[Biro]

I fully admit that, as an auto enthusiast, I may be biased. But I sincerely believe that unless one is an urban or near-urban dweller, EVs are simply not a reliable transportation solution. At least not yet - for all of the reasons stated by others above. Hybrids are also a problem because they require batteries with all of the environmental implications that apply to EVs.

It is clear - at least to me - that EVs and hybrids are not a winning formula when considering only financial payoff and total environmental impact - at least not yet. Nonetheless, I believe one can still make a legitimate argument for EVs and hybrids if one simply wants to help reduce U.S. purchases of foreign oil. Doing so would allow the U.S. to be less reliant on regimes that oppress their populations and/or assist global terrorism. It would also help reduce the U.S. trade deficit.

But there's a huge qualifier to my remarks in the previous paragraph: A good part of the population, including me, requires much more range than an EV can provide. That makes it a non-starter for me and most of Americans. Plus there's the great cosmic irony that most of the world's major supplies of lithium - required for the latest and most efficent batteries - are located in areas controlled by yet another set of despots.

Even though I am an auto enthusiast, I can still find cars that give me great driving pleasure while delivering 40 mpg - at least on the highway. That's why I am sticking with efficent internal combustion engines - for now - until the next major breakthrough occurs. However, I still care very much about the environment. I try to do my part by taking public transportation to work during the week, recyling and purchasing 100% of the electric power to my home from a wind-power utility. Two of those options cost me more money but are worth it in my mind.

---

Last edited by Biro; 06-10-2012 at 10:06 AM.

[kenafein]

EVs are part of the solution for a better tomorrow even if they are not perfect today. We cannot wait until they are perfected before we use them as that cannot happen. Some times it seems like the only people trying to reduce their dependency on oil are the greenies and the military.

It will be 20+ years before they are perfected, but this current generation isn't worth me investing in. My car has a good 5 years left in it, and the technology is increasing rapidly enough that in 5 years it will be enough to replace, at least, one of our vehicles with an EV. It's also not green to waste a perfectly good compact car and buy a new one when there is so much involved in the production of said new car. Let the early adopters, the wealthy and the hipsters buy them now. I'll wait 5 years for the consumer compact from Tesla. I am very much looking forward to ditching this ancient technology, but they just aren't there for the mass consumer yet.

[PPPPPP42]

Umm, guys, don't waste your time arguing, you could cut the carbon footprint of every person by 50%, but unless you can make every couple in the world limit themselves to no more than 2 children your still all F'ed anyways.

Thankfully for those of us in the developed world who don't care, most of that growth is in the developing world and starvation and plagues will keep the population crashing long before they develop enough to become too serious an issue to the rest of us.

Still, the rest of us have enough power to destroy the planet without their help.

More industrial but high population places like India and China are going to be a disaster by 2050 I would imagine, though China has shown a real git'r done attitude when it comes to doing what is necessary no matter the cost for their survival as a whole (think 3 gorges dam) so we will see.

I'm not really a greenpeace or peacecore person, I just do my part to not make things worse and have a fatalistic acceptance that human nature will prevail and destroy everything. I also happen to live in a low population area within one days drive of the largest (?) non frozen (and drinkable) fresh water reserve on the planet, which is of course Lake Superior. We also have enough varied agriculture and natural resources here to not ever need to go more than a days ride (yes on an animal) from home and be completely self sustaining, that's kinda reassuring. Plus its cold here most of the year, a little global warming would be nifty though I expect storms would get WAY worse.

In the mean time it'll all make neat Pentax fodder.

[Ratmagiclady]

I fully admit that, as an auto enthusiast, I may be biased. But I sincerely believe that unless one is an urban or near-urban dweller, EVs are simply not a reliable transportation solution. At least not yet - for all of the reasons stated by others above.

Actually, do you know how much of the US population, and how much of our driving really *is* perfectly-suited to what EV's can do? All-or-nothing-thinking isn't 'the right tool for the right job.'

Pretending the environmental concerns about having a battery really outweigh what those are replacing is a red herring, anyway. Pretending those issues aren't solvable is also just about preserving a status quo that we *know* is messing things up and can't continue even economically or oiil-supply-wise.

The most-environmental thing to do is of course, not to actually drive so much, and otherwise conserve. We talk a lot about cars, in America, partly cause we're so arranged for car-dependence. More than half the problem is household, then industrial consumption. Charging car batteries is a way to *reduce both,* actually. (Because of technical things about peak and base loads and how the power grid can accept more alternative energy usefully. Thus not have to rely on burning so much of fossil fuels to run the power grid.

Doing nothing in this regard only guarantees things getting worse. A diversity of solutions is how we can use what's presently being wasted, without reducing standards of living like a fuel-dependent society's crashing will guarantee, and sooner.

[Ratmagiclady]

I don't understand how paying $50,000+ for an EV saves money. My Honda Fit is a pig compared to my mountain bike that I use more for local travel than it. Since EVs are using electric from coal powered plants how are they green ?

If that's about Tesla, what they've been doing is making the hand-built high-end models (with more per-unit profit potential and a way to get a brand image for EV's that isn't about the notions of low-performance-austerity that tend to turn people off.) They've been expanding more in the direction of consumer-friendly models as they go. But they've always been expanding from that niche they started with. Cause of the business end of things, if nothing else.

It doesn't always make sense to buy an EV, sometimes it does. Like I've said, it wouldn't make sense for me given how little I drive, (not much gas consumption to save,) but if I did a daily commute and otherwise had the same habits,) something about the size and shape of a wagon-backed Pinto would probably suffice. You'd also have to compare to what you're already presently driving... If you're already in a micro-gas-engine car, it might make sense to wait.

[monochrome]

When I see replication of the alleged effect of emissions on average temperatures, using the same data used to make the current allegations - publicly-available data - then I will add an implied social cost to the price of petroleum-based therms. Until such is made available by proponents of gaia-destructive effects of petroleum I will rely on the marklet price of therms (without political interference of taxation and alternative-source price supports) to tell me the most efficient means of propulsion and manufacturing energy.

Show me the data. Otherwise it is all anti-West and anti-capitalist posturing.

As far as importing oil from despots, we currently are net exporters of gasoline. We aren't using all the gasoline we refine. We send the excess to Europe, where we can sell it for $8 / gallon. In five years we won't import any crude oil at all (except heavy South American crude that goes into asphalt paving tar) and in ten years we will be the third largest net crude exporter (Russia will be first, as they are now, Middle East combined will be second, USA third and Canada fourth). That fact alone will change alternative energy sources more than any political market-shaping actions.

Combined alternative energy sources can account for 15% of consumption. The balance will remain crude oil for the next 200 years.

In the last five years we have discoverd and proved over 100 years of US consumption alone.

[kenafein]

Show me the data. Otherwise it is all anti-West and anti-capitalist posturing.

.

You're free to read the thousands of peer reviewed publications. Oil is a stupid thing to burn anyways; It can be used for so many other things. It's absurd to waste the enormous energy potentials around us in favor of the paltry carbon based fuels we use now. Everyday the sun delivers thousands of times the energy consumed by mankind. Wind, geothermal and tidal generators also dwarf what we can get from fossil fuels. The energy we need is there and we use petroleum, like we have for 100+ years, because it's easy. Once we have the grid and the alternative energy online, we'll wonder why we ever used gas. This is the time for change, don't be a dinosaur.

---

Last edited by kenafein; 06-11-2012 at 12:10 PM.

[monochrome]

You're free to read the thousands of peer reviewed publications. Oil is a stupid thing to burn anyways; It can be used for so many other things. It's absurd to waste the enormous energy potentials around us for the paltry carbon based fuels we use now. Everyday the sun delivers thousands of times the energy consumed by mankind. Wind, geothermal and tidal generators also dwarf what we can get from fossil fuels. The energy we need is there and we use petroleum, like we have for 100+ years, because it's easy. Once we have the grid and the alternative energy online, we'll wonder why we ever used gas. This is the time for change, don't be a dinosaur.

The "peer-reviewed" articles are not based on publicly-available data sets; they are based on summary data resampled from original data sets maintained by the IPCC at West Anglia. The data sets themselves have never been seen outside West Anglia, and are now reported "inadvertently lost." Therefore the entire AGM assertion is at best suspect and at worst intentionally deceptive. Whichever it is, the assertion of AGW can neither be proven nor disproven, so it is not scientifically valid.

How does the word paltry apply to carbon-based fuel? Carbon is the most ubiquitous element in the universe.

Wind, geothermal, tides based - all these alternative sources of energy - can never physically produce more than 15% of what we currently conmsume, even if capital to harness them were cheap and abundant (which it sin't). It just isn't physically possible. Furthermore, I'm unwilling to pay more for a therm of energy than the market declares necessary to satisfy a specious reliance on unproven science.

[kenafein]

The "peer-reviewed" articles are not based on publicly-available data sets; they are based on summary data resampled from original data sets maintained by the IPCC at West Anglia. The data sets themselves have never been seen outside West Anglia, and are now reported "inadvertently lost." Therefore the entire AGM assertion is at best suspect and at worst intentionally deceptive. Whichever it is, the assertion of AGW can neither be proven nor disproven, so it is not scientifically valid.

How does the word paltry apply to carbon-based fuel? Carbon is the most ubiquitous element in the universe.

Wind, geothermal, tides based - all these alternative sources of energy - can never physically produce more than 15% of what we currently conmsume, even if capital to harness them were cheap and abundant (which it sin't). It just isn't physically possible. Furthermore, I'm unwilling to pay more for a therm of energy than the market declares necessary to satisfy a specious reliance on unproven science.

Most scientists are in agreement with the IPCC's assessment, but those aren't the sole data points. These results have been independently reviewed. You conveniently left out solar, but even without solar, think what sittling below you under a few scant miles of rock and say there is no potential there. Chevron seems to think there is. China is exploiting wind farms and Thorium reactors are also a very tangible low hanging fruit. Where's your data, I want to see the data.

[monochrome]

Most scientists are in agreement with the IPCC's assessment,

Most scientists haven't read independent confirmation of IPCC's studies because they don't exist. They've read the smoothed statistical samples and are forced to trust IPCC and West Anglia.

As I wrote, I am neither for nor against alternative forms of energy. I am for the most cost-efficient form of energy. I am willing to add a discount to the cost of fossil fuel to account for social costs when West Anglia releases the actual data - the actual temperature measurements, not the data-mined, smoothed compilations - collected over the last 45 years. (They can't produce it because they rather conveniently - lost it).

Until such time I do not trust any supra-national governmental entity, which has no treaty or sovereign rights over my person, to do anything other than steal my money and pick its winners. Our current recent history with such activities is just a hint of what is to come.

[Ratmagiclady]

Mono?


That's nether on topic, substantive, nor rational.

I won't pretend to be any of these things right now, myself, but.... a)Denialism isn't on some 'common ground' where there is a 'moderation' between 'that insanity' and 'some 'liberal' insanity.'


It doesn't even enter into the engineering problems. I could quote how the GOP in two states have, in response to states with dwindling barrier islands, have outlawed using or acknowledging 'Sea Level Rise' as 'Liberal ideology' and demanded everyone explain their problems some other way. While they happen.

[Biro]

Actually, do you know how much of the US population, and how much of our driving really *is* perfectly-suited to what EV's can do? All-or-nothing-thinking isn't 'the right tool for the right job.'

Pretending the environmental concerns about having a battery really outweigh what those are replacing is a red herring, anyway. Pretending those issues aren't solvable is also just about preserving a status quo that we *know* is messing things up and can't continue even economically or oiil-supply-wise.

I'm not so sure that concern about replacing one form of environmental polution with another is a red herring. And please note that I repeatedly used the term "for now" in my post. I do not pretend that many issues involving battery power aren't solvable. It's just that EVs aren't currently ready for prime time outside of urban areas. That can change. But it's hard to say if it will happen before an alternative is ready - such as hydrogen fuel cells.

The most-environmental thing to do is of course, not to actually drive so much, and otherwise conserve. We talk a lot about cars, in America, partly cause we're so arranged for car-dependence. More than half the problem is household, then industrial consumption. Charging car batteries is a way to *reduce both,* actually. (Because of technical things about peak and base loads and how the power grid can accept more alternative energy usefully. Thus not have to rely on burning so much of fossil fuels to run the power grid.

Doing nothing in this regard only guarantees things getting worse. A diversity of solutions is how we can use what's presently being wasted, without reducing standards of living like a fuel-dependent society's crashing will guarantee, and sooner.

As I said in my earlier post, I take mass transit to work every day. Did I mention how miserable that can be? And how much slower than can be - how many extra hours of my life are lost because mass transit takes up a lot more time? But I do it because it's the right thing to do. Meanwhile, on weekends and vacations, I need range - a lot of it. As in 200-mile trips on a fairly regular basis (with a vehicle that gets 40mpg on the highway). But my total annual vehicle mileage is well below that of most Americans - just as my monthly consumption of electricity in my home is less than one-quarter of the average residential household (according to my utility). And all of my electricity is from wind. So I'm not doing nothing - and don't recommend inaction for others. I support your point abvout a "diversity of solutions."

But EVs have captured the imagination on a certain part of population, whether they work for most people or not. And some of those people are intent on forcing them on the rest of us. I'm happy that some people can use EVs in a practical manner. If you're one of those people, more power to you. But they're not an option - yet - for most of us.

[Phil1]

Just some thoughts:

PZEV (Partial Zero Emission Vehicle) gasoline powered cars are cheap, come in many sizes, by many manufactures and get very good mileage particularly with a CVT or manual transmission. They are readily available and do not require a taxpayer subsidy to manufacture or sell either.

There is about 100 years of natural gas available under foot. NG is old technology, it is energy dense as compressed, it burns very clean in conventional type engines without any problems. It has been used in specialized fleets for years and years. No need to wait for an Obama subsidized bio-gas unicorn farm initiative and another 50 trillion dollars. It is as safe as gasoline, it is cheap and is already plumbed to many households. A vehicle can even be made to be dual fuel, NG and gasoline PZEV and plug-in too. What a suprise!

So far the stats say that the present only about 30% of EVs and hibred buyers will bother buy another one.

Diesel is coming on strong again in spite of higher fuel prices for low-sulphur diesel fuel. Rather silly gov't regulations up to this point have made it difficult for diesel passenger cars in the US while letting the industrial diesel business off scot-free. Engine designs have come a long way on particulate and chemical emissions as well as the old diesel engine noise. Turbo diesel generally provides about a 30% better fuel economy over gasoline.

The long awaited liberal "alternate fuel" came and went on comet Hale Bopp.

E85 is a huge expensive joke except to ADM Corp, and the Iowa farmers who still use lots and lots of diesel to pump the water and plant and harvest the corn for the subsidies.

The price of a gallon of gas energy coming out of your wall plug has been priced at about $2.00 or so a gallon. Don't expect this to last as the coal plants are shut down and the politicians get wise to them not getting a highway road tax on highway wattage used. If you don't use an electric car you will still get to enjoy higher electric costs summer and winter going forward.

A few states have been mumbling about special road taxes for electric cars and plug-ins while offering state as well as federal taxpayer footed incentives to buy one. Kinda like I voted for it before I voted against it all over again.

The multi billion dollar cost Department of Energy doesn't make any energy.

Enjoy the ride.