What is Digg?185 Comments
- hbyrne, on 06/12/2009, -2/+17Should this really come as any surprise?
- sturmgiest, on 06/12/2009, -2/+13nobody is going to want one until you can buy it for $20,000 and it goes more than 100 miles a charge.
- zacharytelschow, on 06/12/2009, -3/+13The "smart" way to go full throttle on this road would be to wait to mass produce the vehicles until they have a prayer of being competitive instead of subsidizing the hell out of them like we did with windmills, solar panels, ethanol, etc. If something needs subsidies to be profitable, it shouldn't be mass produced.
- davidrools, on 06/13/2009, -4/+14This is retarded. California's electric vehicle initiative did exactly this more than a decade ago. Local municipalities passed ordinances requiring electric vehicle charging stations put in whenever a new parking lot was built. They're still there and working. The state government required automakers to make and sell a certain percentage of vehicles w/ all electric drivetrains and they did. They only had about 70 mile range, but people loved them. Some are still on the road. The whole program fell apart because the oil companies and automakers sued the state to have the law repealed because it hurt their profits. They argued there wasn't demand, but no one took control to sell the cars (automakers didn't WANT to sell the less-profitable cars, so didn't bother marketing them very well.)
Now, BMW/MINI has an electric MINI on the roads in California. Tesla is alive with a waiting list that manufacturing can't keep up with. Aptera is set to launch their sub $30k 2-seater electric later this year. Electrics are on their way in and the Fed can only make them come faster. - piratearggghhh, on 06/12/2009, -4/+12The demand is definitely there, everyone's just waiting for the technology to catch up and the prices to drop. Anyone doubting that just needs to check out the new Tesla. All we have to do is reach economies of scale and get the infrastructure in place for a quick charge or battery exchange etc. Government can and should help with getting things off the ground. Imagine if we took all the war money and invested it in electric cars instead?
- smemily, on 06/13/2009, -3/+10because nothing good ever came out of government funding and investment in technology and infrastructure. Nothing ever. For example, we all know that GPS was started as a private for-profit venture.
- sturmgiest, on 06/12/2009, -3/+10solar panels are disgustingly expensive and require a surprising amount of maintenance, speaking from personal experience
- ChuckDees, on 06/12/2009, -3/+9The government has always been the financial backer for some of the more expensive innovations.
Look at NASA or the National Institutes of Health and the things that have been created by them. - Mockylock, on 06/12/2009, -3/+9Great idea. I hope we have enough sources for lithium.
- drallo, on 06/12/2009, -5/+11Like roads, roads shouldn't be made because they are not profitable.
- mantis108, on 06/12/2009, -8/+14This is clearly the future for the auto industry, so we can only hope everyone starts getting behind this fully..companies, consumers, the gov't... etc. That's the only smart road forward, and it's time to go full throttle on that road.
- k3rfuffl3, on 06/12/2009, -4/+10Isn't every American auto industry facing government dependence? Sensationalist title.
- Barackalypse, on 06/13/2009, -0/+6Demand depends on price. At $30,000+ and $4 gas, there will be hardly any demand, sell one for under $20,000 and you'll sell millions.
- Mike17102, on 06/13/2009, -1/+7Its nice of Prime Minister Obama telling me what I should be driving, and also spending some of my money on it for me.
- inactive, on 06/12/2009, -4/+10The demand is for cars. If said cars happen to be electric, the demand will be for electric cars. People will not pout and stay home or go to work on foot because they can't have a gas guzzler.
The demand isn't there because Americans have been told all sort of fallacies about electric cars. The goal of having 1,000,000 EV on the road by 2015 isn't to have 1,000,000 EV on the road. It's to start a movement that will shut down the idiocies Americans have been told by their dear auto manufacturers on electric cars. - Astaro, on 06/13/2009, -3/+9Where I live, more than 80% of electricity generation is renewable.
Just because you have to burn coal to charge your batteries doesn't mean i do. - Nerys, on 06/13/2009, -1/+6Even better simple electric cars are virtually maintenance free and virtually immune to needing repairs.
They are so simple and almost completely solid state there just is not much left to break down.
One of the reasons they killed it so viciously.
Solar is getting cheaper (about $7 a watt) but still too expensive.
Once nano solar starts cranking out those 90 CENTS a watt solar panels WATCH OUT ! - afallucco, on 06/13/2009, -2/+7Another classic example of the government trying to continue with subsidies and promises that have never worked. Just look at the Carter administration, everything unfulfilled and subsidies that didn't work. Now they are trying it again and as you can see, it's already failing them. Someone once said, "insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time."
I have an Idea, get the government out of the private industry and allow the market to develop the technologies to where they can be mass produced. Especially considering the fact that the government can only dream of being able to allocate resources as effectively as the private industry. - c0mputar, on 06/13/2009, -1/+6Same with non-leaded gas! Freaking government can't do diddly squat.
- Nerys, on 06/13/2009, -0/+5I drive almost 40,000 miles a year. about 30,000 of which could be replaced with a 100mile range EV.
My TOTAL electric bill for charging that electric car for $30,000 miles of driving would be $300 PER YEAR. not per month.
A NIMH powered car in normal residential power conditions will consume about $1 in electricity to give you enough charge to go 100miles.
so my 110mile commute would cost me about a $1.20 in electricity. Since work has already said I can plug in at work its half that but lets count all of it.
NOW keep in mind I drive almost THREE TIMES MORE than the typical American who drives an average of 11,000 miles a year or $110 added to your electric bill. PER YEAR
So yes I AM pretty sure your math is WAY OFF jasdf
Your a tiny bit off too fury420. Knock $15 off that figure and your close.
BEFORE ethanol I used to get 22mpg in my Cherokee. that's 5 gallons of gas for a round trip to work.
$12.15 at current prices. With an electric car (not counting that work will pay for my charge while at work) $1.10 so I would SAVE $11 every single time I drove to work.
That's more than a dollar an hour raise instantly. - Loki101, on 06/13/2009, -0/+5Well, on the other hand, the Chinese are developing stuff like that too...
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/an-elec ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
Maybe the Pentagon decided that it's gonna be a threat to national security. - davidrools, on 06/13/2009, -3/+8um yeah like when the government built local roads and the entire interstate system...you don't remember because you weren't born when that happened, or never educated yourself.
- MisterRik, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4Let me know when you develop these amazing solar cells which can not only move my car, but have power to spare to crack water apart.
- MisterRik, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4So every time you drive, you empty a full tank of fuel?
- Dustin00, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4And this is different from the other vehicle industries how?
- Gigs, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4It's analogous to the early days of commercial flight. Only the rich could afford to fly until airlines and technology developed to a point where the price point could be lowered and there could be greater access. The fact that they're expensive doesn't mean they aren't demanded. The money Tesla has made and knowledge they've gained has been reinvested into making a cheaper sedan model, and once that takes off, they'll make the next cheaper version, and the next, and the next. Innovation and development is fueled by the rich and accelerated by the poor. Take the iphone for another example. Way pricer when it first came out.
- fury420, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4maybe not directly, but the additional electrical capacity flowing onto the grid as a whole more than makes up for the fact that your drawing energy from elsewhere on the grid when charging somewhere other than home
- fury420, on 06/13/2009, -1/+5please explain how adding $30 to your electric bill and as a result saving $300 on gasoline is in any way a negative...
- c0mputar, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4There are many things thing the economy can do without government intervention. However, there is no problem with having the government subsidize or help a product gain an advantage in the market and become mainstream as long as the people support it, because they pay for it with their taxes. Censoring a government funded search engine is against constitutional law and shouldn't be a reason to be against government intervention, if they break the law that is a different matter.
Leaded gas is a good example of how the government stimulated non-leaded gas to become mainstream by taxing the leaded gas. This was done in the interested of the environment, non-leaded gas companies, and environmentally-aware citizens, against the wishes of the leaded-gas companies and economically-aware citizen. Because ultimately, left to the economy, the non-leaded gas was going to continue to prevail in the market, and then there would be no solution to the problem until the citizens began to feel the effects of leaded gas much more seriously... It's much like the climate change problem, except that there are no reasonable replacements for dirty resources within economic and political reach... Now considering the dirty sources are usually nonrenewable, then the economy, in this case, will be able to fix the situation as the resources become more scarce, thus pushing the economy to favor renewable, and, usually by association, clean resources. I certainly rambled on, hopefully you appreciate that. - fury420, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4I can count the number of days I've driven more than 150 miles in one day in the past 5 years on one hand, even an electric car with today's range limitations would serve me perfectly for everything other than a road-trip style vacation.
- Culyt, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4How exactly is it useless? Just about trips are short inner city ones.
In addition to that if there is a network of battery replacement stations, then you just need to pull over like getting gas. - scamper22, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4don't what?
Where is this magical opt out clause you speak of?
Let me know the minute Obama (read any government) takes that gun away from my head by stealing my money and spending it how he thinks is fashionable. - fury420, on 06/13/2009, -1/+5actually, most people DO want to pay a higher electric bill to save money on gas, as the per mile costs of electricity to power an electric car are 1/10th of the costs per mile of the equivalent gasoline powered car.
Pay $25 a month more on my electric bill to save $250 a month on gas? where is the downside? - cambob76, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4Nope. That won't work. Creating hydrogen from water takes a lot of energy; much more than solar panels on your car could produce.
- fooljoe, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4although the government DID have to push Microsoft not to monopolize the browser market by forcing IE on us all, thereby ALLOWING the superior firefox to even have a market. unfortunately the real world is not as simple as free market economics 101 would tell you, especially not when it comes to oil and automobiles.
if you open your mind to the real world a bit you would realize that electricity is already vastly superior to gasoline for transportation in a number of ways (cheaper, cleaner, more convenient for most users), yet there is not a SINGLE plug in car offered for sale by any major automaker. with a truly free market, this is inconceivable.
why no EVs? you can figure it out yourself. - smemily, on 06/13/2009, -0/+3yes, I'm sure the private sector would've launched 30 satellites and developed the technology, and we'd know all about it because we'd have to pay $5 every time we wanted Garmin to take us to Wendy's.
- Nerys, on 06/13/2009, -4/+7Thats easy. Revoke the Chevron NIMH patent and force GM to start making them.
we could have 100+ mile range 4 person EV's on the road in 6-12 months no problem for UNDER $15,000 NO rebates NO subsidies.
We already know Daiwoo Kia and Toyota can build and sell a full retail car for $8000-$9000 they have all already done it.
so through out MORE than $4000 worth of that car to get rid of all the stuff we do NOT need in an EV.
No engine tranny fuel system cooling system exhaust system EPA/Pollution/Smog systems all gone. All computers ECU's etc.. all gone.
So we have a $4000 rolling chassis
Install one single centrally mounted electric motor $2000
Install the controller for that motor $2000
Charger $500
Battery pack. Ovonics/GM E95 NIMH pack. $4500 full retail price (as quoted by GM/Ovonics 10 years ago)
Total Price? $13,000
now I also want an aluminum Frame and plastic body. So lets pop them another $2000 for that (aluminum is expensive afterall)
Total Price $15,000 FULL RETAIL not cost.
No luxuries except heat and Air.
yes there will be nicer models. but the stripped down $15k model is important SO EVERYONE CAN HAVE ONE unlike the Tesla where only a fraction of us can afford them and the VOLT where only a small number of us can afford one and its a waste of money anyway except as a status symbol like the prius though it MIGHT save you money before it dies unlike the prius.
That $15,000 EV will be FREE for a lot of american's How much do you spend in gas each month at $3 a gallon?
Put a $5,000 down payment on that car and finance the other $10k go figure out what your monthly payment will be.
Interesting ehh?
We don't have EV's because auto makers DO NOT WANT TO MAKE EV's
they make too much money after the sale from gasoline cars. - inactive, on 06/19/2009, -0/+3The real reason we haven't seen electric cars yet:
Extremely low maintenance, very few repairs necessary = Less profits for GM.
Very efficient. Would decrease demand for oil, and therefore oil prices as well = Less profits for oil companies.
Long lasting engines and parts = Less sales for GM. Less profits for GM.
This is why the electric car has never made it to the mainstream market. Its efficiency and simplicity help the consumer's wallets and hurt the big corporation's wallets.
In the struggle between consumer financial security and corporate financial security, the corporations ALWAYS win. Another great example is the $1 trillion+ in bailouts, which ALL of us will be paying for in taxes for decades to come. - Gigs, on 06/13/2009, -0/+3Tesla has pre-sold all the cars they can make for the forseeable future, so what does that say for your lack of demand?
From wikipedia "By the end of May 2009, the 500th Roadster had been delivered." - fury420, on 06/13/2009, -0/+3@h8f8kes
buried for being both arrogant & defensive to a complete stranger all while managing to neither comment on or refute anything whatsoever I said.
If you want to pay a full 10x as much per mile then you are obviously not representative of "most people", or are quite ignorant to the operating cost differences between electric & gas-powered vehicles, or both. - Nerys, on 06/13/2009, -0/+3YES for some of us early electrics won't work. if you MUST have more than 100 miles and can NOT for whatever reason have more than 1 car them SURE a 100mile range 8 hours charge electric car won't work for you.
But it will for the other 90% of us to frell off. - Wacer, on 06/13/2009, -0/+3You don't know anything about economics. I hope your not a voter.
- GeorgeTirebiter, on 06/13/2009, -1/+4The title says it all. The Government should mind its own business.
- fury420, on 06/13/2009, -0/+3jasdf, my math may be off by 25% at most, considering we are talking about pre-production & hand-built vehicles versus a hundred years worth of progress & efficiency increases
as an admittedly limited example, a tesla roadster costs $2-4 for a full charge, depending on local energy rates, and when it is charged (peak vs offpeak)
that gives you a highway/city average range of about 240 miles
How much gas would one need to go 240 highway/city miles in your average new non-hybrid these days? at 30mpg? 35?
at 35mpg combined city/highway & current california gas prices between $2.80-3.10 per gallon, there's a cost of $20.50 for the same distance you get for $2-4 in a tesla.
now... of course, this is ignoring the fact that new cars similar to the tesla roadster in performance, style or cost get nowhere near 35mpg, and probably closer to 20-25mpg max combined city/highway brings the cost of traveling 240 city/highway miles in a performance vehicle to upwards of $30-35 - Paranor01, on 06/13/2009, -1/+4gas powered cars are disgustingly expensive and require a surprising amount of maintenance, speaking from person experience
btw, electric cars don't have inherent high-temperature stressing that gas-powered cars do, so they would have a much longer life expectancy over it's gas-powered ancestor. - Nerys, on 06/13/2009, -0/+3Your crazy. Electric vehicles are by DEFINITION cheaper to make than gas cars. You have a FRACTION of the number of components and all of them are SOLID STATE.
We can build a 100mile range 4 person EV right now for $15,000 if they were forced to. THEY DO NOT WANT TO. and that's not a subsidized price that's FULL RETAIL with profit.
See my post above for the breakdown of how I came up with $15,000 (we can actually do it for $13,000 but I want the aluminum chassis)
Even at a dollar a gallon electric is cheaper to drive. even at a dollar a gallon and 50mpg electric is still HALF the price to drive than GAS.
In TODAY'S cars gas would have to drop to 20cents a gallon to EQUAL the cost of electric and this ignores the massive maintenance and repair costs of gas cars that almost completely vanish with electrics.
or with TODAY''S gas prices the cars would have to get 300mpg to equal to cost of driving an electric.
Gas can NEVER compete on a level playing field with electric.
Electric is faster with more power and acceleration and lower maintenance and costs and is insanely efficiency (approaching 90% efficient) - URnotheonly1, on 06/13/2009, -1/+4Na, Obama is forcing gas to $5 a gallon. GPS tracking on your electric vehic so you can be sure to pay Obama taxes
- greevar, on 06/13/2009, -0/+3It also causes drag.
- mah2cent, on 06/13/2009, -1/+4The gist of this article proves one thing: there is no economic justification as yet, for these cars. The only way forward at this juncture is for the taxpayers to foot the bill for the development of these types of vehicles and subsidies for the purchase of them.
It is true that there are several emerging companies that have a product available now and that should be the focus. These cars can be purchased without the government's involvement, but in most cases, the current costs outweigh the benefits.
I would love to purchase an all electric vehicle, because they are more efficient than a gas powered engine and there are virtually no emissions. But to charge them does produce emissions due to energy generation. - silicongat, on 06/13/2009, -0/+3Almost got a digg, but that last sentence ruined you.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 190 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is