Electric Think City car sets sights on North American launch
By Darren Murph 
posted April 24th 2008 8:39AM
posted April 24th 2008 8:39AM
[Via International Herald Tribune]
posted April 24th 2008 8:39AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
#1 - Who says it is coming from a coal source instead of nuke, wind, or water?
#2 - Having power being drawn from a single source makes future advances easier to implement. Read: More efficient nuke plants, "cleaner" (Yah I gag on that word too) coal, etc vs. needing to roll out new power plants to 50,000+ cars.
#3...because its better then nothing?
Hydrogen power is the way forward. Honda are well into getting something produced, and there all ready hydrogen cars doing above 200mph.
It's going to take a lot more than the prospect of an easier conversion later on for me to pay that much money for something that will be rendered useless if we run out of oil before we get sparky and his freinds out of the trees and convert to nuclear power. Sorry :(
Fanman, hydrogen isn't a power source. You'd still need a coal, nuke, wind, solar, hydro, etc. plant to get the hydrogen into usable form.
Just as an example, I get a 30-mile range on my electric bike from a charge using *less* than 25 cents worth of electricity.
So, I'd imagine a 110-mile range would be about $1.10 worth of electricity, give or take.
That's not very much fuel at your electric plant. That's miniscule. That's less than it takes to power your computer on standby for a day.
drink drink drink that hydrogen flavored kool aid!
I'm a big fan of electric cars and I realize that $25k is a move in the right direction, but with only a 110mile range for $25k I would rather spend a little more on a base hybrid and pay someone to convert it to a plug-in. Most plug-in hybrid conversions get at least 100miiles on a charge only using the batteries and no gas.
I wish someone would just take the risk and mass produce an electric car so it could be affordable for the type of car it is replacing(the econobox we all use to get to work and do local shopping).
The average commute time, IIRC, is about 30 minutes. Most Americans can make due with a car that gets 110 miles to a charge (especially if you can charge at work, a foldable rooftop solar panel might help while the car sits in a lot all day)
So, you might have to plan your day a bit. God forbid you're a little inconvenienced. GM didn't kill the electric car, the desire to appease lazy users did.
Pass. I couldn't even use this in the interstate. Well I could but at 70MPH....I'd get blown off the road. And considering much of MN's highways are already 65MPH.....
I was driving on 101 near San Francisco and saw a green colored Think. At first I thought it was a Smart, but when I got closer I saw the Think name. Hopefully soon they will be available to inspect more closely. It didn't look bad at all.
I've said this many times, but I'll say it again.
When the demand for fuel (gas, petrol, diesel) starts to drop, the price of electricity will go up at a matching rate. Already a major electric supplier in Ohio has announced (got it in the mail) that they are raising their rates by 7% this year and another 5% next.
Not rocket science here people. The fuel companies are setting us up for charging us X dollars "per mile". Those fossil fuel companies are already starting to buy electric power plants, electric companies, bio-fuel companies, etc. They're not going to just fade away because they can't sell the stuff they have for the past century.
When vehicles start using water for fuel (fuel cell, etc.), water companies will do the same thing.
Why? Because they can and will get away with it.
Same reason we're already mostly paying double over last year for milk, animal products, fruits and veggies.
I agree with you, which is why i think the only feasible solution at this point is to build more nuclear power plants... May not be the best thing in the world but i think it's the only economically and technologically realistic option...
"When the demand for fuel (gas, petrol, diesel) starts to drop, the price of electricity will go up at a matching rate."
The demand for fuel (gas/petrol, diesel) is down about an average of 3.5% so far this year in the US. Last year demand declined http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_945564_page_3.htm
As someone already said, at 110miles per charge, the electricity to power that distance will cost around .03 cents per mile.
So add 3.5%, to .03cents per mile. Still worth it? I think so.
NEXT!
Uh, my electric bill is already pretty high. I wonder what a plug in car would do to it? Energy isn't free, no matter the form.
UGH!!!
Ok, this is designed for cummuters. I live 18 miles from work. You dont use this for your road trip out to cali. If you go to work in the morning how often do you actually get to drive 65mph...never?! So its top speed isnt an issue.
Another thing people are missing with speed limitations is that with electric vehicles, speed is only limited by how much electricity you can get into the motor, and how much electricity your controller allows you to use. You probably CAN trick this out to get more speed, but at the loss of gaining more weight OR losing range.
I ride an electric bicycle for my commute. I COULD go 45 mph on it. I choose not to because I don't need to, and frankly, 20 mph is just fine on a bike that sticks mainly to sidewalks.
My only problem with this car is the price. It should be HALF the price. My Cavalier gets more range, has a higher top speed, and cost half as much. THAT is the market they should be aiming for. The people who are willing to spend $25k on a car are going to get a hybrid instead, because it's just a little more versatile.
Deliver a car with these capabilities and charge me $13,000 or less, and I'll be on-board. If my electric bike which has 1/3 the range, and 1/3 the speed was under $1,000 then it should be possible to build an electric car for under $6,000 easily.
Electric cars will continue to be a novelty in America because nobody seems to want to sell to the average commuter. They all think they're going to get rich selling electric cars to the hybrid-buying or SUV-buying crowd. That's not who they should aim for.
They should price it in the range where your average college student could afford to buy it on a part-time job. $13k or less.
"Deliver a car with these capabilities and charge me $13,000 or less, and I'll be on-board. If my electric bike which has 1/3 the range, and 1/3 the speed was under $1,000 then it should be possible to build an electric car for under $6,000 easily."
Pipe dream, my friend. The engineering required for meeting standard US safety requirements for new cars (crumple zones, airbags, etc.), and supplying enough power to make the subsequent weight able to accelerate or operate at long range (Li-ion packs, regenerative braking, etc.) mean that a sub-6000 price is not going to happen.
Maybe for a vehicle that's classified as a motorcycle, but not an automobile.
Sign me up...I want one.
I am sold. My 30 minute commute through the cluster that is Atlanta rarely gets above 40 - 50. And even when the highway is empty I cruise at 60 - ALWAYS in the slow lane - because driving like an idiot to get to work five minutes faster just doesn't interest me. Ugly or not this thing is a step in the right direction. Sign me up.
The only problem I have with this press release is that they plan on assembling in SoCal - are they kidding. There must be some massive grant/tax break involved to overcome the negatives associated with manufacturing in California.
Yea cause Toyota is a bunch of morons for assembling the Camry and Corolla in Southern California (along with kentucky) right?
Happy recipients of said tax breaks - a long time ago. How many new plants have they dropped in SoCal - now Baja would make sense.
To all those who suggest that the technology 'just isn't there' - Large-scale NiMh batteries exist for all electric vehicles that would provide range greater than 150mi and speeds above 100 mph -- they were developed back in the 90s and then GM sold its interest to Texaco who was gobbled up by Chevron. Toyota had to pay 30Mil to Chevron to license some portion of the NiMh technology in its hybrid.
Hydrogen is the bait-n-switch method for holding off competition - the infrastructure costs alone are huge not to mention that the energy to make the hydrogen useable would dwarf the energy savings. Koolaid for sure.
But there is hope for the 'real' all EV car and SUV
Tesla is making a very high performance sports car - which, like the F1 series will pioneer the tech and interest to make a more affordable sedan -- early adopters have always paid a premium to push emerging tech.
there are a few other companies creating EV or plug in hybrid (all electric for the first 30-40miles) that we'll be seeing in the next few years
- most notably GM with their 'Volt'
I think most promising is a company in SoCal called Phoeix Motors - they are set to release an EV SUV that gets 100+ miles/charge, can charge in 10 minutes (with high powered off-board chargers) or several hours from 220V (if memory serves) speeds limited to 95 or 100 mph and set to debut at 45K. They are using a new battery as well.
check it out!
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/phoenix-suv.php
Also, simply due to the nature of the electric motor having full torque at zero or low RPM these cars can and will provide more acceleration than the internal combustion engine. It's simply a matter of changing public opinion that a more energy efficient vehicle needs to be ugly, small, and slow.
Also - environmentalism aside, the US has 100+ years of coal reserves (ignoring hydro, photo, wind, nuclear) and the rest of the world has ~ 40 years of oil -- electric vehicle technology will begin to end the US dependance on foreign oil. I think everyone can agree that is a good thing.
I wonder where on Earth you found the "fact" that the world has 40 years worth of oil left! That's absolute nonsense!
Just a few weeks ago Brazil announced one of the world's largest new finds ever! And we keep discovering more, not to mention actually extracting more from existing sources.
Your whole post is one long ad for your friends in the EV company.
Andrew - I appologize for not doing my homework - the question of how much oil is left in the world varies wildly as shown in quotes below -- the amount of oil that is actually left should really not be a major factor in that it as a non renewable resource and will some day be entirely gone. Another (non - environmental) consideration is that the majority of oil (currently) is extracted in the middle east, an obvious unstable and war torn (thanks to US) region. I don't have any friends in any EV companies but would like to see the technology embraced and enriched - ThInk is doing the right thing and I applaud them!
Figures vary:
San Antonio Express-News David Hendricks Column
QUOTE:
...
Jim Payne, CEO of Houston's Nuevo Energy, also spoke at AmericasUnidas and backed up much of Greehey's projection.
U.S. oil production has peaked and won't increase, Payne said, adding: "There's almost no oil left to be found in the United States." Production likely will cease altogether about 2060, he said.
...
How much crude is left?
QUOTE:
...
Could we conceivably run out of crude oil? The U.S. Geological Survey reported in 2000 that the world had 3 trillion barrels of oil and gas before we began using it. The survey estimated that 700 billion barrels have been used up, with 2.3 trillion barrels remaining.
A few algebraic equations later the Center for Global Energy Studies (CGES) reported that with 28.8 billion barrels of oil used per year, roughly 79 million barrels per day, current supplies should last for about 80 years.
However, the 2.3 billion barrels left includes 1.4 billion barrels which are believed to exist but are yet to be discovered. There are roughly 890 billion barrels of oil and gas that have been found and booked as proven reserves, about a 31 year’s supply.
This calculation is lower than the oil and gas industry’s estimate. BP oil statistics, the trusted industry source, projects about 1,047 billion barrels of proven reserves, a 36 years supply at current usage rates.
However, industry analysts are not concerned about this, Derek Butler of Wood Mackenzie Consultancy said. “It’s not something we get hung up about. We think in the medium term there is enough oil in reserve.”
BP data indicates for the past 10 years reserves have been consistent. In 1992 there were 1,006 billion barrels, which indicates that the industry has been successful in making discoveries to replace the resources used.
Manouchehr Takin of CGES says: “Forty years ago, economists and geologists said there were 40 years of oil and gas left. Now they are saying the same thing.”
...
This thing looks like a kid of a Beetles and a MINI.
"The demand for fuel (gas/petrol, diesel) is down about an average of 3.5% so far this year in the US."
So explain why most everyone else is saying that the US is using more fuel, that the US's consumption increase is globally driving the price/barrel UP, why I'm now paying $3.60/gal vs. $2.10 same time last year, etc., etc.
"As someone already said, at 110miles per charge, the electricity to power that distance will cost around .03 cents per mile. So add 3.5%, to .03cents per mile. Still worth it? I think so."
At current rates, ok. But you can't honestly (at least without being delusional) believe that "electric" energy companies aren't going to take advantage of the "you're already paying $x.xx/mile, so we can get away charging almost that much too" theory.
Think about bottled water versus soda pops. There's no reason a bottle of "filtered" city water (Dasanti by Coke and Aquafina by Pepsi) should cost as much as Coke and Pepsi. The only reason it does is because people are already desensitized to paying $1.50/bottle (central ohio rate) for pop, so they just grumble and pay $1.50 for a bottle of water.
I have been trying to buy one, I drove one at the Ford Rouge site, my work partner also wanted one, we thought it would be a great back and forth to work car, called the FoMoCo WHC and they said they didnt know anything about it, well to make a long story short, they sold it.
I will order one now, just tell me how , this car runs on American coal
I live in Norway where this car was developed, and i would like to support Norwegian el-car industry, but given my length, i could never fit into a Think City. I would rather import a Tesla from the US.
Tesla has it right, you have to make el-cars look sexy!
Can everyone please tell my friend Shawn Madigan to NOT buy a mopehead and just wait for these to hit the US!!!?
SHAWN MADIGAN DO NOT BUY A MOPEHEAD!
What is a mopehead?
Is that a sick joke? A mopehead over this car?
LEPRECHAUNS CAN'T RIDE MOPE HEADS!
how did you know he is a leprechaun!!
I applaud companies such as Think and Tesla for moving forward the all electric car concept. It uses an established infrastructure for distributing "fuel" vs the challenges of hydrogen. I believe we'll move to a cleaner transport system with such cars.
Now, I would really appreciate an all electric that is very affordable, say under $10K USD, to encourage rapid adoption, quickly replacing many gas powered vehicles.
I like the "Think Ox". I really wish the prices could be less than 25K though. I never bought a new car before, but I would if they weren't so expensive. 20K would be my limit. Than with tax and all.... it's a lot of money.
I'd like more than anything to trade in my Buick for the sake of stoping global warming, but new cars are too RISKY. First off, I can't afford full coverage, so I'd have to pay cash in order to insure the car. One accident and I could be out 25K. They really got to bring the prices down....
BUT GO GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!