backtop

Print 50 comment(s) - last by kamikasai.. on Jan 5 at 6:13 PM

Plug-in Prius concept

2011 Chevy Volt plug-in EV  (Source: AutoBlog)

2012 Ford Focus battery electric vehicle  (Source: AutoBlog)
A new study by the National Research Council says battery vehicles may not be viable for some time

The National Research Council is a leading research group which provides scientific and technical advice to the federal government under a Congressional charter. The group has released a new study which indicates that electric vehicles are unlikely to be financially viable or environmentally helpful in the near future.  Ironically, the study was funded by the Obama administration's U.S. Energy Department, one of the biggest advocates of electric plug-ins.

The report estimates that for EVs to be successful, the government will have to sink hundreds of billions into the new market.  It also concludes that the investment will do little to cut oil consumption or combat carbon emissions before 2030.  Until then, the gains will be too modest and usage will be too low to make a significant impact.

With the help of large government subsidies and incentives and advances in battery technology, the report estimates that EVs numbers could reach 40 million by 2030.  The report cites the high costs of lithium-ion batteries -- the power storage system in most planned EVs -- as limiting market adoption of the fuel-efficient vehicles.

The report's most optimistic scenario envisions 6.5 million plug-in hybrids could be sold by 2030 out of 19.4 million total vehicles.  The report's more realistic scenario estimates that only 1.8 million EVs will be sold that year.  Michael P. Ramage, who headed the study, comments, "Over the next 20 years, we felt that a 50 percent reduction in battery costs would take place.  Other people have assumed a lot greater battery cost reductions. It is likely to be several decades before lifetime fuel savings start to balance the higher first cost of the vehicles."

The study states that houses and businesses will need more charging outlets to spur adoption.  It also estimates that EVs will cost on average $18,000 more (without subsidies) than traditional vehicles, thanks in part to the $14,000 (approximated) cost of the lithium-ion battery pack.

The Californian Cars Initiative, a leading plug-in advocacy firm has released a response blasting the report as biased and based on outdated info.  It writes:

When the National Academy of Science's outgoing fuel cell analyst team produced a flawed study as its last act, the broad community promoting plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles barely noticed. There were so many things wrong with the report that we thought it would pass unnoticed. But because of its source and its message, it's been picked up broadly -- especially by media that often first build up and then undermine innovative, promising solutions. With the publication of a very critical editorial in the Washington Post aimed directly at Vice President Biden, it's clear this report could provide the rationale for a full-scale "rollback" effort by opponents of vehicle electrification.

The organization's long report continues its rebuke with further supporting quotes and analysis.  It offers up its own suggestions -- chiefly that the government and the auto industry should adopt EVs, despite the costs. 

The debate offers critical dialog as the government debates greater research grants and subsidies for EVs.  It's also critical to the auto industry whose biggest players are considering mass market EVs.  GM will next year launch its first EV, the 2011 Chevy Volt.  In 2012 Ford will launch its 2012 Ford Focus battery electric vehicle and Toyota will launch a plug-in Prius, which it says it plans to produce in the "tens of thousands" per year.  Chrysler is working on an electric version of the Fiat 500.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I'm gonna go with the NRC
By Motoman on 12/23/2009 12:30:28 PM , Rating: 5
...I think the NRC is just pointing out all the elephants in the room that everyone else was trying to ignore.

Sure, the pro-EV group there is going to bash the report as LIES! but they're not exactly going to agree with it, regardless.

The NRC report seems to me to be very based in reality, and I hope it causes the government to pause and consider what they're actually doing. There's a lot more work that would need to be done before EVs are going to be really viable, and forcing them down consumers' throats now - while politically correct - is not actually a reasonable thing to do.




RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By MrX8503 on 12/23/2009 12:53:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There's a lot more work that would need to be done before EVs are going to be really viable, and forcing them down consumers' throats now - while politically correct - is not actually a reasonable thing to do.

Did anyone ever really think a conversion from gas to electric was going to be quick and easy? Since when has technology advancements have been cheap and quick? Changing our needs for energy consumption isn't going to be an easy task, but this shouldn't hold us back from trying to advance.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By mdogs444 on 12/23/2009 1:03:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Since when has technology advancements have been cheap and quick?

They never have been...from a RESEARCH perspective. But they sure as hell better be before you attempt to force them onto the market with tax payer money.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By Gurthang on 12/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By SandmanWN on 12/23/2009 3:15:34 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Be under no illusion the automobile owes its existance here to taxpayer money to build the interstate systems we now take for granted.

I understand what you are getting at, but for all intents and purposes and for the sake of historical accuracy the automobile came before the highway.

Technically the interstates, highways, and convenience people now enjoy and loath came about due to the automobile, not the other way around. Before the highway automobiles had tall skinny tires to cut through mud and traverse tough landscapes.

Anyway, I believe the underlying point of the report was that slower adoption rates will make the reduction of oil dependency much slower than expected. They don't foresee the EV adoption rates to overtake oil based vehicles until the prices equalize. Which is a no brainer conclusion.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By Kurz on 12/23/2009 3:46:44 PM , Rating: 5
Dont forget that GM actually killed off Trollies in many cities.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By jjmcubed on 12/23/2009 9:44:18 PM , Rating: 4
Not sure why this was voted down. He is 100% correct.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By wookie1 on 12/24/2009 11:04:33 AM , Rating: 3
Not really, they're just called "light rail" now. If you live and work near the narrow coverage of the line, you can enjoy paying double what driving would cost and it taking twice as long to get to your destination.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By Gurthang on 12/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By Jalek on 12/23/2009 7:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
The interstate system wasn't even in Congress' hands initially. They pushed it through as being needed for transporting mail.

They now have interstate commerce and funding games they can play, but in reality, there's nothing directly Constitutional about any of it.

There are also explanations of which stretches are capable of serving as emergency runways and other civil defense uses there were many fans of back in the day.

I'm not entirely sure why this is relevant though, even the mythical EV's that use no fossil fuels to recharge need roads.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By BloodSquirrel on 12/24/2009 11:54:50 AM , Rating: 5
The word "argument" does not mean "making things up".

The interstate system wasn't built until after WWII. The Model T, the car famous for bringing automobiles to the masses, was in production in 1914.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By log on 12/23/2009 7:17:55 PM , Rating: 3
"Than try to create some EV equlivent of a gas station."

The equivelent has already been thought of.
It's a 20min. fast charge on a suped up power plug, if you're in for a coffe, or a 3min, full automatic battery replacement.

In my opinion, the issue around the electric charging infra-structure is just not strong enough. Sure it will take time, and there will have to be enough power, and capable grid to deliver it.

See

http://www.renault-ze.com/uk/#/uk.html
check under "how does it work" and then "electric cars charging"

http://www.betterplace.com/
http://www.mobi-e.pt/uk/electric_mobility.html


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By Solandri on 12/24/2009 6:51:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
http://www.renault-ze.com/uk/#/uk.html
check under "how does it work" and then "electric cars charging"

My EE is a little rusty, but the 400V 36A socket they specify would put out 14.4 kW. To charge up the 20 kWh battery they specify would take 1.39 hours, not 20-30 minutes. If you assume only half of the 20 kWh is actually available to protect the battery (like on the Chevy Volt), it would still take 42 minutes. Most likely the 20-30 min figure is for a partial charge, probably a quarter or half charge based on the numbers they're giving.

So given that the Renault Z.E. prototype has about a 160 km range, a half charge gets you about 80 km. At highway speeds, you'll cover 80 km is 45 minutes. So drive 45 minutes, stop for coffee while it charges for 20-30 min. Drive another 45 minutes, stop for more coffee. Drive another 45 minutes, stop again, etc. Yeah, I don't think so. The quick charge seems more geared for short city routes on a busy day, when you're about to exceed the vehicle's 160 km range and need just another 30-50 km to finish your business for the day and drive home.

The drop-in options looks a lot more viable to me. But considering the weight of the batteries and the stored electrical energy they contain, I would not trust them until they've been in service for many years and experienced significant wear and tear. The lithium-ion batteries everyone is talking about using are the same ones responsible for all the laptop and cell phone fires reported in the news the last few years. They only reason those don't explode/burn more frequently is because the charging circuit is designed to not let you under- or over-charge. Once you start moving these things around with an automated forklift, all bets are off. I'm not saying it won't work - I want them to work - I'm just saying I'll remain unconvinced until we get some data from them in real world use.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By MrX8503 on 12/26/2009 8:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They never have been...from a RESEARCH perspective. But they sure as hell better be before you attempt to force them onto the market with tax payer money.


Whether it be from a research or a development perspective, this stuff costs money. We have to foot the bill today to have a better tomorrow.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By mikefarinha on 12/28/2009 11:16:08 AM , Rating: 2
Well, that part of the problem. We aren't footing any of the bills that are coming due today. We are postponing everything. All of our expenses are being placed on our "Bank of China" credit card.

Here is something for you to consider as we ring in the new year:

1945 is when WWII ended and the birth of the baby boomer generation began.

65 is the age of retirement in the USA, including eligibility of withdrawing Social Security.

1945 + 65 = 2010. The year the baby boomers begin to withdraw en mas not only their Social Security but also from their 401ks and pensions.

Actually, thanks to the current recession many baby boomers will forgo retirement for a few more years so armageddon may be postponed for a few more years... however, it will come.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By cornelius785 on 12/24/2009 12:21:01 AM , Rating: 1
Not quite from my perspective. The transition from wood->coal, then coal->oil were fairly cost effective to do and provided benefits over the previous (like energy density, burn temperature). the transition from [coal+oil]->???? won't be so easy or cheap as ???? has still yet to be decided upon (altough some combination of nuclear, fusion (vaporware?), and renewables looks promising) and there is a lot more to switch over.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By AlexWade on 12/23/2009 1:34:21 PM , Rating: 5
The NY Times article stated that battery cost and infrastructure will keep EV from going mainstream. It seems like common sense on both. What concerns me about EV is the infrastructure. EV cars aren't going to run on sunshine and lollipops. We have to generate a lot more electricity. And have a better electrical grid. Solar and wind cannot provide enough energy needed for EV. That leaves us with what the environs hate: coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Without these, we won't have enough energy which means people won't be use an EV even if they have one. Or make a choice: blackouts or brownouts OR do not drive anywhere.

EV has both short term and long term problems. Can they be solved? Yes. Unless the government and environmentalists mess it up. The green lobby will work hard to prevent mass production of new power plants. The only way EV succeeds is if the most vocal group of people shut up and let the market fix these problems.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By Keeir on 12/23/2009 3:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or make a choice: blackouts or brownouts OR do not drive anywhere.


This is the largest red herring ever.

Logic: Since we can not support a transition of the complete transportation sector to electricity today, its not a viable solution.

Anything wrong with that logic?

Here are some interesting points.

If we compare an electric car (such as the Tesla Roadster) running on Coal Power only, it takes a car that gets more than 40 MPG on gasoline and 45 MPG on Diesel to release less C02 per Mile. (A common mistake is to not include the refining and transportation costs of the liquid fuel, but to include it for the electricity)

If we compare an electric car (such as the Tesla Roadster) running on Power generatored from Fuel Oil #4 in a modern Combined Cycle Plant, we require a car that gets 65-70 MPG on Diesel (very similar to Fuel Oil #4) to go the same distance.

If we compare an electric car (such as the Tesla Roadster) running on 0.15 cents per kWh electricity, a car needs to get 95 MPG for equal cost per mile on 4 dollar a gallon liquid fuel.

The average car in the United States travels approx 12,000 miles on average. If we look at an electric car (such as the Tesla Roadster), it will take only 3,334 kWh a year to travel this far (from the wall).
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html
Today in the great state of California, an Excess of 137,000,000 kWh of generation power exists (roughly reduced by 20%). Just today, 40,000 electric vechiles could be powered for an entire year. Today is not an exception for California. Typically 100,000,000 kWh of generation power is "left over" due to low demand. Over the course of the year, thats close to 10 million electric vechiles that California could have -without increasing power generation capacity-.

The US current produces 4,000,000+ GWh a year in electricity. If we take all 255 million register cars, that each travel 12,000 miles a year and assume a fleet average of 3 miles per kWh (the Tesla Roadster get 3.5 miles), thats only 1,020,000 GWh. Only 25%! more power required to transfer each and every car in the US to electric power. Expensive yes, but we will use 150 billion less gallons of gas each year.

Now your point about the grid is a good one. The grid in California has many issues, and its a good example for the rest of the country. The primary one being the large areas of whoose substations, etc, have not been properly upgrades through the years to deal with the massive population growth. IE, they are undersized right now. The Grid in California and much of the Nation needs to be replaced -regardless- of the electric cars. If we do this (replacement of the grid), if we strength it by 25% (more than planned), we could power all light duty cars and trucks with electricty.

For the specific report. Here two salient points

#1. They identify a current battery cost that is -Higher- than replacement batterys for Tesla Roadster on a per kWh basis. In fact, it appears that they beleive in 2020, Car batteries will still be more expensive that what Tesla will sell it to you Today! (See "16,000" for a pack for a PHEV-40. The Volt's estimated pack price is 12,000. The Roadster runes ~40,000 for a 200+ mile pack!)

#2. They assume gas prices will remain low. Lets all hope this is wrong (as it implies world economy does not recover). I think a far better number looking into the future is 4 dollars a gallon. Although in the 10-20 year time frame, 5 dollars a gallon may be more realistic.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By mdogs444 on 12/23/2009 3:24:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
#2. They assume gas prices will remain low. Lets all hope this is wrong (as it implies world economy does not recover). I think a far better number looking into the future is 4 dollars a gallon. Although in the 10-20 year time frame, 5 dollars a gallon may be more realistic.


The report does not assume everything stays stagnant outside of only EV sales. There are already governmental gasoline price estimates going 20 years out, and those I'm sure are used with all other rate changes.

You're nuts. $4/gallon gasoline is what crashed the entire economy after the housing collapse causing the price of oil to drop back down into the $30/barrel range. Even if/when the economy starts to build back up, unemployment runs 3 years behind that of increasing GDP as a rule of thumb. So if the economy starts to recover, the US demand will for oil will be so far behind that there fundamentals will not cause oil to go up that much. As of right now - if the government would stop spending like a drunken sailor, start paying down the debt, and stop printing money - then the value of our dollar would start going up and the price of oil would start going down...all without any change in demand.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By Keeir on 12/23/2009 4:55:34 PM , Rating: 1
Mdogs,

#1. Todays price for Oil, 76 dollars a barrel. Thinking that is will ever go back under 60, even with a Strong Dollar, is wisteful thinking. Its very unlikely unless we replace oil.

#2. With China, India, Brazil, etc all raising thier standards of living, do you really believe that World Oil demand will go down? In the 2000-2008 time frame, World Demand for Oil increases roughly 10% a year. The only way it will remain constant or grow less than 1-2% a year is if we wholsale replace oil (with EV or another technology) or the economy of the world is in ruins.

As for the reports estimates, I'd suggest reading the report.

Conclusion point (from abstract)

"At gas prices less than $4.00 per gallon, PHEV-40s will not become cost effective until 2040, PHEV-10s may get there before 2030"

Which of course factors in several thosand more dollars for batteries than is even charged -today-.

But hey, we can do a quick study right now. Today where I live Electricity is 0.081 dollars per kWh (final billed price) and gas is 2.89 a gallon (87 Octane regular). A 3.5 mile per kWh (from the wall) -performance- electric car costs 0.023 dollars per mile. A 30 MPG -economy- gasoline C segment car costs 0.096 dollars per mile. Per mile difference of 0.073. A "18,000" dollar (report) price difference results in a simple payback period of 246,000 miles! Thats clearly unacceptable. Of course, that "18,000" is more like 15,000 due to thier high price of battery choice (higher than retail replacements). Its more like a 200,000 miles payback period. A long time perhaps, especially since the battery will likely need to be replaced before this time period.

Looking forward into 2020. Lets go with thier "1/3" reduction is costs. So a 10,000 dollar premium. Lets assume energy prices have increase 50% for both electricity and gasoline. Lets also go with a 4 mile per kWh -economy- electric car and a 40 MPG -economy- CAFE meeting car. The gap has now shrunk down to 125,000 miles to simple payback. Which is entirely reasonable. Hopefully most cars sold in the US reach 125,000 miles! (between first and second owners)

The only way I can reach thier conclusions is if I assume a stable gasoline price and an increasing electric price, or much higher increases in the cost of electricity versus the cost of gasoline. Or maybe they think we will have cheap cars that get 50 MPG by 2020?

Over the past two decades, this would appear to be a poor assumptions.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By mcnabney on 12/23/2009 5:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone should keep something in mind when calculating EV costs related to batteries.

Those LiIon batteries are 100% recycleable and will be worth at least half of their sale price. So a good portion of that upfront cost for the battery will be recaptured when the car is retired.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By drewidgho5t on 12/23/2009 9:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
@ mcnabney. "Those Li-Ion batteries are 100% recyclable and will be worth at least half of their sale price"

Your post touches on some fears I have concerning ev's.
The probability that we will be using li-ion batteries 20yrs from now is extremely low. Can those packs be re-purposed when we go to li-air? Can those packs be recycled for the materials or can they only be recycled for the same cause? Why it matters. The 2nd market value of those packs will depend VERY MUCH on whether they can be repurposed or only melted down for scrap once the packs have reached end of life.

Those companies who have invested in the manufacturing of li-ion will push to restrict adopting new tech. That is an event that has occured too many times. The established oligopoly maintaining the status quo.

How ironic that the car alarm will not work if the battery is disabled. There will be a HUGE blackmarket for battery packs. These things are a blackmarket dream.
1>> The shape (rectangle) allows for easy storage of multiple items in a small space merely by stacking.
2>> Something not all that big worth tens of thousands!!!
3>> And all I have to do is build a FAIRLY LOW TECH refurbishing facility to make them market viable again. So even the old ones are valuable.
4>> The outer case is of such integrity that I can grind the serial numbers off without damaging the item.
5>> The outer case is of such integrity that I can easily form sheetmetal around it with some new serial numbers etched in. And no one will be able to tell that the new shell is not legit.

I am not a criminal. But as you can read, I have certainly given some thought to this endeavour. And these thoughts have come about merely through discussions with friends and from online discussions. As you can see it does not take much to realize the goldmine that batteries are/will become.

Has anyone factored in the increase of insurance premiums that ev's will most certainly "stimulate" as part of the TCO.
4>>


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By mcnabney on 12/24/2009 2:55:25 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure the batteries will be protected by VIN numbers, just like every other critical part of the car. Lithium isn't like copper, you can't just haul a ton of it to the metal recycling center in the back of your pickup. The usual theft protections will be in place. Also, remember that the full battery packs weighs 400 pounds. So it is like trying to cart off an engine. Due to the cost I am sure there will be a number of integrated safeguards.
Also, since battery pack replacement will likely fall under warranty, I have a hard time imagining a gray market for the service. Perhaps the batteries won't be sold with the car and instead provided as a lease/rental. That would ensure both a lower selling point for the car and guarantee the reprocessing of the battery. I imagine there will be battery usage ratings, like tire treads, which will be calculated when trading in a used vehicle.

Other battery technologies will appear and compete with Li-Ion. Many of those do utilize the element Lithium, so recycling values should remain high. But those more advanced battery designs will only help the industry. I imagine there will be simple refits. Likely the only adjustment needed will be circuitry to compensate for different voltages inherent in different chemical batteries.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By THELEGACYMAN on 12/23/2009 8:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
RE
You're nuts. $4/gallon gasoline is what crashed the entire economy after the housing collapse causing the price of oil to drop back down into the $30/barrel range. Even if/when the economy starts to build back up, unemployment runs 3 years behind that of increasing GDP as a rule of thumb. So if the economy starts to recover, the US demand will for oil will be so far behind that there fundamentals will not cause oil to go up that much.

For those gas lovers I just want to know when will you understand that oil will not be around forever. When it does run low and the price reaches a record hi, What will you do then start research in EV while other countries have already done so? They will have in essence dominated the auto industry.I guess then the oil lovers will cry foul. Listen the US has always been at the cutting edge of the tech world but because of heavy lobbying in some areas we fall behind other countries in development of our own ideas.
Look at other countries progress into the non oil areas. They are passing us at an alarming rate. Once again are we to let them control our energy needs?
Keep bashing green energy and you will cry later.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By cmdrdredd on 12/23/2009 9:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For those gas lovers I just want to know when will you understand that oil will not be around forever. When it does run low and the price reaches a record hi, What will you do then start research in EV while other countries have already done so? They will have in essence dominated the auto industry.I guess then the oil lovers will cry foul. Listen the US has always been at the cutting edge of the tech world but because of heavy lobbying in some areas we fall behind other countries in development of our own ideas. Look at other countries progress into the non oil areas. They are passing us at an alarming rate. Once again are we to let them control our energy needs? Keep bashing green energy and you will cry later.


You're a total idiot. What should we do? Drill our own fucking oil and get away from having to buy it from everyone else. At least that will support us for the near term until your stupid ass EVs and other technology can let me drive cross country if I wish. I'm sorry but pushing all this clean energy shit sounds fine and dandy when you smoke your legalized marijuana in Kommiefornia, but it sounds like shit in the real world when you realize it's not what we need now, to fix the economy and do what has to be done now.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By Jalek on 12/23/2009 7:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Logic: Since we can not support a transition of the complete transportation sector to electricity today, its not a viable solution.


That's the crux of the green argument, no incrementalism, no gradual anything, it must happen TODAY.

Anything the government does with that sort of impetus is always complete garbage, even if with the best of intentions.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By elgueroloco on 12/24/2009 3:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
Just like when the time-share salesman tells you that you must purchase this tonight or you'll never get this deal again.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By Squilliam on 12/23/2009 10:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't the cost of the vehicle minus the recovery value of the parts at the end of the life-cycle divided by its service life?

Those electric/hybrid vehicles may cost more but they also certainly retain more value as the lithium ion battery packs will remain valuable throughout the life of the vehicle and may even last longer than an equivalent gasoline powered example.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By Motoman on 12/24/2009 12:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
I see no reason to predict at this point that an EV is going to have anywhere near the lifespan, or final resale value, of, say, a 1977 Monte Carlo. Which you can still see plenty of (and other cars from that era) driving around just fine, 30+ years since their date of manufacture, and rather obviously having had little work done to them to keep them on the road...

...and when it does get taken off the road, there will be value in it as parts for refurbishing the motor, transmission, and other bits too. Which will surely be the case of an EV having reached the end of it's useful life - but I see no reason to expect, at this moment, that it's useful life is going to be 30 years.


RE: I'm gonna go with the NRC
By fox12789 on 12/30/2009 9:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.brand-bar.com
sneaker: airmax 90, 95 etc $35-42 free shiping.
boots: UGG etc $60 free shiping.
Jeans : polo etc $35-49 free shipping
T-shirts : A&f etc $12-18 free shipping.
hoodies: 5ive etc $28-40 free shipping
handbags: Ed hardy etc $35-68 free shipping
Sunglasses: LV etc $17 free shipping
Belts: BOSS etc $15 free shipping
Caps: red bull etc $12-15 free shipping
Watches:rolex etc $80 free shipping
http://www.brand-bar.com


California, mind your own business.
By mdogs444 on 12/23/2009 12:51:57 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The Californian Cars Initiative, a leading plug-in advocacy firm.......offers up its own suggestions -- chiefly that the government and the auto industry should adopt EVs, despite the costs.


Oh yes California! You have been a leading example of doing things despite the costs. Isn't that why you're in such deep debt that you may go bankrupt? Oh please, please....can we take your financial suggestions and follow course? Assbags. In fact, I think we should look at everything California wants, and do the exact opposite.




RE: California, mind your own business.
By MrX8503 on 12/23/2009 1:00:11 PM , Rating: 1
To be fair, California also had those raging fires, costing the state Billions.


By mdogs444 on 12/23/2009 1:01:57 PM , Rating: 3
The same fires that spread faster and further because the environmentalists in Kommufornia will not allow the overgrown brush to be control burned? Thats their own fault...they caused the state to pay for it. Again, more whacko California government decisions.


RE: California, mind your own business.
By Pneumothorax on 12/23/2009 2:49:03 PM , Rating: 3
Try this: CA spends $455,000+ PER MILE of road to maintain vs. $134,000 per mile average for the other states of the union. That's due to to all the "enviro-wacko" studies to maintain and the overpriced liberal administration. And you're willing to listen to a wack-job PAC from this g_ddamn state? I'd love to leave if I weren't over $200K upside down on my house. (bought at the wonderful peak)


By sinful on 12/23/2009 5:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try this: CA spends $455,000+ PER MILE of road to maintain vs. $134,000 per mile average for the other states of the union.


Wow, that's amazing... but only because you made those numbers up.

A well maintained road costs a LOT more to maintain than $134K/mile.

Second, since you're comparing "mile of road to mile of road", it's a no brainer it's going to be more expensive in CA than anywhere else.

Who knew an 8 lane superhighway in Hollywood costs more to maintain than a one lane dirt road in Minnesota?
That's almost an amazing revelation as the fact that long bridges with a lot of lanes cost a lot more than a short bridge with fewer lanes.

Dang liberals! They need to kick that Governator and replace him with a Republican. Oh wait.... a Republican is and HAS been running the show. Oh, well hey, let's put a different republican in charge, THAT will fix the problems.
LOL


By 67STANG on 12/24/2009 2:23:01 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks for generalizing all Californians into one group.

Nevermind California has almost double the GDP of the next closest state in the U.S. As California has by and far the largest economy in the U.S., the economic/housing meltdown probably didn't have anything to do with California's budget shortfall...

Oh and by the way, I've lived and traveled all over the U.S... I wouldn't live anywhere except California.


Here is my take on EV's...
By Codeman03xx on 12/23/2009 4:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
Ok this an idea that would work great and would be rather cheap to build an infrastructure for. Ok everyone seen the movie Back to the Future right? Ok so simply make a system that has a "rod" extended from the car that arcs electrical voltage over a power line such as a subway car or train does. the possibility are endless. think of it this way you travel on I-95 (very large highway on east) with this system in place you could travel from say PA to FL WITHOUT ANY BATTERY AT ALL. Yes it would be best suited for long distance travel, but it could easily be installed in towns too, considering most towns have overhead power even if they don't they could run lines for occasional boosts of power. Who knows maybe they could charge battery's while they drive as well, but at least you wouldn't be drawing power from your battery's. With the advancements of electromagnetic fields could provide wireless power to my idea making it even easier to implement.




RE: Here is my take on EV's...
By Jalek on 12/23/2009 7:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
I read a couple of books published in the 60's about the coming highway systems. The best idea was a highway system where the road had a magnetic underlay. You pull into the on-ramp, specify the destination, and you're done. Your car, with it's magnets underneath, is pulled onto the highway, which could be tightly packed as it's under computer control, and it's dropped off at an exit station when it reaches it's destination.

There were lots of car design ideas as well, but the highway one seemed interesting, especially coming from 50 years ago.


RE: Here is my take on EV's...
By Codeman03xx on 12/23/2009 9:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but that amount of magnets would cost a ton, main reason why maglev trains never took off. Although they could power cars under the blacktop using electromagnetic energy transfer through the tires (assuming they make the car tires have metal in them).


Irony
By Drag0nFire on 12/23/2009 2:17:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Ironically, the study was funded by the Obama administration's U.S. Energy Department, one of the biggest advocates of electric plug-ins.


I don't think this is ironic at all, Jason. When the administration conducts impartial reviews designed to inform public policy, it is hardly surprising that the result will sometime be at odds with the administration's policies.

I'll chalk this up to another shameless plug for previous articles you've written.




BILLIONS
By JonnyDough on 12/24/2009 9:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The report estimates that for EVs to be successful, the government will have to sink hundreds of billions into the new market. It also concludes that the investment will do little to cut oil consumption or combat carbon emissions before 2030. Until then, the gains will be too modest and usage will be too low to make a significant impact.


If we're going to sink billions into something lets stop dumping billions upon billions into war in the middle east for oil, dying car companies, and "green" energy that isn't...and lets focus on overhauling the VERY costly highway transportation system with high speed automated MONORAILS already!!!!!!!!!!!

Why has nobody realized the potential? Pods and large freight cars that can "stack" as they move to lower drag and increase efficiency...and get us there in a quarter of the time while being MUCH SAFER FOR EVERYONE, INCLUDING pedestrians, passengers, animals, and the environment in general?

Seriously, how cool would it be to fly on a rail over to your friends house, enter his house from ABOVE it, high off the ground (you could even get permissions for people to "use your rail" off the main lines and have automated notification of when people/who arrives).

Its almost 2010. When are we going to pull our heads out of the dark ages?




RE: BILLIONS
By Zero110 on 12/24/2009 1:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
We're twice as smart as the people of Shelbyville. Just tell us your idea, and we'll vote for it!


Shocking...
By SublimeSimplicity on 12/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Shocking...
By Bruneauinfo on 12/23/2009 12:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
read the article again.


Riots at the retirement home
By drewidgho5t on 12/23/2009 10:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
This is not "a possibility" This went down at the active living condo my mom lives at. She lives in a fairly progressive town. The kind of town where things happen first (ie. recycling, pride parades, eco regulations for building codes, etc.)

As a representation of how things will go in many communities should ev's actually start to catch on, I present a new point to consider.

The condo community was asked to have a town hall meeting concerning the installation of plugs in the parkade to accomodate the hybrids and ev's.
1>> Not one person wants to pay for the cost of installing these plugs/charging stations. People who purchase hybrids/ev's will want to "share" the cost of installation. They want the condo to pay for it.
2>> The evil enviro-sinners are not willing to have condo cash go towards installing the charging stations. Something that does not benefit everyone.
3>> The evil enviro-sinners are not willing to pay for the electricity that will be going into the planetary saviours' vehicles. Condo's are metered individually for the units but not for common areas. That way electrical costs for walkway lighting, trash compactor operation, common area air recirculators/heating/cooling are shared by all.
4>>Planetary saviours point out that "unfortunately" that is how it is and for the good of the planet everyone else should be willing to accept that fact.

An evil enviro-sinner suggested running a really long extension chord from saviours unit down to the parkade. Saviour said that was just idiotic and sarcasm was not needed at such a serious debate. Evil enviro-sinner responded with "then put the tailpipe in your mouth, and plug the chord in your a$$. AND I AM NOT BEING SARCASTIC"

We all know being dissed is tough to swallow. Being dissed in front of a crowd is even tougher to swallow. Being dissed in front of a crowd of friends and neighbours who are laughing hysterically at the diss. The old guy (60ish) started a fight, he was so embarrassed.

IRONY>> the planetary saviours are the ones who can afford to purchase the ev's/hybrids as they live retired on their corporate pensions courtesy of having worked in the public sector their whole life. Many of them receive multiple pensions because they worked different government jobs. 2-3 pensions at a lovely amount for each because she was a judge before becoming a civic politician. He started out his career working for the civic works department, sewers and water. Left that job to become a state official in the highway department. Then took a job as a parking enforcement officer.
Makes OVER $$$$100,000 $$ upon retirement all 3 pensions combined.

The evil enviro-sinners can not afford hybrids or ev's. Many in my mom's building live on their old age pension. But they are expected to subsidize the installation costs of these charge stations or else be deemed as "bad people".

One more aspect I did not consider until the scenario was presented to me. Although reading the minutes of the town hall meeting gave me a laugh out loud, I was quite upset as I realized that in the end the saviours will probably win and force these costs on people who can not afford it.




Biased?
By roykahn on 12/24/2009 8:24:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Californian Cars Initiative, a leading plug-in advocacy firm has released a response blasting the report as biased and based on outdated info.


So the critics of the report are those who profit from electric vehicle sales. Now THAT'S bias.

It happens all the time. Threaten someone's source of income or funding or security and just watch them defend against it no matter how rational or natural the threat is.




By nofumble62 on 12/25/2009 9:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
one would be skeptical with EV. At $11K per battery pack, it is a single most expensive component in a car. Like all batteries, it has life expectation and slow death. I don't believe the current technology can deliver EV yet. It needs some breakthrough.




80/20 rule strikes again
By lco45 on 12/28/2009 4:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
Seems to me that this is a prime example of the 80/20 rule.

EVs are going to be too expensive for a long time. Far better to forget the utopian dream of all-electric and just go with plug-in hybrids.

Only 20% of the battery cost, but covers 80% of most people's journeys.

Instead of spending $14000 on a giant battery pack, you spend $3000 on a battery pack with a 40 mile range. That covers 100% of the commute for the under 40 mile commuters, and 50% for the 80 mile commuters etc, at a fraction of the cost of all electric.

The cars would be far cheaper than all-electric, and many people would see significant fuel savings, so fast market adoption and rapid reductions in oil use would follow.

Luke




Paper Battery?
By kamikasai on 1/5/2010 6:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
Won't paper batteries fix the cost? Now we just need fusion reactors to work :)




By zmatt on 12/24/2009 5:43:10 PM , Rating: 1
The problem with every alternative energy is that it takes more work to get it into a usable state than gasoline. Wood, coal and gas all share the quality in that all of the hard work in turning them into a usable energy source is done for us. nature grew the tress and created the coal and oil from dead organisms. All we do is set it on fire. solar energy must be collected, hydrogen must be synthesized and the fuel cell built, and batteries must be charged by the power grid. They all take energy form something else. Not only that but electrical systems have a high rate of loss throughout the process. There is loss form the power station, loss going down the lines, loss at the plug, loss charging the battery, loss while the battery is sitting there, loss using the battery, and loss using the motor, not to mention drivetrain inefficiencies and many other things. Once you crack oil into gasoline you really don't have much loss until you ignite it, and even then with the estimated 40% efficiency of ICE systems you get a lot of bang for your buck. Perhaps the solution isn't using a system where I have to use more precious energy to get less, but making these systems more efficient. Why don't we have 80% efficient engines? Why can't we make them? Why aren't we re-engineering our engines to run off of something like biodiesel, or waste products? Diesel engines have the cool ability to run off of just about anything including kitchen grease. That's a waste product. Why don't we capitalize on that? Most things in fast food are fried in peanut oil. so we could conceivably use engineered peanuts as a fuel source for future ICE engines. new diesels are very clean and get great mpg, match that with hydroponically grown peanut oil and you have a renewable and effective way to transport the world.




"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot











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