While the Big 3 seem to be visiting Washington on an all-too-regular basis trying to secure funding for future success, $25 billion in loans set aside to promote
electric car usage in America has been sitting untouched for nearly two years. As the story goes, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan program was established in 2007, but administrations have been toying with ideas about how to use it until present day. Some 75 applications from hopeful companies have been whittled down to 25, but there's no telling how long it'll be before we hear who's getting the cash (and when). Many are irate that this dough is still sitting idle, but we tend to agree with the "let's wait until we find truly remarkably beggars" approach before it's just handed out to those without a viable plan. The takeaway? Electric vehicles may still end up progressing as planned despite the current economy, but only if brilliant plans can cut through miles of red tape.
posted February 28th 2009 7:22AM
Why would anyone want to pay an ultra premium for something that hasn't proven itself a viable option in the long term? No one that I know of has conducted a study on the battery replacement implications over a long-term. What good is it going to be to spend less on electricity over gasoline if a) you rely on coal-fired plants for that electricity (and thence increasing the demand) while at the same time not documenting the retail cowsumer costs involved in battery replacements--and not to mention the end of life therein.
Just goes to show the government is making nice but idiotic decisions. Question:
What is the cheapest ALL ELECTRIC vehicle available in the USA?
The cheapest is a do-it-yourself electric conversion. I am converting a Chevy S10 to all electric. It might not get 50-200 miles as the professional electric cars claim, but it will be enough for me to get anywhere I need to go where I currenly live. My budget is $10,000 for the truck and all the parts. I can also get 10% back from the governent in the current stimulous/porkulous bill for the cost of the electric conversion parts.
The second part is that I pay a premium on my electric bill for promoting the development of alternative renewable power generation. I do it volunteerly, but the government sounds like they are going to tax us all to force us to quickly get more 'free' power (after the equiment is built and before maintenace costs are factored in).
The third part is that if we build nuclear power plants or more renewable power sources (like solar thermal plants), my trucks power souce will change over night. Gas/diesel cars will not. And there is research being done at Los Alamos on nuclear batteries that generate electricity from radiation (not by heating up water, but actual capture and conversion). If they get it small enough, it could drop in where my current batteries are at, and the range issue goes away. The half-life of some low level radioactive waste is pretty long (safely encapsulated and you wouldn't need very much is the radiation-electric conversion process is effecient). With a smart grid, you can power your house and your neighbors house when you aren't driving as well. Then the traffic issue and charging a tax based on how many miles you drive becomes a concern to the government...
So, while the current cars may have some issues, technology has to start somewhere. Look at how far computers have come in the last 30 years...
@rcappo:
I think you are thinking of the Seebeck effect, so named for its discoverer: when opposite ends of the junction of dissimilar wires are heated to differing temperatures, a current flow is induced. It's how the Voyagers (satellites currently exploring the farthest reaches of the Solar System) are powered by "nuclear batteries."
But the problem is it works better in the cold vacuum of space -- one end of that junction is very VERY cold and the other end kept reasonably warm by radioactive fission processes.
I'm not sure how much life you'd get out of them at Earth temperatures, which are way way WAY WAY higher than space temperatures. You'd have to use a much more readily fissile fuel to get your "hot" end of the Seebeck battery, which means you'd go through that fuel in less time, meaning shorter battery life.
Just to help you out, you write: 2Just goes to show the government is making nice but idiotic decisions. Question: What is the cheapest ALL ELECTRIC vehicle available in the USA?"
My guess it is this one: http://www.motor-china.cn/
(according to this source: http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90778/90857/90860/6598770.html)
Yes, laugh about the volume (btw still higher than Tesla!), the size, the design but these guys are producing and selling big times in Asia. Forget about GM, Chrysler and Ford - they will never manage.
And keep in mind we all laughed about the Japanese, too. Now, tell me one American camera producer that plays a significant role in this market...
@Dan
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13545
There have been some recent developments. If it actually works and it can be safely taken from the lab to real world production, this could change the game.
Maybe I'm speculating, and I don't know all of the details, but virtually unlimited power with a big battery could fix a lot of problems. It would also be enough to convince people to buy electric cars. If I can drive 8 hours to the beach on Friday, and then 8 hours back on Sunday night for just the wear and tear on my car, that is something big.
1) The argument that hybrid vehicles just shift the source of pollution to coal plants is shortsighted at best. First of all, PHEVs energy-based environmental (and political) impact is a function of the power sources that run the electrical grid. As new renewable energy and/or clean energy production technology comes online in the form of solar-thermal plants, offshore wind, on-shore wind, geothermal, carbon-sequestering coal, natural gas, etc, the PHEV vehicles continue to get "greener" and more environmentally friendly, while gasoline ICE vehicles only get less efficient.
2) Even with traditional coal, natural gas, and fuel oil powered power plants, it is much more efficient to centralize power production in one major facility than it is in millions of simple combustion engines in cars. no matter the fuel, combustion engines are in fact incredible INEFFICIENT, with as much as 80% of the actual energy escaping as heat. Large facilities can use advanced technology, materials, and processes that are too expensive or impractical to have in a vehicle, but which can dramatically increase the efficiency of traditional sources of carbon-based fuel, from simply recapturing waste heat that is injected back into the system to other newer, much more complex techniques of increasing conversion efficiency.
On the same token, centralizing the energy production makes it much easier to maintain environmental standards and control pollution. Again, large centralized facilities can use technology that is too expensive or impractical for individual vehicles that can reduce emissions and create a lot less harm to the environment, even if they were burning the VERY SAME type and amount of traditional fossil fuels.
3) all the advantages I've mentioned until this point has entirely disregarded future distributed energy sources such as home and business solar-voltaic panels and small wind turbines, among other future technology. Many people will be able to provide for a large amount of their home and vehicle energy needs through these systems. Obviously, the same cannot be done with a conventional gasoline or diesel vehicle.
$25 billion for a car that looks like it was made by Tamiya?
I reply for modification my profile
I reply for heck of.
There's Log-in button on... umm....
You haz success for modification my profile?
I still don't understand the NA manufacturers fascination with bringing Electric/Hybrid cars to the marketplace. In the rest of the world where a fuel crisis hit about 20 years ago they use highly efficient diesels. If 60% of cars being sold in Europe are diesel we should be doing it here as well.
On a recent trip to England, I spent quite a bit of time in many different diesel cars from many different manufacturers. All were returning MPG around 55. Hybrid is simply a waste of time and money.
Proven technology and great performance. It is time the NA market is taken down the correct path. A Ford Escape Hybrid or an Escalade Hybrid are truly a simple waste of time and bring to great light the American Ignorance when it comes to consumption and greed. There are efficient alternatives already out there. People need to embrace them. Hell, GM owns Opel in Europe. The Astra there has a efficient diesel returning 50 mpg. But here we only get the gas model. Maybe we need to look a little deeper at the Oil Industry lobbying and understand why we are where we are. Politicians are wooed by oil money. Simple as that.
Its more complicated then that.
In Europe the density of populations and superior railways enable effective movement of goods without the excessive need for trucking. In the U.S. trucks are responsible for over 80% of goods movement. Since these truck utilize diesel its no wonder America has yet to adopt the air regulation that would make employing diesel air quality competitive wise here in the states. (Stricter standards = much higher price for diesel)
In addition, the cars in Europe you speak so highly of (of which I've driven as well) Excel in MPG because of their torque for stop and go driving. To the point, they usually achieve 50mpg because the speed limits are lower there and there is less cruising then here. Put a Fiesta diesel on I80 here on cruise control at 80mph and I grantee you won't see 50mpg. Meanwhile my last Focus rental returned 40mpg, no hybrid needed.
I love diesels too, but the use case here in the states is a huge factor in there inability to find success in the states. If Ford could make money selling them, I'm confidant they would.
I live in England, and up until a year ago, drove diesels. My last car, a Ford Mondeo diesel gave me a 34mpg return on city driving. I now drive a Prius (same interior space for five adults) and am now getting 50mpg. As I drive the Prius as a taxi, for half the time, I'm driving around with four passengers. Most journeys in Europe consist of city driving, so whilst manufacturer figures for diesels boast high mpg, in reality, consumers don't see that kind of return. My cousin has an Astra diesel, and whilst the official figures may point to 50mpg, in reality he doesn't get close to that for city driving.
Contrary to what sceptics think, hybrids DO work. Incidentally, In the ten years that the Prius has been on the market, Toyota has only had to provide replacement batteries for vehicles involved in serious accidents where the batteries have been damaged by the impact. There has yet to be a replacement battery issued any Prius due to failure resulting from normal use.
As for taxing the power grid, most users of electric vehicles would recharge during the night. This is a time when consumer demand falls (as most people are sleeping), so there would be no considerable increase in power production.
well, Asia actually hs more cars than anywhere else in the world and most of ours are still very much running on petrol, not diesel.
Anyhow, letting the money sit is just a waste of everyone's time. Put the money into R&D for fuel-cell cars so we dun need to rely on power grids and causes an increase in our carbon footprint.
Hybrids are the auto-makers' way of looking out for the oil mogul, allowing them time (an extremely slow one at that) to transit. We all know petroleum companies are paying the automakers. This is where the problem is.
can't call innovators or others work on this as "Beggars", then all universities and institutions that receive grants for research are also "Beggars"?
you have a picture of a fuel cell car... i.e. hydrogen powered... i.e. not electric.
You know how hydrogen fuel cells work, right? They react hydrogen and oxygen. To produce electricity.
yes, and i also understand that to everyone except you and the writer of the story an electric vehicle is one fuelled by batteries not hydrogen.
i guess for you gasoline vehicles are really heat powered for you and the writer as well... one needs to speak and write using well established terms or no one will know what the hell you are talking about or you need to explain yourself... i know that too...
In a normal car, the wheels are turned directly by the combustion that happens in its engine. Expanding gases push pistons, which turn shafts, which make the wheels rotate. This car is fuelled by hydrocarbons, which are dug out of the ground.
In a battery-electric car, the wheels are turned directly by electric motors, which receive a current from batteries. The batteries are charged before the car sets off, using power from a power station.
In a hydrogen fuel cell powered car, the wheels are turned directly by electric motors, which receive a current from a hydrogen fuel cell. The hydrogen is topped up before the car sets off, using hydrogen generated using power from a power station.
See the relationship?
There are also hydrogen internal combustion cars, which are indeed not electric cars. In one of these, the wheels are turned directly by the effects of hydrogen combustion, nearly the same as in a normal car.
Those tires must provide some pretty good traction.
Oh! Do wake up!
Whatever the merits or demerits of electri/hydrogen/cooking oil or whatever fuel, two matters seem to always forgotten.
The tax revenue ALL governments levy on vehicular fuels.
Just what the ACTUAL environmental long-term costs are (whether you are 'green' or couldn't give a sod!).
Look. If the government is used to (i.e. has already spent) tax revenue from vehicular fuels doesn't it seem blindingly clear that whatever you use to propel your whatever engine they are just going to tax it at a level which maintains THEIR income from this source.
Nuclear fuel has an uncosted long-term storage problem, whatever else you burn has other long-term problems.
In other words, you become more efficient, the government(s) maintain their inefficiencies by not allowing you to see any real long-term advantages from technologies. The problem is the government(s). Now. Forger this crap that 'democracy' (whatever that is) is not there to be treated critically (like fascism, or communism or anyother ism) and start to look at that which is the problem. Also stop gassing about it and accepting that it is NOT whichever party, or 'gift-from-God' politician from whatever ethnic group or pursuasion he/she/it comes from that will solve these two problems, but instead, just look at the long period of uninterrupted failure they've all had. Our system (which actually isn't a 'system' at all - a system is designed from the beginning as a 'whole' not added to and modified [updates a la Microsoft?] as wished by some - not all). is crap, and it definitely isn't the 'best' that could be under the circumstances either. It's the 'best' for some, not most, just remember that when 'increased taxes' is the next (like the last) proposed solution.
As Winston Churchill said in the east end of London during the war.
"Your effort, Your sacrifice, will ensure our victory." Now you know why he was nearly lynched and he was hissed and bood at by working class east enders. I was there dear reader, so don't you try to correct me. And there are posters (government printed) which prove it.
now there is about 180000 battery cars in the us if next year we had 5 000 000 where would we get the electicity to charge 5000000 cars we hav e built a power plant in 35 years so now where is all of this power coming from
Your comments are wrong. NONE of the electric car companiesC AN SURVIVE in this economy if they just "wait a bit"! This is the last chance to stop OIL (Which is the cause of war, corruption, cancer and the middle east crisis). EV car companies are all about to go out of business ANY WEEK! That is not the real story.. the real story is that the Bush Administration set out to kill Tesla because previous Washington DC was owned and controlled by big oil who also owns Detroit. Tesla turned in all of its paperwork for the multiple DOE loans, WHICH HAD BEEN CREATED UINDER LAW AS EMERGENCY FUNDING TO BE DELIVERED IN 2008 AND NO LATER! And DOE buried the funding and delayed it until Tesla was financially ruined. It should have taken 3 people, 4 days to look over Tesla’s application. They have INTENTIONALLY DELAYED the DOE 136 Money and Loan Guarantee money for FIVE MONTHS in order to kill Tesla. They had the paperwork for almost half a year yet the only looked at it A FEW DAYS AGO because they were ordered to by the NEW White House according to a top former Tesla Exec. There should be a corruption investigation that ties big oil to certain Bush Executives, some of whom are STILL THERE!
It takes years to build a car factory. They cost half a billion dollars to engineer. The parts for an electric car cost nearly $100K per car one at a time. That is why the cheapest they could possibly, possibly get the Chevy Volt is $65,000!!! There is no such thing as a car that costs less than $50K that does ALL OF the things that consumers want.. Yes they built the electric REVA, GEM, SMART, ZENN, etc. and NOBODY WANTS THEM.. Those companies all stared to DIE before the bad economy becaise they DO NOT DO WHAT CONSUMERS WANT. It is incredibly NAIVE to say otherwise.
I wasn't there Norman, so I shall have to take your word for it.
I do wonder though just what the east enders were mad at Churchill for...after all, it isn't like Hitler was offering a better deal. Did they really have a choice? What exactly did they want Churchill to do? Did he have any other choice to offer but surrender or "Blood, sweat and tears"? And if not, then didn't everyone have to put forth effort and sacrifice? Isn't it true that at that time, the English were in somewhat the same position as our early colonist's, when Benjamin Franklin observed that, "Gentlemen we must all hang together or we shall most assuredly all hang separately"...
"This is the last chance to stop OIL (Which is the cause of war, corruption, cancer and the middle east crisis)... the real story is that the...Washington DC was owned and controlled by big oil who also owns Detroit."
Actually, it's even worse that that! The aliens who have used their mind-control technology to prevent us from advancing at the rate we could as they fear we'll quickly move out into the galaxy like a cancer and take over everything including having our 'way' with their women...once you start to wear the protective tin-foil hat it all begins to make sense Letsdoit (some sexual repression in that name) sarcasm off;-)
I'm sure that many within every industry don't want any disruptive technologies interfering with their industry. Who would, when it's your livelihood? That said, the truth is both more prosaic and complicated by unintended consequence than you evidently realize.
Just a bit of research on the net brought up some US Bureau of Labor statistics; turns out there are 7 MILLION US WORKERS directly involved in the oil and auto industry's alone. Add in other oil dependent industry's in manufacturing, sales and service with the airlines, boating, trains, power generation, gas powered tools such as lawn mowers, tractors, chainsaws, etc. and the total of livelihoods involved is staggering.
Then toss in the families dependent upon those jobs. Then toss in the ancillary businesses whose profitability is directly tied to the health of those oil and auto industry jobs and it literally becomes 'too big to fail'. When THAT reality and consequence is considered, do you really expect any politician to hoist the finger to the people who elected him? Yes, they have an obkigation toward progress but they also have an obligation not to undermine their constituents livelihood. DAMN! The truth is so inconveniently messy, isn't it?
In a modern economy, the only way that the 'fatal' disruption of a depression can be avoided by truly disruptive technologies is to wait until the new technology has matured to the degree where it can offer a quick alternative in new job creation. Tesla can't do that. Electric cars simply aren't ready to offer that. When they are ready to offer it, you can be sure that the oil and auto industry will be among the first to invest and take an ownership position.
We will move away from fossil fuels, of that we have no choice but we do have a choice in how we do it. And it's critical that we do it in a way that doesn't create economic chaos.
Electric run vehicles need smooth transition from fossil-fuel based vehicles. Once the process starts, it will role us into a new era altogether of non-dependence on petroleum products at least in driving vehicles and related things. Then we can see the change happening in front of our eyes and competition rising among companies to produce more hybrid and battery-operated electric vehicles.
Sam
Electric run vehicles need smooth transition from fossil-fuel based vehicles. Once the process starts, it will role us into a new era altogether of non-dependence on petroleum products at least in driving vehicles and related things. Then we can see the change happening in front of our eyes and competition rising among companies to produce more hybrid and battery-operated electric vehicles.
Naina
www.rmartinbikes.com