Comments on: What’s so great about the electric car, anyway?

By: Robert Fisher

Robert Fisher — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:43:24 +0000

Are there any Doctors, Scientists, Engineers, Chemists, or any other technical and scientific knowledgeable people in Washington ??? But how many lawyers ???

Next time you are sick, want to know about Global Warming, the best crops to raise, etc, call a lawyer.

By: LEU

LEU — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:22:39 +0000

Red Neck makes a good point. The consequences of switching to alternative forms are often worse than the current situation. Politicians (read: liberal DemocRATS) are all keen in doing something, but never can they see the consequences beyond their initial “feel good” reasons. In the example above, the politicians and enviro-whackos have destroyed the diesel option mentioned because they forced us to use the ULSD fuel in the US. Just like when removing lead from fuel caused us to burn more of it, and then the catalytic converters caused us to burn more than previously. And if you think it is bad now, wait until they force cap and tax down our throats – job losses, higher prices, etc., but little effect on the phony “global warming” they scream about.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:49:38 +0000

The largest stumbling block to electric cars is performance. Everyone expects the EV to perform identically to a conventional car (normally a sports car). Of course, this greatly drives up the price. Of course, most commuters in big cities crawl through bumper-to-bumper traffic while sniffing each other’s tail pipes.

I recall that even in the 70’s the Chevy Camaro had a 4-cylinder option (don’t know if they sold that many!)… if EV are to be successful, they most likely need to be an option on nearly all models that a company makes. If I need a mini Van, then I’m not going to purchase a 2-seat sport car or a sub-compact. And if I don’t have the income, I’m not going to spend 30k+ on a new car.

As for the emissions and efficiency arguments, just remember the fuel you purchase has all the costs factored in (the don’t ship coal for free, do they?). Those who say we need to factor in cost such as “protecting the oil fields” forgret that even if the military left the mid east, we would see 0 dollars saved on our taxes (they would spend it elsewhere), after all, we saw no real reduction in taxes after the military sharnk 50% from it’s peak days during the cold war.

As for emissions: it is far easier to monitor & regulate a single smoke stack, than thousands of tail pipes. Though “progressive” states like California does (and I sarcastically assume the emissions inspection is also free).

Cap & Trade. Just another way for middle-men (CEO types) to grab you and my money. Liberals will feel good. A very few get rich. And you and I pay for it. And with zero effect on global warming (does it really matter where the plant is located?).

The bottom line is people don’t think.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:01:35 +0000

As for emissions: it is far easier to monitor & regulate a single smoke stack, than thousands of tail pipes. Though “progressive” states like California does try (and I sarcastically assume the emissions inspection is also free).

Cap & Trade. Just another way for middle-men (CEO types) to grab your and my money. Liberals will feel good. A very few get rich. And you and I will pay for it. And with zero effect on global warming (does it really matter where the plant is located?).

The bottom line is people don’t think.

By: Robert Fisher

Robert Fisher — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:07:52 +0000

Hydrogen is a high energy fuel but might require an expensive and heavy storage tank. If, depending on the location, there were sufficient Hydrogen fueled cars that didn’t want to leave the local area, wind generators dedicated to splitting water in to Hydrogen and Oxygen, it would be Green. Might require less voltage regulating equipment. But what do wind generators cost ?? The Oxygen could also be used to enhanse combustion of Carbon fueled power generators.

The same generating systems could be used for ocean wind/wave action generators. Let the Hydrogen generators run all day and weeks and periodically transfer the Hydrogen to a transport ship.

What would the cost comparison be for the different types of generators.

By: caswift

caswift — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:04:18 +0000

It would be better to see that more programs for boidiesel are funded as it is an actual renewable energy source. I know that people don’t like it because it eats (pardon the pun) into the food supply, but there are so many ideas out there that would not have biodiesel made from the food source. I have read there is a company trying to make it out of garbage… now that is really great because there is not a better renewable resource out there. It would be wonderful for the environment as trash from your house could be processed into fuel. Also there are so many areas of the country where the median grass grows. Plant switch grass there because that can be made into fuel and you would employ people to cut the grass, bundle it up and transport it to the plants for processing, by using the unusable space you are not only getting a renewable fuel source, but you would be creating jobs as well.

By: Red Neck Granola

Red Neck Granola — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:05:10 +0000

…Or hydrogen

By: Red Neck Granola

Red Neck Granola — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:03:29 +0000

My employer just bought 50 hybrid electric cars in January. Everyone in our fleet maintenance dept hates them. The mechanics have all had to purchase 1000 volt rated hand tools to work on them and they have to wear arc rated clothing and safety gear to do many of the repairs. We have already had to replace two of the highly toxic batteries due to failure and two more due to accidents. Our body shop hates them too. They have had to buy expensive tools and supplies just to work on them, for example a mere drill bit to drill out a spot weld in the hardened alloy cost $80 even with our bulk discount. With these costs and the cost of the extremely expensive parts (like $500 for a rear bumper (20lb piece of aluminum) + $500 for the plastic cover to slip over it) these cars are costing us a fortune. A low speed crash can cost upwards of $5000 and so far this year we have had 10 of them hit most of which have been hit by larger vehicles due to their small size not being seen by the operators of the larger vehicles. Speaking of accidents there is now a much higher risk of dying due to the fact that there is high voltage present within these vehicles that can cause great injury and therefore many first responders cannot begin to assist the victims until the power supply has been isolated by other trained individuals, cutting away at that precious first hour when medical attention can do its greatest good. For now I’ll stick with the idea of clean diesel, Ford makes a car in Europe that exceeds 65 miles per gallon, it burns cleaner than most gasoline cars and it is much safer in a accident due to the low flammability of diesel compared to gasoline and the reduced risk of shock over an electric.

By: Lucas Wires

Lucas Wires — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:31:25 +0000

These are all good questions to look into concerning electric cars, along with the environmental impact of disposing of millions of giant batteries every year, and the massive upgrade in generating capacity it will take to power them all. My guess is in a few decades at the pace we’re running through our fossil fuels we’re going to have to figure out something pretty fast if we’re going to have any energy at all, clean or not.

I disagree with the numbers used in the Slate article. The figures for CO2 production from coal were pretty rosey – about 25% low.

Here are some estimates in pounds of CO2 per kWh for various generation technologies.

Coal = 2.1
Oil = 2
Natural Gas = 1.3
Gas (combined cycle) = 1
Solar photovoltaic = 0.1
Nuclear = 0.013
Wind = 0.01
Hydro = 0.007

Coal is obviously a nasty fuel, and that’s before considering the transmission losses inherent in the electrical grids, the CO2 produced in the mining operations, and the diesel to haul it across the country. An even larger concern is the ancillary pollution from burning coal, because the power industry has been politically adept at keeping the EPA off its back for decades, and has grandfathered in many dirty old plants that produce such huge quantities of mercury one can barely eat fish these days without getting a helping of mercury (especially the pond-raised varieties).

That said, half the electric in the USA doesn’t come from coal, and gasoline cars offer little hope of either a clean future, or a sustainable one.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:42:45 +0000

Electric cars produce less carbon dioxide than gas powered cars, even when you consider the source of the electricity. Read more about it here: http://www.slate.com/id/2179609/

And, remember, this comparison used here does not includet the energy used to ship that oil from Saudi Arabia or the energy used by the refinery or the energy used to truck it to your gas station. Electricity is much more efficient.

Another discussion about the efficiency of gas vs electric: http://truecostblog.com/2009/01/04/electric-vs-gasoline/

And the maintenance should be much less. See here for a discussion: http://www.weatherimagery.com/blog/electric-vs-gasoline-vehicle/
Simply put, an electric motor is a lot less complicated than a gas engine. Few parts = more reliability and lower costs. Once electric cars are mass produced, they are likely to be cheaper than gas engines…