese car will run period. The problem is, Japanese cars run very well for typically 250K miles (Toyotas, mostly.)

Also, the design philosophy with American cars is drastically different from most forreign makers. American cars are designed and built to be cheap to buy, but require lots of after-market care to keep running. That keeps the UAW's hands out of the till. Most foreign cars are more expensive, but then you usually don't have to spend a lot to keep them running (except Mexican VW's and all British cars - except British Fords, oddly enough.)

I have put 80K on my 2007 Camry Hybrid (J-code) and have only had to pay for check up services at planned intervals, the rear brake pads, gas and oil, and a set of tires. I bet you won't get that out of a Ford Fusion. And I still get 38mpg average.


RE: American On Top?
By Spuke on 10/15/2009 1:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Ford Fusion does have good mileage numbers, but can Detroit build a car that lasts more than 5 years with base fuel economy intact, and not fall apart?
Cue ignorant statement number 1!!!


RE: American On Top?
By Keeir on 10/15/2009 7:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm... So your thinking its #2 behind the Toyota Prius in terms of Midsize cars?

Thats a little silly though.

Interior Volume Numbers Front/Rear Luggage (Cubic Feet)

Ford Fusion 54.3/45.4 (12)
Toyota Prius 52.1/41.6 (21)
Audi A3 51.3/41.8 (19)

Seems to me that the Toyota Prius belongs in the same class as the A3, Small Station Wagon, instead of the Fusion, Midsize Car. This is due to the similar percentage of Cargo Volume/Interior Volume and the hatch door on the Prius. (I know the EPA feels differently)

The passenger volumes for the Fusion are significantly higher at 4% for the front, 9% for the rear. Even though the final number of 114.7 for the Prius is higher than the Fusion's 111.7.


RE: American On Top?
By encia on 10/17/2009 9:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byEPAclass.htm

2010 Toyota Prius and 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid FWD are both classed as "Midsize Cars".


Hydrogen is the way to go.
By Amiga500 on 10/15/2009 10:42:52 AM , Rating: 2
A hydrogen economy is the only way to make the current drive for renewable energy practical. Batteries will not give us the flexibility we desire as consumers.

An example of how I see the future energy system (in a world where I am NOT allowed to dictate nuclear fission/accelerated particle/fusion in that order): Excess power from wind farms will be used to 'make' hydrogen, and when wind is short, this hydrogen will be burned to produce electricity for the grid. Work is ongoing aimed at replacing electrolysis as a means of producing hydrogen. Get that right, and we are sucking diesel so to speak.

Anyway. With wind farms, solar plants, tidal etc, buffering their energy by using hydrogen, tapping this into the transport world shouldn't be so much of an issue.




RE: Hydrogen is the way to go.
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/15/2009 12:34:58 PM , Rating: 2
There is not enough energy in wind, solar, and tidal energy plants to meet the bare needs of a stationary user, much less replace the equivalent energy of the existing transportation sector. Pie in the sky. If you want hydrogen, you are going to need nuclear, otherwise you end up losing energy creating hydrogen.


RE: Hydrogen is the way to go.
By Amiga500 on 10/15/2009 2:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
Not on a per $ basis, of course not. As I said, if I were doing things, they'd be done different. Unforunately, I'm not, so expect to see more windfarms etc spring up.

If the renewables are ever going to penetrate beyond 20% total energy sources, then storage mediums (of which, hydrogen is prob the best) will be needed to buffer the variability.

In which case, the hydrogen may as well be used for both stationary and mobile power generation. I would also point out that electrolysis as you know it would not be used.


RE: Hydrogen is the way to go.
By Keeir on 10/15/2009 7:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the renewables are ever going to penetrate beyond 20% total energy sources, then storage mediums (of which, hydrogen is prob the best) will be needed to buffer the variability.


Errr... what leads you to think Hydrogen is the best?

Fuel Cells are at most 50% efficient at converting Hydrogen energy back into Electricity. Even if we harness the heat energy, its hard to envision a fuel cell driven hydrogen system above 75% for Hydrogen --> Electricity. I doubt combustion based systems could acchieve greater than 60% for Hydrogen --> Electricity.

As for the Electricity --> Hydrogen. Pretty much your looking at Electrolysis, which is rarely even 80% efficient. Overall Water--> Hydrogen --> Water this method would be lucky to lose only 40% of the energy, with numbers more like 50% being today's values.

A good battery charges and discharges above 85% already in consumer applications. I would think custom applications could get that number well above 90%, for a total power loss around ~20%.

Pumped Hydro Storage is in my mind the best choice for now. Model facilities can hit close to 80% efficiency. Uprafting dams is even better.

In the future, if we're hoping for technology change, why not hope for cheaper superconductors? or more room temperature ones?


RE: Hydrogen is the way to go.
By Amiga500 on 10/16/2009 4:15:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Errr... what leads you to think Hydrogen is the best?


It can be transported easily as chemical energy. That in itself is enough.

I already specifically stated, we are not looking at electrolysis. Bacteria based conversion of hydrogen will be utilised with much higher energy efficiency rates than electrolysis (which incidentally would be doing very very well to hit 50% efficiency!).

Batteries are limited in portability, and more importantly they are (practally) limited in size. The problem is enormous. Daisy-chaining a load of car batteries is not going to cut it.

Hydro storage cannot scale to the levels required, too few sites and too expensive. It is yet another example of people simply not being able to grasp the scale of the problem.

I cannot begin to get across how big the problem is. How much power does the US grid transmit? Now... imagine you need to have 10 or 20% of that instantly available from stored sources...


RE: Hydrogen is the way to go.
By Keeir on 10/16/2009 1:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
"I cannot begin to get across how big the problem is. How much power does the US grid transmit? Now... imagine you need to have 10 or 20% of that instantly available from stored sources... "

Hmmm... Pumped Hydro already accounts for 4% of US's current Generation Capacity, and its really just getting started in terms of application. China notably is at 5%+ and is growing in this area.

But I am really curious, these Bacteria are going to somehow be powered by electricity? If not, then how in the world will it store excess electricity?

As to batteries, Car batteries are not going to work for grid storage. However
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery

Hydrogen has real real issues. It is nearly non-portable itself. Its not very energy dense for a liquid fuel. Mobile storage applications are currently expensive and difficult. Incapability with current systems, just to name a few. Hydrogen is great for the "water" aspect, but its hard to see how it will actually be practical in the 0-25 year time frame -without- breakthrough technology... which you just can't predict.


Liquid Batteries
By CannedTurkey on 10/15/2009 11:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
I sure like the sound of those. Keeps filling stations in business, solves the range/recharge issues. Sounds like the research is coming along nicely too.




RE: Liquid Batteries
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/15/2009 1:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
The maxim in battery design is - Low Cost, Long Range, High Speed: Choose any 2.

The Volt is just going to put a drain on the electric grid that we are scrambling to upgrade so that it doesn't collapse under current loads. How is it going to support the massive load at peak time that millions of plug-in hybrids and EV's are going to put on it? You think your electric bills are high now, wait till these things get on the market.

Non-plug-in hybrids only reduce demand on the existing petroleum grid, and don't put any additional load on the electric grid.


RE: Liquid Batteries
By Spuke on 10/15/2009 2:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Volt is just going to put a drain on the electric grid that we are scrambling to upgrade so that it doesn't collapse under current loads.
Ignorant statement #2! LOL!


RE: Liquid Batteries
By Keeir on 10/15/2009 8:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Volt is just going to put a drain on the electric grid that we are scrambling to upgrade so that it doesn't collapse under current loads.


Please provide some info on why this is?

Lets do a comparison

Electric Dryers typically max 30 Amps at 240 V (~ 7kW), but more reasonably use around ~4 kW. Average Household Energy Draw 4kWh/Day +

Plasma TVs consume around .4 kW, but are typically in use a lot of the time during the day. Average Household Energy Draw ~2.5 kWh/Day +

So your telling me, that we should be worried that a relatively minor number of individuals over the next 1-5 years will start drawing an extra ~6kWh/day?

Or how about this one, to keep up with current demands, we already grow the grid by 60,000 GWh a year. An electric car would put around 3 MWh new demand on a grid for a year.

If we increase out electric additions a mere 5% a year (to be clear 5% more than historical data for the past few decade in Change per year), that will allow 1,000,000 Plug-in/Electric cars to be added to the grid without significant issues.

Now, I understand that in California, In the Middle of the Day, When people get out of work and come home, there may be an issue as people plug-in the car AND turn on the TV/Air Conditioner. Electric Cars are much more green if an infrastructure and system is in place that allows them to be -easily- charged by the end user at non-peak times. That is what 95% of the scramble is about.


Rehashing the Same Ole $@$*
By Spuke on 10/15/2009 12:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another article to bring out the same ole BS ignorant posts followed by the same ole BS arguments.




By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/15/2009 12:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, that's Jason's stock in trade. Some bs to get them ranting. He gets paid by the post. We just paid him.


By JAY963 on 10/15/2009 1:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
What could go wrong?




By FITCamaro on 10/15/2009 1:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
The American tax payer will be the one financing it, so they really don't care.


You can lead a horse to water...
By Headfoot on 10/18/2009 8:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
They can make the greenest, most hippy friendly car and I still won't buy it. That isn't a relevant concern for me or the vast majority of car buyers. And the Big 3 cater to the mass market, not the niche market.

Now instead of having an El Dorado that runs on regular gas and craps out after 100k miles I can have an El Dorado that runs on sunshine that craps out after 100k miles.




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











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki