About technology and marketing:

We have seen in home appliances, say TV, for example how “new” technology is trickled out at a controlled rate so that the market subscribes, over time, the greatest amount of money to the purveyers and evelopers of the technology. Same with computers, and even internet speeds.
So why would GM, with a dubious “public good” history be showing off it’s very best at this point?
And anyway, what happened to GM’s EV car? See the video “Who Killed the Electric Car”. This revealing film offers some insight into GM’s “thinking” and there are various books out there that offer a lot of colour to Detroits contributions to the world.

Given the importance of electric vehicles to the climate change event, I am uncomfortable trusting development to the very people who had/have so much to do with causing the problem. What are we thinking people? Are car makers trying to save the planet or themselves?

Next, I have not seen too much on full enironmental cost. That is, what is the overall energy cost to produce a car irrspective of type. It is an important consideration because if the EV is to save energy, then surely production, maintainence and disposal costs in terms of energy must be low too. I know that trying to determine actual cradle-to-grave costs would be a daunting task if we went down to the last rivet, but some broad comparative indicators could be developed.

Lastly the debate about whether a car should gave 20 or 40 or whatever battery miles is crap. One of the great killers of US automakers is the huge range of options, most of which are useless indulgence. But the marketing people divined that options were good for business. It may have been true at the time, but it is time to re-think and rationise choices for the common good of global efficiency. So reduce options. Make one battery size, a 50 mile device, and provide a spare bay for a second battery if there is a need to provide the extra range.

Really, there is so much to do, and that can be done, that this thread would go forever. But aside from the well meaning and highly informed commentries, both here and on other sites, there seems some lack of drive (no pun intended) to get things really moving – a bit like tobacco use huh?

Maybe the new Administration will bang heads to gether and change the US for the good?? Here’s hoping, the time is surely right!

I miss my Escape; I minivan driver smashed it right in the battery just in time for gas to go to $4/gal this summer. It does point out a flaw in the “system”. My insurance company – that I will declare to be the best in the nation – didn’t know what to do. The battery was dented. Ford said it was irrepairable and offered to replace it to the tune of $9,200 for the BATTERY ALONE and so the insurance company totaled the car. My plan was to drive the thing until the battery failed then find some smart shop who would hack a bigger battery and software/chip so it would run as a near serial EV.

Note: I love the Highlander drive train. Rear-wheel electric drive w/ regenerative braking and a boring conventional front-wheel gasoline drive with the connection only being the ABS/traction control/computer. Would someone tell me why this is not an engineering marvel to behold and emulate? Stipulate for the sake of argument that an “active” 4×4 is required for drive-ability. If only it came in a less PRISSY body style.

I checked your assertion on GVs that can compete with the Tesla, and found none anywhere near $30,000. The cheapest I could find was the 2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 Super Snake for $66,000. FYI, the average price of cars at 3.9s±0.1s is $112,200.

I won’t continue to argue. My primary point is that many of today’s compromises in EVs are not inherent. I see people all the time claiming that they are inherent, making bogus arguments based on things like Wh/kg that don’t hold up.

Regarding the home vs. gas station filling, the EV advantage is dubious until the public charging infrastructure is in place. If you have convenient parking at home and at work, with electrical outlets, no doubt the EV is more convenient to keep filled. Many people live in apartments with street parking, or underground parking with limited access to an electrical outlet. For these people (myself included) having to find a plug three times a week seems more of a hassle than filling up with gas once a week. Be mindful of your audience when you present this line of reasoning.

The Tesla is cool, but I am skeptical of its contribution to general acceptance of EVs. The message is, you can get a sporty EV… for $100,000. I suspect I could get an equally sport GV (in performance and looks) for $30,000. With the $70,000 I save, I can drive 350,000 miles on $5/gal gasoline. I appreciate the additional benefits of EVs, but the Tesla will make many people feel like EVs are for rich, snotty enviros. Again, be mindful of your audience when you present this line of reasoning.

My own view of EVs is not black and white. The general public’s view is. Manufacturers (and political leaders) are not doing enough to paint in the gray.

Why would you suspect that? My first reply even told you the opposite. The lack of a tailpipe meant that the spare tire could go underneath the vehicle instead of on the cargo door, which is much more convenient.

Wonhyo wrote, “You simply can’t make a car as big, as heavy, as fast, as affordable, and as long range as a gas car when you’re constrained by the high cost and low energy density of batteries. You have to compromise something.”

I don’t completely disagree, but I don’t think it is as black and white as you suggest either. There are advantages with EVs that you don’t get with GVs (gasoline vehicles). GVs have their compromises as well, such as detours to the filling station, more frequent/costly maintenance, stains on the garage floor, noise, etc.

The Tesla compares quite favorably in mass and price to the GVs it competes with. That’s why they picked that market for their first product.

I also see no reason why an EV built with 130 Wh/kg batteries need be heavier than an ICE. When you subtract out the mass of the engine, radiator, coolant, oil, filters, transmission, muffler, catalytic converter, alternator, and so on, it looks like things are about even.

But what I really wanted to comment on the above is the range point. Remember that an EV leaves the garage with a “full tank” every morning. If you had fuel pump in your garage, how much range would you need? It is not like a GV where you need extra range to keep your visits to gasoline stations infrequent. Thus it is a non-goal for EVs to duplicate GV range. EVs have done it (e.g. the AC Propulsion tZero with its 300 mile range) to prove it is possible, but it is not really useful.

The range desirable in an EV is primarily a function of recharge time, expressed in miles/minute. If I can get 20 mi/min, then I don’t need much range because I can recharge while taking a rest break. If I’m stuck with much slower recharge (e.g.

For more information on the MPG rating, see
http://www.epa.gov/ EPA-IMPACT/ 2000/ June/ Day-12/ i14446.htm

I take no position upon the MPG ratings for EVs; I am simply offering information you might find helpful.

The article of interest:

Volt could break 100 mpg ceiling if EPA approves
By HARRY STOFFER AND RICHARD TRUETT, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS

The Chevrolet Volt could get at least 100 mpg.
General MotorsThe Chevrolet Volt could be on its way to being the first mass-produced vehicle rated at 100 mpg or more.

To ensure that happens, General Motors is asking the EPA to declare the Volt an electric vehicle for regulatory purposes. GM spokesman Rob Peterson said the California Air Resources Board has given the Volt preliminary certification as an electric.

A government rating of more than 100 mpg would give GM invaluable marketing ammunition and would be a boost for company compliance with fuel economy standards. Peterson confirmed the request today.

Loops vs. formulas

Normally, a vehicle is run on an EPA test loop, consisting of both city and highway driving, to measure tailpipe pollutants and provide data for calculating fuel economy. But for electrics, which have no emissions, the government uses a Department of Energy mathematical formula to translate energy use into some equivalent of miles per gallon of gasoline.

Using that formula, the limited-production all-electric Tesla Roadster, for example, gets rated at 244 mpg for the government’s corporate average fuel economy program. Tesla officials say they look forward to being able to sell the fuel economy credits they will accumulate, even with limited sales.

The Volt is a plug-in electric hybrid, which GM calls a “range-extended” electric. Due on the market in late 2010, the Volt will be designed to go 40 miles on all-electric power. Then a small internal combustion engine would kick in to extend the range.

It appears unlikely that the government test loop could be used to accurately measure Volt emissions and fuel economy.

Removing all doubts

Simply declaring it an electric would remove any doubt.

But one government official, who insisted on anonymity, said declaring the Volt an electric would not paint a true picture. If a motorist forgets to plug in one night, then the car would run the next day using the 1.4-liter gasoline engine to generate all the electric power for the drive motor.

Peterson said if the Volt is certified as an electric vehicle, engineers could then optimize the powertrain’s calibration for testing against that classification.

The Society of Automotive Engineers would not classify the Volt as an electric vehicle. SAE defines a hybrid as having two energy sources, such as gasoline and electricity. The Volt has both.

GM has not said how many miles per gallon the Volt would deliver when it is running on its gasoline engine. But the size of the Volt’s fuel tank and the range GM says the vehicle can travel points to a gasoline-only fuel economy of between 35 and 50 mpg after the car’s first 40 miles on pure electric power.

End of article.

And :
Jim Bullis writes:
How can we have come to a point where we believe that changing the category of a car can make it more fuel efficient? I answer my own question: By allowing the EPA to use bogus mpg calculations for electric cars. There three levels of bogosity. First is to completely ignore the energy represented by the electricity. Second is to inappropriately calculate the electric energy as if it dropped into the wall socket from the sky. (Actually it mostly connects to a of coal.) And third, there is a special factor for electric vehicles that is a goodness factor that has nothing to do with anything except political lobbying by electric car interests. (This was written into DOE regulations in July 2000. see:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/ cgi-bin/ getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=fr12jn00-13.pdf )

Obviously, I can stop working on the Miastrada if the Volt can get 100 mpg.