digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at popularmechanics.com

MythBuster: Why Electric Vehicles Beat Gas in 5 Extreme Test

popularmechanics.com — Jamie Hyneman breaks down his team's most recent eye-popping experiment: rolling out a Ferrari, Harley, ATV, compact car and hand-built go-kart to the track, and pitting each against its electric-propulsion counterpart. The bottom line? Plug-in vehicles aren't just clean, they're fast—and might be easier to build than a toy car.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • SpostareDuro, on 05/19/2008, -12/+42love it. stumbled, blogged, and then some. thanks. ;-)
  • chris1234, on 05/19/2008, -5/+316i love MythBusters
    • dOOBiEx213, on 05/19/2008, -50/+5Do you? I'm still waiting for the episode where they "bust" the myth that the Mythbuster's are real, unbiased scientists...how many times have they been proven wrong now?
      • marm0lade, on 05/19/2008, -4/+24"how many times have they been proven wrong now?"

        [citation needed], because I have not heard anything about them being proven wrong.
      • emjaymj, on 05/19/2008, -1/+25They've been wrong on numerous occasions but there's no such thing as an unbiased scientist. Their controls aren't as rigorous as a peer-reviewed and published experiment would be, but even the most scientific of studies are often wrong and even contradict each other.

        Maybe they should bust the apparent myth that scientists are superhuman beings with perfect knowledge of the universe, allowing them to never get things wrong and always take every single factor into account. At least, that seems to be what YOU think a real scientist is.
        • Fordi, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Even the most simplistic scientific experiment is enough to provoke a proper investigation into the matter (see Mythbusters' Death Ray experiment).
      • nightofgrim, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Part of their success is that they aren't professional scientist. Look at how much of a failure "blast lab" is, and they are a bunch of actual scientist who know nothing about entertainment. Jamie Hyneman explains it well here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX2trq0Ov7Y
    • busby2, on 05/20/2008, -11/+4It is pretty good, but it's no Dirty Jobs...
  • darkchild82, on 05/19/2008, -45/+33I'm all for environmentally friendly vehicles but people just don't get it. Quite a lot of the electricity in the world is generated using natural resources like oil & coal - so even if electric cars become popular, its not going to change much as far as our reliance on natural resources are concerned.
    • AmyVernon, on 05/19/2008, -1/+16that's an interesting point. i wonder what the answer truly is... but wouldn't this still cut down on the greenhouse gases released by cars??
      • executorzz, on 05/19/2008, -14/+3No because people will just use more oil and coal to charge up the electricity vehicles thereby offsetting any gains.
        • yetAnotherCroc, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6Except at least a portion of that energy comes from renewable sources while the cars would run on 100% oil.
        • publiclurker, on 05/19/2008, -0/+11It's a lot easier to clean up the emissions from one power plant than a couple thousand cars, so while not perfect, due to transmission losses, etc, it may be a lot better.
        • init100, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7It is much easier to clean a few large power plants than 100,000 small vehicles. It may not reduce carbon dioxide (unless carbon sequestration is used), but CO2 is not the only pollutant spewed out through the tailpipe.

          Yes, we have catalytic converters, but they only work after they are heated to their working temperature. For short trips within the city, that doesn't happen. Electric cars would solve that problem.
        • mlwarrior, on 05/19/2008, -0/+15Your also all forgetting that gas power plants are WAY more efficient than gas car engines, and electric engines are WAY more efficient than gas.

          Fact: electric cars WILL reduce emissions.
        • Lunarbunny, on 05/19/2008, -0/+9Also mentioned in the article was the efficiency of a power plant versus that of a standard car engine.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Let's assume that a power plant is no more efficient at producing than a vehicle engine(which isn't true but it'll help to exhibit the point). So right now, electric & gas would be equal.
        Of the power produced by a vehicle engine, only 25% is makes it to the wheels. The rest is lost in conversion, heat, etc
        As stated in the article, electric vehicles can get up to 95% efficiency in the use of power.
        So this means that even if a power plant used gasoline to produce power at exactly the same efficiency as a motor vehicle, electric cars would still be more than 3 times more efficient.
        Some other factors to consider but none of them change the basics -
        *Electricity transmission systems bleed energy(significantly in the US due to 110V)
        *Power plants are significantly more efficient than motor vehicle combustion engines
        • init100, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1You are wrong. The efficiency of electric cars is the efficiency of the power plant multiplied by the efficiency of the energy storage multiplied by the efficiency of the electric motor. Compare this with the efficiency of a gasoline engine, and I'm not sure that the electric car comes out on top.

          Of course, that is not the entire story. For example, electric motors can be used as generators for regenerative braking, charging the battery when slowing the car down. This increases the efficiency of the electric car.
    • shadoweva09, on 05/19/2008, -3/+20air pollution from gasoline cars would probably still beat that amount, and it's not like anyone is going to approve building another coal power plant, so your argument is flawed. Especially since you don't have numbers, and more and more wind and solar power plants are going up.
      • RoroCo, on 05/19/2008, -10/+7His concern is sound and one that is over looked by a lot of people when they talk about "going green". They look at personal consumption verses total consumption. The total benefit of electric cars to the environment is that power plants are more efficient than small motors at generating electricity, but it does not effect the amount of natural recourses we rely on that. Yes, solar and wind (and hyrdo) are increasing in use, but right now they are not efficient enough technologies to power the US right now... much less when we start taxing them with our transportation needs.

        We should focus on ethanol or hydrogen based power for cars if we are looking to change from limited to replenishable resources. {knowing those too require power sources to create today as well....}

        • EtherGnat, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Wow, you're completely wrong:

          1. Electric cars can be more environmentally friendly and efficient even if fossil fuels are used at the power plant for the reasons mentioned above.

          2. Electric cars will mostly be charged at night, when the power grid is underutilized thus improving efficiency. The power grid is still in need of a major overhaul.

          3. Ethanol is an overrated technology, and counterproductive using corn as a source. Things like switchgrass are more productive, but it's still can't be a primary fuel source.

          4. Hydrogen, unless somebody finds a way to rewrite the laws of physics, is a way to transport fuel rather than a viable fuel source. The process of separating hydrogen takes significant amounts of energy, making it less efficient than a pure electric car.

          The only solution I see is gradually moving towards electric vehicles while simultaneously upgrading our electric grid and pursuing nuclear and renewable power.
      • KnightofOrder, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Also they are in the process of approving 150 new coal plants in America.
    • acrodev, on 05/19/2008, -3/+42You're not going to create gasoline from electricity. So supposing vehicles ran on electric motors, it would be much easier to supplement the increase in electricity demand with an increase in green sources like solar, wind, and tidal. Is your suggestion to use "green" fuels like corn ethanol that convert food to fuel while famine spreads?
      • paradox2222, on 05/19/2008, -7/+1If you do the math, your "green sources" will never replace coal and fossil fuels. I am all for green energy but the total usage of green energy sources is less than 1% right now, and no matter how much R&D you pump into green energy you will not replace coal anytime soon. GO Shale!
        • richid, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Wrong on so many levels. Here's a quick correction: renewables account for 6.5% of total energy consumed. The below graph also shows that nuclear only accounts for about 7.8%.

          Don't you think that if as much R&D was commissioned for renewables as was for nuclear (not lately) and oil procurement we'd be much further along in terms of viable green energy sources?

          Source:
          http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_3.p ...
    • tacapd42, on 05/19/2008, -0/+28Jaime argues in the article that offsetting the consumption of fossil fuels from many different automobiles to professionally maintained plants. Automobiles being different in design and efficiency and most importantly proper maintenance aren't the most efficient to use these fossil fuels as opposed to a regularly maintained facility operated by specialists.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9No, but it will allow us to move to cleaner energy sources, like wind, solar, and nuclear power to power our cars.
      • every2ndcounts, on 05/19/2008, -8/+2there is no way I am getting into a nuclear powered car.
        • macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -0/+13Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back.
        • jmignea2, on 05/19/2008, -1/+10He meant you could recharge your car battery with energy from a nuclear power plant. The car itself wouldn't be nuclear.
        • Modestexcuse, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5I believe macweirdo42 may be speaking of harnessing the nuclear power. We are rapidly advancing in the nuclear arena. Have you read about the $3-billion plant in California they are building? They plan on testing Nuclear Fusion. Making a star...and capturing the energy emitted. Pretty amazing stuff.

          http://digg.com/general_sciences/Inside_the_Larges ...



        • marktastic, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8Nonono... This sucker's electrical. But it requires a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity I need.
        • devin_mm, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2@Modestexcuse: macweirdo42 was quoting Ghostbusters

          Oh and I believe it's Jiggawatts marktastic :)
      • VoxRationis, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1What he means is a car whose electricity is generated using nuclear power. There wouldn't actually be a nuclear reactor in the car...
    • badmephisto, on 05/19/2008, -0/+15You are very wrong. There are other ways of generating electricity, and they are quickly becoming mainstream. There is a lot of research done on renewable energy sources like hydro solar and wind power, and there is also a lot of work done to figure out how to dispose of nuclear waste properly. Catch up on your news, the healthy transition is well on its way.
    • akatherder, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6Yes, electric cars still require electricity which is usually provided by coal and oil. But do you have any evidence to show which is more efficient and which is more damaging to the environment?

      If cars ran on electricity and people bought into the concept, we would have a lot more people willing to invest in alternate ways to generate electricity as well. This would keep the prices from skyrocketing.
    • sonoran, on 05/19/2008, -0/+10It's much easier to control gas emissions and pollution at a large centralized immobile electric plant than on millions of cars. Plus almost certainly a greater percentage of electricity will be generated from non-fossil fuels as these technologies become more mature... and it's likely more fission reactors will be built.

      The future trends toward better outcomes from moving to electicity for vehicle propulsion... even with transmission losses.
    • jonnymj, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6Also keep in mind all the energy that is used up to deliver the gas to the pump.

      Actually I wonder how that compares: the energy used for plants to deliver your electricity to your home compared to the energy used to deliver your gas to the pump.
      • fritzek, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0I may not be accurate, but I think, that maybe third to half of electrical energy is lost in transport. ...yes, these stupid wires still have some resistance, produce coronas and so on...
        • init100, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Your electrical grid must really suck. I think I read somewhere that here in Sweden, some 5% are lost during transmission, and we have power lines that are 1000 km long (from the hydro plants up north to the cities in the south).

          Losses are minimized by using a very high voltage, since the loss is proportional to the square of the current, and for a constant power a higher voltage means a lower current. 400 kV is a common voltage for long-distance transmission here.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transm ...
    • nascentia, on 05/19/2008, -5/+1Exactly. And there's a lot of research to show that with plug-in vehicles, the overall natural resource use and pollution output are equal to combustion engine vehicles.

      Even if we relied only on nuclear power plants, we're still using coal and oil and natural gas, because manufacturing 1 gram of microchips to power a nuke plant requires 11 grams of fossil fuels to be used in the construction.

      Hybrid electric/gas are a step up over plug-in, but still not perfect. Hydrogen seems to be the best option, but again - fossil fuels used during construction. We're just a culture and world that's way too dependent on oil and coal.
    • majortom1981, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Also remember that most of these electric vehicles will be charging at night. LEss electricity is used at night but powerplants that use gas and coal still rpoduce power which is a waste. So these cars will be using electricity that would normally be going to waste.
    • BorsKaegel, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2It's all about the mentality behind it. If we get people thinking 'cleaner is better and cheaper', we will see a surge towards cleaner energy production too.
    • PopcornDave, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Not only that, but does anybody think for a moment that the energy pigopoly is going to go off in to the sunset quietly? My suspicion is that they're furiously working on alternative energy sources that are at the same price or higher than what we're paying now because people are going to be willing to pay more to "save the planet".

      Now if someone can tell me how it costs more to harness sun or wind to convert to power compared to what it costs to produce petroleum I'd sure love to hear it. I realize that initially the costs are high for research and development but where is the break even point and when do we start seeing the benefits of a lower cost from renewable energy?
      • EtherGnat, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Renewable energy may never be as cheap as fossil fuels which have been known to literally bubble from the ground. Oil and coal are relatively inexpensive to obtain, process, and transport. Higher costs doesn't make renewable energy any less necessary, though.
        • PopcornDave, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1No it doesn't but I still don't see how it's more expensive to harvest wind or sun than it is to harvest oil.
        • FairDinkumMate, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1@ popcornDave
          Think of it this way - if I put you in the middle of nowhere with a box of matches. a bag of coal & unlimited sunshine & wind, how would you warm yourself at night? The technology required to extract & burn oil or coal is much cheaper than the technology required to capture & store sun & wind power.
    • mike17032, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1Dont forget the batteries themselves, they are quite large and quite toxic. And they do wear out and need replaced.
      • sdsoloist, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Cars with internal combustion engines have batteries too. I'm not sure how 'large' is a negative thing, but NiMH and Li-ion have higher energy densities than the lead-acid batteries in standard cars, not to mention the fact that they can be fully recycled.
    • billizm, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Oh, you didn't Read the first line of TFA: "I'm really big on electric vehicles because the total amount of fuel consumption involved is much less than what gas vehicles consume thanks to the efficiencies involved in a power generating plant"

      Even if it is not as efficient, developing electric cars is one of the steps to getting off of fossil fuels. Most electricity is generated from fossil fuels, now. But this will leave way for energy to be green and your vehicle will have the same interface for getting energy.
    • gak001, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Economies of Scale - three simple words. You get an increase in efficiency when you produce on a mass scale. The worst Chinese coal-belcher can still make electricity more efficiently than your little V6. Now if you're lucky enough to live by a nuclear power plant or other emission-free producer of electricity, then you get to be truly environmentally friendly. But even if you don't, you're still better off with an electric vehicle.
    • Apokalyps2547, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Nuclear power plants + electric cars = Very clean and cheap energy, without reliance on corrupt foriegn governments.
    • fritzek, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1The biggest advantage is no pollution in the cities.
    • Fordi, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Let's look at the dirtiest method of generation, and compare efficiencies with an ICE.
      Coal (60%)
      ICE (25%)

      Coal-based electric wins, if your goal is to reduce the overall carbon footprint of humanity. Swap coal out for natural gas, solar, wind, hydroelectric, gas turbine, nuclear, etc, and you still have a net reduction in CO2 any way you slice it.

      So, are you an overzealous do-it-all-now environmentalist, or are you a shill of one flavor or another?
      • init100, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1"Coal (60%)"

        In addition, a coal power plant (or really any power plant that uses heat to generate electricity) can supply the waste heat to a district heating system, raising the efficiency to some 95%.
    • senatorpjt, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Part of the reason we're stuck using gas no matter what is that all the cars run on it. It would be a lot easier in the future to switch to some other method of power generation (especially one that might not scale to individual cars) at the plant rather than having to convince everyone to replace their cars.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1The average vehicle age in the US is 9 years. This means that once started, more than half of the vehicles on the road would be electric in at most 9 years(& I would guess quicker because once it becomes practical the government will increase gas taxes to "encourage" the use of electric cars)
    • mrASSMAN, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Depends on region too, here in Washington State, we get almost all our energy from hydroelectric dams.
  • bcuban, on 05/19/2008, -2/+86Where are we with the battery technology?
    • caleb4mj, on 05/19/2008, -24/+1Right about where we've been all along, set to go backwards, cause more chaos and create jobs cleaning it up, as usual. Don't they just love us?
    • fasda, on 05/19/2008, -1/+21Well theres a limit to the voltage generated by any battery since all there are is a oxidation/reduction reaction and the pretty much the best reducing agent is lithium which is currently being used. They could just use better oxidizing agents to get more voltage but then most of them need to be dissolved in something or as a gas which would make disposing them when they eventually die out pretty hard. So a lot of research is put into how to pack more lithium into the batteries.
      • PopcornDave, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Shouldn't there be more research in to lighter materials as well or is that happening too? Lighter materials, obviously, mean less stress on the battery which should contribute to a longer cell life.
        • TJ11240, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Agreed- a typical electric car has over a thousand pounds of cells. Lighter batteries would require less batteries.
        • jimmyjimbo13, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6Actually, lithium is the lightest reducing agent that's a metal, which contributes to why it is "pretty much" the best reducing agent. What we need is research on lighter oxidizing agents and efficient ways to dispose of the oxidizing agents safely.
          Because of the limit that lithium places on batteries, we could also use some in-depth research on alternative systems of storing energy that yield better voltage.
        • sdsoloist, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Supercapacitors are an upcoming technology for storing energy that looks highly promising. They can also be embedded in Li-ion batteries, but this hasn't moved beyond research to full-scale production yet.
      • xBDVx, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1of course, you have to be careful with certain types of lithium batteries. The Li-ion ones might explode under too much stress or if they're cracked in an accident.
    • ApokalypseNow, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6A good question - I saw this article a few months ago, and it might pique your interest.
      http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january ...
    • jguy584, on 05/19/2008, -1/+18Super capacitors will hopefully far surpass batteries in the next decade or so.
      • Smuikas, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7Beta-decay "batteries" are an even better solution. Imagine not even having to plug your electric car in!!
        • Devilboy666, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1Yea that stuff is so awesome but the Greenpeace hippies will never let that happen...
        • annoxero, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-ne ...

          They've invented a betavoltaic laptop battery which lasts 30 years without recharge. No hazardous waste, non thermal reaction and no environmental impact. Sounds awesome.
        • stillboy, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Yeah, it would be - if it where real - but I think it sounds a little too good to be true. Besides, this 'technology' came out a while ago and has not made any news in quite some time. This tech might be real to some point but the 30 year claim does not seem even close to being real - there is real research if you search beta-voltaic on google, you can see many universities that have done some research (well, with that keyword :) anyway)
          http://betavoltaic.com/
        • Smuikas, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1stillboy, thanks for the enlightenment
      • fasda, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4I thought that capacitors discharged there charge near instantly with no control over the rate
        • Devilboy666, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2You can control the rate, but the problem is that the voltage drops almost linearly with time unlike batteries that conveniently keeps the same voltage for most of it's discharge time.
        • fryguy1013, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Can you apply a step-up voltage regulator (like say a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck-boost_converter ) to a capacitor to make it keep the same voltage as an output? Or more likely just a switching regulator (assuming the the voltage output of the capacitor is high). It could even be built in to the pwm output of the brushless motor controller that would likely be used on a vehicle. I am not an electrical engineer though, so I don't know the practical problems with doing something like that on a larger scale; I only dabble with hobby-grade electronics.
        • mrASSMAN, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1That's why these are called *super* capacitors.
      • nonstop87, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3And flux capacitors soon after that.
    • mike17032, on 05/19/2008, -13/+4Many years away from anything that will even be close to what we have now from our cars.

      Diggiots bitch and moan about how Big Oil and GM are keeping this down, but the fact is the tech just isnt there to deliver the kind of thing people would expect for a price they are willing to pay.
      • EtherGnat, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Fortunately plug-in electric hybrids are a nice bridge technology, and even today electric vehicles could make a great second commuter vehicle for many families.
      • whodoes, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1thats not actually.... true. Some (but certainly not all) of the technologies are, admittedly, outside the price range of consumers who need to see an ROI within a few years but it seems as though the auto industry thinks the Eco market is exempt from premium product lines. Chrysler has no problem selling HEMI engine equipped cars and trucks (at a wonderful markup) to consumers who will NEVER USE the horsepower but WANT the product. HUMMERs in New York City...? I needn't go on.They will pay a premium price without ANY ROI WHATSOEVER. What additional functionality does a Prada bag offer at a price many hundred times that of one you could grab at walmart? Does Prada have any problem selling bags ? no,no no no no. NO!. Most tech starts out with a premium market before mass produced, derivative markets develop in its wake. The ECO auto market seems to be a strange exception.
    • davidrools, on 05/19/2008, -0/+10Making steady progress. The batteries on the market today are suitable for commuter cars and will only get better, increasing range and decreasing charge times.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4HUGE steps in progress with battery technology.

      Phosphate iron lithium batteries are what the future will probably use.
      These are the batteries that are being tested in the 150 MPG vehicles you have heard rumors about and the new Chevy Volt will be using. Basically around 40MPG only using battery power but also having a combustion engine to recharge the battery giving it a 600 mile range.

      The company leading the way is A123.
      • stillboy, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1What about KwH to weight? I think that is really the most important metric in a 'true' electric vehicle. Hybrids are great and all but, they don't really solve the biggest problem, independence from oil... granted, it needs some other source of power, but that could come from windmills. solar, tidal, etc.
      • overkilpro, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1"Basically around 40MPG only using battery power"
        so how exactly do you measure batteries in gallons?
        • blqysmg, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be 40 miles using only battery power. I believe the equivalent in mpg is around 150, when you take the watts needed to drive the car, the cost of the power off the grid, then compare that cost to the same amount of money it would take to move the car the same distance using a gasoline.
    • LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Sodium - Sulfur batteries have come a long way:

      http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2007/07/s ...
    • KibibyteBrain, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4The biggest problem with all battery technology is quite simple and one rarely discussed among non-engineers: charging the batteries. We even have super-capacitor technology now which can store all the charge you'd ever need fast, light, and efficiently. But there is no super-resistor, so no matter what battery technology you have, you still have the problem of charging it in a timely fashion due to the time constant any such system will form with a non-zero resistance. And of course try to throw several columbs of charge at any decent voltage through current charger networks without pumping up the resistance and prepare for fireworks. This is why right now at least, hydrogen or methanol based fuel cells look like better future options for electric-drive cars than charge storage devices like batteries or capacitors.
    • KyjL, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Not so great, we can only pilot Evas for 5 minutes with them.
    • samoan27, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1At a place where no matter what mythbusters says, 100% gas still beats 100% electric.
  • LewP, on 05/19/2008, -15/+3Dugg and submitted to today's DDD.
  • SirPopper, on 05/19/2008, -15/+5popularmechanics is an interesting source I thought yesterday and today, too, to have a look at their feeds but diggboss was faster damn!
    Cheers
  • WordsnCollision, on 05/19/2008, -5/+31So much for electric vehicles being a hit or myth concept.
  • simpletwist, on 05/19/2008, -9/+44The electric car will never be mass-produced until someone can figure out a way to charge $150 for a battery.
    • sterntastic223, on 05/19/2008, -6/+39Well they're close but these gas companies keep buying up the battery companies and shutting em down. Bastards
      • TheMachine1, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6And the ones they cant buy they burn down.
      • xBDVx, on 05/20/2008, -4/+1yeah, cuz that makes perfect sense....::rolls eyes::
      • heliox, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7Any references for the buying and shutting down?
    • SLockhart, on 05/19/2008, -1/+26Ever heard of Dell?
      • GreatSunJester, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7rats... I was going to say "batteries by Microsoft" but yours makes more sense.
      • JT114881, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6I don't know about you, but I don't want my car to explode randomly while driving down a major highway.
    • PopcornDave, on 05/19/2008, -0/+14Or a refill. That's the main thing keeping "big business" from investing in this technology - they can't make the same profit on it yet.
      • Lazydriver, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Dude, big business = energy and energy businesses provide the power in your plants, therefore your point is extremely moot.
      • LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2compressed Air Cars come to mind:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

        Being developed in France and Australia.
        • HellifIno, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2And the air gets compressed by...? Electricity. Interesting, but not really helpful. It's introducing waste via heat and mechanical resistances vs just feeding an electric engine.
    • EtherGnat, on 05/19/2008, -1/+10Why? A new engine costs thousands but that doesn't prevent people from buying cars. The electric car will be mass produced when the sum benefits outweigh the sum disadvantages. Batteries might need to be replaced/restored more often than an engine, but I see no reason why $150 should be the magic price point.
      • ArmandoM, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2But a typical new engine doesn't cost $50,000.

        $150 might be "too cheap", but the fact is that until the battery technology gets cheaper (and I believe it will) electric cars will not be practically affordable.
      • LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4I would be happy with conversion kits
        and upgrades for existing cars.

        I don't need a new car, just a new
        engine and power source.

        Remove the combustion engine,
        the catalytic converter, the pollution and exhaust system, the gas tank, and all the extra oil, radiator, and fluid systems. That will save a lot of weight.

        Replace it with a battery array, electric motor, controller, and a plug-in plug to recharge it.
        Maybe put a solar panel built into the roof
        just for a little added extra juice too.

        It can be done, even if it isn't cheap,
        you won't have to pay the $ 4 / gallon price...
      • Whadabala, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2No no no, they SHOULD be mass produced when advantages outweigh disadvantages. Although it more likely will take several years.
        • LeeSoong, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2The Advantages ALREADY outweigh disadvantages.

          Electric and compressed air cars should
          have been produced once Fuel hit the $2 mark.


          Remember when gas was only $0.68 a gallon?
    • Devilboy666, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Actually Audi just announced that they've started development and will launch an electric vehicle line in the next couple of years.
    • BobbyMC, on 07/21/2008, -0/+9Whatever happened to RTFA? Jamie himself says a battery for the X1 costs 40k.
  • abhilash, on 05/19/2008, -7/+60It's so clear how great electric vehicles would be if only the oil companies would invest in the infrastructure to support them. Gotta love the mythbusters crew.
    • MacParrot, on 05/19/2008, -0/+33It's not just the oil companies that need to support them. Automobile makers need to as well. part of what's slowing down the acceptance rate of vehicles like this is that there is no standard battery pack. If the US/Japanese/Koreans/ect could agree on a common fuel-cell/battery pack, they long-distance trips that can only be done efficiently now with gasoline engines could be done in alternative ways.
      Imagine you've drive say 300 miles and a guage is telling you at the present rate of consumption you have about 25 to 50 miles before you run out of energy. You pull into a former gas station and they replace your pack with another one (assuming that these packs can slim down in weight to say 50 to 100 pounds) that works with most of the car makers. Pop-out and pop-in and you're good for another 300 miles or so.
      • IllBeBack, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5The pop-out, pop-in idea is definitely a good one. That would bring back the days of the full-service gas station but now it would be a battery-changing station. Nice idea.
    • calipan, on 05/19/2008, -3/+27F the oil companies. Why don't you get off your lazy ass and invest in electric vehicles. It's like saying I wish the rich would donate their money to low income housing an welfare programs instead of making iPhones and Aston Martins. I mean come on did you think people bitched back 100 years ago "I wish the buggy whip companies put their money into horseless carriages"?

      Put your money where your mouth is and YOU make the change. If the oil companies want to stick to their business model and don't want to adapt them screw em, let them go the way of the buggy whip, but for crying out loud enough whining and bitching that the world need to deliver what you want on a silver platter, time to grow up people,
    • unusualbob, on 05/19/2008, -0/+12Actually a lot of auto companies dont want electric cars either. Combustion engines have more parts that are more likely to break so they also make money off of all the parts you buy to fix your car. Electric cars are simple, sturdy and efficient. They lose a lot of revenue by not selling parts and gas.
      • Twee, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Why not just charge more for the car to begin with? If an electric car has a much lower cost of ownership than a gas car in terms of maintenance (and no need to buy gas) then they can charge a higher price to begin with and still make a profit. Besides, if everybody decides to switch to electric cars then they will ditch their gas cars that they've had for years and buy more new cars.
        • bitcloud, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2because you can make an electric vehicle in your garage.....

          It's a false economy.. the days of the auto industry and the oil industry being big players is starting to reach it's end and the people involved are reluctant to concede...
    • weirdone, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6are you being facetious? I'm sorta assuming you are, but why would anyone ever invest in their competition? You basically just said the equivalent of "Mac would so great if only Microsoft invested in them" or better yet "Nicorette gum could help so many more people quit smoking if only the tobacco companies would wake up and invest in them"
    • fritzek, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1What infrastructure? You mean electrical net?
  • madmondo, on 05/19/2008, -9/+6I really want to see this mass-produced. So many other places already have alt. fuels and in the U.S they keep stoping them.
  • elhaf, on 05/19/2008, -15/+8A Harley is not exactly a powerhouse motorcycle. They are known more for their comfort, badass reputation, noise level, etc., than their power. Most can't even pull a wheelie, much less a stoppie. Not that any of that is a bad thing, but put your electric m/c up against a hayabusa and see what happens. Again, you don't need a hayabusa, but it's a sticking point for some people.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 05/19/2008, -7/+1You realize that most harleys have more horsepower (and torque) than most crotchrockets, right?

      The reason you cant do a wheelie or a stoppie is more about center of gravity than anything. CG on a crotch rocket is very high compared to a harley/cruiser..
      • daggah, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6You realize that most harleys are significantly heavier than most crotchrockets, right?

        The reason Harleys suck is because they are SLOW. And you gotta love all the douchebags who put loud pipes on them and end up losing power in the process.
      • mike17032, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2But they are awful at putting that HP to the road.

        Harleys are great, but they get utterly destroyed by far smaller crotch rockets that redline at 14k.
    • init100, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2"but put your electric m/c up against a hayabusa and see what happens."

      If built properly, the electric bike would probably win. Electric motors provide large amounts of torque over a large speed interval, and do not need gearboxes.
    • squeky, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Considering there are no mass produced electric bikes, you can't do an apples to apples comparison to a mass produced Hayabusa. If you wanted an apples to oranges comparison, here's one that will rip a Hayabusa apart (we're talking "factory" to factory bikes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHtAkM3CYLA
    • Kicker01, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1FTA

      "The gas motorcycle, a modified Harley Dragster, went against an electric Killacycle on a quarter-mile dragstrip."

      I don't know what you are talking about when you say Harelys don't race. Maybe their consumer bikes don't but the company sure does and they even hold annual competitions. That aside, the killacycle is VERY fast for an electric bike.
      http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fHtAkM3CYLA
    • aldableep3, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3sounds like you got your 'cycle experience from gta
  • Odenized, on 05/19/2008, -1/+20What makes this even more attractive is that you don't need to charge the vehicle for an inordinate around of time. "80 percent charge over a lunch break" sounds great to me!
  • greenlight2001, on 05/19/2008, -13/+176*typical digger comment about how Kari Byron is hot*
    • cerealjynx, on 05/19/2008, -3/+78*typical agreement, digger or otherwise*
    • Vegiemaster, on 05/19/2008, -10/+32*typical nerd who has no chance with any girl even remotely attractive who says "Eh, she's a 6."*
    • banmaster, on 05/19/2008, -16/+5Scotty was hotter, and wasn't a pussy-wimp like Kari is.
      • greenlight2001, on 05/19/2008, -3/+12I'd love to whip Kari's pussy... wait, what? oh, 'wimp'... right. nvm. No but seriously, Kari's pussy, amirite? Yeah, you know I'm right.
        • WELLDOITLIVE, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6You would've been more right if you didn't say "amirite"
      • jasdf, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5If you're into the tattoos dude...
    • MRAS, on 05/19/2008, -10/+1To be fair she is the only women on the show these days,
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/19/2008, -6/+20Digger please...
    • PhillyVC, on 05/19/2008, -7/+1KARI BYRON IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOT
    • stillboy, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Who is that other girl that they bring on occasionally to help out? She is way hottt too.
    • Papajohn56, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5*typical counter-digger argument about how none of you will ever get laid, while burying everyone*
  • secrity, on 05/19/2008, -8/+12How many people could actually take advantage of electric cars? I couldn't construct a car charging station in front of my condo, I probably couldn't even get away with running an extension cord to my car for very long.
    • pakruse, on 05/19/2008, -0/+18I'm in your situation as well - no plug in at my condo carport - but the millions of suburban commuters who have garages could probably take advantage of this technology.
    • Velirno, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6Pretty much all suburbs at the least, It would be nice if there would be an easy way to quickly exchange batteries at a station for people in the city or for those who live in an apartment.
    • centran, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4Very good point.
      The solution to that problem is that you still can go to the "gas" station.

      The gas station can be fitted with expensive quick charge stations. These quick charge stations can charge your battery in about the same time(maybe a couple minutes longer) that it takes to fill up your car with gas.
      If you want to charge your car at home then you plug it into an ordinary electrical socket... well an ordinary socket that is on it's own circuit but that is no different then your washer/dryer or A/C unit. The difference is that it will only trickle charge your cars battery and will take 8+ hours to fully charge.
      • secrity, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8That would be quite a job to fast charge a car drive battery in less than five minutes or so, and the technology isn't even CLOSE to being there. The conductors would either have to be impossibly HUGE or superconductors -- and that is assuming that the batteries wouldn't explode while taking such a fast charge.

        If I want to charge my car at home; I can't, see parent..
        • ArmandoM, on 05/19/2008, -7/+1It's COOL how you spiked a couple ALL CAPS words in there to drive your POINT home.
        • centran, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2I wish I could remember where I saw it from but I do remember watching a program that talked about being able to charge up at a "gas station". It was some variation of current batteries that allowed for such a quick charge... or maybe they where talking about using a capacitor as battery? Not sure if that was the on the same show.
          Anyway, the quick charge would be impossible to do at your house because of the energy requirements. The quick charge station would be an expensive piece of equipment but a normal gas pump is pretty damn expensive so adding quick charge stations should not be a huge burden on stations.
      • Velirno, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2I just meant a program similar to how you can exchange the current battery in your car at most auto-parts stores, but they simply recharge the ones they're given and start a cycle of batteries. The trouble would be is whether this should be a free service or not (heck, even the post office has fees), but I suppose this would give companies some kind of revenue model to go off of if the government doesn't want to control this system.
        • secrity, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2It would be something like exchanging LP gas tanks at Home Depot, but with fork lifts.. Decades ago, Popular Science or Popular mechanics had an article that described a car drive battery exchange station -- with cool drawings.
        • SillyRabbits, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3You realize that the electricity they would be 'refilling' the battery pack with isn't free? Of course they would charge. Christ.
      • dericko, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5Heaven forbid the car battery to be easily removable and taken into a house or place of work to charge.

        A battery pack could easily be made into a luggage type design, with casters and a handle and all..
        • secrity, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5With current technology that battery would need much more that casters, it would need a fork lift.
        • SillyRabbits, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Yep, I don't even like dragging my laptop inside after work - can you guess how I'd feel about wheeling in a 500lb+ battery pack every night?
    • banmaster, on 05/19/2008, -3/+11Go watch Who Killed the Electric Car and you'll quickly see that not only is an electric car feasible, but there was one once, the EV, and people were virtually lining up around the block to buy it till its maker (to avoid tax stuff on their mainstream gas cars) pulled it from the market and forcably bought back every electric car that had been sold and crushed them.
    • davidrools, on 05/19/2008, -0/+13People were probably saying the same thing about the lack of gas stations when cars first started gaining popularity. As acceptance grows, so will the infrastructure.
      Back in the EV1 days, the California codes were updated to require EV charging stations to be installed whenever a new parking lot was built. Sadly, the EV program got squashed for no good reason, but charging stations are still being put in new parking lots today. As EVs grow (as I expect they will), property owners and the like will make changes to allow tenants to charge and probably even designate electric vehicle parking spaces with electricity provided.
  • silvanov2002, on 05/19/2008, -26/+1If you guys dig the mythbusters, you should spend a day at my job. Its like being able to hang out/work with the mythbusters on a daily basis. Check us out http://www.thegeekgroup.org or search youtube for geekgroup videos :D
  • exomni, on 05/19/2008, -1/+10Anyone have a link to the video?
    • emilheinsen, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3That's my question too... Maybe they didn't air it yet... Nice article though...
  • captmorgan555, on 05/19/2008, -11/+3Killacycle's owner crashing his bike:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeFrIqC57_U
  • dblespresso, on 05/19/2008, -3/+13There is still the issue of energy density of the energy storage mechanism. It is the problem that needs to be solved before a mass roll out would ever be feasible. How do I fill up and reset my total range in less than 10 Min? One interesting solution is aluminum
    http://hydrogen.ecn.purdue.edu/2007.05.01-Woodall/
    • banmaster, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3The guy doing the presentation has no idea what hes talking about.
      Example, his claim that Aluminum is environmentally friendly is just insanely incorrect. It takes so much electricity to produce that its quite possibly the most un-environmentally friendly metal we have ever made.
    • dblespresso, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7You may have missed, that the aluminum is the re-usable portion of the equation.
      spent aluminum + energy = aluminum alloy
      aluminum + h20 = energy + spent aluminum

      the aluminum is conserved, not used. The important fact is that the stored energy is not explosive, and has a high density
    • jabberwolf, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3HYDROGEN is the WRONG technology to use.
      No infrastructure, and waste of energy.

      Changing electrical energy = to hydrogen = to electrical again.

      Hybrid cars would have BOTH electrical and gas.
      40 miles range on electrical only and gas to charge battery as a range extender for 600 miles.

      You can also plug-in these cars at night to an electrical outlet at night to charge.

      No big deal and little change in infrastructure for the cars.
    • deesugar, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2The real problem is regeneration of alumina back to aluminum which was why the DOE wouldn't fund this project.

      "a drawback in the (Purdue) concept is that in addition to hydrogen, alumina (aluminum oxide) is produced. The regeneration of alumina back to aluminum is extremely energy intensive and cannot be accomplished on-board a vehicle." -Jonathan Shrader (DOE spokesman)
  • teambosun, on 05/19/2008, -5/+16I've already decided that my next car will be electric :)
  • exomni, on 05/19/2008, -1/+11I just want a better and more affordable version of the smart EV to go mass-market.
  • Rizmaster, on 05/19/2008, -4/+150In other news, Jamie Hyneman was mysteriously murdered last night and gas prices rose again to $6.50 a gallon.
    • Snuffs, on 05/19/2008, -0/+17the sad thing is, I actually think that petroleum industries are capable and willing to take such precautions to ensure their market.
      • Rizmaster, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5Yeah, I wasn't entirely joking. I do seriously believe anyone challenging the gas monopoly is in serious danger not just from the oil cartel but from the governments they have by the balls on a daily basis.

        Similar to the DC Madam's "suicide", if you've got enemies in the right places, they don't have to do the best job in the world killing you, they just need to make sure nobody digs too deep.
    • Wisgary, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Stay tuned for the next episode of Mythbusters, where Adam Savage and guest star Rex Tillerson revisit the electric car myth due to overwhelming fan requests!
  • notman, on 05/19/2008, -2/+12Well there's a big no duh. I don't know where everyone got the idea that electric cars were slow, but it's actually quite the opposite. Electric motors have all their torque at the start, so they can launch like a mutha'

    Still, I want to see the episode :D
    • Velirno, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5It's a fairly common misconception, with some hilarious results when you talk about cars like the one in the article and the Tesla (sp?).
    • semvhu, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Your comment isn't true for all electric motors. DC motors do have peak torque at zero RPM. AC induction motors, however, have a large percentage of their torque at zero RPM, but the torque typically rises as RPM gets higher until it peaks, then drops to zero at its maximum speed. Typically, that is. It all depends on how the motor is wound.
  • Hercules, on 05/19/2008, -4/+20The inherent problem with these vehicles is that they still rely on largely "battery" power -- a technology that simply has not evolved as much as other pieces in our infrastructure.

    We already know we can make amazing electric engines -- we just need some power source that's worthwhile to store that energy as they charge up.
    • dagamer34, on 05/19/2008, -0/+10Same reason why an Iron Man suit sadly won't work in the near future. You need a lot of power in a small space.
      • nksoccer13, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Someone needs to hurry up and invent the arc reactor.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 05/19/2008, -1/+12What's "with" the quotation "marks" around "battery"?
    • davidrools, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5I agree that batteries are the limiting factor in terms of range, but even currently available technology can supply more than adequate power for daily commutes and everything but cross country trips (and how often, really, do we do that?)
      • Twee, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Cross country road trips are for idiots. They take way way longer and are more expensive than flying. The only people who need to drive across country are truck drivers. If the average american family wants to drive across country and spend hours upon hours bored out of their mind in the car, then I guess that's their choice..
        • coollettuce, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Could you please explain how a suburban family that lives in south east Michigan would fly their trailer or camping gear to northern Michigan?
        • Starhawk, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I'd rather drive than put with the hassle the TSA would put me through...
        • goombah, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0No, your logic is for idiots. The average family of four to take a five hour drive or 1.5 hour flight will get there within an hour of each other since they have to drive to the airport, go through security, find luggage, drive to their destination once they get there after renting a car, etc. And the cost savings is substantial. Buy four roundtrip tickets at $150 or so apiece, vs. maybe $200 in gas in a guzzling SUV to drive round trip. That's a typical L.A to San Francisco itinerary.

          Oh yeah, and there are also those idiots that forget that an actual family vacation can be very interesting and fun if you just stop along the drive. Too many type A's forget that there are other ways to enjoy your vacation.
    • pr0t0, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I'm not so sure. There are breakthroughs in battery technology all of the time. The problem is no one is thinking about electric cars when they make them. Search Digg for the word Battery, oldest first. You'll see all kinds of advancements.

      Imagine the advancements being made in what would be an electricity-based economy. Physicists and nanoengineers would be climbing all over each other to sell the latest in battery tech to a auto manufacturer.

      In the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car", they interview a really nice old man who happened to be a brilliant electro-chemical engineer. He developed a breakthrough battery that would easily accommodate the needs of most drivers in an electric vehicle. If I remember correctly, he was starting his business, when an auto manufacturer paid an obscene amount of money for the business. Then they sold it to another company that in turn sold it to an oil company. Of course the technology then got shelved.
  • veriix, on 05/19/2008, -7/+8Did anyone besides me get distracted by that bad-ass Nerf gun review on the side?
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade ...
    • ShempRider, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7I so want --no, NEED-- one of those things.
  • SpoBo, on 05/19/2008, -13/+4It'll never beat it in the noise and feel department though. There is nothing sweeter than hearing valves rotate at a stable 500 rpm while feeling the car shudder slightly. Except driving a gasoline powered car obviously :p
    • roosterjm2k2, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3You know...having driven a hybrid...the silence is actually quite welcome...its wierd at first, but remember, the noise, the shaking, the heat, its all just wasted energy...

      I still agree with you though...one of my best friends has a Cuda ... mmmmmmmmmmMmmMm :)
  • docsarvis, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7I was never really sure why the auto industry had so much antagonism towards electric. I always figured it was just simple collusion with the oil industry. But yeah, if it's as easy as he says it is that'd be a pretty heavy blow for the auto industry to absorb. That'd open the door to a lot of hobbyists and smaller companies.
    • paker, on 05/19/2008, -1/+12How many moving parts are in a gas engine compared to an electric motor? An electric motor has no belts, hoses, fluids, oil.. I'm sure there were/are many nervous prople NOT looking forward to a successful electric car.
      • docsarvis, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9Yes that was my point. GM doesn't just sell the car, they sell the parts and service too. Mechanics and the IAW would be pretty pissed as well.
        • Lazydriver, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2GM would still make a ***** of money repairing the car's electronic companants, gears, wheels, axles, and batteries.

          Once again, moot point.

          The only reason why electric cars haven't taken off is battery capacity.... It's catching up, and now we're starting to see electric offerings.
        • FairDinkumMate, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Yeh because computer service businesses are really struggling to find work.....
  • mikeyeah, on 05/19/2008, -7/+32We should all be driving electric cars by now, instead the Auto Industry, Big Oil, and our government decided it would be better to keep America addicted to oil. If you disagree with what I just said, please watch "Who Killed the Electric Car" and get back to me.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 05/19/2008, -13/+4"who killed the electric car" ... considering that the electric car is far from dead (growing in popularity), i will not watch the video...if they cant get the title right, I won't even waste my time with their "facts"
      • wentwj, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5It's about the death of one particular model of electric car, that was released as a "trial" on the market, and then recalled and smashed for no apparent reason.
    • paker, on 05/19/2008, -2/+19That was one of the best documentaries I've seen.
    • weirdone, on 05/19/2008, -7/+6so the reason you came to the conclusion of why everyone should be driving electric cars is because of a documentary you saw? The reason electric cars aren't popular is because you can't charge an electric car's battery in under 2 minutes like you can fill a gas tank. And it isn't for a lack of investment in battery technology since you see multiple industries investing billions trying to find better batteries, prompting electronic companies to just start saying screw it and move to miniature fuel cells running on methanol.
      • mikeyeah, on 05/20/2008, -0/+8@ weirdone

        Actually, if you watch the documentary, they address that issue. You don't have a gas station at your house at night while you sleep, but you could charge your car at night and have enough juice for your daily driving. As I said, watch the documentary, they go into way more detail.
    • jenshik, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3My physics/electronics teacher at school just played that to us last week. Very good doco.
  • Ryan0617, on 05/19/2008, -9/+10Can i just say though, alot of places are saying that 'oh electric is clean' but if your power plant is coal fired wont this be worse??(Unless renewable energy at source) Please let me know.

    Also can i ask as i dont know, what would be be cost of charging your car up for the 'xxxx' range of the car, compared to the oil based fuel consumption cost? Thanks in advance.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7Coal is actually pretty clean (power:pollution). New coal plants especially...the burn hotter (they get more energy out, they leave less unburnt pollutants in the smoke, produce less soot...) and overall, aren't as terrible as they were a few decades ago

      • YonicSouth, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Can they beat 62% efficient like a natural gas cogeneration plant?
    • Balloondoggies, on 05/19/2008, -9/+2You have the intewebs...do your own research.
    • JeffD, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9A power plant+electric engine is generally more efficient than an internal combustion engine. So, while you're not getting rid of all pollution when you switch to electric, you are reducing the pollution per mile.
    • miligamalaga, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8Electric is still cleaner. Here's an article with research and sources cited to explain: http://www.lincolnev.com/nevcleaner.html

      That article doesn't even take into account the emissions produced in the production and transportation of gasoline.
    • TruthforAll, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3An easy fix that Tesla already does.. they market solar panels along with their cars. Put them on your roof and in addition to having completely clean energy for your car, you can actually create excess energy for your house. It's not all about one type of renewable energy that will save everything. It's using combinations of many of them to solve different types of energy problems.
  • h37s3m, on 05/19/2008, -7/+1i love the mythbusters, and i dont want to read the article, but im sure its pretty awesome.
  • Yetisquatch, on 05/19/2008, -4/+18For all the people that say it would be impractical to plug in or that there would be a larger strain on power plants, please look into the breakthroughs that have been made in solar panels. Most people drive their cars to work and those cars sit in the sun for 8 hours a day. With solar panels added to a vehicle, that car can be fully charged again without being plugged in. An electric car that has a 200+ range would probably never have to be attached to the grid if solar energy was used.
    • SatansSpatula, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7You completely pulled that out of your ass. No way in hell would solar cells be capable of providing that much energy in an eight hour period.
  • Abomonog, on 05/19/2008, -3/+9I would love to see the special. Sadly, if Hyneman spews out the real truth about electric vehicles on Mythbusters it will likely doom them. Not really but the more people that know the less likely we are going to see them done cheaply and logically.

    The real truth: Anybody with decent knowledge of electrical circuits can build and maintain one without any assistance.
  • The_Red_Monkey, on 05/19/2008, -6/+16Yeah but I can not drive more than about 100 miles on electric. That is ok for commuting but I do take trips on the weekends and travel for work so it sucks.

    Also how will you heat a car that is all electric? If you run a traditional heat unit then it kills the battery where as a gas powered vehicle uses excess heat.

    Its all nice to think about plugging in a car but we need billions in electricity infrastructure to go electric and many, many new nuclear power plants to help out. Otherwise its all for not.
    • JeffD, on 05/19/2008, -1/+8Electric motors generally don't run cold, couldn't you route the air you're using to cool the motor into the cars ventilation system? (Isn't that essentially how the heating system in current ICE vehicles works now anyways?)
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7all for naught
      • blqysmg, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Actually, I liked his version. Of course, it was wrong, but it seemed to sum up his line of thinking quite well.

        All for not! Ha!
    • SilverBlade2k, on 05/19/2008, -0/+18It may suck (for you) because *you* need to go on long trips. 75% of the population don't go more then 40 miles in one day. So an electric car is perfect for 75% of the population..

      Or is this going to be the "oh, 10% of the population think it's useless, so we won't make it available for anyone' scenario??
      • weirdone, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2yes they don't average more than 40 per day, but what happens when they want to make that 400 mile trip twice a year or so? They can only do it by paying $200+ for train/air and then they don't have the flexibility a car gives you like leaving whenever you please instead of catching a train. On top of that, what about the trucks that move 90%+ of the goods in the country that all travel more than 40 miles a day and the cabbies, mass transit, public service vehicles, etc...they can't wait 3 hours to charge their car every 100-200 miles. And why would I bother with a 220 mi range 2 door that gets the equivalent of 140mpg electric when I can get a 60mpg hybrid without any of those restrictions I mentioned...You can also still find a gas station on every block just in case you forget to fill up your hybrid. No such possibility with an electric. I'm also like more than 50% of the population in that I live in an urban area apartment complex. I can't exactly just plug in my car whenever damn well please, so even though i'm in the 75% of the population who commutes under 40 miles in a day...an electric car is impossible for me to own. But I guess I should just move so I can get that awesome electric car that completely meets my needs.

        It's not available for the mass market because the mass market doesn't want it, not just 10%, get over yourself and ask if you line up an EV next to a normal high mpg internal combustion engine or hybrid, which are you getting.
        • SilverBlade2k, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4For a once or twice a year trip, it's called 'rental cars'

          Even through electric vehicles can't be used in long-distance vehicles like semi trucks which deliver food, everyone else (who can afford it) can switch to electrics.

          With more people going to electric, the less demand there is for gas, the price of gas ultimately drops, which then it will become less expensive to deliver our foods and merchandise to our stores.
        • blqysmg, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Electric Trailer. (a generator in a trailer, rented from U-Haul or some such.)
        • BlueSkyfish, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Bring a spare battery that's already charged.
    • EtherGnat, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2If running the AC only takes 3% of a conventional vehicles power I seriously doubt heat will kill an electric vehicles battery.
    • moghua, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7I don't own a pickup truck, but I need to haul stuff every once in a while. That's what rental car companies are for.
      • blqysmg, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2I do own a pickup truck. I just don't drive it everyday. (It's a 2004 model, but has less than 25,000 miles on it.)

        Vehicles are tools, just like any other. People who seriously want one car for all of their uses must have a toolbox with nothing in it but a hammer.
        • acetv, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Hell if I could afford a different car for every variety of outing I make...
    • jabberwolf, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Simple - most of the serial hybrids will have a gas motor that will power the battery.

      The electric is only meant to be up to 40 miles and the gas addition will be for range.

      You wont get the 150MPG past 40 miles...but you will still get a good MPG.
      • blqysmg, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1So, the question is, if I drive the Volt 39 miles, then park it (allowing the generator to slowly and efficiently charge the batteries,) then drive it back home, how many MPG will I actually get?
        • nadalle, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0The Volt type vehicle isn't going to charge the batteries while it's parked, unless you have an electric outlet available.

          What will happen is that it'll run on batteries for 40 miles, sit there for a while, and then when you drive it back home it'll run off engine power. Probably it'll be pretty efficient at that. To make the math easy, imagine it gets 40mpg. You went 80 miles and used 1 gallon, so the end result is you got 80mpg, but have empty batteries at the end.

          Obviously you'd better get your electricity from a nuclear reactor or a dam or something, or you need to add in the amount of coal or whatnot you used to properly understand this.
  • pakruse, on 05/19/2008, -0/+10Several people have commented that this doesn't change anything, as most of the electric grid energy is generated from oil or coal anyway. I don't know how widespread it is, but in some places you can choose your own electric provider. We have options here (Green Mountain Energy) so that you can pay a bit extra so that any electricity you use is replaced on the grid with renewable sources.

    If all the cars ran on electricity, you'd certainly use more power, though. My last electric bill was for about 700 kW-hours, and with an electric car I'd use about 13 kW-hours per day to commute (based on a steady-state HP of 25 to keep highway speeds). I'd be adding another 400 kW-hours a month in electricity if I ran with an electric car - but that's still cheaper than I spend a month in gas.
    • fritzek, on 05/19/2008, -2/+0Lets say you would save monthly some money. How long would it take to overweight the insane price of electrical car? Its still not an option for people, who are not rich tree-huggers and it wont be in maybe a decade.
      • pakruse, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I don't disagree on that point. We have a ways to go in battery technology before the price is reasonable to the average driver. My comment was mostly directed at the "electricity comes from coal so why bother" and "then you'll just pay more for your electric bill" comments that I had seen above.
    • bentrinh, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Aren't large scale power plants much more efficient than a car based engine?
    • blqysmg, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Add to this fact that most Utility companies have a problem with Power Generation at night; there's too much of it. The consumption goes down so much at night they literally have problems disposing of it. In Tennessee, they use some of the excess power to pump water uphill into huge storage tanks.

      Even gas and oil powered plants have to maintain an even minimum running state during the night, generating excess energy. Many areas offer different billing rates, day and night, to help offset the difference in usage.
  • grungegbunny, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2A Digg for two of my top favorite skeptics.
  • liuite, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4another downside is what happens when there is a rolling blackout...you can't watch TV and if your batteries are low you can't go anywhere. prepare a backup generator? I have subscribed to yahoo electric boat group, and they mention about a genset for when you want to take a longer trip
  • mike17032, on 05/19/2008, -12/+10Its amazing how many of you still dont get it.

    Of course they can be fast. Now build one that can match the power of a normal car and that can go more than 100 miles without needing several hours to recharge.

    And lets talk about cost. Those batteries are damn expensive to make, and no they wont get cheaper with higher demand because economics of scale has been in place for them for a long long time already.

    And yes, those batteries do wear out.
    • dwtd, on 05/19/2008, -0/+10http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/index.php

      "Introducing the all-new sport utility truck (SUT) from Phoenix Motorcars. The four-passenger, advanced battery electric, zero-emission SUT that can travel at freeway speed. Equipped with a revolutionary lithium titanate battery, this SUT will travel over 100 miles on a single 10-minute charge.* Designed with a sophisticated chassis and regenerative braking, this fully electric vehicle is not only powerful, it’s practical and really cool."

      An off-board charger (most likely would be installed at charging stations) is needed to do the 10 minute charge, otherwise you'll need to do the slow trickle charge overnight.

      I test drove this truck at a car show and immediately fell in love. At $45,000 it will be pricier than a gas equivalent, but that price will come down in time. And yes, the battery pack may wear out after about 250,000 miles, but then again the body will probably wear out before the batteries do.

      This is new technology, give it time (and maybe even some support?) and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with what can be achieved.
      • mphree, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2That's pretty cool... but too bad it's ugly as ***** sin.
    • weirdone, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3the tesla electric gets 100,000 miles out of its battery according to their website. Somehow I think that's more expensive than just a $2000 transmission to replace at 100k.

      damn thing takes 3.5 hours to recharge too...great for long trips.
      • Achilles2, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4I have 250,000km on my orignal tranny and no problems.

        What are you doing to yours?
    • Twee, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5I still want to convert an existing gas car into an electric one. I'd build it to go at least 120-150 miles on a charge, since that's the most I'd ever need to go round trip most of the time. If I want to drive someplace super far like vegas I can either rent a car for $100 (which avoids putting stress on my own car anyways) or have my friend drive their car, because what kind of loser goes to vegas alone?
    • jabberwolf, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Actually yeah, A123 and Chevy were trying to aim for 10 year lifespan = 100,000 miles.
      For the swap of less moving parts and just the battery = actually less expensive maintenance.
    • blqysmg, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5It's amazing how many of us DO get it. And too bad you don't. Is it cheap? not yet. Is it powerful, yes. Quick to recharge, yes. Good for short trips around town? yes. Good for medium length trips (100 miles or so?) yes with qualifications. Good for across the country trips? It could be. There are several ways we can have good, reliable long distance trips with electric only cars. One is dedicated quick-charge stations. The battery packs used in the advanced models can be charged in 10 minutes or so, if done by special machinery. You won't have this kind of charger at home, but there's no reason they could not be just off the Interstate.
      Imagine, after two and a half hours on the road, you pull over for a coke and charge-up. You drop the car off at the front of the station, an attendant (remember those?) will connect the cables and start the charge. While that's going on, you go inside to use the restroom and buy a soda. When you've finished, you go back to your car and start back to the Interstate for another 200 miles.
      Of course, the Volt will have a charge assist motor on-board, with a 600 mile range. My bladder can't hold out that long. I have to stop long before that, anyway.
  • Lunchbox88, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3when can we expect the episode with this?
    • Wolfghost, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6Young Scientist Special (aired in the US on April 30, 2008)
  • wrxpert, on 05/19/2008, -4/+86"I fully intend to make a full-size electric car; I figure it’d take about $28,000 worth of components for a plus-300-mile range. It should take me about a week or two to build—tops."

    This is why Jamie Hyneman rules.
    • heliox, on 05/20/2008, -5/+1He's a TV personality. Do you believe he will or can actually do this?
      Do you guys REALLY think Mythbusters is truly scientific?

      Well, it's on TV...must be true....
      • fuzzybeard, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3I think he's a damn sight more capable and likely to do it than you are. The 7-UP robot and Blendo are two good hints that he's got the skills to back up what he's saying.
        • heliox, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1Wow...you don't even know me, and you are able to make that call?
          But that is beside the point. Two week to build an electric car? Riiiight.
        • fuzzybeard, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Point taken. It would also depend on what would be allowed to happen prior to the two week time frame started:

          Finalizing plans
          Getting a subject vehicle
          Ordering/sourcing parts
          Delivery of parts
          Cussing out delivery company
          Getting the maxim "Measure twice, cut once" a bit confused.
          Multiple parts runs in vivo.
          Sleep
          Food
          Beer
          Sex
          Trying to find a nitrogen or argon cylinder at 8:30 on a Sunday night for your MIG/TIG welder.
          Smacking Adam, Grant, and/or Tory upside the head for general buffoonery.
  • jguy584, on 05/19/2008, -2/+23Lots of people are bitching about taking energy from the grid, and how its just as bad as a car with a gas engine.
    It's not.
    Power plants have far greater efficiency then cars do.
    Besides, when the time comes that we are all ditching our fossil fuel dependent vehicles, we will probably also be ditching our fossil fuel dependent energy grid.
    • Blackrites, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3Coal power plants currently only have about a 40% efficiency. Then you have the losses associated with transporting the electricity to the cars, and furthermore in changing the batteries. It's quite a complex chain and so I'm not sure if anybody really knows how widespread adoption of electric vehicles would alter emissions.

      You also have to factor in the cost of manufacturing the batteries, their capacity and limited lifespan. Electric/Hybrid cars are more expensive to produce and so that has to be a consideration as well.
      • Lazydriver, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1Why is thinking being Dugg down?

        This man's right!!! ***** Crowd mentality.... This is OBVIOUSLY A MARKET that an automaker would exploit for profit if there was better range!
      • grovest4life, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7The best ICE engines only get 30% efficiency it would still be a 10% improvement.
    • Twee, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Solar Panels FTW!
  • DezDino, on 05/19/2008, -5/+9How funny it is that the electric car was already put on the market years ago, and obviously a way more intelligent choice of transportation than the traditional gas-powered automobile, but they were all recalled and destroyed shortly after. Oh, America...what a gas.
  • c010rb1indusa, on 05/19/2008, -5/+18Charging electric cars sucks. Who wants to wait around for a vehicle to charge. How bout gas stations start swapping batteries in cars, instead of having to charge the car yourself, you could go to the gas station, and the gas station would have pre-charged batteries that you would exchange for the dead battery in your car. So you get the convenience of a gas powered car, with the benefits of an electric car. Sound good anyone?
    • fatfonzie, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7an idea in the right direction. Charging isn't so bad, but for longer trips, something like this might be a feasible alternative.
    • weirdone, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8This is really the only thing they can do since they're still a long, long way away from doing a full charge in the time it takes to fill up a gas tank. However, honest question...how much do those batteries weigh? How easy is that going to be to just replace one of these things on the fly? I think they take up like half the car. Are you going to remove the chassis to do something like this and how many batteries would a gas station have to have around? If a busy service station on an interstate see a few hundred cars every 3 hours then they would have to carry that many batteries on hand at all times so they can swap old batteries and charge them to keep a steady supply for people.
    • thurows, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7It will never work. Good luck getting a universal connector or standard battery pack by the auto manufactures. Besides, what if someone had their batteries swapped and was close to the end of their life cycle and now you have their batteries in your brand new car?
      • blqysmg, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Yeah, 'cause the current car batteries are so radically different! I mean just look at them. Sure they are all rectangular with posts sticking out, but some of the posts are on top, while others are on the side! Totally different! And some even have screw posts, while the older ones have those big lead knobs. Completely incompatible and it would be impossible to standardize.

        Yep, can't be done.
  • foxfire1311, on 05/19/2008, -7/+11Electric cars = positive demand shock for electricity = rise in electric bills

    We already have rolling blackouts in California during the summer and electricity shortages elsewhere....
    This is not as great of an idea as everyone seems to think.

    And they said ethanol wouldn't cause a spike in food prices.
    Take an econ class.....
    • weirdone, on 05/19/2008, -7/+2thank god for someone who doesn't have his head up his ass around here
    • sk11, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9How can you possibly have blackouts in a developed country? I thought they only occur in third world countries these days. I can't ever remember having such things in Britain.

      Anyway, solar tech should soon allow Californians to take full advantage of that free source of energy.
    • r00fus, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9Rolling blackouts only occur when demand exceed peak output.
      Electric cars will generally charge at night, when demand is low (which is why you pay less at that time).

      Any questions?
    • blqysmg, on 05/20/2008, -0/+8The blackouts were the direct result of private industry profiteering off of the deregulation rules, where the price of electricity to the customer was fixed, but the price power plants could individually charge the utility was not. Power plant owners would keep their generators down while the pay was low, knowing that as demand climbed so did the amount per KWH did as well. When the price was high enough, they would fire up their generators, reaping the highest profits.
      All the SANE places in the world operate on different principles, and don't generally have a problem with power generation at night, when 90% of the electric cars would be charged.
    • csspeedbump, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Due to the instability in many areas where we are getting our oil from, we're currently dealing with something of a supply shock, which is MUCH worse than a demand shock.
  • 22magnum, on 05/19/2008, -10/+5great an electric ATV so when im out in the middle of nowhere offroading and it goes dead i can plug it into the abundance of tree outlets...
    • sk11, on 05/19/2008, -2/+11As opposed to filling it up using the oil trees? :P
      • 22magnum, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2I can carry gas with me and have a much larger range with it then i can with a battery.
  • lbdinh, on 05/19/2008, -2/+6Show me a comercial car that's affordable (under $18K) electric car that's faster than my 175 horsepower 4-banger with a nice interior and you've got yourself a trade-in.
    • blqysmg, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5You are right about one thing, they will not be cheaper for a while, not off the shelf. They will also not have as good a range. What they will have is no oil changes , no tune-ups, no timing belts, no air filters, no emissions tests, no catalytic converters, and no gas.
      At $4 per gallon (coming soon to a station near you) I figure my car (20 mpg) goes 5 miles to the dollar in gas alone. Add in the other ICE engine based upkeep, and I figure that goes down to 4 miles per dollar.
      Okay, same car, same insurance, etc, just remove the ICE engine. Now I can get 8 to 9 miles per dollar, easy, if I buy my electricity off the grid at $0.10/KWh. That's actually a little higher than I pay, but it's close to the national average, I think. The magic question: how many miles will it take to break even?
      • ChromaVita, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2ICE engine = Internal Combustion Engine Engine?
        • blqysmg, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Yeah, kind of redundant, in a repetitive sort of way, isn't it? I didn't even think about adding the word engine after the ICE acronym. Should have, I know.
  • bumblefoot, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2that X1 looks like a derivative of the aerial atom, which is pretty cool


    but electric cars will not be a viable alternative until they sort out the time before recharging, i guess you could use something that takes the kinetic energy from it moving and uses that to recharge the batteries or something. You also have to remember that at the end of the day, you need to recharge it by plugging it into something, which will no doubt be using energy supplied by a power plant so its still not carbon neutral (it is a start though)


    my money is on hydrogen fuel cells for powering vehicles in the future, abundant, cheap and burns completely cleanly.
    • mrgulabull, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Where do you think hydrogen comes from? Yes it makes up a large portion of the atmosphere, but obtaining pure hydrogen for use in your car is not a simple or clean process.
      • blqysmg, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Yep, it's usually "reformed" from oil. Nice, isn't it?

        Hey, methane is mostly hydrogen!
    • blqysmg, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4The recharging thing has been figured out. Regen braking and 10 minute charge batteries. The A123 batteries can recharge that fast, assuming you can deliver the power. Most homes cannot. Still, with special connectors, you could charge a car to 90% in an hour or so. Not bad.
  • aaronadms, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6I still want that Ariel Atom..
  • st00f72, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3I'm still not convinced that it's more efficient, or economically advantageous to transmit power over a grid than to generate power from an onboard fuel.

    meh.. dugg for the machinist pic
    • jabberwolf, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1There are more outlets, then there are gas stations!

      Convinced now?
    • thurows, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4that has to be shipped in large ships, refined, piped or hauled. Spoken like an oil executive.
      • st00f72, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1i didn't say onboard fossil fuel - you assumed it
    • blqysmg, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3You've got a point, if a small one. If we had a good base of electric cars, however, it might be economically advantageous to have lots of independent local power supplies, however. Think solar carports, wind-powered charging stations along Texas and Oklahoma highways, etc.
      • st00f72, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1..or grid-tied wind/solar homes (for the few lucky enough to have the space)

        I just would like to see concrete data on how much power is lost from the wires so we can know whether it offsets other benefits (of large remote generation) and not just assume vague generalities.
  • FrapFreak, on 05/19/2008, -7/+2You still need to charge an electric car... and considering most of the power in the US comes from coal, you'd actually be burning dirtier fuel by getting an electric car over a gas burning one. Now maybe if we switched to nuclear power... it'd work!
    • blqysmg, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Nope, not true. Check your facts. Taken all together, electric generation by coal is still cleaner than the equivalent power produced by Car Engines.
      Now, for those areas where hydro-electric, wind-power, solar, or nuclear energy is available, it should be a no-brainer.
      If you are stuck in an area that has ONLY coal based electricity, fear not. You can still run electric, and leave the fumes and soot to settle around the power-plant, and not in your garage.
  • sniffer, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4Put them around 15000€ and i'll buy one of them! Really. At this rate, with gas rising 17 times in 5 months, i'll get my money back in a couple of years with the bonus of having a new car and friendly to the environment!
    • Edogz, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Check out the Aptera..
      Expected shipped price is below $29,000