Who killed the electric car?

Well, if *all* the automakers spent more on hard research and better
battery technologies instead of designing the next million-dollar
ephemeral construction of glitz for their next tradeshow and "product
reveal", we'd be so much farther ahead. They're still working really
hard to convince the average redneck that he *needs* that big
powerful truck, and that doesn't come free.
.
_H*

 

This is backwards, absolutely backwards!!! :angry:

The Windows Media Player Hi-Res/Lo-Res links on commingsoon.net, that is.

 

This is backwards, absolutely backwards!!! :angry:

The Windows Media Player Hi-Res/Lo-Res links on commingsoon.net, that is.

(hey, if it's worth re-posting the topic in another forum, it's also worth re-posting the replies too, isn't it? :lol: EDIT: Oops, I guess not if the links aren't the same :mellow: . . . but there are higher quality videos on the other thread.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ May 24 2006, 04:03 PM) [snapback]260488[/snapback]</div>

Darell,

Thanks for answering these questions. I have been a semi-active member of Priuschat since I got my car and I realize you are one of the experts about EV's.

However, I still don't follow the logic. The reasons you give for Toyota not continuing the RAV4 don't make sense to me. If it was a purely economical decision, why even develop the Prius? That cost a huge amount of money as well.

Even more significantly, if you have already spent billions to develop an EV, why now start from scratch and spend the same amount of money (or more) developing a hybrid? The cost to CONTINUE manufacturing what you have already developed is surely a better economical choice.

We can all agree that with gas at $3 a gallon, there would be a huge market for the electric RAV4. Toyota already know how to manufacture it. Why not make 15 or 20 thousand and see what happens? With the battery improvements they might be able to get double the miles on one charge.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Again, thanks for any insight you can give on this topic.

 

I, and probably may Californians, noticed the person doing the interview where the cars were being shredded was none other than Hewell Howser. He is well know in California, and maybe elsewhere, for his many PBS TV shows, such as California's Gold – a show where he travels around to every place imaginable in California and finds the real local stories and ambiance. He is fun to watch. He just walks around talking about an area and sticks microphones in peoples faces, even if they aren't expecting it. A big galoot with a big heart, warm and personable demeanor, and a knack for interviewing the locals and unwitting passer-byes. His shows are always fun to watch.
http://www.calgold.com/

I'm curious if he gained access to the shredding process because the people thought he was doing non-controversial California's Gold program?

The other guy I noticed was S. David Freeman. Very well known in the energy field. Besides his other accomplishments, he was hired to run the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (electric utility) back in a time when it needed a strong leader to save the utility from going under. SMUD is now in very good condition, in many parts thanks to Mr. Freeman. He is known for his no bull, straight from the hip, tell it like it is cowboy ways. If it comes out of his mouth, and it involves energy, I am a believer.

 

It's fascinating to read some of the rav4-EV service manual and think
"oh neat, they carried *that* idea straight into the Prius!" on a
fairly regular basis...
.
_H*

 

My 2 cents.

I see three obstacles that need to be addressed before EVs are going to be viable mainstream and not confined to mainly metro areas.

1) Range - The typical ICE auto in the US gets about 350-400 miles on a tank of gas. The current prototype EVs less than half that. I notice the film makers say "The typical American drives 29 miles a day." The two words they leave off the end of that sentence, "on average", make a big difference to the consumer. If the consumer wants to take an extended trip, they are looking at either owning two cars, or renting one for the trip. The first is not practical for a lot of people, the second goes against the current mentality of most consumers. They have a car. "Why can't I drive it from here to there without having to stop for as many hours as I drove?" (Assuming four hours of drive time and a four hour recharge time.)

2) Recharge times - Go till the ICE gas tank is empty and it takes a 10-15 minute fill up before you're on your way. Go until the EV batteries are drained and you sit for at least 2 hours, probably more, recharging.

3) Infrastructure - Yes electricity is just about everywhere. But unless there are metered recharging stations built all over, EVs are not going to go more than half their range from home. Of the three I think this is the easiest to solve. Start in urban areas and work your way out.

All this said I think there is a viable market for EVs. There are a lot of people in metropolitan areas that can benefit. What we need is a car company willing to take the chance, without being forced, of building a mass produced EV.

 

Gosh, this really is a fast growing topic! Well, here are my point of wiew from the other side of the atlantic! First of all, Darell is right on with his conclusions all the way! There is a lot more electric vechicles in europe, mostly in big cities in southern europe and french automakers has a few models to choose from. Sadly enough, noone imports them to sweden. The importers doesn´t seem to think there is a demand for them. Well, think again! The price of gasoline is more than twice as high here! Since almost noone have had the oppurtunity to try an EV car, they have all these strange arguments.

1. "The range is too limited"
Well, if you can go 100 miles and fastcharge for 20 minutes and then go another 100 miles, who would really need more? The more important thing as I see it would be the possibility to charge at home without having to upgrade the main fuses of the household. Here it is real expensive to do that so i guess about 4 kw/h is the maximum output. So Darell, would 4 kw for 10 hours be enough to fully charge the batteries?

2. "The interior space suffers from the batteries"
Well, this actually is true if you take an ordinary compact car and throws out the backseat and stuff the space with batteries. But, that´s the completly wrong way to do it! Take a small SUV, like the rav4, and make a double floor and fill the space between the floors with batteries. That´s how the rav4ev is done, right? If you really need a car that can run over logs and rocks, buy a tractor!

3. "They have slow acceleration and low top speed"
Well, that just bull. You can have an electric motor big enough to send your tires to the sky in a cloud of smoke, but who needs it? And top speed? A electric car can go as fast as you wish, but not for an unlimited range. But honestly, do we need cars that can go 150 mph? Wouldn´t 90 mph be OK? An electric engine is always much more effecient than a gasoline engine.

4. "The batteries will ruin you when they have to be changed"
The batteries really is expensive but thats mainly because the demand is low. I can´t really see how a pack of batteries can cost more than a complete engine and there is batteries that would be able to stand the test of time for the entire life of the car.


As Darell points out, to build an infra structure with charge stations would be real easy, it´s just about demand and supply. A lot easier to make a charge station than a gas station, that´s for sure!

So, I am really interested in these cars but I do however have one question. How would the heat of a Ev car work in these northern climates. Will the cabin heater and the battery temperature itself lower the range with 25%? 50%? How does the cabin heater work, Darell?


As a final statemant i think gasolinepowered lawn mowers should be banned! Get an electric mower! My neighbours have one of those stinking, noisy things! Yuck! By the way, next week I get my new summer work commute vechicle, an electric moped! Yippie!

I´m sorry for any strange grammatics or spelling in my post, guess I should had paid more attention in english class

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ May 24 2006, 01:05 PM) [snapback]260396[/snapback]</div>

Chances are very good it will come to our local independent theater. (Gore's movie is coming June 16.) However, I'll check their "coming soon" list, and if I don't see it, I'll make a suggestion that they get it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ May 24 2006, 01:30 PM) [snapback]260411[/snapback]</div>

Hi Marlin,

For me, this is simply not about "conspiracy theories."

In my eyes, the US Auto industry has proven through past actions that if there is a major technological advancement that they are able to employ in their products, they will unanimously poo poo it as being "too expensive" even if it is somehow beneficial or saves lives - at least at first or until it becomes government mandated.

Examine the situation with air bags as one example. I'm sure that you will find out (if you are not already familiar with it) that the US auto industry poo poo'd them until they were government mandated. At that point, air bags all of a sudden became a feature that sold product and were hyped by at least Chrysler and probably others with garbage sales pitches that went something like "we're concerned about your safety, so we are putting air bags in our products."

If the rumors are true about Toyota selling the Prius below what it costs them to manufacture it, then this is in stark contrast to the constant complaining from the US industry that any new technology is too expensive. If it is true, this would make Toyota very progressive in my mind and one of the few corporations that is doing something because it is the right thing to do and not because it lines the pockets of the company with $$$.

Let's face it, automobile technology has changed little in the time it has been around, and US automakers have lobbied congress for years to not raise fuel efficiency standards when higher fuel efficieny has been obtainable for years. It boggles my mind why US automakers wonder why they are losing sales to manufacturers who simply make better products. They blame the other manufacturers when they should be taking a closer look at themselves, their constant complaining that new technology costs too much, and their lack of innovation. If US automakers quit their complaining and years ago devoted themselves to fuel efficiency, I, for one, would be willing to bet that the US auto industry would not be loosing sales to other manufacturers.

Personally, I'd like to see another movie, "Who killed the carbon fiber car?" :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ May 24 2006, 07:05 PM) [snapback]260579[/snapback]</div>

Personally, I believe ultra capacitors and their further development are the way to go instead of batteries, and I recently sent e-mails to all three of my US representatives about this. A company called EEStor is said to be on the verge of providing the first "battery like capacity" ultra capacitors in production quantities. (In the meantime, Li-ion batteries are a much better alternative to other battery technologies, IMHO.) If more people did the same, representatives would have to listen no matter what their political party thinks.

Then, too, there are "metal air" fuel cells on the market that may well deserve more attention than H2 fuel cells in part because like batteries, they are electrically rechargeable. Unfortunately, someone yelled "hydrogen fuel cells" and everyone jumped on the bandwagon with little forethought - or so it seems. There are at least a few very promising technologies out there. All it will take is some more development effort by a company that realizes that short-term expense does not necessarily mean long-term losses.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wiyosaya @ May 25 2006, 01:27 PM) [snapback]260939[/snapback]</div>

And yet you blame only the US auto makers. That's my point. What about Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mitsubishi, Volkswagon, BMW, and all the other European auto manufacturers that are not actually owned by US auto manufacturers?

So, if US auto makers don't make EVs because they are lazy and greedy, and since non-US auto makers so altruistic and innovative, and if EV cars make so much sense, are a slam-dunk, and would sell like crazy, then why aren't the other car makers busting at the seams with EV cars? Why are they making hybrids instead? Because of GM?

And if you believe that Toyota is so altruistic that they would sell Priuses at a loss for the good of the world, then how do you explain why they stopped manufacturing the Rav EVs? Like GM, Toyota had a commercial EV vehicle. And like GM, Toyota could have been on their 5th or 6th generation EV vehicle by now if they hadn't canceled it. And like GM, Toyota did kill their EV programs. So why do you blame only GM and US Auto makers?

See, there's the conspiracy theory. It's just a shame we can't blame it all on Bush. The programs were killed in the 90's, so it must be Clinton's fault I guess.

 

I am a newbie here. Am considering a Prius as our next replacement vehicle. VERY interesting thread.

Questions:

Heard that one obstacle the EVs could not overcome was CA legislation that warrantied drivetrain components (emissions equip?) for 150K or 15 yrs which in an EVs case included the batteries and motor. The car makers knew the batteries on an all electric couldn't last that long and so they wanted out? Was called the CA "Super Warranty" I think. Could you clue me in?

What would it cost to replace the batteries in an EV? $2K? How long would they last? 75K miles?

For that matter - how long do people expect the Prius battery to last? Cost to replace? What is the max mileage on a Prius that anyone has heard of on one battery? Multiple batteries?

I guess I am judging battery technology for EVs based on the current hybrid battery technology and cost.

If we all started plugging in EVs at home each afternoon or night, would that require a huge amount of new electrical generation capacity to be built? Can't be all solar b/c it's $10K just to add solar to a home and washing appliances, refridgerators and heat pump HVAC would wipe out any surplus the average person could generate with solar. Would a car be a 2 megawatt load? I think the hydroplant near us in Rock Island, TN is only 4 megawatts. Admittedly that is a smallish plant but it's two hydro generators, a big building, all the electrical distribution equipment.

Lastly - has anyone read the article which explains how a Hummer H3 which gets 20 mpg uses less energy (birth to the scrap pile) than a hybrid?

http://www.independentconservative.com/200...ar_energy_life/

Of course - consider the source!!! <griN!>

Don't get me wrong a good EV would be all we need at our house. Well, two of them. I want to see them reach the market. I'm commuting maybe 20 miles a day with taking our kids to school and then to work. My wife is commuting maybe 40 miles but we are trying to get her closer to home so we can commute together again. Currently we drive a '99 CR-V and a '97 VW Cabrio (mine).

I definitely think Americans (all of the western countries?) have what they need (city car) mixed up with what they want (500 HP/0-60 in 5 seconds/4WD/muscle-SUV-sport-whatever for $42K). I am a lifelong gearhead and come from a familiy of hot rodders. I like custom cars but am content keeping them around for play while I wear out a "city car".

I spent 3 years in Naples, Italy where gas was $4.75 a gallon ('91-'94) and $3 a gallon here is but a glimpse of what Americans will be facing in the near future. Why wait for the end of cheap gas to arrive before we start changing our ways, why not shift our culture a little toward frugality? I enjoy driving low powered cars. I love the savings and it takes developing some patience about progress up mountains...

Had a Fiat 500 (18 HP 500cc), an Autobianchi A112 Elite (900cc), and a Super Beetle 1200cc 40HP. Still own a VW Westfalia (4000 lbs and 67 HP stock) and a '65 Beetle (1200cc 40HP). Neither of these VWs have the original engines - both upgraded for more HP (110HP Corvair in the Westy, 90HP VW aircooled). Still both are ~25 mpg vehicles.

I hope Americans will get over their love obsession with thirsty, heavy vehicles and begin moving towards sippers.

Chris in Cookeville
ICQ# 5944649

 

Just a quick few answers for darell.

The 350-400 mile range comes from the average auto. I would hazzard a guess that it is based on driving at an average speed of 45-50MPH for 8 hours. This is the maximum amount of time the average driver/vactioner would spend on the road for a day.

I didn't know about the fast recharge stations. I always thought that fast recharge was hell on battery life, so it would not have been done.

I'm a single guy. For me, owning and maintaining two cars is just not practical. Yes I could get away with owning an EV and renting an ICE car for vacations. Just like I'm going to rent a truck to haul sheet stock from the lumber yard the few times a year I want to now. At least until the time comes when recharge stations are just as common, if not more common than gas stations. Your looking at hotels, motels, and vacation spots all having recharge facilities billable to your account.

As for the days of yesteryear when autos carried extra gas cans for fuel, I think I can safely say that EVs can't do that. REALLY LONG extention cords????

 

This is from Wikipedia, but I've seen it elsewhere.

The original Pinto design had airbags, but in test marketing, people were unwilling to put out the extra cash for them or the fuel tank liner.

By the end of the '80s, they were required by law, but Ford and Chrysler were installing them before then. Of course that maybe do to the upcoming law.

Mercedes introduced the crumple zone, and Volvo the 3-point seat-belt. Volvo even gave other manufactors permission to use it without charge. I couldn't find the history of safety involving the asian makers. Perhaps someone has better google-fu than I.

Marlin is right. Why lay the blame on the US auto makers, and overlook the others? You also can't overlook the influence of the buying public. They are all out to make a buck, and you need buyers to do that.

With the electric car GM did have a heavy hand in it, but the other companies didn't lament it. And neither did the people. But things change with time. The public didn't want airbags in the '70s, but (I'd like to think) they won't buy one without now. Perhaps with the success of Prius and other hybrids, maybe people will start calling for an BEV.