What is Digg?Sponsored by openforum.com
Essential Social Media Tools for the Small Business view!
openforum.com - Tools to help you manage your many social media outlets...Take the plunge
133 Comments
- strafefire, on 12/19/2007, -4/+19Canada is a very large oil producer. I mean, seriously, has anyone here been to Northern Alberta and BC Canada? There is gold [oil] in dem darn hills [soil/sand].
So, something like this happening does not surprise me.
There should be a way around this though. Maybe, create a "hybrid" that is 98% electric, with a little clunker diesel inside for emergency use only.
There, now you are not selling an electric car -- SUCK IT GUVMENT! - RogerStrong, on 12/19/2007, -14/+28Buried as inaccurate. These aren't cars, like the EV1; they're golf carts with turn signals.
Here in Winnipeg you can't get around town without travelling on 60kph streets. The Zenn has a top speed of 40kph / 25mph. They'd tie up traffic, and cause accidents because of everyone trying to get around them.
Nor do they have the safety requirements of cars. No crash testing or no crash protection is required - making them death-traps in normal traffic. - Falldog, on 12/19/2007, -6/+17Buried as inaccurate. We all know it was the Stonecutters.
- geomon, on 12/19/2007, -1/+12The article was pretty thin on information. Yesterday's article at least blamed US corporations for forcing EVs off of Canadian markets. No explanation was given for how that apparent corporate muscle failed to keep the same EVs from the US market.
- Evildudetx, on 12/19/2007, -3/+11Go to their website - these are NOT cars. They are glorified golf carts. Not capable of going more than 25 mpg and they only get 30-40 miles per charge. No crash test data, but then again, I'd feel safer in a Yugo.
- RogerStrong, on 12/19/2007, -5/+13No-one is stopping them from selling electric cars. The only limitation is that they be roadworthy - they have to meet certain safety standards, and be able to keep up with the traffic. This applies no matter how you power the car.
The EV1 would be legal. The Zenn isn't. How its powered isn't the issue. - lukifer, on 12/19/2007, -2/+8Wow, what an entirely unrelated inference.
- moocow1452, on 12/19/2007, -0/+6Enter the Chevy Volt
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/ - vwvan, on 12/19/2007, -1/+7i invested everything i had in electric cars in the 90's. simulations at that time would later show they were half the car for twice the price. then came lithium. Li polymer batteries change the picture because they have both high energy density and high power density as Al Coconi's work has shown. however, the electric charge has to come from somewhere. if it comes from solar power you are set, no CO2 is generated. If it comes from the coal-fired powerplant, you aren't helping things much. You have to put $60,000 worth of solar cells on your house to charge the batteries. However that is coming down. A better option is wind power. An even better option is to decommission nuclear weapons and burn the fuel to produce CO2-free electrcity. This requires a careful waste disposal program, that the French have shown which reduces dangerous liquid waste to hockey-puck like ceramic disks that can be stored without leeching indefinitely. They can also generate background heat and rays for nuclear medicine studies. If the material were put directly into an automobile, you could get 160,000+ miles per gallon equivalent. So you would basically recycle the car after its first tank of fuel. Unfortunately we can't all get along well enough for that so we're stuck with electrics.
- bbtrev, on 12/19/2007, -2/+7Performance? Dude, do some homework. A gas motor versus an equally sized electric motor is totally gutless.
- krnldmp, on 12/19/2007, -1/+6Wayell maybe in the mid 90's. But if companies like Nanosolar come through on their promises rooftop solar power could supply enough juice for most people's commute.
- apeweek, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5Absolutely false.
An electric vehicle, even considering coal-fired plants, only makes about 3% of the pollution of a gas vehicle. This is the case because of increased efficiencies at every step of the process.
-Not all fuel sources making electricity are dirty.
-Fuel burns more efficiently in large plants than it does in your car.
-Sending energy via wire to your car (95% efficient) beats trucking gas to thousands of service stations.
-Gas powered engines are less than 25% efficient. Electric motors can be over 90% efficient. - MikeFallopian, on 12/19/2007, -1/+6Somalia in the past decade says hi.
- MikeFallopian, on 12/19/2007, -1/+6Electric cars are now becoming feasible - the bizarre designs of some early EVs were aesthetic choices, not necessitated by the technology. Look at the performance specs (and design) of the Tesla Roadster.
- init100, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5"Where does everyone think electricity comes from? Electric cars are actually quite bad on emissions. Everyone seems to forget that the vast majority of our electricity is from coal"
You said it yourself: Electric cars are not bad on emissions, as the problem lies in your power generation systems. In Sweden, where I live, electric cars would be much better than gasoline-fueled ones, since we have a 50-50 split between hydro and nuclear power plants. Almost no fossil fuel is burned for electric power generation. IIRC, we only have fossil fueled plants for backup purposes.
But even when electric cars are charged with dirty coal-generated electricity, they are cleaner than petrol-powered cars. There are several reasons for this:
* Steam turbine powered plants (regardless of fuel) are more efficient than gasoline engines
* Contrary to popular belief, power transmission losses are pretty low
* It is much easier to clean a few large stationary polluters, like power plants, than millions of small mobile polluters, like cars. - init100, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4"The efficiency of a gasoline engine is greater than a coal power plant, transmission lines, sub stations, etc."
Seems like you have been exposed to the myth that 40% power is lost each 100 miles in a power line. In reality, most power lines use a very high voltage, which significantly decreases the power loss. Since the power loss is inversely proportional to the square of the voltage, you will cut your losses by 3/4 if you double the transmission voltage. Since the current is so low, the losses in a 400 kV long-distance power line are much lower than you might think.
In addition, steam turbine plants (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, etc) have a higher efficiency than gasoline engines. - qole, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Recent research has shown electric cars from coal fired plants are still significantly better environmentally than ICE (internal combustion engine) cars. It's really just an economy of scale.
- RogerStrong, on 12/19/2007, -1/+5This is a myth, if not an outright lie.
In any case the article is about Canadian market. Some coal is used, but the mostly its nuclear or hydro-electric power. - chadszinow, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4An electric car even powered by electricity from a coal fired plant is still much more efficient CO2 effecient than the standard internal combustion engine. In addition as ways to generate electricity become greener all electric cars become greener whereas traditional internal combustion engines remain a dirty and noisy alternative.
I'm all for decommissioning nuclear weapons but there is something about burning nuclear fuel which just doesn't sit well with me. - Pherdnut, on 12/19/2007, -2/+6What the Hell? You guys are supposed to be like that little angel on our shoulder that keeps us honest. No more F16s for you. Well, maybe one more. Just keep the supermodels coming.
- lukifer, on 12/19/2007, -3/+7The full documentary, "Who Killed The Electric Car?": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5977085690 ...
(My money is on the same dude who framed Roger Rabbit.) - Tomyris, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5This isn't a revisited issue, it's a repeated non-issue. Glorified golf carts indeed. Buried.
- SSCrow, on 12/19/2007, -4/+7wait what?
I thought Canada was very pro environmental and not corrupt like the states.
Strange. - apeweek, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Be careful with your 'rational undeniable' facts. Somebody might throw some back at you.
Coal doesn't matter. EVs are several times more efficient - not just the cars, but the energy distribution scheme.
-Not all fuel sources making electricity are dirty.
-Fuel burns more efficiently in large plants than it does in your car.
-Sending energy via wire to your car (95% efficient) beats trucking gas to thousands of service stations.
-Gas powered engines are less than 25% efficient. Electric motors can be over 90% efficient.
More miles on less fuel means less pollution per mile - no matter what gets burned. Source:
http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/electri ...
actual study: http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/CEC-999-1996-015.P ...
"...in a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs were significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity generation process produces less than 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles."
There's also plenty of off-peak energy available for EVs, since they principally charge overnight. Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/06121 ...
Mileage From Megawatts: Study Finds Enough Electric Capacity To 'Fill Up' Plug-in Vehicles
Science Daily — If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of the country's 220 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics.
When more energy is needed, we'll take it from gasoline refining - lots of electricity is now used to refine gasoline. - Chompy, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Yeah but where would you drive?
- paker, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3I get tired of people saying electric cars are slow. It just depends on how they're built. Watch the little white electric car smoke Corvettes, Mazda RX-7's, etc....
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/videos.php - UrlorJkron, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Except the Veyron and Aero TT already have...
- RogerStrong, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Only in your mind. Not in reality.
- apeweek, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3I drive an EV (picture: http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/775 ) and respectfully disagree. Not everyone's experience and needs are the same. I do plug mine in at the office (hey, free electricity!)
I agree, apartment dwellers are at a disadvantage. This doesn't warrant a blanket statement of 'aren't yet practical.' - cybrguy, on 12/19/2007, -1/+4FACT CHECK:
49.7 percent of our nation's electricity was generated from coal. Nuclear energy produced 19.3 percent. Natural gas supplied 18.7 percent. Hydropower provided 6.5 percent of the supply. Fuel oil provided 3.0 percent of the generation mix. Biomass produced 1.6 percent, while other renewable resources, such as geothermal, solar, and wind, provided the remainder of the supply.
# The following amount of electricity, in gigawatt-hours (GWh), was generated from the nation's fuel mix:
* Coal: 2,013,179 GWh
* Nuclear: 781,986 GWh
* Gas: 757,974 GWh
* Hydro: 263,029 GWh
* Fuel Oil: 122,522 GWh
* Biomass: 63,856 GWh
* Other (geothermal, non-wood waste, wind, and solar): 52,142 GWh
http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/industry_overvi ... - Chompy, on 12/19/2007, -4/+7Who's going to build electric cars in the Mad Max world where no government exists? They don't need no 'lectric cars in Bartertown.
- doktorrocket, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3True, but compare the energy in a liter of gasoline to an equivalent size (or weight) of battery and the tables are turned. The absurd energy density of gas is what allows entire transportation networks to be built around engines that are 30% (or less) efficient, and makes it hard to equal that range in a mobile application using batteries.
- cybrguy, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3My region has so much Hydro-electric we sell our electricity elsewhere. And if people wised up and went nuclear instead of coal this would be awesome, but I do agree, the car is too slow. Make it do 120kph and I will buy one.
- MWeather, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3Did you factor in the distribution costs for gasoline vs coal? I'm guessing it's a lot cheaper to ship boxcars full of coal to a large, centralized coal plants than it is to ship small amounts of gasoline to virtually every street corner.
- ajmoo, on 12/19/2007, -2/+5like the ones used in the Honda Insight, right? Yeah, those batteries haven't needed replacing in a car that's almost 10 years old ('99 was the introduction of that car.)
- RogerStrong, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3It probably is. But it ain't being sold as a motorcycle is it? People know not to expect safety from a motorcycle. The Zenn is being sold as a passenger car. It looks like a passenger car. You can't tell that it doesn't have the safety of a nearly identical-looking passenger car.
Plus, when it's travelling at half speed on a main street, there's going to be more accidents as people try to get around it. Even if not, it's still slowing everyone else down on their way to work. They'll make Hummer drivers look good. - RogerStrong, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2First, that's in the US. The issue here is in Canada, which uses a lot more hydro and a lot less coal.
Second, half the power generated in the States *isn't* from coal.
Third, that doesn't include all the power coming from Canada, most of which is hydro.
Fourth, the switch to electric cars won't happen overnight. The US is starting to build nuclear reactors again; wind farms are going up just as fast as they can be built, and the costs of solar power have dropped enough that it's finally starting to look good not just to the eco-freaks, but to the accountants. - dd12101, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Don't discount solar power, your car could have the ability to charge/partially charge in the daytime. And no one say the solar panels haven"t gotten there yet, remember, they killed the car, does anyone really think they are going to release any soalr technology or bury it. I'll bet the inventions we are denied(for their economic reasons) would blow the mind.
- RogerStrong, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2It's not that electric cars are slow. It's that THESE cars - the Zenns that the article talks about - are slow.
- ShredtheNews, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2and nastronomical just got pwned! Why are so many conservatives just plain ***** when it comes to the environment?
This is common sense; what is there not to understand that electric vehicles are vastly more efficient and less polluting than ICE cars regardless of where the power comes from? - RogerStrong, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2You won't do it with a Zenn. It's specifically prevented from going faster.
- dukeeeey, on 12/19/2007, -5/+7the electric car killed itself. The problem is simply the batteries, they are too expensive and don't last that many years.
- DonTazeMeBro, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Um... F22s or the deal is off, sorry.
- apeweek, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Coal doesn't matter. You are still generating just a few percent of the emissions of a gas engine because of the greatly improved efficiencies of the electric car.
http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/electri ...
actual study: http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/CEC-999-1996-015.P ...
"...in a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs were significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity generation process produces less than 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles." - apeweek, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2If you're talking about 100-year-old lead acid batteries, sure. But the year is 2007. There is lots of new battery technology now.
Altairnano, or A123 batteries are good for thousands of charge cycles. Take a look at the Zap-X EV:
http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric ...
It does 644 horsepower, the batteries have a 300,000 mile lifetime, and can charge in just 10 minutes. If our car companies/oil companies/government would throw some research money at this (instead of hydrogen and ethanol), we could make these batteries affordable in a few years. - BoneheadFarker, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Look...I feel for these guys. I really do. And I'd love to see an electric car on the road. But the sad reality is that these cars just don't meet today's vehicle demands. They go a top speed of 40KM/h. That's simply not fast enough for most road.
They tried passing off bicycles and scooters as current low speed vehicles on the road. First, bikes are considered vehicles, but in most cases are regulated to the side of the road so that cars can get by them. And in some cases they have their own lane. Scooters, on the other hand, can usually do at least 80KM/h. They won't impede traffic on any road they are allowed to travel on. If these guys want to seriously contend, they have to take a look at Tesla Motors. They don't need to build a sports car, but at least make the cars do a reasonable speed.
It's not the government screwing them over...it's themselves... - apeweek, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Sheesh, how many times are people going to make the same incorrect point? EVs make FAR LESS pollution, no matter what power plants burn. They are many times more efficient. The proof in right in the fuel prices - gasoline costs you 10 to 30 cents per mile, and getting worse. Electricity costs just 1 to 2 cents per mile.
Efficiency is the reason. More miles on less fuel means less pollution. A LOT less. Even with coal. - init100, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2"electric motors, like the ones used in cars, refrigerators, and hairdryers all create ozone."
If this would be a problem, wouldn't you think someone had noticed yet? After all, subway systems are pretty common in major cities, and those are (almost?) exclusively electrically powered. Hundreds of millions of people all over the world use subway systems every day, and those use electric motors in pretty enclosed spaces with not-so-excellent ventilation systems. If ozone from electric motors would be a problem, somebody should have noticed by now. - apeweek, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2To the extent that we let oil and auto companies define reality for us, sure, reality it is.
However, many surveys show plenty of latent demand for EVs, even those with limited ranges and other flaws. Those demands are not served by auto companies because they make more money selling us inefficient machines that break a lot.
EVs would be fully developed products by now, with all the wrinkles smoothed out, if major automakers had provided models to us for the last couple of decades. - captainchris, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I would honestly drive an electric-only version of an existing car on the market (Nissan Altima, Toyota Corolla..) if it were available. With relatively cheap hydro-electric power in Quebec, it's a great idea. Here's a fact too: Only 19% of Canada's power is produced from coal, so if more electricity were too be used at home to power cars, chances are there would be few co2 emissions released.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
