backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by Keeir.. on Mar 19 at 5:39 PM

It will launch in Europe around the same time as well

Volkswagen of America has announced its first entry into the electric vehicle (EV) market, the Volkswagen Golf, which is expected to make an appearance in late 2013.

The 2014 all-electric VW Golf will make its way to the United States and Europe late next year as part of Volkswagen's goal of making 3 percent of its vehicles hybrids and all-electric by 2018.

Volkswagen has been slow to move into the EV market because it typically focuses on diesel cars as a way of offering automobiles with a good fuel economy. However, VW recognizes that customers want a variety of options, and the automaker wants to meet those demands.

"It's a fundamental part of our powertrain strategy, but sometimes it's good to be a little more steady in terms to the approach to the market," said Jonathan Browning, VW of America's president.


VW has introduced a few hybrids and electric concepts in the recent past, including the 2012 Passat TDI, which offers 31 mpg city and 43 mpg highway, and the electric concept version of the E-Up!, which has an 18 kWh lithium-ion battery pack offering a driving range of 62 miles.

At the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) this past January, Volkswagen introduced the Jetta Hybrid and all-electric E-Bugster concept. The Jetta Hybrid offers a 1.4-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine that generates 150 HP and 184 lb-ft of torque, and will go on sale in November. The gasoline engine is combined with a 27 kWh electric motor and lithium-ion battery pack. The E-Bugster, on the other hand, has a 695-pound lithium-ion battery pack to power a 114 HP electric motor for a 100-mile driving range.

VW will most likely offer the all-electric Golf to specific markets before selling it nationwide.

Source: Automotive News



Comments     Threshold


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

Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Beenthere on 3/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By DukeN on 3/16/12, Rating: -1
RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By geddarkstorm on 3/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By retrospooty on 3/16/2012 2:15:08 PM , Rating: 5
"I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about, but it's nothing sensible"

Pretty sure that 2.4% is based on 1 year sales, not all vehicles on the road.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By geddarkstorm on 3/16/2012 2:29:22 PM , Rating: 1
Remember, we're not talking about the Prius or other non-plugin hybrids.

And no, the sales of EVs were not 2.4% of vehicle says in the US over one year.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702035...

There were over 12.8 million light vehicles sold last year.

Of that in 2011 9,674 were Nissan Leaf, and 7,671 were Volts. Let's round that to 20k plug-in hybrids/EVs were sold in 2011. http://www.plugincars.com/nissan-leaf-sales-trump-...

That makes <0.2% of 2011 car sales were plugin-hybrid/EV. Considerably less than 1% and much less than 2.4%, don't you agree?


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By retrospooty on 3/16/2012 3:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
If those #'s are correct, yes. You cant argue with math. #'s and stats in marketing can be heavily manipulated cut/sliced alot of ways to make thing appear differently.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Solandri on 3/16/2012 5:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
IMHO the biggest refutation of EV economics is that Europe has had gas/diesel prices equivalent to $5-$12 per gallon for decades. Yet it was not enough to spur the development of EVs. Instead the industry migrated towards smaller cars and ultra-efficient diesels.

I really like the concept of EVs. We used electric golf carts to get around the facilities at a previous workplace, and they were perfect for the job. I would really like it if they succeeded (on their own merits). But the way the European market has developed really makes me think those optimistic about EVs are glossing over many fundamental aspects of people's commuting habits and vehicle use patterns which are incompatible with current EV technology.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2012 6:57:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
IMHO the biggest refutation of EV economics is that Europe has had gas/diesel prices equivalent to $5-$12 per gallon for decades. Yet it was not enough to spur the development of EVs. Instead the industry migrated towards smaller cars and ultra-efficient diesels.


I'm literally embarrassed that I've gotten into so many EV discussions on Daily Tech lately, and have never considered this as a talking point. Epic fail!

You're approach is so basic, so irrefutable, and so pure in it's logic and common sense. It's brilliant. You're right. How in the hell are EV's going to catch on here with 4$ gas, if they've haven't even really developed in Europe with $10 fuel and VAT taxes galore?

Does the Obama administration really believe the subsidy alone will spur millions of Americans to go EV? Gas prices would have to get a LOT worst than they are now. And as you pointed out, that didn't even work in Europe.

Which brings us right back to this:

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,”


Steven Chu, US Energy Secretary


Sigh... And people claim it's a conspiracy theory lol.


By Azethoth on 3/16/2012 9:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
The approach is ok but it neglects the part where technology evolves. EV tech comes down to one thing and one thing only: battery technology. Nothing else matters. We have had the brakes, bodies, electric motors and everything else needed for decades.

It is only with the rise of lithium that power density is almost acceptable. Give it some more time and the tech will line up and allow the switch. Either lithium itself gets good enough or something new comes along. New here would be as in graphene based capacitors or something.

I think we can agree that astoundingly simple as Europes failure to make EV in the face of $12 gas may seem it misses the real battery tech reason.


By Keeir on 3/17/2012 12:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the way the European market has developed really makes me think those optimistic about EVs are glossing over many fundamental aspects of people's commuting habits and vehicle use patterns which are incompatible with current EV technology.


I think the answer lies here. Before the Leaf, the next mass market EV was the EV-1 which was a tiny two seat roadster GM thought cost ~100,000 (2012 dollars) to produce each one.

Consider the price of a 100 miles EV pack capable of also being fitted in a B/C segement hatch? 10 years ago the cost was more than 50,000. 5 years ago it was 25,000. Today is more like 15-20,000. At some point there is an entry into a market where EVs would make sense. Some TCO advantage versus flexiblity reducution.

(I am also going to point out that after US and UK rebates and taxes are taken into account, a Leaf in UK costs around 8,000 more to purchase. While cars in general cost more in the UK, even after rebate the Leaf in the UK spots a 15,000 USD disadvantage in initial purchase price versus a decent B segment Diesel hatch.)


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Black1969ta on 3/17/2012 2:13:49 AM , Rating: 2
EV's haven't prevailed in EU's $10 gas environment because the market in Europe is much smaller than the US, up until Toyota challenged GM for world domination GM was the by far the world largest auto manufacturer.
The world auto market is lead by the "Big 3" automakers, only in the last few years have any European vehicles seen any international interest. At this point, the U.S. leads almost all automotive technology innovation, Volvo is the only Euro company that I can think of that produces mainstream tech, Italians and Germans don't count their tech is mostly about performance and always mainstream, ie:

Volvo=Airbags, ABS
Italians= massive HP from tiny V engines
Germany=High voltage systems and iDrive.
Etc...

If I remember right euro market is only about a third of what the U.S. market is, at least in $, not units sold that is, some one please correct me if I'm wrong, of course it could be that Europe is catching up the like Chinese are. I'm talking about 20 to say 5 years ago when current EV tech was first R&D'ed.
Please if you do correct me add a link of evidence.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Keeir on 3/17/2012 10:53:41 AM , Rating: 2
A few points

#1. European Car Market is typically larger than the US market, about the same size as the NA market overall.

For instance in 2008 the market in Europe was 14.7 million. US market size was 13.2 million.

This is simple google search work. How your choose to slice it makes the biggest difference. If you view Europe as all the countries, just the EU, just Western Europe, etc.

Consider that the Western European region has capacity to make ~15 million a year

http://www.freep.com/article/20120308/BUSINESS01/2...

#2. There is no "$10 dollar" gas in Europe

Today, the highest price for fuel (gasoline) is ~1.83 Euros per liter. Thats roughly 9.23 dollars per US gallon, but the average price is much less at <8 dollars.

Historically speaking, the average price of fuel in Europe between 2000-2005 was around 5 dollars a gallon.

(Energy.eu)


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Solandri on 3/18/2012 3:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
When I say "$5-$12 per gallon for decades", I mean a low of ~$5 and a high of ~$12 over a span of decades, not right now. The $12 figure was in 2008, and was what a European friend reported to me for filling up his tank one day.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Keeir on 3/19/2012 1:11:47 AM , Rating: 2
Thats very deceptive statement.

Even if we price things in 2011 dollars, United Kingdom has paid ~4-6 dollars per gallon the vast majority of the past few decades with a few years above 7-8 and a few weeks above 9.

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html

Using the same metric I could characterize US gas prices as 1.50 to 6 dollars over the past few decades. This would technically be true, but the wieghted average would be much closer to 2 dollars a gallon than 5 dollars a gallon.

The same is true in Europe, outside the recent few gas spikes, Europeans have paid ~6 dollars a gallon of gas (2011 dollars) which some countries being more like 6.50 and others more like 5.50. Diesel has been ~5 dollars a gallon over the same time period.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Solandri on 3/19/2012 4:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh. I am giving a min/max. I am not giving an average because I don't know the average. I never stated or implied I was giving an average. Would you prefer that I make up a number and pretend it's the average, rather than "deceptively" give the min/max I do know?

If I see a numerical range being presented (e.g. battery lasted from 18-52 miles in range), I think it's pretty obvious it's a min/max. If you don't interpret it as min/max, I'd say that's your problem, not me being deceptive.


By Keeir on 3/19/2012 5:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
Errr..

If you want to give a "min/max" you should do a much better job of it.

You list a max based on one report from a friend. I've been unable to find a single source that shows a US gallon of base grade gas costing more than 10 USD. The "record" price in Britian seems to be ~9 USD per US gallon. A figure ~33% less than the max you are presenting.

In constrast, in 1991 (roughly 20 years ago which fits with your declariation) fuel prices were less than 2.75 USD per US gallon. Thats a yearly average. Not the absolute lowest price ever during the period. Even if we adjust that for 2011 dollars, your looking at a whole year of less than 5 USD per US gallon gas. Clear 5 dollars in not the minimum, even if we adjust prices to 2011 terms.

The United Kingdom, anyway, has faced face values of 4-9 dollars over the past 20 years in 2011 dollars. (Min/Max! based on quick google search!)

So I think, if you want to do Min/Max

A. You should present a true "minimum" rather than a value slightly below the average

B. You should verify your Max and Min are reasonable versus some real source

C. Ensure both Min/Max values are based on the same rationale. IE, if Min is based on yearly average, so should Max.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Keeir on 3/16/2012 2:24:37 PM , Rating: 4
Reading comprehension.

You base your critism of Electric cars on a link that lambasts the Diesel car, the very thing you suggest as an alternative.

By the UTK study, Diesel cars are 10 times worse than gasoline cars!

Its also important to note that study is limited to -China- where the majority of power >75% comes from poorly constructed coal plants.

I also curious how an e-car is 6.4 times as bad as an e-bike.

E-Bikes in the US get around 10 miles per kWh and E-Cars get around 3 miles per kWh. Even if we assume the load factor per person is the same, than e-cars should only be ~3.3 times as bad as an e-bike.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By geddarkstorm on 3/16/2012 2:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking of diesel in terms of bio-diesel which in theory "nullifies" most of the pollution as it's simply being recycled. That really depends on how you look at the carbon cycle versus burning coal/gasoline. You're right though, it very much depends on how you look at the question of diesel vs gasoline.

Look at http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext/index_e.aspx?id=... which does such an analysis. The time scale of pollution then becomes a deciding factor.

Here's another study looking at EV pollution vs gasoline http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing... the end analysis is that EVs increase some times of pollution, and lower others.

Those are both about operation of the EV's and their draw from the electrical grid, rather than production though; as production of the battery packs is a nasty process.

The picture isn't really clear and so I was unfair in how strongly I worded things. But EV's aren't a cure all "green" technology by any means. Now, if we relied on more power generation from nuclear/solar/hydro rather than coal/gas/oil, that would change the picture more.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Keeir on 3/16/2012 5:05:14 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I was thinking of diesel in terms of bio-diesel which in theory "nullifies" most of the pollution as it's simply being recycled


What?

No. Biodiesel car is going to put alot of PM 2.5 into the air directly next to people's lungs. That UTK study says Diesel is much much worse than electric cars which are worse than gasoline.

Your Norwiegn Link emphasises CO2 production.

Your second link does a heck of alot to support electric cars quite frankly over even BioDiesel.

Here are the "Facts"

The US power grid as of today is
39% Coal
26% Natural Gas
22% Nuclear
7% Hydro
6% Renewables

Coal is becoming smaller, Natural Gas and Renewables are rising.

per 1 E-car mile,
1750 BTU of Coal and 620 BTU of NG is burned. Negligable amounts of Oil is burned
0.44 lbs of CO2 (0.28 lbs if you assume 100% Natural Gas)
0.0045 lbs of SOx (~0 for Natural Gas)
0.00084 lbs of NOx (~.00022 lbs for Natural Gas

per 1 Diesel Car mile,
3830 BTU of Oil is burned
0.63 lbs of C02
0.0043 lbs of SOx
0.0017 lbs of NOx

So I guess it really comes down to how you view your electric car being powered.

If powered by the US national grid proportionally, Electric Cars are likely better than all but the very best gasoline hybrid cars or Natural Gas cars.

If power by the marginal US power choice in most places, 100% Natural Gas, Electric cars are better in every concievable way.

If you live in West Virgina, electric cars are probably less green than your average car.

If thinking long term, it will be difficult for Bio fuels to acchieve the type of low pollution levels of Natural Gas if burned in traditional Otto or Diesel Cycle cars. This doesn't even get into the huge amounts of land that will need to be devoted to even the best projected fuels.

Even if you optomistically assume yields of 3,000 gallons per acre per year and 50 MPG, the US is going to need to put 18 million acres of land into just Algae farming at a minimum.

The same area covered with simple south facing panels of 10% efficieny would yield 16 x 10^15 capable of propelling cars more then 40 x 10^12 miles which is ~15 times the average miles driven right now.

Even the most diffuse form of electric power generation using 1980s technology is significantly more energy dense per land use than future Algae Biodiesel farmimg, which itself is more than 30 times better than the current source of Biodiesel farming.

In terms of "green", Electric Cars in many of the areas in the US where they are being adopted, are the most green option. For instance, I think it would be stupid to claim that a Diesel driven through LA is "better" than an EV or a strong Hybrid.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Solandri on 3/16/2012 5:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
Biofuels include alcohols which burn very cleanly (a typical alcohol burner doesn't even leave soot residue). While corn ethanol is a boondoggle, ethanol derived from high-sugar crops is economically viable.

There are still engineering challenges to be surmounted (e.g. alcohol tends to dissolve gaskets). But IMHO you're stacking the deck if your argument against biofuels is based on comparing electric to diesel.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Keeir on 3/16/2012 5:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
No... I think you misunderstand why I dislike Biofuels. Its true some are little pollution.

The US last year used more than 150 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel in transportation sectors.

Even if the US reduced consumption and increases efficieny, we need to produce ALOT of biofuels.

Soybean BioDiesel 100 gallon/acre
Algae BioDiesel 300 gallon/acre (3000 gallon theory)
Sugar Beats 700 gallon/acre
Switchgass 1000 gallon/acre (1500 theory)

To produce the same amount of energy as in those gallons of gasoline and Diesel, we would need to plant more than 120 million acres of switchgrass. Iowa has only ~30 million acres of farmland.

Sure, maybe we reduce consumption, increase efficieny, downsize, etc, etc, etc. But its hard to see without drastic breakthroughs in biofuels how the US won't need to invest ~10% of its current cropland to fuel use. (Switchgrass would need to cover around 30% of the current cropland)

Or we could go electric and build ~150 nuclear reactors or cover "just" 2 million acres with solar panels.

Large scale biofuels will involve a very large investment of land. If the US wants to source it from the US, regardless of the fuel type, the US would need to devote -states- over to the production of the biofuel


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By pwnsweet on 3/16/2012 7:42:11 PM , Rating: 1
Biofuel is inherently flawed because the crops used for fuel could be used for food instead. Using it for fuel instead of food is blasphemy of the highest order.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2012 8:08:50 PM , Rating: 1
Not ALL biofuels use food for fuel though. I mean Obama says we can just use algae and not even drill for oil, so it must be true.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By Azethoth on 3/16/2012 9:42:26 PM , Rating: 1
Ah the life of a troll. Are you hungry? To be correct you would have to note that Obama's strategy is:
All of the above.

This means solar, nuclear, oil, gas, hydrogen, wind, tidal, rats in a treadmill, whatever works.

Unlike the retarded lies coming out of Gingrich's mouth, Obama is not suggesting pouring algae into fuel tanks. Doing that is obviously retarded. Instead you use GMO algae to directly produce fuel. If you use the internets you can find the articles on this site that describe the Navy pilot program that already runs a couple of ships on such bio fuels.

Full disclaimer: I am a Republican, however I am not stupid about Science and extremely liberal on social issues.

Because I apply science to it the only energy sources I really want funding and subsidies for are solar, nuclear, and fusion on the off chance we can get it to work.


By Keeir on 3/17/2012 12:25:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To be correct you would have to note that Obama's strategy is:
All of the above.


Which is essentially saying "I don't have a solution so lets just waste money until we find one"

It sounds catchy, but Obama's stated approach lacks vision or concept.

quote:
Instead you use GMO algae to directly produce fuel. If you use the internets you can find the articles on this site that describe the Navy pilot program that already runs a couple of ships on such bio fuels.


I am pretty sure he is aware of that... GMO Algae is considered promising because it could potentially reduce C02 emissions from power plants and require little in the way of infrastructure changes. Just because Military runs a ship on it... well that means very little. The Navy has dozens of nuclear powered vessals... yet the Nuclear powered car is not right around the corner.

GMO Algae is still several hurdles away. The biggest in my mind is that most places think the limit per Acre per year is ~3,000 gallons. Still large swaths of the US would need to be covered by the GMO Algae (currently produced at 10+ dollars a gallon wholesale compared to ~3.00 per gallon for gasoline), at least in Algae's case the US could use scrub land or other types of installations besides farms.


By Reclaimer77 on 3/17/2012 9:08:43 AM , Rating: 4
Not sure how I was trolling, but okay.

I'm fully aware we're not talking about pouring straight up alga into fuel tanks and expecting a car to run on it, thank you. Are you serious with that?

And yes, the Navy does have ships running various biofuels. At the cost of around $8,000 per gallon.

quote:
To be correct you would have to note that Obama's strategy is: All of the above.


Like Keeir said, this sounds very progressive and forward-thinking. But in practice it's just more rhetoric. Under Obama this country has the worst energy policy we're ever had in my lifetime.

quote:
This means solar, nuclear, oil, gas, hydrogen, wind, tidal, rats in a treadmill, whatever works.


Key word here: works. Most of those are not working and cannot satisfy the needs of our population. In time maybe they will, but it won't come from the government pouring money into one while specifically blocking the production of another (oil).

Not to mention what a folly it is for a President, someone with a 4 year term, to personally try and spearhead a change this drastic just to satisfy his Green Party base. The next Administration could completely go the other way entirely, at which point the only result will have been a massively reduced energy base and lots of wasted money.

quote:
Full disclaimer: I am a Republican, however I am not stupid about Science and extremely liberal on social issues.


So the typical moderate leftist Republican who's been corrupting our formerly Conservative party for decades now? Bravo. It's sad when a Republican sits here and tells me that he believes progress and all good things flow from the President down in this country.


By Spuke on 3/17/2012 7:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or we could go electric and build ~150 nuclear reactors or cover "just" 2 million acres with solar panels.
Good stuff!!! A friend mentioned negatives in using biofuels but did not go into detail. Never knew this, thanks for the info.


RE: Diesels and Hybrids make sense but not EVs
By jimbojimbo on 3/16/2012 4:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
E-Bikes in the US get around 10 miles per kWh
Where are you getting this? I have a bike with a 36v battery rated at 20amps and it will cut itself off way before draining all the power. I can bike around town without pedaling at all except maybe at starts for 12 miles easily. That'll be 12miles per roughly 650watts used, or 18.5miles per kWh. That actually does come to about 6x your 3miles per kWh for cars oddly enough.


By Keeir on 3/16/2012 5:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
#1.

Watt is a measure of power
kWh is a measure of energy

#2.

Your "E-bike", while a neat mode of transportation is not really a good comparison to well any car. If that's the type of e-bike they are using, well then they are being strange.

An electric car capable of traveling 70 mph and hauling 4 people is not comparable in any way shape for or form to a 25-50% self powered 1 seat bike capable of around 20 mph.

I was speaking of some e-bikes capable of significantly greater speeds.

An electric car, if limited to 10-20 mph speeds, would go around 8 or so miles per kWh. (An e assist bicycle can be ~20-25 miles per kWh when humans help)


By semo on 3/17/2012 5:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
It's not as bad as you are trying to make it. From the abstract of the article in question:

quote:
However, intake fraction is often greater for CVs than for EVs because combustion emissions are generally closer to population centers for CVs (tailpipe emissions) than for EVs (power plant emissions)


Also, this is just one study for the China region. It doesn't mention what type of technology is used for the batteries (NiMH, lithium, lead acid, etc...). The energy required to produce a car is astronomical regardless of technology. What matters to me the most is street level pollution (i.e., what I'm breathing when I'm out and about). You can not control pollution at the street level. It is a lot more manageable at the factory and power station level.

Battery design progress has accelerated in the last decade. Who knows what will be available in 10-20 years. Maybe Zinc air batteries will be easier to produce than lithium ones. Maybe there will be another technology all together.


By tng on 3/16/2012 2:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
He has a point.

Despite the people here who will say that we need these government subsidies to build the market, that really isn't true. If there was a market for EVs there would be allot more adoption of the technology by the public with or without the tax credits.

As for the tax credits, no I don't like helping to finance somebodies new ride for their sub 20 mile commute and so they can act "green".


By KCjoker on 3/16/2012 6:53:39 PM , Rating: 1
And thinking that EV's are cost effective for several years means you're as dumb as msnbc.


Is that fact right?
By vol7ron on 3/16/2012 2:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
31 mpg city and 43 mpg highway


For an electric/hybrid, those numbers sound reversed. I thought they generally get better MPG in the city due to the recharging nature of the cell, and the fact that they use the electric motor at lower speeds.




RE: Is that fact right?
By jthistle on 3/16/2012 2:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's for the Passat TDI.


Catch 22 with electric cars
By jimbojimbo on 3/16/2012 4:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
The worst thing is electric cars are suited best for urban environments where everything is relatively closer and gas is much more expensive yet people that live in the cities don't have garages to plug in their cars. The people that live in the burbs with their garages, cheaper gas prices, and longer drives don't want them due to range.

There is one garage I know of in Chicago that has plug in parking spots and they've been relatively empty, aside from a Prius with a plug in kit installed. However, no way am I going to get an electric car unless I'm guaranteed the spot! What, I can't drive today because some a-hole parked in the charging spot and I couldn't park my car there?




By superstition on 3/19/2012 7:19:47 AM , Rating: 1
Electric cars are suited to places that don't charge them with coal power. Otherwise, as far as I know, oil is actually greener.


Electric Vehicles
By texbrazos on 3/17/12, Rating: 0
RE: Electric Vehicles
By Dan Banana on 3/18/2012 5:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
That's awesome and as such I'm positive the right wingers living in the past that populate this site will absolutely HATE it. Probably because Rush or Bill O'Reilly told them to. :-)


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki