Digg

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at treehugger.com

17 Electric Cars You Should Know About from 2005 to 2008

treehugger.com — Electric Cars: You Want 'Em? We've Got 'Em! Over the past 3 years, we've written about many electric cars here on TreeHugger. We think it's time to look in the rearview mirror, so here's an overview.

Bury

MrBabyMan 53 days ago, made popular 52 days ago

684 diggs
digg it

wTheOnew, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1People are really getting lazy with the spell checking.
THMike, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2The E6 looks really promising.
rento, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3Tesla Roadster and Eliica FTW
- DarkShroud, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Tesla will be the one to get my money just because they've stuck with it here in the US alone.
Newsdude, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5I'm really interested in the Aptera: http://www.aptera.com/
ChrisXPPro, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Wrightspeed X1 is The Electric Version of The Ariel Atom.

Still The Most Kick Ass Car Made in My Opinion
- grexeo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6Why Do You Capitalize Every Word?
ChrisshEnzo, on 07/15/2008, -4/+1Dugg for the X1. Still 3 seconds wont beat a ferrari.
- SuperCujo, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3Which Ferrari can't it beat by doing 0-100 km/h in 3 seconds?
  
  The Ferrari F60 is billed as the fastest Ferrari ever and it can 'only' manage 0-100 in 3.2 seconds...
ChrisXPPro, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Actually No. -3 Seconds Will Beat a Ferrari
http://www.car-videos.net/performance/speed.asp?Sp ...
BobZombie00, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0We got it ,you need it.it's just like, its just like a mini ..mall!
mfc5200, on 07/15/2008, -5/+2Unless your local electricity is coming from Nuclear and Hydro (or wind, but that is not likely), electric cars are worse for the environment. They indirectly release more c02/mile than standard conventional cars. You need to transfer the power over the grid, transfer it from AC to DC, charge the batteries, store the energy, and then use it. The losses add up. We did a project on this in my final year as an engineering graduate.

Of course though, if your goal is to not buy gas anymore and save money, then maybe you can because electricity is much cheaper than gas. But from a purely environmental point of view, this is a terrible idea (again, the exception being if your area is powered by nuclear or alternative fuels, but over 50% of our power comes from coal alone, so...)
- init100, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6"but over 50% of our power comes from coal alone"
  
  The US is not the world though. My power (in Sweden) comes from nuclear (49%) and hydro (50%), with some wind and other sources (the remaining 1%) thrown in.
  - DarkShroud, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3The US's modern coal technology is also clean burning. This is documented by the EPA who has kept on these coal companies about developing cleaner energy. The older coal plants can be converted over to this as well.
    
    Here in the US the environmentalists won't let us build new more efficient coal plants or clean nuclear power plants. And then they complain about poor air quality.
- twomeyw23334, on 07/15/2008, -2/+2Yep, but you're supposed to make believe electrons jump from the coal plant directly into EVs 90% efficient engine, bypassing distribution, AC/DC power factor corrected conversion, charging, and DC/AC conversion before use.
  
  According to the U.S Department of Energy, the majority of our power plants are over 30 years old, and have an average thermal efficiency is around 33%. Our aging distribution system (originally built to a 5% standard) now has closer to 10% distribution loss average per year due to higher loads.
  Of course, we could build new, cleaner coal plants which are tremendously more efficient, but the same moonbat enviro hippies that want everyone to drive an EV are totally against this for some reason.
  http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html
  
  Not that I have anything wrong with EVs, just with the moonbats preventing newer cleaner electricity. init100 mentions hydro but that is bad for the fishies, and nuclear, but Ronald Reagan, a Republican (ewwww) pushed for that back in the day. Wind is ok but that would hurt Kennedy and buddies' view from their Cape Cod mansions on days when they use binoculars. I guess we should just keep using ancient coal plants.
- SuperCujo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6You do realise that coal fired power stations are still at least twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine. So factoring in losses and the use of renewable energy generation, I'd say the electric car still wins.
- kendetroit, on 07/15/2008, -2/+2And you also have to dispose of the batteries when the car is FAIL. Carpooling could probably fix all this. Today I drove 13 miles in rush hour traffic and did not see ONE car with more than 2 people in it. (I was alone as well). I've tried craigslist, but no one leaves at my time.....which means if your company is really green, they would let you come in whatever time your carpool allows.
  - DarkShroud, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2The batteries last for years and they don't leak. When they wear out or fail they are recycled 100%.
    
    The EV1 and other electric vehicles that were released around that time and were saved from being crushed are still running just fine. Batteries and all.
- apeweek, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1All studies I have ever seen show that EVs are cleaner, no matter how power is generated. This one shows that EVs make just 3% of the total pollution a gas vehicle does:
  
  http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/electri ...
  actual study: http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/CEC-999-1996-015.P ...
  
  "...in a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs were significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity generation process produces less than 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles."
  
  All the power conversion steps mentioned are still far more efficient than the equivalent steps needed for gasoline. Do you realize large amounts of electricity are used to refine petroleum? Surely you know it would be far more efficient to put that energy straight into an EV?
  
  And transferring power over the grid (this only costs a few percentage points worth of efficiency) is far, far more efficient than the equivalent step of trucking gasoline to thousands of service stations!
  
  At least you realize electricity is much cheaper than gas - about ten times cheaper, actually. This huge discrepancy in price is hard to reconcile without according EVs the much greater efficiency they realize.
  - twomeyw23334, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1"All studies I have ever seen show that EVs are cleaner, no matter how power is generated.."
    Did you forget about these studies I already showed you on previous threads?
    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/environment/ ...
    
    Of course, in this post Al Gore "world has a fever" world there is only 1 type of pollution, CO2. According to many of these EV freaks me farting causes more pollution than me dumping a tank of toxic waste into a river. All the SOx and soot and acid rain in the world don't mean crap as long is CO2 is slightly reduced, right?
    
    When looking at the lifespan of vehicle and using a coal plant, which is what we are talking about here, CO2 reduction is minimal anyways.
    According to the Institute for Life Cycle Environmental Assessment's study...
    "When using electricity from coal, the total CO2 emissions for the electric car was almost as much as the gasoline car and almost twice as much as the hybrid."
    This includes CO2 emissions from manufacturing the car, which are much greater for EVs.
    http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/12/24/lifecycle- ...
    
    The last line is particularly important because comparing an EV with coal based electricity, it is clear that hybrids are the cleanest vehicles to drive. The minimal difference in CO2 is nothing compared to the other worse pollutants that coal power plants cause.
    
    "This huge discrepancy in price is hard to reconcile without according EVs the much greater efficiency they realize."
    Nice, still trying to equate price to efficiency!? The price of oil went up like $5 the other day so your EV got more efficient in 1 day!
  - apeweek, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Here we go again...
    
    "...Did you forget about these studies I already showed you..."
    
    You did not link to any studies. What you linked to was an EV hit piece that cherrypicks and misrepresents a few data points from some studies that we don't get to see.
    
    "...When using electricity from coal.."
    
    Yes, of course, that is the key phrase. It implies that coal is being shoveled into the grid with each new charging EV. Given that assumption, of course, I might even have to agree with the article. But - the problem with this misleading assumption is that, in real life, your EV will not be increasing coal pollution very much at all.
    
    First, coal is only half the grid. The rest of the grid is cleaner.
    
    Secondly, coal plants are base-load. They are too hard to shut down, and so run all the time, EVs or no EVs. Peak load plants are not coal!
    
    So explain how adding EVs to the grid increases coal pollution appreciably?
    
    As for the manufacturing impact of an EV, that is an old study. New battery technologies change the equation.
  - twomeyw23334, on 07/15/2008, -2/+0"You did not link to any studies..."
    I've still read in your previous comment that studies go "both ways" in regard to ICE versus EV pollution, so unless you have memory loss I still don't understand where your original statement came from.
    
    "First, coal is only half the grid.."
    It's the half we are currently talking about. No ones making the assertion that EVs powered from Nuclear plants or any other plants or even a single NEW coal plants are worse than gasoline cars. We're talking about the 'average' coal plant in the U.S.
    
    "So explain how adding EVs to the grid increases coal pollution appreciably?"
    Coal power plants run more efficiently at peak load (and we'll ignore that distribution has the highest lose at the same time) so you are arguing we should use more coal power at the right time to keep efficiency up.
    We're talking about "converting" to electric cars, so are you trying to convince me that if our 250,851,833 cars are converted to electric, they will charge with the extra unused electricity from our coal plants and not require any more coal!?
    With out current over stressed grid many of the (cheaper at night) programs are run to REDUCE stress during peak hours. I'm not an expert on the whole country, but in Arizona these cost incentives are because higher cost gas generators need to be fired up during peak hours, while the lower cost coal power can handle lower loads. Thus, the coal plants are almost always running at peak, it's just that (more expensive) back up systems need to be run when energy demands go "beyond peak."
    
    Maybe if you could provide me with some numbers, (percent of time that average U.S coal plants are running at minimum power efficiency and what is the difference in their efficiency between min and max load) I could make some better logic out of this, but otherwise there's not much for me to work with and not much of an arguement on your side. I would imagine the extra efficiency wouldn't be anywhere close enough to overcome hybrids.
    
    The only possible real argument I can see you have with this is that mass conversion to electric would FORCE the opening of new plants, which would be way cleaner. Unless moonbats stood their ground that is, and then the price of electricity would go up, along with the frequency of brown/black outs.
    
    "New battery technologies change the equation."
    Is there a new study that demonstrates this?
  - apeweek, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1"...in your previous comment that studies go "both ways" in regard to ICE versus EV pollution, so unless you have memory loss..."
    
    One of us has memory loss alright, since I did not say this. Results of studies vary, of course, but not so much that they "go both ways." Every study I have ever seen shows a net decrease in total pollution from EV use.
    
    "...First, coal is only half the grid...It's the half we are currently talking about."
    
    You may talk about whatever you wish. What I'm concerned about is the net effect on pollution levels, which involves the entire grid. Pretending half of it does not exist will not lead to any useful conclusion.
    
    "...if our 250,851,833 cars are converted to electric, they will charge with the extra unused electricity from our coal plants and not require any more coal!?"
    
    That is a long, long way off - if we build more coal plants, they will certainly be of the cleaner variety.
    
    "...Thus, the coal plants are almost always running at peak..."
    
    Exactly. Adding EVs can't make them run any faster. Peak load plants aren't coal.
    
    "Is there a new study that demonstrates this?"
    
    The study you pointed me to uses the manufacturing impact of lead-acid batteries, which are not going to be used much longer in EVs. Lead-acid batteries have to be recycled or remanufactured every 20,000 miles. Newer battery types have lifetimes of 100,000 miles or better, and therefore will (generally) require one-fifth or less the manufacturing energy needed to make PbA batteries. An accurate study would need to be updated to reflect this.
- onesojourner, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3mfc5200 you should try doing some research before you start spreading the oil company lies.
  
  "While the average U.S. gasoline car emits more than four tons of carbon dioxide each year"
  
  "if an electric car was charged with one hundred percent coal-fired electricity, emissions would be two and a half tons per year, still less than corn ethanol’s three. Regardless of its source, electricity is the cleanest transportation fuel."
  
  http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=18193&url=h ...
  - mfc5200, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1Yea, so this was first hand research, again, this was the senior design project of my class at Duke University engineering. The professor was well versed in the subject as well. So I will trust first hand research over evworld.com (probably a little biased) Someone above said it correctly, if you really care about the environment, you will either use a fuel efficient car or a hybrid.
  - apeweek, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I think most of us trust published research over hearsay research. If EVs are as dirty as you say, find us a study somewhere that backs you up.
    
    Here's a summary of several studies:
    http://sherryboschert.com/Downloads/Emissions%5B9% ...
JointVenture, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Electric car posts=$ for "green" sites.
bincoder, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2hmmph, we have electricity from a combo of nuke, solar and hydropower its cheaper than the usual cost, but supplying a quarter million watts to a 1970s chevy 4x4 is going to be a tad on the expensive side anyway, even compared to gasoline.
And no, I dont want to buy a 100 kW electric motor and generator with a bank of batteries to replace the V8. I have other uses for $40,000 than that.
- theadvinci, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Electric cars actually consume very little electricity.
nerdscience, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Some great examples, however, if you really want to see something amazing in the world of electric vehicles, visit Topsail High School's electric vehicle page, http://www.kickngas.org. These students, led by Steve Garrett, have converted three gas-powered vehicles into fully electric automobiles. Their work is amazing.
theadvinci, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't want to be in a Tango when a strong wind is blowing.

EDIT

And could somebody tell me why the heck does the Eliica need 8 wheels?
- doublefelix, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Each of the wheels has it's own 80 HP motor. 8-wheel drive.
Ne007, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2What no zap?
jerrycan, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2props to xs500 and e6 for making a "normal" looking vehicle. These things will sell better once they stop making them look like a peanut.
oceanika, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2No Carver One? http://www.carver-worldwide.com/

I almost didn't digg because of the omission. How can you not include the green (yes, we have nuke power dammit) tie-fighter car??? And include some goofy eight wheeler? And some high school conversion?? C'mon treehugger.
qwertycopter, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2The only one I should know about is the one that costs under $20K and charges via renewable energy.
- apeweek, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Lots of inexpensive electric cars under $20,000:
  
  http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car
  
  As for renewable energy - buy a solar panel for your garage. One big enough to supply your EV costs about $2000.
- qwertycopter, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1"Remember, an electric vehicle can be plugged in anywhere. I charge mine while I'm at work, so I have plenty of juice to run an errand or two on the way home."
  
  Er.. that's called stealing. Also, not really a benefit once electric cars become mainstream.
  
  "But energy is wasted in the evening, and at night, because many powerplants are very hard to start up, and so can't be easily turned off when demand goes down. Electric cars charge mostly at night."
  
  But he advocates charging it during the day while at work. Nice.
  - apeweek, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I charge my EV at work, with permission from my employer. I doubt you would get away with "stealing" electricity from your workplace for very long. I can charge it several hours for less than a buck, so my employer doesn't mind.
    
    The bulk of my charging still happens at home, at night, when rates are cheap. At work, I charge from a normal 15-amp outlet to top off the batteries only. This is only necessary, by the way, because I drive an old-technology EV, with a short range. Newer EVs have much longer driving ranges.
    
    Charging during the day doesn't increase coal pollution either, since coal plants are base-load, and run all the time, EVs or no EVs. Peak-load plants are not coal.
  - qwertycopter, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1>Employer
    Count yourself lucky, then. Many businesses wouldn't allow that, especially if everyone started doing it. Also, since your blog(spam) is advocating EV vehicles to the public, suggesting that people should charge during the day at work isn't a good idea.
    
    >Old EV
    Back to my original point.. I want to see a new EV under 20K that doesn't require burning fossil fuels. You're dead on about solar power, however, I'm not going to buy an old EV from Amateur Joe's EV's with no warranty or no service to boot. I want something retail.
    
    >Day charging doesn't increase coal pollution
    I didn't actually suggest that, but if the power demand goes up significantly due to charging EV's, they'll need more coal plants.
    
    Also, your blog makes an awful lot of claims without any substantiation. Example:
    
    "There is currently enough wasted electricity and excess capacity for millions of electric cars"
  - apeweek, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1"...I'm not going to buy an old EV from Amateur Joe's EV's"
    
    Good point. The fact that small entrepreneurs can do EVs for under $20k is very telling, though. I agree it's a tough sell, but that's one of the only real options right now.
    
    "...if the power demand goes up significantly due to charging EV's, they'll need more coal plants. "
    
    Good. It's the old coal plants that are the problem. Newest designs for coal plants are up to 80% efficient.
    
    "...your blog makes an awful lot of claims without any substantiation. "
    
    Here's the supporting study:
    
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/06121 ...
    
    Mileage From Megawatts: Study Finds Enough Electric Capacity To 'Fill Up' Plug-in Vehicles
    
    "Science Daily — If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of the country's 220 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics."
    
    Also, the site referenced is not a 'blog', it is not a moneymaker, I don't add to it or carry on any discussions there. It is a collection of facts I use to save a lot of typing in discussions like this one.
mike17032, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Anything less than 80 grand that doesnt suck balls on the list?
viggooo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Haha, this story got a really badly placed ad: http://i38.tinypic.com/2z82m1y.png
apeweek, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2They missed some very important EVs, like the Phoenix

http://phoenixmotorcars.com

The nanotech batteries in this car can charge in just 10 minutes, and can last 20 years.
salinemist, on 07/15/2008, -3/+1How are we going to charge electric cars when the greenies won't approve any new power plants?
onesojourner, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3istsalinemist Most power plants peak during the day while you are out driving around. Then at night you come home and charge your batteries off peak times. There are many power plants that could support hundreds of thousands of electric cars. Electric cars would give us true independence with our energy. Gas getting expensive? use coal... Coal getting scarce? Use nuclear... Hippies giving you crap about the nuclear waste? Use hydro... Oh wait there was a new break through on solar power its now cheap... use that.. We can make electricity with any thing. There is no need for a new hydrogen car when that's actually cost effective. Let the power plants use the hydrogen and send it to us, we drive the same thing and never know they are using something new.
SilverBlade2k, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2The more electric cars that appear, the more that the big auto manufacturers will take notice.

I just hope we can actually BUY one before the price of oil gets to 200..
fooljoe, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3The most telling thing about this list is that despite all the hype about "planned" EVs of late, there remains no highway capable production electric car that you can actually buy today (without an indefinite waiting list). Yet hundreds of Rav4-EV are driving around every day getting 100+ miles range and many going strong after 5+ years and 100,000+ miles. If you want a *real* electric car your ONLY option is to find one of these on ebay and pay more than MSRP for a (well-) used car. How do we allow this? As citizens we need to demand that automakers produce these cars, and we need to demand that Chevron release its vice-grip on the patent rights for the NiMH batteries they use.
e4digg, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0You want 'em? I got one!

I will soon have my own 100% electric car. It is reasonably priced, will have reasonable performance, and looks like a regular car. I am converting my 1994 Toyota Tercel to an all electric vehicle. You can view the project at http://www.ZeroGasoline.com
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

17 Electric Cars You Should Know About from 2005 to 2008

Login or register to add a comment