What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
44 Comments
- Tddupre, on 11/04/2009, -1/+11Same year Tesla plans to launch the model-s, it will get interesting.
- AquaOSX, on 11/04/2009, -1/+92012?
There is a guy in my office's parking lot who has a modified Prius plugged into the wall right now. Why do they need two years to deliver an OEM option that has been available as an aftermarket add-on for years?
(and on a side note... to the guy in my office... do that ***** at home buddy.) - tidu, on 11/04/2009, -0/+7Electric cars date back to the early twentieth century.
- GrammerPants, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5A real hummer or an H2? Because if it is a H2, who are you kidding?
- KotoOni, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5I'll digg it now, but I'll believe it when I actually see it.
- SpinozaQ, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4Not so. Electricity can, and is, produced in a variety of ways. For instance, 20% of the US base load is supplied by nuclear power, has been for the last 45 years. So given equal efficiency of fuel to wheel power, we've already reduced the "tail pipe" by 20%. Another 12% of US base load is generated by Hydro. So clip off another 12%.
In addition, electric cars are just plain more efficient. Even after accounting for transmission and battery charge losses, fuel to wheel efficiency is at least 30% better for electric cars.
So. Not only do electric cars give us an immediate reduction is energy usage and pollution. They give us great flexibility of fuel types going forward. We will be able to use whatever fuel is cheapest to generate electricity as cleanly as possible. The gasoline car is kind of limiting.
My next car will be nuclear powered!
- FritoPendejo, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4Yeah and the whole "can't make a profit off of it" thing. That too.
- fooljoe, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3please cite specifically what inaccuracies you've found in the movie. the NiMH batteries used in the EVs of that era have propelled many Toyota Rav4-EV over 100k miles with no range degradation. also, they are much more affordable to produce and easier to recycle than today's lithium batteries, leading to a much lower life-cycle cost.
when JRW mentioned that "oil companies bought up all the rights to the technology", he's referring specifically to these batteries, controlled by Cobasys, a unit of Chevron. read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of ... - JRW5061, on 11/04/2009, -2/+5GM developed an all electric car in like 1999 called the EV1 that everyone loved until the oil companies bought up all the rights to the technology and they were all demolished. There is a good documentary about it called "Who killed the electric car". This is not new technology.
- command76, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3Greener is better for the environment, so keep it going car makers....
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/04/2009, -2/+5Actually, a Hummer would be an ideal candidate for becoming a plug-in electric. Lots of space for batteries. More torque from electric motors. And you could be less of a douche driving one...
- tidu, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2the motor would have to work that much harder and use that much more energy to move the much larger chassis and batteries. Doesn't really sound like a net gain.
- Kriegan, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3This isn't exactly a new tech. They tried this over 10 years ago and it seemed to be going well until it was nerfed by The California Air Resources Board because they were pussies and bowed down to pressure from big oil. Who knows how far along we'd be now if that hadn't happened.
- fooljoe, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2depends whether you can actually believe any of these press releases. like KotoOni said above, I'll believe it when I see it.
- SpinozaQ, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Wheel-mounted motors will likely never make it out of concept. The problem is called "unsprung mass" . Named so because it describes any mass not protected by the springs of the shock absorbing system. It is very important to minimize this mass to achieve good continuous ground contact and reasonable control during all accelerations. They may seem like a great idea, but it's cheaper, and performs better, to just have have one large motor feed its power to light weight wheels.
- fooljoe, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2because automakers love to tell us about how green they are but hate to actually produce electric cars.
- SpinozaQ, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2I'm familiar with the ownership of the NiMH rights. I do believe that we would have many more electric cars on the road if not for Chevron owning the rights to production of large format NiMH batteries. However, I don't believe it's even close to the "amazing" solution everyone thinks it is. The RAV4-EV only has an average range of 100 miles before needing a 5 hour recharge. Yes, the batteries have held up well, but they still degrade, and have a significant cost of replacement. Far more then standard maintenance on a gasoline vehicle.
I am a huge EV enthusiast. I will buy a Volt as soon as they come out for 40k or more. I'm playing devils advocate here to bring the "conspiracy level" down and notch so we can solve the real problems. Converting transportation to electric is not simple, and will not be cheap. I personally believe the only way to do so is raise gas prices to include all the indirect costs its use incurs. That would provide the market forces necessary for the more expensive EV market to grow.
My next car will be a Volt powered by Nuclear energy... We need more of that. - drivin98, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Here's a Hummer H3 with a 60 mile electric range and a motor to keep you going after that. http://green.autoblog.com/2009/04/21/sae-2009-rase ...
Works just fine. - JRW5061, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2It won several awards. It can't be that bad.
- AmazingToaster, on 11/04/2009, -2/+3Good old oyota.
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1With wheel-mounted electric motors instead a single motor, you save a lot of weight removing the drivetrain while still keeping 4x4 capability and performance. Plus electric motors are substantially more efficient than gas engines. While it is a bigger vehicle, it would still benefit from a plug-in conversion.
- sweetwater88, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2Ford plans to have a full-electric Transit Connect in the US in less than 12 months and a full-electric Focus in less than 24 months and a dedicated hybrid very soon afterward.
Very single auto manufacturer is planing something--why this hit the front page idk. - tacojohn48, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1The reasonable network was for using fuel cells, not a plug in hybrid.
- wassim2k, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1"battery electric"
- SpinozaQ, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1It's funny because it's true.
- SpinozaQ, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2How quickly people forget that in the late 90's gas was $1.20 a gallon.... Can't really sell an electric car in that market.
- cha5e, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Is it possible that maybe the guy in your office got permission from HR to do that? Perhaps even agreed to have his pay docked a bit for the privilege? I'm just asking because I'm considering being "that guy" at my office, and would be happy to pay the company for the electricity I'd be using.
- AquaOSX, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Nope. Just some dude that found a hidden spot close to a 120 outlet.
- fooljoe, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1amen. somehow it seems electric cars have been 2 years away for the past 5 years or so now.
- fooljoe, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1obviously the car companies couldn't make a profit off of any of the EVs of that error, because they REFUSED to sell any of them! (aside from a handful of Toyota Rav4-EV which are still being driven today, and invalidate any arguments put forward by the likes of GM that they "couldn't" sell the cars because of liability concerns or whatever.)
even with the ridiculously low gas prices of the time, thousands of people still wanted these cars. believe it or not, some people are actually smart enough to realize that when gas is cheap it doesn't stay that way for long; and there are many other benefits to electric propulsion besides decreased fuel costs. every single EV offered for lease was snapped up, with long waiting lists, and those lucky enough to get one protested furiously when their cars were forcibly taken back and crushed. - balthisar, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Wow, so, like, both Ford and GM are going to beat Toyota to the mass market with a so-call new technology?
- fooljoe, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Indeed NiMH isn't some "miracle battery", but they did work well enough to invalidate the argument that the technology wasn't ready yet. Yes the Rav4-EV range was only 100 miles, but that was more than enough for the early adopters who bought/leased them. And let's not forget those were basically a first generation technology; it's painful to imagine how much better the technology could've become if EVs remained in production. And by the way, thanks to Chevron's lawsuit, the cost to replace the Rav4-EV batteries isn't just high, it's infinite!
Also 100 miles might seem small, but remember that's for an SUV; the NiMH EV1 got up to 160 miles and probably could've gotten even more if GM used Panasonic EV-95s instead of the Cobasys version of NiMH. Also it seems we're not doing that much better range-wise with the latest round of EVs, Tesla aside. I'd love to buy a Volt too, but don't you think 40 miles range is pretty pathetic? Carrying around a generator shouldn't add that much weight. Hell, you could put a generator in the back of a Rav4-EV and you've got an instant plug-in hybrid with 100 miles range. AC Propulsion actually built a trailer for it to accomplish just that purpose. http://www.evnut.com/rav_longranger.htm
Anyway, I agree the price of gas is artificially low, but doing anything about it is going to take lots of political will. The same will that was conspicuously absent when we Californians let the ZEV Mandate get squashed. As long as we keep accepting as fact everything that GM or Toyota or Chevron, etc. tells us about what went down with last decade's EVs and what's holding up the latest crop then I don't have much hope for getting EVs out there in significant numbers anytime soon.
Nuclear energy's fine; but I find it mind-boggling that somehow everyone takes it as fact that it's more cost-effective than other alternatives like solar or wind. All you need to power the whole country with solar is 100x100 miles of the desert filled with mirrors and collectors. I can't imagine how complex nuclear plants can be more cost-effective than this; with all the risk management needed and fuel requirements and so on. Also, if EVs were widely available, you'd see large numbers of homeowners pairing their EVs with rooftop photovoltaic, since money otherwise thrown away on gas could be put towards the cost. - fooljoe, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1*era, not error
- Dunnston, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1What A great invention!
- NathanLands, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1This is something else Toyota is doing that is amazingly cool, connecting the car to the internet and allowing you to pause/resume movies, games and more:P http://digg.com/d319997
- fooljoe, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Even if automakers sold every one of the EVs they produced last decade, they probably wouldn't have made a profit. These were all first-run models with significant fixed costs that would only be paid down after thousands went out the door. This is true of all cars (and all products), not just EVs.
Perhaps if they actually produced quantities commensurate with demand instead of just hand-building a few cars to meet the quotas set by California regulators car companies would've eventually made a profit on EVs. The point is that we can never know what would've happened, because automakers didn't TRY to make a profit. They decided in advance that EVs were a threat to their existing business model, and that it made more sense to try to have the law changed than to try to make a business out of selling EVs.
What do you mean that automakers are having trouble creating a market for electric cars now? There have been exactly 0 EVs for sale by anyone but Tesla since the last few Rav4-EV were sold. If car companies actually offered EVs for sale plenty of people would buy them. Tesla's having no trouble selling theirs.
Also, it's a fallacy to assume that the technology has improved just because time has passed. Since NiMH batteries have been effectively squashed by Chevron, we have to effectively start from scratch with new lithium batteries this time around. Lithium hold the promise of longer range, but it has significant cost and reliability problems that have yet to be solved. - SpinozaQ, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1I'd hardly call it a "good documentary". Some basic research can turn up a whole world of inaccurate and just plain wrong information in that movie. For example, he decides batteries are "not guilty". Only concentrating on range, and claiming that consumers should just "deal with it" for the sake of the environment. Not a very good sales pitch if you ask me. He fails to bring up battery useful life, and replacement cost, which are still today the main barrier to entry in both plug-in, and full electric vehicles.
- Frogger4Truth, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1real one FTW :)
- whipnet, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1They're still going to be butt-ass ugly cars.
* - dhughes, on 11/04/2009, -2/+2 Using 53,000 AAA batteries.
- FritoPendejo, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1If it would have been possible to sell these cars for a profit, why are they having trouble creating a market for electric cars now, even after the technology has improved?
- whipnet, on 11/04/2009, -3/+1The energy has to come from somewhere. Plug it in and all you do is move the tailpipe.
* - burrdugg, on 11/04/2009, -3/+0Is your office parking lot a >>>reasonable network of filling stations<<<. Should Toyota immediately promote the wall socket at your work as the industry standard for all electric cars in the country, or the world?
Thinker about it for awhile, take your time, you have two years to figure it out. - Frogger4Truth, on 11/04/2009, -11/+2oh good. more feminine "green" cars to run over in my Hummer.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is