Who Killed the Electric Car? - DPChallenge Forums

01/26/2007 10:35:03 PM · #76

I can get 40+ in a diesel jetta and not be as slow as the insight. I want an electric, not a hybrid. I think hybrids suck.

01/26/2007 10:39:36 PM · #77

I use a bike for short trips when it's warmer. I get 5 miles per

01/26/2007 11:03:55 PM · #78

Rob --

The reason for all the thought that there is a conspiracy, is because there is one. If the government had given a 1 billion dollar grant to automakers to develop a kickass electric car, they could have done it. Instead, they gave them 1 billion to develop hydrogen fuel, which still has at least 20 years to go before they can even try to use it in cars safely and semi-economically.

edit -

I do agree that it would best if electric cars got >300 miles per charge. I think a lot of the newer plug n play cars can be plugged into a regular plug in your garage (adapter in car, of course) and charged 100% in 8 hours or less.

Message edited by author 2007-01-26 23:05:07.

01/26/2007 11:39:51 PM · #79

$1 Billion isn't squat to GM though. They produced 9.18 MILLION UNITS last year. If you guess that the average vehicle sold for $25,000 (that's a pretty low estimate), that's 230 billion dollars in sales.

The US car-buying public is in complete control of what the car companies make. If we HELD OUT for better gas mileage, better fuel efficiency and greener cars, we'd get them. Every single one of them. But we don't. We take exactly what they give us.

Or buy it from Toyota :) Which is why they'll very shortly pass GM as the world's largest car manufacturer.

You're right. We TOTALLY have the capability to make our cars a lot better. We just can't expect car makers to change unless we quit buying their crap.

Message edited by author 2007-01-26 23:40:30.

01/27/2007 12:00:24 AM · #80

oops.

Message edited by author 2007-01-27 00:01:35.

01/27/2007 12:01:05 AM · #81

Originally posted by rob_banks:

Damn, you are right of course. Still a conspiracy

01/27/2007 12:11:55 AM · #82

I am not a conspiracy theory guy, but I will tell you that the car makers have been pretty content to just keep plugging away at the combustible engine. Take the electronics business. If they stop creating new things even for a minute the entire world would pass them by. It is time for the car makers to catch up with the rest of the world and start creating something for us consumers to be excited about besides the "new" camero or the "new" mustang or the "new" hemi. I mean they can't even come up with new car designs because there is really nothing new to do. They are re-regurgitating the 60's on us. I hear them market the navigation system more than the car now in the adds.

I don't think they are entirely in the pocket of the oil interests, but I do think that they are lazy and perfectly content with just slapping 08 on and 07 model marketing to us that it is better than the year before and away we go. As long as the CEO gets his 100mil a year who needs to create anything new. We were supposed to be flying by now!

01/27/2007 09:39:50 AM · #83

Originally posted by bigalpha:

Damn, you are right of course. Still a conspiracy

LMAO!!!! :)

Prof_Fate

01/27/2007 10:28:11 AM · #84

Originally posted by bigalpha:

Just found this at the wiki EV1 site:

"The car was very popular with its lessees, but it is not known if anyone would have purchased the vehicle had it been offered for sale even at a "break even" price of $35-40,000 USD."

PURE EFFIN' CRAP!!! As GM was shipping out the the last 78 EV1's, over 80 people signed up [over two days] and offered to buy the last 78 EV1's.

A CHECK WORTH ALMOST 2 MILLION DOLLARS WAS OFFERED TO GM TO BUY THOSE LAST 78 EV1's.

How can you tell me there was nobody willing to buy them.

You have got to be kidding me. Anyone who denies the fact that electric cars are a very real possibility, hampered only by the efforts of Big Oil and the car companies, is obviously ignoring the facts.

The issue isn't the purchase of the cars. GM would then be obligated to supply parts and no doubt service for 10 years (after 10 years companies are no longer obligated to make parts available). The would also have liability issues if anything were to go wrong. It's a lot cheaper to scrap the cars than keep parts warehoused, personnel trained, etc.

Prof_Fate

01/27/2007 10:33:20 AM · #85

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by bigalpha:
...Go to //www.pluginamerica.com and scroll down until you see the graph that says that 80% of people drive 50 miles or less. ...Hmmmmm, seems it's very possible to have a battery powered car that fits the needs of at least 80% of the population; and have a battery pack that can give you almost 300 miles per charge.

Playing Devil's advocate here... I usually drive within the 50 miles per day but even if the car got 300 miles per charge I still wouldn't buy one. They would have to double that for me to truly consider buying one and I tend to think that many Californian's feel the same way.

My main reason is I want a vehicle that will satisfy 100% of my driving not 98%. The daily driving would be fine but when I visit friends and family I drive. I don't want to fly or take some other form of mass transit. Visiting relatives outside Sacramento involves a round trip of ~260. I would simply be uncomfortable with a vehicle that only got 300 miles per charge and would require a lengthy recharge. Visiting relatives in Los Angeles on the other hand requires a one way drive of 450 miles. Breaking this drive up into four days is just a deal breaker. If the cars were dirt cheap though I'd consider an all electric for around town and a gasoline powered vehicle for the long trips. That just hasn't been the case though.

Most households own 2 cars. One can be the gas truck/SUV/minivan for trips and hauling lumber. A majority of working folks commute alone to work, and drive less than 50 or 60 miles round trip per day. In cold places like Minnesota parking meters have plugs for engine block heaters, so it's not out of the question to have plug-in sites for cars at work, public garages, etc.
So one car can be what you have now and the other a 2 or 3 person electric. Lots of people drive motorcycles, sports cars and trucks that won't seat 4 people so seating for 4 is a non-issue. Plug in at work, and at home, and you'd never stop for gas again, or oil changes or air filters, etc. Much more convenient!

01/27/2007 10:42:59 AM · #86

Originally posted by rob_banks:

Here's a nice option to an electric car that's been smashed to bits. What do you think?

Why the hell does a great idea like this have to be so goofy looking? Why can't they just make the thing have 4 wheels?

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

01/27/2007 10:54:23 AM · #87

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by bigalpha:
...Go to //www.pluginamerica.com and scroll down until you see the graph that says that 80% of people drive 50 miles or less. ...Hmmmmm, seems it's very possible to have a battery powered car that fits the needs of at least 80% of the population; and have a battery pack that can give you almost 300 miles per charge.

Playing Devil's advocate here... I usually drive within the 50 miles per day but even if the car got 300 miles per charge I still wouldn't buy one. They would have to double that for me to truly consider buying one and I tend to think that many Californian's feel the same way.

My main reason is I want a vehicle that will satisfy 100% of my driving not 98%. The daily driving would be fine but when I visit friends and family I drive. I don't want to fly or take some other form of mass transit. Visiting relatives outside Sacramento involves a round trip of ~260. I would simply be uncomfortable with a vehicle that only got 300 miles per charge and would require a lengthy recharge. Visiting relatives in Los Angeles on the other hand requires a one way drive of 450 miles. Breaking this drive up into four days is just a deal breaker. If the cars were dirt cheap though I'd consider an all electric for around town and a gasoline powered vehicle for the long trips. That just hasn't been the case though.

Most households own 2 cars. One can be the gas truck/SUV/minivan for trips and hauling lumber. A majority of working folks commute alone to work, and drive less than 50 or 60 miles round trip per day. In cold places like Minnesota parking meters have plugs for engine block heaters, so it's not out of the question to have plug-in sites for cars at work, public garages, etc.
So one car can be what you have now and the other a 2 or 3 person electric. Lots of people drive motorcycles, sports cars and trucks that won't seat 4 people so seating for 4 is a non-issue. Plug in at work, and at home, and you'd never stop for gas again, or oil changes or air filters, etc. Much more convenient!

For any family that has kids, a two-seater is not really a viable option, even as a second car. What happens when the primary kid hauling car needs service?

And why on earth would anyone want a car that they can't take on long trips?

As for the public outlets, a block heater is in use for a very short period of time, with an electric car, the outlet would be in use for hours. Who's going to pay for that electricity when you plug in at work/downtown etc?

To be successful, an electric car needs to provide all of the convenience and features that consumers expect, with very few limitations. I hope it's coming, but, it's just not there yet.

01/27/2007 11:07:34 AM · #88

Originally posted by boomtap:

Originally posted by rob_banks:
nice option

Why the hell does a great idea like this have to be so goofy looking? Why can't they just make the thing have 4 wheels?

Touche! LOL :)

We have OPTIONS. They just aren't very good options right now :)

Message edited by author 2007-01-27 11:08:13.

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

01/27/2007 11:32:54 AM · #89

I really really want to buy an electric car. I really want that tesla one, because he is my favorite scientist/band and now car. Problem is I don't have $90,000.

ElGordo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/27/2007 01:05:19 PM · #90

Originally posted by boomtap:

I really really want to buy an electric car. I really want that tesla one, because he is my favorite scientist/band and now car. Problem is I don't have $90,000.

No doubt that Tesla was a genius and much mythologized. He accomplished much with very lttle formal education. The thing he was best at was self promotion! The few sound inventions he produced are legend and so are the unsound ideas, like transmitting electric power via radio frequencies! At the turn of the last century little was known about radio frequency propagation so his tinkering and speculation are to be forgiven. Rf methods can be used to transmit electrical power but the efficiency would be rediculously low and the hazards monumental. He is today the pseudo scientist's hero!

01/27/2007 05:47:10 PM · #91

Originally posted by "formerlee":

Agreed, but when will the US come into line with everyone else? How many Americans drive gas guzzlers and claim it is their right?

You know, I've never once heard American I've bumped into say such. Or express such. But I have heard a great many Americans who rely on those gas guzzlers for work and family to get pieved at being demonized.

You tell me how efficient it is to tow a trailer with a Prius? I can carry 8-passengers and tow a trailer with my gas guzzling SUV.

The truth is many Americans drive trucks, mini-Vans and SUVs because they need the utility those vehicles provide.

In my case, I can't afford to own both my SUV and a Prius. It'd be nice but I just don't have the $$$. Seeing as a Prius can nether carry 8 people nor pull a loaded trailer I chose the one vehicle that could meet all my needs.

Now, for a while I had a little Honda Accord 4-cyclinder. I tried to keep two vehicles running and found myself expelling thousands of dollars and in the end left with no vehicle. So I had to get a new vehicle. I could only afford to replace one. When I did, I looked at the models that had better mileage. But it was not my primary deciding factor. That said, I bought a full size SUV that averages about 19-21mpg on highway travel and sometimes even reaches 25mpg.

As for diesel, presently America does not have the infrastructure for delivering "clean diesel". Our diesel is much different than European diesel. Because of that, very few diesel vehicles can pass emission standards in the U.S.

We are in the processing of changing over to low-sulfur diesel but it will take a number of years to do so.

Originally posted by "formerlee":

America is one of the biggest consumers of oil, that is a fact! Just check out the Kyoto agreement, which America didn't sign up to.

Why would America sign a treaty designed merely to be a socialist money-shifter. Most of the countries that signed Kyoto are allowed to continue increasing pollution. And of the handful of nations that aren't, very few if any have met their kyoto goals.

Kyoto was a poorly designed treaty that merely created a market place for pollution. Allowed nations like Russia who would have been limited to pre-1991 levels higher than present. So they'd sell their pollution rights to other nations. Did little to curb or change the direction of such industrializing nations as China.

No, the treaty should have set a reduction goal for ALL nations. (ie: all nations agree to reduce emissions by 10%). We'd sign such a treaty.

Originally posted by "formerlee":

Perhaps I am completely wrong that US drivers have big cars, big engines and low tax.

I find most Europeans to be completely wrong when it comes to America and Americans. In fact, many foriegners I meet have expressed to me that America is not what they thought it was like. That we weren't the evil heartless pricks we're often thought of.

As for tax...we probably have less than many European nations. Don't worry, as our government continues to become more socialist and require more and more $$$ to subsidize socialism we will continue to raise taxes to cover those costs. But if I recall correctly something like 60% of our total cost for a gallon of gas is tax.

Originally posted by "bigalpha":

Funny, I found this quote: "New lithium-ion battery-equipped EVs provide 250-300 miles (400-500 km) of range per charge" HERE

Hey Bigalpha, you're confused. There is a difference between EVs and EV1. EV1 was a specific prototype GM built in the 90's. EVs is an acronym for "Electric Vehicles". Yes, there are EVs that with newer technology batteries can get such ranges. But many of those vehicles are not road legal as commercial vehicles.

The issue isn't whether electric vehicles using today's batteries are reaching acceptable performance levels. The discussion was whether GM's EV1 did. Which it did not.

The fact that significant battery advances have been made is the reason GM is once again returning to look at EVs. Hence, the Volt. Other companies will as well.

However, you have to be cautious with quotes like that because those are usually the best achievements under optimum environmental conditions. They don't account for freezing temperatures, snow on the ground, or 110 degrees in Texas and pumping out air conditioning.

Think of it like cell phones or MP3 players and laptops where they'll claim "x number of hours battery power" and then it always seems like you only get half of that. Sure, under just the right conditions you might reach that "up to". But that's also with fresh batteries. What happens towards the end.

How many have had to replace their cell phone batteries after a year or two. Why? Because they don't perform as well. So a fresh lab prototype that does fine for a year in Florida is nice and dandy. But what's needed is an electric vehicle that will still do well after 5 yrs or longer.

Originally posted by "bigalpha":

How can you tell me there was nobody willing to buy them.

First off BigAlpha, before you look like a little omega.

$2,000,000 / 78 = approx. $25,000

As I recall, I remember it being about $80,000 for GM to build each EV1. The hope was that if they went into production to sell them for around $35,000.

And you're boasting that someone offered $25,000 for each vehicle. Come on...

Besides GM does not care if 100 people are willing to buy the car at $500,000 each. That does little for GM's budget. GM wants vehicles that it can sell 100,000+ customers at $20,000-$40,000.

Originally posted by "boomtap":

I would settle for 100 miles a charge. I could do 90% of my driving with that. I really want to drive and electric car. And I am a right winged conservative nut who doesn't think global warming exists. I still want an electric car. So there.

I also want cars to fly though...

right-winged conservative nut here too....although I am an environmentalist and would like to see pollution reduce.

I'm just a realist. And having studied environmental science for years but also having a decent head on my shoulders I understand that there is a difference between being able to do and being able to do feasibly and economically.

A great example is travelling to the moon and space. We can do it. But it's not economically feasible. Low orbit space, is just starting to move into that feasible area with such events as SpaceShip One and the X-prize.

I believe technology is the answer. I am just dismayed by the fact that so many seem to not have enough brain matter to realize all the complexities that are entailed.

Originally posted by "bigalpha":

If the government had given a 1 billion dollar grant to automakers to develop a kickass electric car, they could have done it. Instead, they gave them 1 billion to develop hydrogen fuel, which still has at least 20 years to go before they can even try to use it in cars safely and semi-economically.

Okay, to be honest, I think you have a complete lack of understanding. Hybrid and electric technology is within the realm of feasible development. That's why the auto companies are working on those projects. They have near-term potential.

However, hybrids accomplish very little besides a modest improvement in fuel efficiency. Even electric vehicles at best equate to about 20%-40%. (Plugging in to a 110 socket. Where do you think that power comes from? Mainly, fossil fuels (at least in the U.S. where environmentalists have stopped the use of nuclear power largely due to bad mis-information).

Neither are true solutions. In fact, the only real solution? Is a combination of electric+hydrogen power (fuel cells). Fuel cells output water as waste. I just heard about a guy who has his house converted to solar cell technology. During the warmer seasons he uses the excess electricity to distill hydrogen gas from water electrically. This is stored for winter use. He also drives a hydrogen powered car.

This is where we need to go. Solar powered homes, hydrogen fuel cells, etc.

Why is the government spending $5 billion on that. Because those are the technology developments the auto companies can't justify expending. See, a company like Ford, GM, or Toyota needs to be able to have some near-term economic potential. 20 yrs is a long term investment and of one that is in the billions. Well most companies can't quite justify such. If it fails when the 20 yrs are up then the companies would go belly up.

When the government asked where the support was needed, both of the auto companies and scientists. They said it made more sense for the government to spend money on the long off advancements. The near term ones the car companies themselves could justify. And if I recall correctly, a fair amount of money is being devoted to battery and capacitor improvements. (Many argue capacitors are a better choice even.)

Originally posted by "rob_banks":

Okay...I'm really dismayed. Can we just all chuck intelligence aside.

$230 billion in sales. Great!!!

That's like saying because I make $50,000/year I could afford a Porshe no problem. It doesn't factor that taxes took a 40% of that money. It doesn't factor that I have to pay rent, health & life ins., phone, electricity, water, heat, gas, etc. Nor does it even take into account that I'm running in the red and don't even have cable and I'm slowly draining my savings account.

Case in point, I think it was Ford had low sales. In fact they had several factories not producing any vehicles. Guess what....because of Unions they still had to pay all those workers even though they weren't working. They're also being hit by health premiums that have sky-rocketed over the past 20 yrs. So if they have 3 factories closed for a year and each one has a 1,000 employees. Each costing about $40,000/year that equates to $120,000,000. And I'm just making a guestimate on the those numbers. Though I know the employee cost is at least around $40k/year and up.

Also, are we so stupid as to think that of that $25,000 car you bought that all the parts were free?

Come on....let's use our brains and some common sense.

Originally posted by "boomtap":

the "new" hemi.

BTW...I have a new 350hp Hemi. Did you know they incorporate variable displacement technology allowing them to run as a 4-cyclinder. (One of the reasons I get 21mpg on hwy and have even hit 25mpg on some travels.) Both GM & Daimler-Chrystler are also working on hybrid versions which will further improve mpg usage possibly around 25-27mpg. For full size trucks and SUVs this will essentially be a doubling of fuel efficiency in less than 10 yrs.

AND YOU GUYS GIVE NO CREDIT...NONE

Originally posted by "boomtap":

Why the hell does a great idea like this have to be so goofy looking? Why can't they just make the thing have 4 wheels?

Want to know the answer? If you had any knowledge of this area you'd know. It's less weight, less friction, etc. It adds a few more mpg or mpcharge. Oh, and here's the thing. NO ONE BUYS THEM. And if they went to four wheels and the conveniences and roominess of a normal car like people need for day to day use those great glorius specs of mileage dramatically drop and you find that either you're not getting many miles to a charge or not getting more than a few mpg more - then why bother.

01/27/2007 06:02:44 PM · #92

Why I am so bothered...

Before this topic arose I had already ranted on my LJ regarding these issues. I really am bothered by a large mass of people who have no clue what they're talking about, have not reasoned things out, and are unable to apply even simple concepts of understanding.

Yet, spout off against and demonize companies and take the worst sort of possible angles. People who have watched this stupid movie and have no understanding go and post comments trashing GM and accusing them of conspiracy, of killing the electric car, blah blah blah. No mind that GM was the only major company to try to build an electric car. Nor the fact that they're trying to do it again with the Chevy Volt now that battery technology has finally seen some positive advancement and looks to have even more over the next 10+ yrs.

*****

But really... can we use some common sense. Can we please do a little research. Understand the difference between able to build and able to sustain a company. These are two different things.

In this thread GM has been ridiculed for not accepting $25,000 for a car that they estimate would cost $35,000 in full production and was likely costing them $80,000 to produce at the time.

This would be like walking up to Honda and asking them to accept $12,000 for a new Honda Accord Hybrid. And than calling them evil because they said...um "No!"

We've accused an auto maker of a $1 billion being nothing. On the sole basis of sales price x sales. Totally dismissing the concepts of business. Cost of supplies, cost of labor, taxes, insurance, etc. Are we that stupid?

I would like to hope not. But I am greatly bothered when I see such comments all over thanks to this film.

To me, this behavior is very much akin to the group think that propagates hate groups like the KKK down south. You hear a tidbit, you don't think it thru, you don't research, you just throw it out and hate.

THIS IS NOT THE SOLLUTION NOR WILL IT LEAD TO THE SOLUTION

The sollution is to support endeavors, to understand the struggles, to aid in that support. GM should be given kudos for having tried when no one else did. Not demmonized for it.

You want to do something....send a letter to GM and express that you'd love to see the Volt become a production model. That the option of an electric car with an aux. generator to allow longer travelling in a stylish package is of interest to you. Would motivate you to consider buying a new car. Express that you're willing to help support it with your $$$ and your vote.

Send a letter to Tesla. Express admiration for their work and interest in a more economical traditional family sedan, or whatever. That will help them get more investor support.

Write to your Congressman, express your support for such vehicles and the Chevy Volt and your understanding that certain technologies need improvement. And that you'd like to see Congress allocate additional taxpayer funds to such goals.

****

Or...sit their and gripe, complain, accuse, demonize, and get no where. Cause I doubt very many of us are going to ever build an electric car ourselves.

01/27/2007 08:13:31 PM · #93

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "bigalpha":

Funny, I found this quote: "New lithium-ion battery-equipped EVs provide 250-300 miles (400-500 km) of range per charge" HERE

Hey Bigalpha, you're confused. There is a difference between EVs and EV1. EV1 was a specific prototype GM built in the 90's. EVs is an acronym for "Electric Vehicles". Yes, there are EVs that with newer technology batteries can get such ranges. But many of those vehicles are not road legal as commercial vehicles.

The issue isn't whether electric vehicles using today's batteries are reaching acceptable performance levels. The discussion was whether GM's EV1 did. Which it did not.

The fact that significant battery advances have been made is the reason GM is once again returning to look at EVs. Hence, the Volt. Other companies will as well.

However, you have to be cautious with quotes like that because those are usually the best achievements under optimum environmental conditions. They don't account for freezing temperatures, snow on the ground, or 110 degrees in Texas and pumping out air conditioning.

Think of it like cell phones or MP3 players and laptops where they'll claim "x number of hours battery power" and then it always seems like you only get half of that. Sure, under just the right conditions you might reach that "up to". But that's also with fresh batteries. What happens towards the end.

How many have had to replace their cell phone batteries after a year or two. Why? Because they don't perform as well. So a fresh lab prototype that does fine for a year in Florida is nice and dandy. But what's needed is an electric vehicle that will still do well after 5 yrs or longer.

It's almost pointless of trying to debate with you sometimes. My quote was in response to the last paragraph of your long post. I'm not confused in the least. I know that the EV1'a did not have a 300 mile range. What I was pointing at, was that we have the capability, battery-wise, to run electric cars.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "bigalpha":
How can you tell me there was nobody willing to buy them.

First off BigAlpha, before you look like a little omega.

$2,000,000 / 78 = approx. $25,000

As I recall, I remember it being about $80,000 for GM to build each EV1. The hope was that if they went into production to sell them for around $35,000.

And you're boasting that someone offered $25,000 for each vehicle. Come on...

Besides GM does not care if 100 people are willing to buy the car at $500,000 each. That does little for GM's budget. GM wants vehicles that it can sell 100,000+ customers at $20,000-$40,000.

Hey, don't forget that the cars were NOT brand new, so you can't forget about depreciation. So, even if they had sold the cars for $35k, they were not worth that 4 years later. Again, let me emphasize that the reason that they cost so much per car, was BECAUSE THEY BUILT A LIMITED NUMBER OF CARS!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "bigalpha":
If the government had given a 1 billion dollar grant to automakers to develop a kickass electric car, they could have done it. Instead, they gave them 1 billion to develop hydrogen fuel, which still has at least 20 years to go before they can even try to use it in cars safely and semi-economically.

Okay, to be honest, I think you have a complete lack of understanding. Hybrid and electric technology is within the realm of feasible development. That's why the auto companies are working on those projects. They have near-term potential.

However, hybrids accomplish very little besides a modest improvement in fuel efficiency. Even electric vehicles at best equate to about 20%-40%. (Plugging in to a 110 socket. Where do you think that power comes from? Mainly, fossil fuels (at least in the U.S. where environmentalists have stopped the use of nuclear power largely due to bad mis-information).

Neither are true solutions. In fact, the only real solution? Is a combination of electric+hydrogen power (fuel cells). Fuel cells output water as waste. I just heard about a guy who has his house converted to solar cell technology. During the warmer seasons he uses the excess electricity to distill hydrogen gas from water electrically. This is stored for winter use. He also drives a hydrogen powered car.

This is where we need to go. Solar powered homes, hydrogen fuel cells, etc.

Why is the government spending $5 billion on that. Because those are the technology developments the auto companies can't justify expending. See, a company like Ford, GM, or Toyota needs to be able to have some near-term economic potential. 20 yrs is a long term investment and of one that is in the billions. Well most companies can't quite justify such. If it fails when the 20 yrs are up then the companies would go belly up.

When the government asked where the support was needed, both of the auto companies and scientists. They said it made more sense for the government to spend money on the long off advancements. The near term ones the car companies themselves could justify. And if I recall correctly, a fair amount of money is being devoted to battery and capacitor improvements. (Many argue capacitors are a better choice even.)

*sigh* Electric and hybrid technology is not within the realm of feasible development. THEY ALREADY MAKE ELECTRIC CARS AND HYBRID CARS. Did you know, that in Japan, their hybrids get 40mpg+? Our hybrid cars get 25 mpg. Tell me why we are SO far behind Japan.

Also, why would we need hydrogen fuel cells in cars if they all run off batteries? If we could develop kickass electric cars, then people will buy them, because they will satisfy what people want. If they can do that, then they will sell millions. Of course, then the oil companies won't make money.

Why should we pump money into a technology that is, at an absolute MINIMUM, 20 years away? Don't you think we should pump that money into technology that we already know works, but just needs a little bit of help? It sure makes sense to me. Sure, we'll still need a new type of fuel to create electricity for the general public; but once we perfect electric cars, then we create low-pollution powerplants.

01/27/2007 08:27:54 PM · #94

Originally posted by theSaj:

1st thing. You sit and patronize everyone that has been involved in this conversation; yet you yourself do not know all the facts:

GM WAS NOT THE ONLY CAR COMPANY TO PUT OUT ELECTRIC CARS AT THE TIME THE EV1 WAS PRODUCED.

You also go back to this thing that the car cost $80k. Do you know why they cost so much? BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MASS PRODUCED. Over a period of 3 years, only 1100 units were produced. Are you f*cking kidding me? No wonder they cost so much.

I mean, you can't tell me that if they wanted, they could produce an electric car that would meet the demands of the public. Yes, I know that some people NEED an SUV to haul their family or trailer. There are a lot of people who buy SUV's just because. In that case, they don't need the torque to pull loads, and electricity would do just fine. Think about all the batteries they could fit in a Yukon. Haha.

Man, you just stroked me the wrong way. I can just imagine you sitting in your chair, stroking your white cat.

Writing letters is NOT going to change anything. Are you kidding me? Shit, if that was teh case, the world would be a wonderful place. The only way for the American public to get any change is to uprise.

01/27/2007 08:33:17 PM · #95

01/27/2007 08:33:58 PM · #96

For the record:

Ford Income Statement
Gm Income Statement
Honda Income Statement (2 billion)

... and you can find the rest of them if ya wanna.

01/27/2007 08:34:34 PM · #97

Originally posted by rob_banks:

Naaaaw, sometimes it's not even worth continuing the debate with some people because they are so blinded by their own beliefs that they won't see the facts.

01/27/2007 09:44:00 PM · #98

Originally posted by "bigalpha":

Yes, batteries have improved. Yes, someone out there has succeeded in getting a electric powered vehicle to go 250+ miles. The new batteries have potential.

But has said company explored life of those batteries? will they withstand constant charging and re-charging for 5 yrs? How about 10 years? the lifespan many people expect from their cars.

An electric vehicle has to be comparable to a gasoline vehicle not just in performance but value as well.

Most people buy a car and expect it to last 10 yrs. Even if they don't plan on keeping the car for that long they intend to sell or trade it. If we tell someone that they're going to pay the same $30,000 for a vehicle that will be dead after 5 yrs. We've just doubled the cost of the car. It's now $60,000 for 10 yrs. That's a big difference.

These are the concerns the auto manufacturers have to deal with that most people don't consider in these discussions.

Originally posted by "bigalpha":

So how many cars do you think they need to produce to reach that $35,000 price point?

As you said, many of these cars were used (3 yrs). That does not mean they depreciated. Many used hybrids were selling for more than list price.

You can just mass produce 500,000 cars that are a specialty car with limited use. Even at $35,000 (which was a lot more than the average sedan then) you'd struggle to sell all the cars. Sure, your might sell 10,000....50,000 at best.

This is economics....

Originally posted by "theSaj":

Hybrid and electric technology is within the realm of feasible development.

Originally posted by "bigalpha":

First off, you totally mis-read my quote. Which means you didn't understand what I was saying. I said both hybrids and electric vehicles are in the realm of near term feasibility.

As for hybrids in the USA. A lot depends on what you categorize as a hybrid. Are you counting the non-drive train hybrid trucks (really just quick start/stop). Are you factoring the hybrid SUVs which get less than a car.

Toyota Prius: 60/51 city/hwy

Honda Civic: 26/45 city/hwy

Ford Escape: 36/31 city/hwy (SUV not car)

Honda Insight: 60/66 city/hwy

So I really really don't have a clue where you are getting your facts.

Originally posted by "bigalpha":

Also, why would we need hydrogen fuel cells in cars if they all run off batteries?

Please, you're practically making me cry.... I wish you were just being silly and not serioues. We've been over this already.

BATTERIES HAVE TO BE CHARGED!!!!

The advantage of electricity is that instead of 10,000 tailpipes you have one single smokestack and advanced technology like electro-static dust collectors, etc can reduce the emissions. But emissions are still made.

We need to continue beyond charging our cars off of oil burning power plants. To a zero emission state. (ie: solar, hydrogen fuel cell, etc.)

Originally posted by "bigalpha":

Why should we pump money into a technology that is, at an absolute MINIMUM, 20 years away? Don't you think we should pump that money into technology that we already know works, but just needs a little bit of help?

Because...we don't need to. That money is being dumped into research by companies. They can justify the development and testing to their share-holders because there is potential in the near future.

Proof in point....hybrids are in development.
Proof in point....Chevy Volt.

The reason the government needs to fund research into fuel cells is so that in 20 yrs the technology will be feasible. Otherwise, when we reach 20 yrs it'll be another 20 yrs.

The grants allow for the research to lay the foundation. So that one day we'll be emission free.

01/27/2007 10:07:46 PM · #99

Do you have an example for the hybrid cars selling for more than sticker price? I'd like to see that, because it seems strange that a situation like that would happen.

Any car driven off the lot (unless it's some kind of antique) depreciates. Prove to me otherwise.

You talk a lot about economics, but I see no proof of your statements; i.e. that they'd only sell no more than 50,000 cars.

Hybrid car: * A hybrid vehicle or gas-electric hybrid powered vehicle uses a mixture of technologies such as internal combustion engines (ICEs), electric motors, gassoline, and batteries.Today's hybrid cars are driven by electric motors powered by both batteries and an ICE. Please see Gas-Electric Hybrid for further clarification of what the word hybrid is describing with regards to these vehicles. [source: wikipedia].

If you notice all the foreign made cars getting significantly higher MPG than the Domestic car.

The Escape 2WD gets 36/31 city/highway (it's classified as a compact SUV) Source: HERE

Funny that the midsize suv hybrids (source: HERE) get comprable mileage. Also, if you notice, they are foreign cars. So, your point being what? Why did you compare the SUV to the cars? It's like comparing apples and oranges. When you compare the oranges (SUV's) they are all comprable.

Holy crap - yes, batteries need to be charged. I would rather have the coal smokestacks with their advanced technology filtering their emissions, than the millions of cars on the road today. Why not pump money into making coal/oil burning powerplants 100% green? What's wrong with that?

One thing we do agree on - is that we need a zero emission state.

Something else - hybrids are not "in development."

THEY ARE ALREADY MADE. Man, you are about to make me cry.