[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', '
')Even with America's dilapidated and strained grid, we'd be able to handle tens of millions of plug-in vehicles today without increasing existing capacity. If everyone were to all drive around in 300 Wh/mile Crown Victoria-sized EVs with no special attention to aerodynamics for a good 12,000 miles a year? We'd need about 25-30% more electricity to be produced. Much less new power would be needed if the norm were more reasonable midsize cars with very good aerodynamics(~150 Wh/mile consumption).

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'I') say let it stand on its own merits. It doesn't need tax credits so much as it needs someone to actually start producing these vehicles in large quantities(without mass production, price will be high).

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '
')I see two problems with that. One, that coal is polluting and a carbon dioxide source, leading to climate change. Two, that we have had plenty of time to develop sustainable technology in the last two centuries, and we haven't exactly done it, have we?

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'C')ars, and the fuel that powers them, are more profitable if they are inefficient and unreliable.

[sch_peakoiler]

Yes those estimates paint a rosy picture. With approx. 150Wh per mile (or what is kilometer) it is no problem charging a large fleet of cars.

But one general question I wanted to ask. I constantly hear opinions like - it is mor profitable to produce unreliable cars etc.etc. But if electrical cars are so superior (which they are if we are to believe what is told here) why did not some non mainstream carmakers employ them as a break through solution.
I mean those corporations who profit from status quo, support status quo. But what is the profit of supporting status quo for those, whom it kills? Rover for instance?
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinside ... 144403.htm


an electrocar would come in handy for europeans - some of them pay more than 5 bucks a gallon.

It is hard for me to believe nobody started producing such cars because of a market conspiracy. While for DC, BMW, Ford it seems logical, for rover, and a couple of other minor carmakers - it does not.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', '
')
But one general question I wanted to ask. I constantly hear opinions like - it is mor profitable to produce unreliable cars etc.etc. But if electrical cars are so superior (which they are if we are to believe what is told here) why did not some non mainstream carmakers employ them as a break through solution.
I mean those corporations who profit from status quo, support status quo. But what is the profit of supporting status quo for those, whom it kills? Rover for instance?

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ure no problem . If somebody is giving the new plug-in hybrid vehicles free of charge everybody is going to get one .

[The_Toecutter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')here do you get these figures from? My understanding was that to turn all vehicles into electric we would need to roughly double electricity production.

[The_Toecutter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nother factor influencing EV efficiency is the limited capacity of battery packs. To have range similar to ICE powered vehicles, the EVs need to be better at rolling, and moving through the air. A side effect is they are also more efficient, which reduces the amount of electricity needed by a significant amount.

[The_Toecutter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut one general question I wanted to ask. I constantly hear opinions like - it is mor profitable to produce unreliable cars etc.etc. But if electrical cars are so superior (which they are if we are to believe what is told here) why did not some non mainstream carmakers employ them as a break through solution.

[The_Toecutter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot with what batteries cost today to have any range... But you could do a series hybrid with a turbine powerplant. It could run on kerosene, and it would be about the size of a basketball with very low maintenance. The efficiency would be somewhat lower than gasoline engines, but given you only need it when your battery charge is low when you drive further than 10-20 miles, it wouldnt really matter. It would probably be cheaper than the batteries that would give you 300 miles of range.

[oilfreeandhappy]

The problem isn't just the power needed to operate electric cars, it's also the need to maintain roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. The personal car is unsustainable in any form, especially on a world-wide basis. The energy needs are simply too great.

A large number of the trucks on the road are there because of roads, bridges, etc. Every time an interchange or road is built or repaired, tremendous amounts of fossil fuels are burned, not just in the manufacture and extraction of steel, cement, gravel, etc., but also in hauling dirt, cement, steel, gravel, etc.

[The_Toecutter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he problem isn't just the power needed to operate electric cars, it's also the need to maintain roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. The personal car is unsustainable in any form, especially on a world-wide basis. The energy needs are simply too great.

[bobcousins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oilfreeandhappy', 'T')he problem isn't just the power needed to operate electric cars, it's also the need to maintain roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. The personal car is unsustainable in any form, especially on a world-wide basis. The energy needs are simply too great.

A large number of the trucks on the road are there because of roads, bridges, etc. Every time an interchange or road is built or repaired, tremendous amounts of fossil fuels are burned, not just in the manufacture and extraction of steel, cement, gravel, etc., but also in hauling dirt, cement, steel, gravel, etc.

[Spartan2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Reducing total fossil-fuel use by 70 percent would cost $200 billion per year for 30 years

[Graeme]

Have you read the article? I haven't but I would find it hard to believe that they did not assume any growth. Ideally, the decline in fossil fuel use for transport and power should be offset by a complimentary increase in alternative energy and fuel utilization. Whether all countries will do this at the same rate remains to be seen and is probably doubtful. Consequently, some probably poorer countries may well fall behind unless the alternative energy they choose is affordable to individuals and governments.

[Spartan2]

I haven't read the article too but, if they don't mention what growth rate in fuel demand they used to calculate the cost of that infraestructure then I must say they should have because it makes all the difference. Even a growth rate as low as 1% will have a significant impact 30 years from now.

Maybe they expect increases in efficiency to keep zero growth.

Either way they should have mentioned it.

[yesplease]

A switch to plug-in hybrids that displaces ~80% of gasoline engine operation will cut energy consumption due to personal transportation nearly in half, due to the EV having at least double the energy efficiency of the average car today, and with the proposed use, likely three to four times the efficiency. The percentage of new vehicles on the road seems to vary by year, but given past trends, plug-in hybridization of half of all new cars sold should be able to keep up with growth in consumption of one percent per year.

Something that people seem to be ignoring, is that this article is focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Plug-in hybrids are very effective at doing this because the potential fuel sources are varied and do not have to emit tons of carbon dioxide when in operation. The $200 billion per year includes the construction of new electricity generating sources that do not emit carbon dioxide, but in terms of just reducing our oil consumption, this can be done using current grid production capacity, but there wouldn't be as much of a reduction in carbon dioxide production.

[Graeme]

The reduction in CO2 would come about by increasing the efficiency of the existing vehicle fleet according to James Hansen, and gradually displacing 80% of the fleet with hydrids.

[sch_peakoiler]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'T')he reduction in CO2 would come about by increasing the efficiency of the existing vehicle fleet according to James Hansen, and gradually displacing 80% of the fleet with hydrids.