Electric Cars: I don't get it.

[Boyd]

If the green crowd had their way, we'd all be driving electric vehicles. But I got to thinking, do they not realize that switching from a conventionally powered car to an electric car simply transfers the burden on our natural resources from oil to coal?

If 2 out of every 3 people drove an electric car, it would place a HUGE demand on our electrical grid. There would have to be hundreds, if not thousands, of new power plants built. And with the nations self-imposed ban on nuclear power, that would mean millions upon millions of more lbs of coal being burnt and sent into the atmosphere. Have they seriously not thought about this?

[Damn True]

"Green" has nothing to do with logic or actual results and/or consequences. It is two things and two things only:

a) It makes people feel better about their narcissism
b) It is an elaborate wealth redistribution play

[maldo]

yes this is also the big problem with going green .... also what about people who don't have garages to plug into (like people who live in high rise builds or have to park the car out on the street ...

[fishtail8]

They also forget about the long process to make the batteries for the electric car, the cost of replacement when they finally die, and the cost of disposal of the dead ones. I hope they thought to make the batteries recyclable...

[maldo]

Also why would the car company's or the oil companies want you to change. Think about it if they were to switch over to this type of car (like the volt) they would loose a ton of money on replacement parts that go along with a internal combustion engine set up.

[James OLC]

From everything that I have seen, read, and been told the TOTAL environmental burdon of the electric car will far outweight that of it's internal combustion counterparts. Not only is it a redistribution of wealth (well, semi redistribution) it is a redistribution of liability.

At best it is another example of a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction to current sentiment. But by the time they reach acceptability in the market (if they ever do) the people who spearheaded their use will have long faded back into the woodwork.

[James OLC]

Also why would the car company's or the oil companies want you to change. Think about it if they were to switch over to this type of car (like the volt) they would loose a ton of money on replacement parts that go along with a internal combustion engine set up.

Do you think that electric cars won't break? If you want to play conspiricy theory I would counter that car companies would want to make the switch because it will give them exclusivity over their repair. No more shade tree or independant mechanics (for the electrics), once again, when your car breaks you will have to take it to the dealer for service.

Oil companies could not care less either way.

[69LT1Nova]

If the green crowd had their way, we'd all be driving electric vehicles. But I got to thinking, do they not realize that switching from a conventionally powered car to an electric car simply transfers the burden on our natural resources from oil to coal?


First, you would need to do a study on the new electricity demand created by the cars, and weigh it against the costs involved with using diesel/gas. Many of the "greenies" argue that electricity is a more efficient way of creating energy. By having a highly efficient power plant make the energy, overall energy consumption is reduced.

Most of the energy consumed by electric cars would be on the "off" hours for the grid (car charging at night while people are asleep), so that alone would offset a lot of the burden on the grid.

Coal is used to produce most of the electricity in the US, but there are cogeneration plants that use natual gas/steam, and of course, hydroelectric and nukes. Electricity here is cheap in the NW due to hydro power.

So which is it? Coal is worse than using gas, or is gas worse than using coal? There is a lot of debate out there on this - a quick Google search will provide years of reading.

Even after saying all this - I'm with Damn True. Being green has nothing to do with logic and the environment. It is all about feeling good about yourself for *gasp, forgive the sin* consuming natural resources. :bsjerk:

[Derek69SS]

b) It is an elaborate wealth redistribution play
BINGO!

"Green" is the new "Red"

[BADNBLK]

"Green" is the new "Red"

:rotfl::usa:

[maldo]

Do you think that electric cars won't break? If you want to play conspiricy theory I would counter that car companies would want to make the switch because it will give them exclusivity over their repair. No more shade tree or independant mechanics (for the electrics), once again, when your car breaks you will have to take it to the dealer for service.

Oil companies could not care less either way.


I completely see your point and i was not trying to say they would never break but you are looking at the complete restructure of the auto industry which we will see allot of resistances....

With the electricity car i truly believe its to mask the redistribution of wealth from the oil companies to the companies that make the power per coal and nuc (but my problem if we increase the demand either way what do we do with all the nuc waste etc ....)

[maldo]

BINGO!

"Green" is the new "Red"


Agree 100% ........... i am all for green but give a real solution to the problem not half ass baked plan that only solves a very small part of the renewable part of energy... its sort of like trying to pay peter to pay paul sooner or later you have to pay up .......

[Jim Nilsen]

If the green crowd had their way, we'd all be driving electric vehicles. But I got to thinking, do they not realize that switching from a conventionally powered car to an electric car simply transfers the burden on our natural resources from oil to coal?

If 2 out of every 3 people drove an electric car, it would place a HUGE demand on our electrical grid. There would have to be hundreds, if not thousands, of new power plants built. And with the nations self-imposed ban on nuclear power, that would mean millions upon millions of more lbs of coal being burnt and sent into the atmosphere. Have they seriously not thought about this?

You have to think in the now moment instead of the typical early 70's rhetoric that leads you to believe that. The oil companies have got you believing in fossil fuel and the electric company warns you of having to rebuild the grid but the reality of the matter is that you can plug in to solar panels and charge your car with no fossil fuel from either of them. There are people doing this right now,today , the future and you are told a lot of things that keep the technology from getting to you in your consciousness. The thought of powering your car from the sun is the future if you become a bit more conscious of what can be done. We can all put power into the grid at our point of use and you don't have to make a new and bigger grid. In fact it creates less of a demand on it since the power is mostly being made and used by you and doesn't have to travel for miles to get to you,especially if you and all of your neigbors were putting into it and making their own. You really can make your own power and enough of to make your life and the world better.

The air powered car that can be charged with a small pump powered by a solar panel is also very cool.

Stop listening to the politicians and the nay sayers and really look at what real people are doing and what new companies are trying to bring to the table and all of the old beliefs vanish with the companies that brought us the auto industry and the need for oil.

Electric cars are BADASS quick and fast if built right and are the future of major people transport.

The horse and buggy died hard too!

[68Formula]

It's all fun and games until the batteries need to be replaced.

[Jim Nilsen]

"Green" has nothing to do with logic or actual results and/or consequences. It is two things and two things only:

a) It makes people feel better about their narcissism
b) It is an elaborate wealth redistribution play


Two points that really say a lot.
As long as we can just keep people seeing themselves doing what they are told to be the truth and saving grace and doing the way that is being taught it really makes it hard to let the truth get out.

I see it all as more of a redistrubution of manufacturing and energy supply and the wealthiest people want to keep control of it as it shifts which keeps the new tech from getting to us that really makes the difference in the future of us all. They definately have a hard time with you and I making our own electricity and just plain make you want to believe that it can never be cost effective and make sure that they try to make it that way in the propoganda.

When enough people realize what can be done if we mass produce electrical generating devices for the home owner to make it really affordable for everyone it will be like owning a cellphone.

We need the truth to be told to America about green energy and a lot of what we hear is nothing more than doom if we don't do with the help of the big industries that already supply us on one side and people who want to just build new power source that they can charge us like the utilities do. They want you to have a monthly bill no matter if you make your own power or not and that is why it is a pain to get hooked into supply the grid and get paid fairly for the power you can make. They want you dependent on them and that is the problem if you make and meet your own energy needs, and a whole bunch of people already do.

[shmoov69]

"Green" has nothing to do with logic or actual results and/or consequences. It is two things and two things only:

a) It makes people feel better about their narcissism
b) It is an elaborate wealth redistribution play
Quoted for truth brotha!!!:1st:

[fishtail8]

If you want to get a tree hugger stumped for a bit, mention that your "restored" old car is 75% recycled. I got a guy at a function with that one, and it's true for the most part. Everyone of us reuses most of what we can during a build. Alot of our engines, transmissions, and rear ends are rebuilt pieces. That's not recycling and being green? Then I got started on their Prius they just bought....

[Jim Nilsen]

It's all fun and games until the batteries need to be replaced.

Ive heard that about turbo's too!

[Twentyover]

I completely see your point and i was not trying to say they would never break but you are looking at the complete restructure of the auto industry which we will see allot of resistances....



I think you're reading alot more into the change for manufacturers than is actually there. Rather than building in IC engine, you build a battery pack and electric motor. Some old tooling is scrapped, replaced by new tooling. Think of the change from carbs to FI, just on a grander scale. A completely mechanical device was replaced by an electromechanical device. Most of the car features, assemblies, etc would remain. Maybe more like going from a body-frame to a uni-body car. Maybe order of operation changes, but it will still be built on an assembly line, just like cars are today.

The real challenge, IMO, will be getting relibility up to market requirements

I'm assuming that the "we will see allot of resistances.... " is an unintended pun?

That said, I believe that energy density of chemistry is required for acceptable range and refuel/recharge times. Maybe light hydrocarbons near term, hydrogen latter, then on to dilithium crystals....

[Tom Welch]

Hydrogen solves several problems with current electric powerplants. And, we can recycle some more, conversion from gasoline to hydrogen is possible and the most practical at present. Electric cars are pretty good but cant compete with gas when it comes to long distances and refueling times. Hydrogen competes on an almost equal footing with gas in these respects. You dont need to burn a bunch of coal to produce hydrogen. I like Hydrogen more that batteries.

[surlyjoe]

The most realistic way to produce enough hydrogen to make a difference is with electricity. But it takes more electrical energy to produce than you get out of it. Until someone makes the osmosis systems work. Of course lots of hydrogen is produced from natural gas but then you are back to fossil fuels. There is a lot of promising technology out there. I like the air powered car.

For electric vehicles to work the battery technology needs to be better. They will have their place to a degree but when it comes time to recycle 1 million prius batteries who is going to do that?

[parsonsj]

Setting aside the recycling problem of the batteries, electric cars make lots of sense:

1. You can refuel at home. Gas stations and all the real estate they consume can be used for other things. Long trips still require re-charging along the way, but 80% of automotive trips are less than 40 miles.
2. Overall efficiency of energy consumption goes up dramatically; from about 30% for a mobile engine inside your car to more like 75% in a huge fixed energy plant.
3. That fixed energy plant can use whatever is current for energy, without all of us having to buy new cars. Coal? Oil? Thermo? Wind? Solar? Nuclear? Doesn't matter to your electric car.
3. Levying all the emissions on the energy plant will be a huge cost savings from all of us having such gear on our mobile engines.
4. Noise levels in cities will go down dramatically.

I'm leaving now, to put on my flame-retardant underwear. :)

jp

[Twentyover]

The most realistic way to produce enough hydrogen to make a difference is with electricity. But it takes more electrical energy to produce than you get out of it. Until someone makes the osmosis systems work. Of course lots of hydrogen is produced from natural gas but then you are back to fossil fuels. There is a lot of promising technology out there. I like the air powered car.

For electric vehicles to work the battery technology needs to be better. They will have their place to a degree but when it comes time to recycle 1 million prius batteries who is going to do that?

Don't know if I agree here- I'm no chemist, but couldn't you refine hydrogen from hydrocarbons? send petrochemicals through cracking towers and strip off the carbon atoms?

There's no real problem w/greens using fossil fuels (if you strip carbon out) as the result of combustion is now water vapor, w/no carbon dioxide

[martZ]

The technology isn't there for photovoltaic (solar) power or wind energy for that matter. I work in the utility industry and the two aforementioned technologies are basically jokes. The utility company I work for is trying to get area businesses to chip in to purchase two PV array panels that track the sun. This is playing on the "Green" movement, 100% PR move. The total cost for the project is $65K; the output is around 8,000KWh per year. That would power an average household for a year. We charge $.07/KWh. Is it worth it? You do the math.

Our parent company had a Prius converted to a PHEV and had install heavier spring because of the 400lbs added to the rear. While at our facility, they plug it in along with box fans to cool the batteries/charging system so it doesn’t melt the interior panels. It doesn’t have to make sense; it makes people feel good with the image that we care about the environment.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif


I’m not a nay sayer, just show me a viable alternative/renewable energy source.

[andrewb70]

This world needs a good ole fashioned plague. Take out about 2/3 of the total population in about a month. That would solve all of our problems.

Andrew

[maldo]

I understand we will have to get away from the internal combustion engine eventually for our daily rides… (It makes sense) but with the current technology they are trying to replace it with does not make sense in allot of ways. (it took 100 years to make the car as good as they are know so what makes you think that they will get it right in the next 10 years when they have been working on this problem for almost 20 + years….. (One very big note) Many people in the city areas apartments etc and do not have the option to plug their car in … So what do you do with the millions of people who have to park their cars on the streets to recharge?

[maldo]

I think you're reading alot more into the change for manufacturers than is actually there. Rather than building in IC engine, you build a battery pack and electric motor. Some old tooling is scrapped, replaced by new tooling. Think of the change from carbs to FI, just on a grander scale. A completely mechanical device was replaced by an electromechanical device. Most of the car features, assemblies, etc would remain. Maybe more like going from a body-frame to a uni-body car. Maybe order of operation changes, but it will still be built on an assembly line, just like cars are today.

The real challenge, IMO, will be getting relibility up to market requirements

I'm assuming that the "we will see allot of resistances.... " is an unintended pun?

That said, I believe that energy density of chemistry is required for acceptable range and refuel/recharge times. Maybe light hydrocarbons near term, hydrogen latter, then on to dilithium crystals....


yes I understand the change .... i guess meant to say is that there is no motivation for car companies to change like they had to in the mid 80's to meet the fed requirements ..... if the fed did not crack don on fuel mileage and EPA standards we would be still driving cars with carbs on them.......

[parsonsj]

Many people in the city areas apartments etc and do not have the option to plug their car in … So what do you do with the millions of people who have to park their cars on the streets to recharge?Great question! I don't know. I'd be interested in the actual data for this situation. Is it 30% of the U.S. car total? That's huge! Or is it 3%? Still a problem, but not a show-stopper. I have no idea of the scale of this particular wrinkle...

jp

[Damn True]

.....and are you going to force employers to provide facilities for plugging in employees electric vehicles?

My boss doesn't pay for my gasoline.

[ProTouring442]

The problem with hydrogen, attaining it not withstanding, is that it will burn at almost any ratio and ignites at a fairly low threshold, thus making it very dangerous to store, transport, or utilize.

Electric vehicles are OK, but their range and speed, when packaged as any sort of reasonably sized car, are limited, and the recharge time is long. According to Bill Reinert, national manager of U.S. Advanced Technology, every additional 20 miles of range will cost approximately $10K. Fast chargers are feasible, however, according to the quotes attributed to him in an article in Car & Driver magazine, Automotive Engineering International opines that in order to charge a 25-kWh battery in 10 minutes requires an inrush of 100 kW, a massive amount of current our current electrical grids are ill equipped to handle. Further, as the average commute increases the limited 40 or so mile range of an electric vehicle will require charging while at the office, thus negating the idea that recharges will take place primarily at night.

Electric vehicles also have the problem of powering their ancillary systems such as Air Conditioning and heat, something a lot of current hybrid owners have also discovered.

I think that you will most likely see more advances in technology that will serve to keep the internal combustion engine in service for at least the next 25 or 30 years. GM is working on a gas powered, spark ignition engine that, at certain speeds and under certain conditions will switch to compression ignition, increasing mileage some 15% of current technology.

Another factor to consider is how much energy is wasted in the form of heat. The internal combustion engine's radiator and exhaust system are excellent sources of wasted energy just waiting to be harnessed.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[parsonsj]

are you going to force employers to provide facilities for plugging in employees electric vehicles? Why would we compel such facilities? Let market forces work there. The cool thing is that employers will find it much easier to offer such a perk. Only a very few can offer gasoline services now.

jp

[ProTouring442]

yes I understand the change .... i guess meant to say is that there is no motivation for car companies to change like they had to in the mid 80's to meet the fed requirements ..... if the fed did not crack don on fuel mileage and EPA standards we would be still driving cars with carbs on them.......

Honestly, I disagree. GM, Ford, And Chrysler had all experimented with electronic fuel injection in the past. Chrysler had electronic FI in 1956! In fact, I would say that the burden of emission and mileage standards delayed the introduction of electronic fuel injection as the manufacturers scrambled to meet the new standards. As a proof of this, you have the fact that so many cars now have such a good balance of mileage and performance, created by R&D departments that had finally pushed the technology to catch up to and surpass the standards, and if left alone would continue to do so. Instead, the newest increase in mileage and pollution standards will hurt such R&D and lead to more costly, less desirable cars and trucks.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[CarlC]

From a perfromance standpoint it is all about energy density. The day a company can mass produce an energy ssytem with the same or greater engery density than fossil fuels for vehicles is the day that there will be a truely functional alternative. Until then, we're stuck with the flavor of the day for the make-me-feel-good club.

[maldo]

Great question! I don't know. I'd be interested in the actual data for this situation. Is it 30% of the U.S. car total? That's huge! Or is it 3%? Still a problem, but not a show-stopper. I have no idea of the scale of this particular wrinkle...

jp


yes but most of the pollution concentration is in city areas (LA, NYC, DC etc )

[Damn True]

Why would we compel such facilities? Let market forces work there. The cool thing is that employers will find it much easier to offer such a perk. Only a very few can offer gasoline services now.

jp

Well if you mean we as in you and I, we would not because we believe market forces should drive such things. If you mean we in a National sense I don't think it's too great a stretch to imagine such a mandate being placed on employers in the name of all that is GREEN.

[maldo]

Honestly, I disagree. GM, Ford, And Chrysler had all experimented with electronic fuel injection in the past. Chrysler had electronic FI in 1956! In fact, I would say that the burden of emission and mileage standards delayed the introduction of electronic fuel injection as the manufacturers scrambled to meet the new standards. As a proof of this, you have the fact that so many cars now have such a good balance of mileage and performance, created by R&D departments that had finally pushed the technology to catch up to and surpass the standards, and if left alone would continue to do so. Instead, the newest increase in mileage and pollution standards will hurt such R&D and lead to more costly, less desirable cars and trucks.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

Yes there is no question that FI has been around for a long time just like the Electric car (which has been shelved for more then 100 years) ... but FI did not come of age until the car company's were forced to change (and technology was small enough ..... (and the car company's went back to the FI technology they had Shelved for more then 30 years just like allot of other stuff (example ohc engines that Pontiac had out for a short time in the 60’s just think if they stuck with it back then how far they would be ahead) (side note: the aviation engines have been using fuel injection and supercharges as a standard since world war 2) but the biggest help came from the computer industry with a small microchip that allowed the technology to be cheap enough and small enough to fit for automotive application this is the cause of why they were able to meet the standards and to go beyond. (but if you look closely they only and stay with in the range of what they can get away with or what loop holes there are (good example about emission standard and crash protection for SUVs (which is less then your average car) If you look at the history of the car companies they have always waited to change until they were forced by law (also do you realize how much they spend on lobbyist in Washington)

[parsonsj]

Well if you mean we as in you and I, we would not because we believe market forces should drive such things. If you mean we in a National sense I don't think it's too great a stretch to imagine such a mandate being placed on employers in the name of all that is GREEN.Perhaps. But that's another thread. If the technical issues with electric cars and the power grid could be mitigated, I think electric cars would be a net plus for the American way of life.

[maldo]

Perhaps. But that's another thread. If the technical issues with electric cars and the power grid could be mitigated, I think electric cars would be a net plus for the American way of life.

Yes i agree if they can make them cheap and reliable.. which i don't see happening with the current gen batteries out there (I don't think you can get 100k without major service or battery replacement which which is not cost effective for your average buyer who depends on their car..)

[Jim Nilsen]

I understand we will have to get away from the internal combustion engine eventually for our daily rides… (It makes sense) but with the current technology they are trying to replace it with does not make sense in allot of ways. (it took 100 years to make the car as good as they are know so what makes you think that they will get it right in the next 10 years when they have been working on this problem for almost 20 + years….. (One very big note) Many people in the city areas apartments etc and do not have the option to plug their car in … So what do you do with the millions of people who have to park their cars on the streets to recharge?

This is a question that arose the other day and it is a solution and it seems to be already built with mass production around the corner.

Wireless electricity. Yes WIRELESS ELECTRICITY !!!!
The tech to turn electricity into radiowaves and back into electricity is said to be arriving this year on a small scale.

If this is true and the technology can make sure everyone still gets paid for the power they use, you could concievably drive down the road and from time to time be charging off of a transmitter powered by the grid in areas that have it and use battery power in between. it makes it so you don't need cords to charge your car,you could transmit the power through a converter box you lug into your wall or it might be just as easy as parking and getting it from a local supplier tied to the grid.

I haven't seen it for real but if it is possible it would be one heck of a solution wouldn't it ?

I also don't want to ever give up my fuel burning car to have fun in but to go back and forth to work everyday a really nice sporty qwick electric would kickass and be cheap to feed.

[Twentyover]

The problem with hydrogen, attaining it not withstanding, is that it will burn at almost any ratio and ignites at a fairly low threshold, thus making it very dangerous to store, transport, or utilize..............


Bill

If we were just starting to use gasoline as the chemical of choice for transportation, you might make a similiar argument.....

I don't see this as any different that transport of any number of other flamables- different technology the we currently use, but already figgured out technology.

If you're not aware, the Governator of CA has committed to a chain of hydrogen refueling stations along I5 for fuel cell vehicles....

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-15-093.asp

This appears o be a case of it doesn't matter what you or I think, it's going to happen.

[Kenova]

This world needs a good ole fashioned plague. Take out about 2/3 of the total population in about a month. That would solve all of our problems.

Andrew
I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've had the same thought!!

On the topic of hydrogen, my biggest concern would be the pressures necessary to store it in a tank. The last thing I want under my butt when some moron piles into my car is a high pressure (approx. 3000psi.) canister full of highly flammable hydrogen (or natural gas). And I don't care if the cannister can survive a nuclear blast.

Ken

[1969CamaroRS]

I too was somewhat against the idea of Hybrids or Electric cars at first. Especially from a safety standpoint. After all the energy stored in most electric/hybrid batteries can easily kill or start a major fire if something goes wrong (major accident).

If you haven't seen the movie who killed the electric car, you should very interesting.

My wife has kind of wanted a very fuel efficient car so I have been doing a bunch of research. Also had the opportunity in my engine performance class to learn a lot about hybrids and electric cars. And even got to take a tour of Toyota and talk to some of their Hybrid experts.

The way I look at it, is it is far easier to contain the pollution in handful of power plants than it is to try to control pollution in millions of cars. I think this is pretty straight-forward and true. Much easier to upgrade a few power plants to get cleaner air than force everyone to new emission controls or wait for all the old cars to get off the road.

Secondly have most of you ever ridden in a electric car or hybrid? Say a Prius? Those cars are fast! The electric motors have a super flat torque curve. Toyota even said that the Hybrid Highlander is the fastest car they make. If you disable traction control you can sit there and spin the tires through the gears, no joke.

The concept of a plug in Hybrid is really starting to appeal to me. The car will only run on the batteries for a first 100 miles or so then switches to the gas motor to recharge the batteries after that.

You plug in the hybrid at home at night and recharge. For a simple commuter vehicle it is the best of both worlds. Very efficient for normal daily driving with the option for long trips if needed.

Hydrogen is a farce, it is too costly to produce and still 15-30 years from being feasible, while electric/gas hybrids are a proven technology. Even better is a electric/diesel hybrid, which I believe BMW should be introducing shortly.

At least if I got one I could bring my average fuel mileage up from the 10 or so I'll get with my big block, lol.


They also forget about the long process to make the batteries for the electric car, the cost of replacement when they finally die, and the cost of disposal of the dead ones. I hope they thought to make the batteries recyclable...

Almost all the hybrid batteries are recyclable. I know for a fact all the Toyota ones are, all their literature from the Toyota factory indicates that they are.

[MonzaRacer]

Ok so you say plug into solar panels yet to make enough power to recharge a simple electric car would take about 14 hours and 12 to 18 4x8 grids(about $12,000, plus controler/director and converter).
All batteries are recycleable.
Most of the hybrids use multiple EMG (motors) to run/charge the vehicle/battery. IF driven properly the Prius will average 50mpg.
The Sierra trucks shut down at stops, if this was installed in the Camaro, use MDS, and E85 the setup might be fairly awesome.
Hybrids can be useful in certain areas, E85 was developed for high smog areas and now has better coverage and can be useful for performance enthusiasts.
Now Hydrogen CAN be useful if they would make a Hydrogen fuel charger(as was thrown out in popular science 30 yrsago) which would separate it from water, then make it useful in high traffic/smog areas.
too many people think one thing is going to fix everything, wrong.
Its going to take several things to replace crude and coal.
Since the technology is now in perfected to feasibly recycle depleted nuclear fuel (other than for specific weapons) (France has good way to use it, its encapsulated in special glass and mixed into road bed asphalt.
But some cant be done that way.
Take several things together and we can turn the corner, each alone, will fail.

[Martin71RS]

I just think that people should be WILLING to drive a smaller car, with a smaller motor and less accessoires (lighter) and so get a lot more miles to the gallon.

this is the simple solution.....but everyone wants a bigger car with more gadgets and more room.
Most of the times big cars are used by 1 person, without any luggage etc.

I now drive a Nissan Micra for a daily driverhttps://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif, and have had Suzuki Alto's https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gifand and Swifts....all small cars which will seat 2 adults and 2 kids and have good mpg. I've hauled 2 70 Camaro doors and 1 fender is a suzuki swift https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/02/swift-1.jpgonce.... (unbolted the passenger seat though) an engine in a VW Polohttps://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2007/04/w12polo472cui77liter01-1.jpg
, rear axle and engine hoist in an Alto....everything is possible if you are WILLING! I must admit most of them are older cars so I do not mind to use them for hauling parts

So all these people talking about hybrids, electric cars etc....are they WILLING to go the cheap and easy route...? Most of them still WANT (not need) the big car with all the extras....is that really more enviremental friendly..?????

there are easier and cheaper ways to save the envirement....you do not have to spend the big $$ to easy your mind.

I do have a bigger car also that we use when we go out with the family, but even that one has a 1.3litre motor and still gets 30 mpg average and is able to go upto 110mphhttps://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

I just do not think electric cars are the answer to everything...

[Damn True]

I agree that electrics are not the answer. In fact, I think they are, as current technology stands a horrible answer. Not as bad as Hydrogen and corn. But pretty dang awful.

I'm not about to by the vehicular analogue to a Sony Betamax. Let them figure it out and get a viable product to market and then I'll have a look.

The little car thing works ok in a small country like The Netherlands (16,033 sq miles) but when you live in a place (California) that is 163,696 sq miles you want something a bit more roomy.

[Derek69SS]

Free markets.

That's the only answer that works. If people really wanted more efficient vehicles, that's what they'd buy. If the technology existed for 100mpg out of a comfortable sized car which could be built cheaply enough that an average family could afford it, the auto industry would build it. Why? Because it would sell.

Government mandates, subsidies, and regulations won't create the technology, it will only drive the automakers out of business at the taxpayers/consumers expense. The potential for PROFIT is what drives development, and the Government wants to regulate that all away.

[martZ]

[quote=Martin71RS;497991]I just think that people should be WILLING to drive a smaller car, with a smaller motor and less accessoires (lighter) and so get a lot more miles to the gallon.
/quote]

No offense, but I'm not "WILLING" to drive a smaller car. The government shouldn't be telling me what I can and can't drive based on "what if " global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels. I'm not drinking the global warming/green movement koolaid anyway. If I can afford to drive a tank, so be it.

[Martin71RS]

Marty, I will never tell anyone they should be willing....
I agree we all should be free of choice and not forced to drive what we do not want.
I just think there are easier solutions (and cheaper) than electric/hybridz if you want to do something for the envirement.

True, I think your statement about the size of a country has anything to do with the size of a car is BS.
if you commute about 40 miles one way do you NEED a bigger car? (40 miles is the same in a small country just for your info :lmao:)

I drive the small beaters just for economy...that leaves me more to spend on the hobby cars....(as a bonus they pollute less)

[Damn True]

The point is that I can drive for 6hrs in any direction (except west....the ocean) and still be in CA and I do so frequently. If I am spending that much time in a car I want a little more elbow room than a Lupo or Punto can provide.

[Martin71RS]

I understand your point True.....but I just think most people don't drive that much.

(I whish I had the time to take 6 hour drives, next time I do that is my holiday in may...Eurodisney in Paris)

[69LT1Nova]

I understand your point True.....but I just think most people don't drive that much.

Yes, Americans drive that much. We're crazy.

Why do you think we are the world's #1 consumer of oil? :1st:

[MonzaRacer]

Actually China is number 1 now

[69LT1Nova]

Actually China is number 1 now

How dare they do that to us! :2nd: It must be all the plastic toys they make... I wonder how much is gasolene consumption and how much is used for other stuff.

BTW - Drivers in China are CRAZY! Makes LA rush hour traffic look tame in comparison. :camaro:

[bigvegan]

BTW - Drivers in China are CRAZY! Makes LA rush hour traffic look tame in comparison.

Yeah, because there's no enforcement of driver licensing. If your rich/connected, you can walk in to a dealership and drive out with a car. You don't even have to know how to drive it, it's like America 80+ years ago.

This is partially why they have as many car crash fatalities in China as we do in America with 1/10th the number of cars.

Electric vehicles can be pretty cool though. Pull up the Killacycle videos on youtube if you want to see some kickass 1/4 mile electric fun.

[69stang]

I drive the small beaters just for economy...that leaves me more to spend on the hobby cars....(as a bonus they pollute less)

I drive this daily, Ford ZX2
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

I have driven mustangs daily for most of my adult life and will do so again when I finish rebuilding my 69. Having said that I am somewhat interested in finding me a beater and converting it to hi-performance electric car. I think it would be a challenging and interesting project but would do it for my own reasons and not for some so-called environmental reasons.

[shmoov69]

Martin, we usually drive ALOT over here. Heck, I usually put about 35,000 miles a year on my "work" truck alone, not to mention the non work vehicles! And I don't think that I'm too much above normal. A smaller car would be just fine, but a bigger roomy vehicle just makes more "sense" to spend so much time in.

[406 Q-ship]

I see it as an issue that no one answer will work for all. There is no magic pill to get us off of fossil fuels. I believe that Electric Vehicles are viable in certain situations and that would be short commutes like city driving. Hybrids could be used as a city and short hop vehicle that needs more range than electric along can handle. I believe CNG and LPG would be good for vehicles that need to move larger masses.

Now having said this a few major hurdles need to be cleared. Electric from solar is a nonstarter, most vehicle are used when the sun is up not being charged, so unless you can make a storage battery for stationary solar panels that is economical. If one could design mobile panels for the vehicle itself, but then there would the weight issue. Besides solar panels have a short life span (as I understand it) and would require costly replacement, which tosses the "green" right out the window. Fast charging an electric vehicle isn't a good idea it would shorten battery life and loose a lot of efficiency due to the heat generated. Electric and Hybrids have the same issue of batteries that need to be recycled or replaced and will have an environmental impacted in either case, recycling would be better of course. Besides the Prius is got to be the most inefficient type of Hybrid, Toyota runs the Motor on the flywheel and puts the power through the transmission so that means a 25% loss right there. If you want a good hybrid, it needs the motors in the wheels or do at least what GM/Hydromatic did by having the motor drive the output drum of the transmission. Hydrogen is a looser due to the energy input to get the gas back out, it has the same problems as ethanol from corn, both are energy losers. LPG and CNG still carrier the issue of burning a fossil fuel and the emissions emitted from that burning.

In my opinion if you want to do the most you can with the least amount of impact on the environment........walk, ride a bike, or use the smallest most efficient vehicle that will get the job done. We Americans have become lazy, we drive down the street rather than walk 3 blocks, and our kids never walk to school or the mall. If half the population just minimized the amount of vehicle use we would not need these foolish unviable vehicles that the nutty greenies want to shove down our throats.

[fourfiftyfive]

Electric and hybrid cars are not the answer to our problems... between producing the batteries which means mining and refining nickel (creating sulfur dioxide pollution), and the extra power used to charge electric cars, we all might as well drive hummer H1's... the environment would honestly take less of of a beating! I can understand using electric power to break away from our foreign oil dependency, but it actually creates more of a mess for the tree huggers to whine about.

If I can make an old S10 blazer V6 automatic 4x4 get 25 mpg city and over 30 on the highway... with a carb.......... and the chevy aveo can get the same mileage as a prius.... thats a problem... for a hybrid that thing's mileage sucks, in plain english. And it costs much, much more per driven mile then just driving a damn suburban! Excuse me for not having the actual figures, if you all insist, I CAN and will... dig them up... but it's late and I'm tired.

[killer69]

Do you think that electric cars won't break? If you want to play conspiricy theory I would counter that car companies would want to make the switch because it will give them exclusivity over their repair. No more shade tree or independant mechanics (for the electrics), once again, when your car breaks you will have to take it to the dealer for service.

Oil companies could not care less either way.

Anit this the truth i used to run a parts depart ment for the largest electric fork lift company, they make the electronice and computer cards so complicated and propritary that NO one else can fix their lift trucks. oh you can change the oil or a wheel bearing but if it isnt running you Have to call the dealer and the Mark up on the parts was Obsene!!!! 400% was normal