backtop


Print 34 comment(s) - last by Keeir.. on Jun 25 at 1:53 AM

General Motors touts the eco-friendliness of its Chevrolet Volt

Chevrolet Volt owners are a prideful bunch. They take pleasure in driving their vehicles as far as possible without using a drop of gasoline in the process. With an all-electric range of 35 miles before the gasoline engine/generator kicks in, this is quite possible for those that have a short commute to work or run errands close to home.
 
General Motors this week is celebrating the battery-centric focus of Volt owners with the announcement that owners have collectively logged over a half billion all-electric miles on their vehicles.

 
“The fact that most of the folks who purchased the Volt at launch are still enjoying EV range performance on target with when they took delivery is testament to the attention to detail our team paid to delivering on our promise of most people driving all electrically most of the time,” said Chevy Volt Executive Chief Engineer Pam Fletcher.
 
In addition to surpassing the 500 million-mile mark, GM performed some analysis on 300 Volts in the state of California and found that 15 percent of those vehicles were surpassing 40 miles per charge. GM also found that on average, Volt drivers travel 970 miles before needing to stop by the gas station to top off the 9.3 gallon tank.

 
The second generation Volt is already well underway in development and was recently spied performing road tests. GM is hoping to reduce its costs to build the Volt by $7,000 to $10,000.

Source: General Motors



Comments     Threshold


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

"electricity"
By Argon18 on 6/19/14, Rating: 0
RE: "electricity"
By bill.rookard on 6/19/2014 3:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
There are some advantages to using electricity. By using power (I'm going to interchange electric and chemical) created from a large capacity generation system, it's actually a more efficient usage of fuel than all the individual (and less efficient) internal combustion engines.

Efficiency of your average IC engine is 18-20%. Average efficiency for coal fired electric plants is double that - anywhere from 35% to 45% for some of the most modern plants.

The only way that individual generation would surpass large-scale generation in 'eco-friendliness' would be a direct solar installation which ran the charger. However, the problem is obviously that most people work during the day, not the evening, and as such the chance to capture that capacity is lost. An interesting idea (not sure about economic feasibility considering battery costs) would be a quick-swap battery system, where the battery being swapped can sit on a solar charger charger, then is ready for use the next day.


RE: "electricity"
By Argon18 on 6/20/2014 11:19:14 AM , Rating: 4
"Efficiency of your average IC engine is 18-20%. Average efficiency for coal fired electric plants is double that - anywhere from 35% to 45% for some of the most modern plants."

Actually, IC engine efficiency is ~31% for gasoline otto cycle, ~34% for gasoline miller cycle, and ~40% for diesel. This is in light passenger cars and trucks. GE has a diesel locomotive that has reached an amazing 50% efficiency, a world record. Modern IC engines are more efficient than most people thing.

Agreed that modern coal plants are much more clean and efficient than the dirty older ones. But the fact remains, an electric vehicle is not a zero-emissions vehicle! It simply offsets the location of those emissions, from the car to the local coal/nuclear/etc. power plant.


RE: "electricity"
By flyingpants1 on 6/23/2014 2:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the fact remains, an electric vehicle is not a zero-emissions vehicle! It simply offsets the location of those emissions, from the car to the local coal/nuclear/etc. power plant.


Or a solar panel.


RE: "electricity"
By Jeffk464 on 6/20/2014 1:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
That concept of solar doesn't actually make any sense at all, you don't think of it as a specific use. You just generate power and any power not used by the house is best just dumped into the power grid. You just run the power meter backwards.


RE: "electricity"
By Keeir on 6/19/2014 3:17:37 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Folks love to talk about electricity as if its some free magical clean eco-friendly solution, while forgetting that the bulk of electricity generated in the US comes from burning coal


Great, but you might do some research to really compare the

#1.
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_...

Now less than 38% of the US electric power is from Coal (still the largest single source by NG is closing quickly) Furthermore, the vast majority of Coal power is used as baseline power by electric utilities. Until large numbers of people begin using electric cars, there will not be significant additional coal power generated to power them. Even then, the majority of new power generation being installed is not coal.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_...

between 2013 and 2017 the plan is to add Natural Gas, Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Coal, and Hydro... in that order

Its really hard to say that a new electric car user will be powering there car with "coal" power given that small demand fluctions are met with Natural Gas (currently) and Increased baseline is being met with Natural Gas (and rarely nuclear power).

#2.
Even if a electric car is using 100% Coal power, its "cleaner" than a conventional gasoline engine in that it uses less overall kWh of energy and releases less pollution in addition to less C02.

Why? Because people like to think gasoline springs from the ground next to the gas station. Truth is alot of energy (and pollution) is spent taking oil from Canada, Alaska, Texas, etc, transporting it and refining it and then transporting it again. In comparison, electric power, once its electricity, is significantly more efficient (and less polluting) distrabution.

#3.
Using US power -averages-. A Tesla Model S emits ~40% of the pollutants and ~50% the C02 of a Toyota Prius. The Volt, when in electric mode, is very even better than the Model S.


RE: "electricity"
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/14, Rating: -1
RE: "electricity"
By tayb on 6/19/2014 5:09:43 PM , Rating: 5
I'm laughing hysterically that you think OPEC is anything but a global scam by petroleum exporters to fix the market. Many members of OPEC shut down mining operations to artificially reduce supply thereby ensuring continued high prices. If there were no OPEC petroleum would be sold directly from country to country at vastly reduced prices.

Yet somehow you think Obama is to blame for any of this and OPEC is doing anyone a damn bit of good.

How does the shit you type even make sense in your head?


RE: "electricity"
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/14, Rating: 0
RE: "electricity"
By KCjoker on 6/19/2014 6:22:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Are you forgetting Obama WANTED $10/gallon gas prices?


It's forgotten/denied like all the other BS his admin does...saying "electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket". It's always been his goal.


RE: "electricity"
By snhoj on 6/19/2014 9:07:01 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I know that. My point was even this is better than putting a Keynesian in charge of our gasoline industry.


Two things people will never agree on politics or religion. Wars are fought over such things. As much as I hate the politicizing a technical discussion on a tech forum here goes. Hating your current administration so much that you would side with a cartel shows some very deeply held feelings. Such strongly held feelings can affect our rational view. That aside I’ve often thought that one of the reasons for America’s extraordinary economic performance of the past has been cheap fuel. The ability to move goods and expertise around a large area and population easily and cheaply has got to be one of the things that greased the wheels of the economy. A large and affluent middle class is another one. Making gas expensive will certainly be a net negative.

quote:
By OPEC being an international organization outside of US control, we're probably coming out ahead. Are you forgetting Obama WANTED $10/gallon gas prices?


OPEC won’t stop your government from applying additional taxes to your fuel to increase its price. The reason our fuel is expensive where I live is that well over 50% of what we pay at the pump is taxes. I figure our petrol prices are about $8.50 US/gallon. Our economy hasn’t collapsed but we just tend not to buy big American cars but Japanese, South Korean, and European cars instead (read small economic cars) and it’s a small country so nothing is too far away (except the rest of the world).

Oil is an international commodity subject to the vagaries of supply and demand. One thing I’ve noticed is that when supply becomes tight in such a market any tiny little change in either the supply side or the demand side will cause wild swings in price. I mean doubling or tripling in price over night sort of swings. OPEC removing or adding supply to the market is to dampen out those swings but also to put a floor under the market to keep prices high so that they can make more money. This pricing support also gives certainty to the market and is supportive of new development of marginal supply. New supply outside OPEC lessens OPEC’s hold on the market. It’s not all bad news. Ultimately volatility is bad for everyone. If the price of oil is about 4 times the inflation adjusted average price we already have supply shortage pricing. New supply, alternative use, and alternative energy should become viable at some point and cause demand destruction. OPEC won’t want the price so high that too much of this becomes a reality. So they will be actively trying to dampen out the upward swings as well as the downward ones. One of those demand destructive alternate uses is like it or not is EV’s. The trouble is the alternatives can take decades to develop and put in place where as the swings in value occur pretty much overnight. This is why the market will overshoot its new equilibrium position when something changes. The smart money should anticipate some of the changes and be ready when they occur except nobodies really very good at predicting what is maybe a decade away.


RE: "electricity"
By Dorkyman on 6/19/2014 10:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
As an aside OPEC is a major player but they don't utterly dominate as the did a few decades ago.

Total worldwide oil production ~ 90 million barrels per day

OPEC's production ~ 36 Mbpd

Saudi contribution ~ 10 Mbpd

Iraq contribution ~ 3 Mbpd

Some non-OPEC players:

USA production ~ 11 Mbpd

Canada production ~ 4 Mbpd

Mexico production ~ 3 Mbpd


RE: "electricity"
By Mint on 6/20/2014 10:22:12 AM , Rating: 2
Oil has highy inelastic demand, so 40% is more than enough to manipulate prices. If someone produced another 5 Mbpd tomorrow, oil would probably drop in half. OPEC could then reduce output by 5 Mbpd, and price would return. They'd rather sell 31 Mbpd @ $100/bbl than 36 Mbpd @ $50/bbl.

We already saw this during the recession. When people started getting fired worldwide and driving less, oil dropped below $40/bbl. Less than a year later, before the economy even remotely recovered, the price went back up over $75/bbl. Why? Because OPEC intentionally cut production.


RE: "electricity"
By Solandri on 6/19/2014 6:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
between 2013 and 2017 the plan is to add Natural Gas, Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Coal, and Hydro... in that order

You're misinterpreting those numbers. "Capacity" just refers to the maximum generating capacity. Actual generation is (capacity) * (capacity factor). About 0.145 for PV solar, 0.22 for onshore wind, 0.3 for thermal solar, 0.35 for offshore wind, 0.4 for hydro (could be higher but it's used primarily as variable peak load power generation), 0.45 for gas (also used for peak load), 0.65 for coal, 0.9 for nuclear.

Unlike hydro and gas whose capacity factor is low by option, the low capacity factors for wind and solar are about the best you can do except in extraordinary circumstances. You need to multiply all those generating capacity numbers by these capacity factors before you arrive at actual amounts of electricity generated.

quote:
#2.
Even if a electric car is using 100% Coal power, its "cleaner" than a conventional gasoline engine in that it uses less overall kWh of energy and releases less pollution in addition to less C02.

The 85 kWh battery on the Tesla gives it a 265 mile range, or 32 kWh per 100 miles. Charging the battery is about 75% efficient (probably a little higher, but I'm ignoring discharge efficiency) - the rest gets convert to heat. Transporting electricity over power lines is about 98% efficient. Coal plants about 40% efficient (newer ones can hit 45%). The net result is 32 / (.75 * .98 * .4) = 109 kWh per 100 miles.

A 25 MPG ICE car uses 4 gallons of gas to move 100 miles. Gasoline has about 120 MJ per gallon, so 4 gallons is 480 MJ = 133 kWh per 100 miles.

There isn't much difference in energy consumption (assuming 100% coal). 100 years of automobile R&D has really pushed ICE efficiency to remarkable levels. Factor in that coal is much, much dirtier than gasoline and an EV (using electricity generated 100% from coal) is in all likelihood dirtier than an ICE car.

The advantage of EVs is that you can generate electricity with means which aren't limited by the Carnot heat engine efficiency limit. Unfortunately, until a large percentage of our electricity is generated with nuclear or non-combustible renewables, we really aren't leveraging that advantage.

quote:
Why? Because people like to think gasoline springs from the ground next to the gas station. Truth is alot of energy (and pollution) is spent taking oil from Canada, Alaska, Texas, etc, transporting it and refining it and then transporting it again. In comparison, electric power, once its electricity, is significantly more efficient (and less polluting) distrabution.

That approach unfairly favors electricity.. You can't include drilling and transport costs for gasoline while ignoring mining and transport costs for electricity. If you want a complete energy budget for everything, you need to include energy costs for mining coal, drilling for gas (actually since natural gas is a byproduct of petroleum drilling, you should divide the drilling costs between the two), etc. and transporting those materials to the power plant.

Also, the cost of drilling, mining, and transporting oil is only about 10% of its total cost. The mining and transport costs of coal is actually a much higher percentage because coal is so much cheaper than oil. In terms of price, these acquisition and transport costs are already factored into the final price (as I calculated a couple days ago, the energy in coal is the equivalent of if gasoline cost 9 cents/gallon).


RE: "electricity"
By Keeir on 6/19/2014 10:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 85 kWh battery on the Tesla gives it a 265 mile range, or 32 kWh per 100 miles. Charging the battery is about 75% efficient (probably a little higher, but I'm ignoring discharge efficiency) - the rest gets convert to heat. Transporting electricity over power lines is about 98% efficient. Coal plants about 40% efficient (newer ones can hit 45%). The net result is 32 / (.75 * .98 * .4) = 109 kWh per 100 miles.


quote:
That approach unfairly favors electricity.. You can't include drilling and transport costs for gasoline while ignoring mining and transport costs for electricity. If you want a complete energy budget for everything, you need to include energy costs for mining coal, drilling for gas (actually since natural gas is a byproduct of petroleum drilling, you should divide the drilling costs between the two), etc. and transporting those materials to the power plant.


Sigh. No and No.

Current testing for a car like the Volt requires they measure electricity from the wall over a 24 hour soaker charge. (My personal example is the Chevy Volt tell me for the past year, my average consumed by the car has been 4.1 miles per kWh. Which is 24 kWh per 100 miles. This does not include the battery or soaker, which is why the Volt is rated at 36 kWh per 100 miles. There is no way I am doing 50% better than EPA testing. I rarely do more than 20% better in ICE cars)

The Model S takes 38 kWh from the wall to go 100 miles according to the EPA testing.

EIA estimates over the electric distrabution network is ~93% efficient.

USA coal power plants average around 34% efficiency acccording to the EIA, but if you want to count on new sub-critical we can use 40%.

A Model S power by coal requires 102 kWh Coal to be delievered to the power plant. 102 kWh Coal produces 96 kg of CO2 and 0.06 kg of NOx. (US averages are 48 kWh of Coal, 20 kWh of NG, and 11.5 kWh of Nuclear/Renewables. Or 80 kWh of Energy with 50 kg of C02 and .03 kg of NOx)

To compare, lets take the 2014 BMW 535i. This car gets 24 MPG combined.

The EIA estimates the gasoline distrabution network is about 87% efficient FROM distallation. The Argonne National Lab finds on average oil product is about 85% efficient in terms of net inputs to net output.

So it takes roughly (100/24 * 34 kWh /.87/.85) 190 kWh of Petroleum to the refinary to go 100 miles in a BMW 535i. This produces 142 kg of C02 and is allowed to emit as much as .05 kg of NOx (this varies by car and I can only base this on the allowable, not the actual). (For the Prius its 95 kWh of Oil, 71 kg of C02, and again upto .03 kg of NOx, but unknown actual amount)

This deals with once the raw product is deliever to the power plant or refinery. Futher analysis is somewhat complicated, but as you point out, Coal is significant cheaper per kWh which implies it takes less total energy to get to the power plant, but Oil has productive by-products/etc.

quote:
Factor in that coal is much, much dirtier than gasoline and an EV (using electricity generated 100% from coal


Hmm... Its true that overall, per kWh used, Coal is significantly dirtier than what comes out the tail-pipe of cars. But there is also localization to consider. A car typically puts out low level pollution right next to population centers. Many Coal plants put out a much more diffuse pollution further away from population centers. If your concern is the overall health of the enviroment, gasoline is somewhat better if you ignore refining and post refining transportation pollution. If your concern is people's health, a new coal power plant is probably better.


RE: "electricity"
By Reclaimer77 on 6/20/2014 10:44:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Hmm... Its true that overall, per kWh used, Coal is significantly dirtier than what comes out the tail-pipe of cars. But there is also localization to consider. A car typically puts out low level pollution right next to population centers. Many Coal plants put out a much more diffuse pollution further away from population centers. If your concern is the overall health of the enviroment, gasoline is somewhat better if you ignore refining and post refining transportation pollution.


I realize the person you're debating with might not have the numbers to everything like you have, but I think here is where you made your mistake. You've completely left out the fact that coal plants leave behind millions of tons of coal ash that cannot simply be disposed of. Coal ash has become a MAJOR health risk as it contaminates ground water, rivers and lakes, and has caused several ecological disasters every bit as major as an oil spill.

This is happening right now just a few miles from where I live:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/20/345127...

It seems you're going on and on about the (marginal) CO2 and emissions of vehicles, while ignoring the elephant in the room. There's literally billions and billions of gallons of coal ash from power plants in this country sitting around waiting to cause a disaster! Not to mention the radioactive component to coal power generation, which you've COMPLETELY ignored.

quote:
If your concern is people's health, a new coal power plant is probably better


Tell that to the people of Kingston Tennessee.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resour...


RE: "electricity"
By Solandri on 6/20/2014 11:34:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sigh. No and No.

You say no and no, then calculate numbers almost identical to mine?

The bottom line is, contrary to your initial claim, EV's powered with fossil fuels aren't much more energy efficient nor cleaner than ICEs. We need to switch to nuclear and renewables for electricity generation before they can shine in that regard.

What makes EVs so attractive right now is that coal is so much cheaper than gasoline as a power source. It's the cheapest widely scalable power source, so it's the source other electricity generation methods have to meet in cost before they're adopted. But that's just a fluke of geography. The U.S. happens to have some of the largest coal deposits in the world. Just like how gasoline prices are so low in countries with large oil deposits.
http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/

quote:
USA coal power plants average around 34% efficiency acccording to the EIA, but if you want to count on new sub-critical we can use 40%.

Yeah, I was using 35% for the typical coal plant, 45% for newer coal plants. 40% seemed like a good average for the two as we transition to newer coal plants for the future.


RE: "electricity"
By Keeir on 6/21/2014 11:15:45 AM , Rating: 2
So this is where I get confused.

If we use the current US power grid averages, a Model S's use of energy, production of pollution and CO2 is equivalent to a 60 MPG car. True on 100% coal its closer to a 40 MPG car but a 40 MPG BMW 5 series would be crowned a major advancement so... and these number will only creep up in the future.


RE: "electricity"
By Keeir on 6/25/2014 1:53:53 AM , Rating: 2
Had misplaced this link

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehic...

The worst grid they provide data for was 72% coal, 10% natural gas, and ~2-3% oil based with the balance nuclear and renewables.

Even if we assume that 20% provide no negative emission, the worst the 100% coal could be is equivalent to a 38*.8*34=27 MPG car. IE, even if 100% OLD coal power station, a Model S emits less than a BMW 535i. (Disregarding evaporation of fuel/etc. A very minor effect it today's gasoline cars, but unaccounted for...)


RE: "electricity"
By jmarchel on 6/19/2014 10:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
You looking at it wrong. The coal usage dropped because natural gas become very cheap thanks to fracking. Until this is the case the coal usage will be dropping and gas will replace it. But the gas is still a fossil fuel. The fact remains that humanity has sources of coal for the next 400 years or so. Gas and oil will run out earlier. So coal will come back. Overall fossil fuels and nuclear are simply vast majority of energy produced in USA and many other industrialized countries.
Here is USA over the years:
http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/USA2.pdf


RE: "electricity"
By Milliamp on 6/20/2014 4:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
"Grid power" doesn't account for many small on site solar arrays at businesses and charging stations either. Not long ago coal was 50% of the grid, now its 37% and falling and probably even smaller as a percentage of EV power.

Additionally if you buy an EV today the energy its using in 10 years will be even less coal based and as someone mentioned, if it weren't EV is still cleaner than gas already today. Solar panel prices drop about 50% per 3 years (Swanson's law), in 12 more years coal will hardly matter and the only remaining coal plants will be filtered "clean coal".


RE: "electricity"
By Milliamp on 6/20/14, Rating: 0
RE: "electricity"
By Argon18 on 6/20/2014 11:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
"Using US power -averages-. A Tesla Model S emits ~40% of the pollutants and ~50% the C02 of a Toyota Prius."

If that's true, it's a fine and good thing. I'm not bashing electric cars, only pointing out that claims of being a zero emissions vehicle, and claims of being fossil-fuel free, are completely false .

Electric cars simply offset those emissions. Instead of coming from the car, they come from the coal/nuclear/etc. power plant at the edge of town. You're still burning dead dinosaurs or producing toxic nuclear waste to run that electric car.


RE: "electricity"
By Milliamp on 6/21/2014 2:20:41 AM , Rating: 2
In this example the vehicles themselves still would be its the grid that's not so "Zero emission vehicle" is still technically true.

Based on your logic almost nothing I own is zero emissions. I planted a tree in my yard but I used gasoline to get it home. What was the point of even digging a hole in my yard for it if I was just doing to drink water out of a plastic water bottle after I was done? Do you know how much pollution was created to get that water?

You computer and the server we are posting to uses electricity? Why are you burning dead dinosaurs to use computers and the Internet?

EV is a solution to one problem, it is not a solution to every problem and only slow kids like you think it needs to be.


RE: "electricity"
By Keeir on 6/21/2014 11:27:06 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting.

Where I live, 84% of the electricity is renewable or hydroelectric.

Only 3% is Coal and only 5% is Natural Gas. 8% is Nuclear.

So.. to drive 100 miles in a Model S in my area, there would be 3 kWh of Coal, 4 kWh of NG, and 3 kWh of Nuclear power. A Model S would be producing 7-10% of the pollutants of a Prius and 2-3% of a BMW 535i. I'd call that essentially "zero emission".


NextGen
By Spuke on 6/19/2014 2:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
I am curious to see how the next gen model turns out.




RE: NextGen
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/19/2014 2:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
My dumb butt forgot to include the link; here ya go:

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/04/15/2016-chevy-volt...


RE: NextGen
By tng on 6/19/2014 3:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
Even with the camo, it looks better than the present model...


RE: NextGen
By CharonPDX on 6/19/2014 9:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
The concept model looked *GREAT*!

The production model looked like a cheap knockoff of the concept model. Like the difference between an Apple iMac and an Appel iNac.

The new one looks better, if only because it's not trying to be a cheap knockoff of the concept. (I hope they don't do the dopey "we'll paint the upper side so that it looks like there's still an angled window" nonsense.)


RE: NextGen
By Spuke on 6/19/2014 10:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks Brandon.


RE: NextGen
By Dorkyman on 6/19/2014 10:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, half a billion miles! That's a lot, isn't it?

Let's see...over the 3 1/2 years since the Volt introduction, estimates of total miles driven in the USA come out to about around 10.3 TRILLION. That's 10,300 billion. Gee, that 0.5 billion all-electric number doesn't seem to be that big a deal any more, does it?

Yeah, I spent a few minutes finding the relevant websites, but I'm too lazy to put the DOT links here.


RE: NextGen
By marvdmartian on 6/20/2014 7:52:24 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, I'm just wondering how long it took to hit 500M miles driven on the latest model of any gas hog SUV?? ;)


RE: NextGen
By Jeffk464 on 6/20/2014 1:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hopefully the next gen will come with a purpose built engine much like the bmw i8


By wordsworm on 6/20/2014 4:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
I read a dated article about how the Chevy sold Volt batteries for a few thousand dollars. But, looking around at the different car manufacturer's websites, I have a hard time finding 'replacement' batteries. They're certainly not easy to find, yet. I suppose that could be changed as there are more people with electric cars.

However, I would have to say that auto manufacturers are not offering up neither electric engines or electric batteries to the general public. I read that last year you could buy them for around $3,000 from Chevy, but the link took me to a dead end and no obvious way to find out if it had been moved. I've looked for Tesla, Nissan, and Chevy, to see where I could find these two things, and they don't make it easy.

Converting an old car to an electric car with 40-50 mile range would be quite an easy thing to do. Electric motors are far superior to combustion for durability, maintenance, etc.

The auto manufacturers are likely terrified of electric cars. They will eventually lead to longer lived vehicles whose battery packs you replace for a few thousand dollars every 5 years.




"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














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