Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons

tpe

I think that when it comes to automobiles longevity it is probably better measured in terms of miles driven. If we randomly pulled 1,000 cars off the road and averaged their odometer readings I suspect it would be considerably higher than it was in the 70's. For one thing people are simply driving more than they did in the 70's. In 1970 the average annual miles driven per vehicle was 9,900. Today its 12,300. So even if we were keeping our vehicles the same length of time we'd still be putting ~25% more miles on them, which indicates greater longevity.

As far as vehicle build quality being better or worse than it was in the 1970s I think it all depends on what part of the vehicle you are talking about. 30 years ago the limiting factors in how long you could keep a vehicle were things like the engine and transmission. These have certainly improved dramatically. As far as build quality goes I'm not sure that has all that much to do with how long a vehicle is driveable. Poorly aligned fit and finish items were like that from day one and probably won't get much worse over time.

I think that it will be more than 5 years for EVs to make up a significant portion of auto sales. If in 10 years they accounted for 10% of sales I'd be impressed. But at that point the transition would probably accelerate. I don't think we'll see many ICEs in 20 years with the possible exception of trucks used for hauling. And they will hopefully be running on bio-diesel.

jeffyscott

For one thing people are simply driving more than they did in the 70's. In 1970 the average annual miles driven per vehicle was 9,900. Today its 12,300.

But they are driving more vehicles, so apparently the miles per vehicle is not increasing:

In concert with the growth in vehicles is a growth in vehicle miles of travel. The average vehicle miles traveled per household has grown from 12,412 miles per year in 1969 to 21,252 in 2001. Since the vehicle travel by household members is spread over more vehicles, annual miles for each individual vehicle is declining slightly.

from: National Household Travel Survey 2001

gagrice

One factor rarely mentioned in this line of discussion is cars sitting on used car lots. That seems to have gotten much bigger than in the past. Those cars sit without adding any miles. That could be a reason for lower mileage per car. I know my wife and I own 3 very low mileage vehicles.

I am hopeful that EVs are plentiful in 5 years. I am not real optimistic. I thought they would have a battery solution 10 years ago and they are still messing with the same technologies. I am going up to test drive the Zap Xebra PU tomorrow. I was hoping to sell my GMC hybrid by now. I won't give it away so I may have to keep it. Maybe ship it to our place in Hilo.

Mr_Shiftright

Let us know how the ZAP car performs for you.

An EV would be perfect for some of the smaller Hawaiian islands. Gas prices are extremely high, climate is benign (except for rust) and you don't drive far each day. Downside would be that electricity is also expensive in Hawaii.

tpe

I'm not sure what your point is. The data you provided supported what I said. The average annual miles per vehicle has increased. The number of vehicles registered in 1970 was 103 million. These vehicles travelled 1.04 trillion miles. In 2003 there were 223 million registered vehicles that travelled 2.67 trillion miles. So the miles per vehicle has gone up 19%, not the 25% I originally posted. That 25% was based solely on passenger vehicles. It didn't include trucks/SUVs.

During this same period the average annual miles driven per licensed driver has increased from 9,390 to 13,600.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/index.ht- - - ml

The government's figures in this regard are under Appendix D, Automobile Profile.

jeffyscott

Now that's funny...one government agency (DOT) reporting two sets of conflicting figures. The stats I referenced are from the Federal Highway Administration and yours are from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Both are part of Dept. of Transportation. :confuse:

tpe

I went back and looked at your survey and it really didn't conflict with the government data I provided. The survey stated that in 1969 the average household had 1.2 vehicles and travelled 12,412 miles for an average of 10,343 per vehicle. In 2001 the survey said that the average household had 1.9 vehicles and travelled 21,252 miles for an average of 11,185 miles per vehicle. The data I provided goes through 2003, two more years of increases. Given the relatively steady progression of these increases I think its safe to say the the average annual miles per vehicle is probably even higher today.

jeffyscott

My mistake, I did not do the math.

Instead, I just assumed that the statement in that report that "annual miles for each individual vehicle is declining slightly" was accurate.

tpe

I think what's amazing is that, regardless of the number of vehicles, the average driver is driving over 40% more miles per year than back in 1970. Why is that the case? It's not like 1970 was the stone-ages. We can talk about all these ways to make cars more fuel efficient but I think this is something that needs to be addressed. Why are we driving so much?

gagrice

More suburbs is the reason. The rule of thumb in 1970 was for every 10 miles further out of San Francisco the price dropped $10,000. Gas was cheap and many folks moved further out of the cities to have a nicer newer home. Gas was not a big problem until we got cross ways with the Saudis.

Now the average commute is something like 32 miles one way in CA.

As for the test on the Zap Xebra PU, it is solar powered now. So if you don't use it a lot you never will have to pay for driving it. The panel on the rack is Solar PV cells.



http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=4136

reddroverr

I guess I could make some conjecture on that.

Sprawl may have lengthened the average commute.

Women are now working and commuting as well.

Lifetime employment is pretty much gone. Getting a better job may involve a commute..and with both partners working, moving to a new location in hampered as it may cause one of hte parties to have a longer commute anyway.

We are affluent and eat out more.

Gas and cars have been relatively cheap and reliable.

It is just so nice to drive these days. Quieter cars, prevelance of AC, great stereos...

Kids seem to have a lot of organized activities to be driven to these days...as contrasted to just playing games/sports in neighborhood as done in days past.

Just guessing here.

reddroverr

"I think that it will be more than 5 years for EVs to make up a significant portion of auto sales. If in 10 years they accounted for 10% of sales I'd be impressed. But at that point the transition would probably accelerate. I don't think we'll see many ICEs in 20 years with the possible exception of trucks used for hauling. And they will hopefully be running on bio-diesel."

We will have to see how it plays out. I was thinking that if the Volt priced right and performs well..2010 right? that is about three years away. Others will be hot on its heels. So if oil isn't considerably cheaper and/or the global warming histeria doesn't chill...I think the demand could be bigger than one might think as the Prius has shown. Could be a lot of retrofitting on Prius's and other hybrids as well. So in five years it could be substantial...maybe not 10% though. Still, this filtering through process will take a long time. It all seems to come back to the battery or other storage/distribution device.

punkr77

I was talking with a friend about her Toyota Pious this week. She had one complaint about her vehicle that I'd never thought of, and would be even more of a problem with full-electric cars. The complaint: it's to quiet. What's that you say, too quiet? Yes, animals and people have a habit of darting out in front of it since they don't hear it coming.

I don't think it's an earth shattering problem, it's just one that I had never even considered.

Mr_Shiftright

I actually had the same problem with my BMW motorcycle, which could throttle down to 10 mph in high gear...I almost ran over a few people.

This of course is the driver's responsibility. EVs might lead to a little more horn-honking, who knows?

reddroverr

Tell her to get some baseball cards and clothes pin them so they flap in the spokes.

But seriously, a small audio device synced to the car speed or revs could easilly be done if this is a common complaint. ya, you could choose your car sound... Hemi-Cuda...63 Corvair..oh the possibilites.

Or how about one of those truck backup beepers that is constantly on? How anoying would that be during traffic time? :shades:

tpe

It is just so nice to drive these days. Quieter cars, prevelance of AC, great stereos...

The car environment is definitely nicer than it was in the 70's. However I think that I enjoyed driving more back then. The stress induced by congestion more than offsets the nice stereo and AC, at least for me. I've been making essentially the same commute for almost 20 years. In that time the number of traffic signals that I have to go through has gone from 3 to 16 and rising. I don't think this trend represents an advancement in transportation.

gagrice

Today you have to have an enclosed air conditioned filtered system. I open my window while driving and the gas fumes are overpowering. They may not be as hazardous as with leaded gas. They are still noxious smelling. And we live in one of the cleaner parts of SO CA. You go up to San Bernardino and cannot see through the brown haze laying over the city.

I will welcome the EV. I was supposed to meet the guy selling the Xebra today and had other things come up. The dealer is about 40 miles from me.

reddroverr

Point taken. Things are getting more crowded just about everywhere. I do enjoy taking more weekend drives and getaways than my parents. Generational?

Mr_Shiftright

"www.RenewableEnergyStocks.com, a leading investor and industry portal for the renewable energy sector, reports that electric car pioneer ZAP (OTCBB: ZAAP) has received an order for $79 Million from a Chicago-based start-up, The Electric Vehicle Company, reflecting the growing ethical and green purchasing trends for both investors and consumers."

Glad I bought some stock last month! It's at 126 now!

gagrice

Me too!! I thought of it as a long shot. Same as a couple bio fuel companies. Got to cover the bases.

Mr_Shiftright

You got in real cheap right at 89 or something? I bought at 101 I think. I put it in the IRA--it can just sit there until GM buys them out and the stock shoots up to 15!

Since I've actually visited ZAP and bought one of their products, it felt okay to invest. I'd put money there before I'd put it in Tesla. ZAP, to me, has the Henry Ford idea---cars for the common man, whereas Tesla is catering to the rich and famous.

This is, ironically, the same "error" that car makers made in 1908. Some conceived as the future of the gasoline car as a product where you make a lot of money on a small production (like Ferrari); whereas Ford was one of the very few who realized that you can make a fortune by a small profit on a huge production. (presuming a large market is opening up of course).

So I'm betting on the ZAP business model for EVs.

tpe

Some conceived as the future of the gasoline car as a product where you make a lot of money on a small production (like Ferrari); whereas Ford was one of the very few who realized that you can make a fortune by a small profit on a huge production.

They are both legitimate business models. The thing about new technology is that it typically isn't cheap. So even with a small profit margin the product will be outside the reach of the masses. In Teslas case you couldn't invest in them if you wanted to since they aren't publicly traded. In addition I suspect that they are actually losing money on the vehicles that they are currently selling. I guess the only way to have a smaller profit margin would be to lose even more money per vehicle.

Again, new technology starts out expensive. Look at the original plasma TVs introduced by companies like Sony and Panasonic. These cost upwards of $8k but now you can find a 50" plasma for around $1500 from lesser known companies like Vizio. This is the natural progression. Vizio could never have come first and never could have existed at all without the technology being developed for and adopted by the relatively small affluent segment of the population. If you want viable EVs for the mainstream you have to accept the necessity of the Tesla and welcome what they are trying to accomplish. If they succeed we will all benefit. Unfortunately Tesla just revised their original specs for the Roadster's range. It was 250 miles but after EPA testing they are now saying at least 200.

apeweek

Except that Henry Ford started out making cars for the wealthy, just like Tesla. How do you think he could afford to build a Model T factory?

I'm encouraged by the fact that Tesla has now come to my home town of Detroit to build its next car, a family sedan, with the help of some of our engineering talent.

Mr_Shiftright

Well not quite. His BACKERS demanded that he build cars for the wealthy. He eventuall refused and took on partners for the other business model.

I feel certain Tesla will be belly up soon but I could be wrong. They'd better start building affordable cars very soon or that puny amount of capital they have will dry up mighty quick. So if their strategy is to build a no-profit showcase car to attract capital to build low cost cars, well that sounds workable--if risky.

Plamsa TVs were built by huge companies that had an enormous capital burn-rate. That ain't Tesla.

Push all my chips to ZAP please.

Don't misunderstand---I'm not debating how WORTHY a Tesla car might be, I'm just very skeptical it makes any business sense whatsoever. Basically they are hand-building Rolls Royces and even Rolls Royce went bankrupt doing that.

apeweek

The car you're talking about was the model K, aimed at the upscale market. Ford had a disagreement with one of his investors over this car. The investor thought the model K was the future of Ford motor company, and Ford disagreed. This and other disagreements (including Ford participating in races) eventually led Ford to buy out the investors and go it alone.

Still, it's hard to imagine that Ford would have had the money to buy out his investors, or to mass-produce the Model T, if he had not first built cars like the Model K.

Tesla has declared that their intention is to build affordable cars one day. The family sedan in the works will be a lot less expensive than the Roadster. Hopefully whatever comes after that will be downright cheap.

gagrice

Well I drove the Xebra this morning. Interesting little car. They had sold their PU model so we tested the 4 door. It is very basic for sure. Not as quiet as I expected. It gets to 35 MPH fast enough for trips to the grocery store. What is really fun is watching the faces of people you pass on the street. Lots of people wave at you. My wife kind of liked it. It is roomy though not real comfortable. A bit like getting into an old sports car. The dealer showed us all the workings. Not much to go wrong with one. The 4 door sells for about $9k and the PU he has coming in with rack, solar panels and extended battery will be about $11k. The one we drove has 6 standard type 12 volt lead acid batteries. with a range of 25 miles. At 3 cents a mile for electric it would be hard to beat as a shopping car. The body is fiberglass with less than perfect fit and finish. Should never rust out. I would not want to drive through any big puddles though. It was fun and would recommend it for some one needing a car for short trips around town. Top speed 38 MPH.
Go ZAP!!!!

PS
The dealer said that most of his sales were out of state. Not big sellers in San Diego

larsb

Gary, that's a good little review. I'd like to have one of those as a city "roundabout" also.

Maybe when my Segway dies...............:D

Mr_Shiftright

I just wonder how Tesla hopes to make money. I can't figure that out. They can't be making any on the car they are now marketing, that's almost for certain. The wealthy don't want electric cars IMO any more than they want solar powered yachts or biodiesel Ferraris. The wealthy want magic carpets and personal jet helicopters, something DIFFERENT. The whole concept of marketing "green" to the wealthy is completely bizarre to me, unless it's just a PR stunt and a big roll of the dice. Well, maybe that'll work, but this "one day" had better be mighty quick I think. Who pays the bills waiting for the affordable Tesla?

XEBRA---thanks for the road test! That's about what I expected. I think ideally an electric car in the $15,000 range would be perfect---but maybe a bit more substantial a car than what you are telling us about. Gee, if it could look and feel like a real car, go 50 mph and 50 miles a day with a 10 mile reserve, for $15,000 bucks, BINGO you got a winner! That way you could cross a large city, hop briefly on a freeway, and get back home.

tpe

I feel certain Tesla will be belly up soon but I could be wrong.

I don't think that Tesla is hurting for capital, at least not right now. They don't seem to be aggresively soliciting investors. I've heard no word of an impending IPO. If you or I called them up and wanted to invest we'd be turned down. Here's a partial list of their investors. While some of them could be consider crusaders for a cause a lot of them are well established VC firms that are only out to make a buck and they aren't naive when it comes to the business world.

http://www.teslamotors.com/media/investors.php

I don't really see it as some competition between the ZAP approach and the Tesla approach. As an EV enthusiast I want them all to succeed. The fact that they both exist and will definitely be marketing to different segments will only accelerate the public's exposure to EVs. I say good luck to all of them.

tpe

The wealthy want magic carpets and personal jet helicopters, something DIFFERENT.

How do you get more different than the Tesla Roadster?

Mr_Shiftright

The Tesla isn't different. It's just a car with another means of driving it. It's no more different than a Prius, which I don't think any of us would pay $100,000 for. It's different in degree, not in kind. A jet copter is like Mr. Ford's Model K was in 1908--it was the rare man who could afford one. Most everybody else had a horse, which is really different than a Model K. :P

Well supposedly Tesla has $60 million, or so says Forbes.

That's about one chip in Auto Business Poker.

I was just trying think of the last successful, still existing, start up company in the auto business? Wasn't it Walter Chrysler in 1924?

Again I'm not criticizing the product. It's very interesting.

Shiftright
Visiting Host

gagrice

My concern for the Tesla is the batteries. How many hundreds of cells are linked together to make this car go? Lithium Ion is still in the development stages. Even the sedan they plan to market is in the upper middle class price range. I have to agree with our host. It will take a lot of luck and money to be successful marketing a new car. The problems that Zap has faced are the same issues that Tesla will face. You cannot just build a car and sell it. They will have to do crash testing etc etc. That takes millions. The only reason the Xebra is being sold is a loophole in most state law concerning 3 wheelers being considered a motorcycle. You do not have to have seat belts though they do have them. I am guessing that motorcycles are not required to have crash tests or crumple zones.

tpe

How many hundreds of cells are linked together to make this car go?

Actually, it's thousands. Something like 6,800. I think they've addressed the safety issues of Li-ion. The big questions that remain are the batteries longevity and whether or not the price can be driven down.

The primary weakness of an EV has always been its battery. That is still the case but battery technology is steadily improving, meaning this weakness is diminishing. With where we are right now in terms of batteries I don't think you can make an EV for the masses where this would be its only vehicle. So what? There are plenty of products on the market that aren't suitable for everyone. That doesn't make them irrelevant.

When Tesla first introduced the concept of this all electric roadster with a $90k price tag I was amazed at how much criticism was along the lines of how limited this cars market would be. Well their press releases stated that they hoped to sell around 500-700 cars a year. So I think the people at Tesla are well aware of the fact that the market is extremely limited and these criticisms are merely a statement of the obvious.

I was reading an interview with the founder of Tesla where he addressed this issue. He pointed out that the first refrigerators were an extravagance that only the rich could afford. EVs will gradually evolve into a viable replacement for ICE powered vehicles. With the cost of this technology it hasn't to start at the top (rich people) and work its way down (masses).

jeffyscott

The Tesla isn't different. It's just a car with another means of driving it. It's no more different than a Prius, which I don't think any of us would pay $100,000 for.

Well, I sure would not pay that, but haven't they pre-sold all of the planned 2007s? I think what they are doing is more likely to lead to mass marketable electric vehicles than putting out glorified golf carts. It looks like ZAP has come to the same conclusion:

http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=4560

gagrice

I am kind of curious what configuration they use with that many cells. It seems the real limitation for Li-ion is cell size. Too much heat for anything of substantial size. What happens if a few cells go bad or short out? I don't think the price is as limiting as some would think. You can usually find a few hundred people with $90k to spend on the latest gadget. I am less optimistic about a $50k plain Jane EV sedan.

The Xebra PU is almost tempting at $11k as a novelty vehicle. No way you could justify it on fuel savings. The insurance alone on a vehicle is about what I spend a year on gas for my PU truck. The Zap-X should get some attention if it makes it to America. I waited for the Zap Smart diesel to arrive and it got sent in Canada. I am beginning to think that a fuel efficient vehicle is not in the cards for me.

PS
NO more Hybrids for me.

tpe

I am less optimistic about a $50k plain Jane EV sedan.

I don't think their planned 4 door sedan is going to be "plain jain". I also don't think they are expecting large sales numbers with this vehicle. In a recent interview with the owner he commented that their third vehicle would be of the basic people mover type. Off the top of my head I can't recall whether he mentioned a price but I think its safe to say it would be considerably less than $50k.

Mr_Shiftright

Tesla strikes me as an R&D company, where they do the R and the customer does the D. A run of 400 cars a year is really a test bed or Beta. You can't make any money selling 400 cars a year. I'd suspect that at those numbers, each car is actually profitless for the company at this point, wouldn't you guys?

jeffyscott

You can't make any money selling 400 cars a year. I'd suspect that at those numbers, each car is actually profitless for the company at this point, wouldn't you guys?

Well sure, but Ford and GM are profitless too, despite producing huge numbers of vehicles :surprise: .

Most companies do not make profits when they are just starting up.

Mr_Shiftright

Exactly my point. With what existing product will Tesla make a profit then? Or if there is no existing product to make a profit, how long will $60 million continue to burn?

Well GM has another problem---it's a huge organization that is shrinking and thus wasteful at present. The products can potentially generate profit. The Tesla sports car can't possibly no matter what, unless it sells maybe 25X the number each year (judging say from Ferrari or Viper production #s).

I always thought of "start up" as meaning gearing up a profitable product through its early stages--not burning up capital on a product that doesn't exist. The latter is an R&D company or a subsidized science project. Maybe Tesla investors are hoping to cash in on licensing some technology or other?

tpe

Most companies do not make profits when they are just starting up.

Good point. I'd guess that the average company isn't profitable in it's first three years. If there was no hope of Tesla ever making a profit that would be one thing but I doubt it's the case. Just look at the founders. These are people that have proven entreprenuerial skills. They wouldn't be wasting their time and money on a venture that had no shot of success.

There is another company, Phoenix Motorcars, that will be releasing an all electric sport utility truck (SUT) in California very shortly. This company along with its major collaborators on the project, Altairnano and UQM Technologies are also companies that have never made a profit. I doubt that ZAP has ever made a profit. The point is that as long as investors see future potential these companies will stay in business. Are these high risk investments? Absolutely but with high risk comes the possibility of high reward.

reddroverr

I read that this $79m order for Zaps is from a two hedge fund startup, both of which are already invested in Zap. Something smells fishy. I'm just sayin'....

I don't see the current Zap products as cutting the mustard. If someone wants just runabout a few miles in the city, I can't see any reason (applicable to most people) to choose a Zap over an Aevo at about the same price.

Tesla seems to me to already be behind in battery tech. I guess they have some proprietary tech, but part of that is being obsoleted by the newer type Li-Ion batteries. I read there is another EV in the works that will do 0-60 in three seconds. I can see the Teslas selling in limited qtys but with other EVs/PHEVs coming on board, not sure what their outlook is. I think they better find a battery partner.

Pheonix seems to be the closest to having a practical product. I guess I have to give them the edge out of the non-major players.

Nissan just announced that they are stepping up their efforts for phevs and evs. At the least all these little startups have pressured the majors into taking electric a little more seriously.

tpe

With the rapid pace of development I think it is very difficult to deliver something to the marketplace that is cutting edge when compared to prototypes. You take this cutting edge prototype and lock down the design and now have to go through an extensive process of getting it certified by all the agencies. By the time you can actually sell it there almost certainly will be superior technology. I think that's just the nature of the beast. That being the case I'm not sure its entirely fair to compare technology that's on the market with technology that's just been developed.

While Tesla may not be able to claim absolute superiority in all regards they have jumped through a lot of time consuming hoops that others have not. As far as performance is concerned you need to keep in mind that Tesla's Roadster is just a RWD vehicle. I suspect that this 3 second 0-60 car is all wheel drive. Also, as battery technology gets better all EVs will get better.

I agree that the Phoenix Motorcar SUT seems to be the closest to what most of would consider a mainstream, marketable vehicle. At least on the surface. They state a price of $45k for this vehicle yet all the information that I've come across indicates that the Altairnano battery pack that it uses costs $70k. Obviously something doesn't make sense. This vehicle is currently only being sold in CA where apparently there is some enormous credit being offered for incorporating this type of vehicle into a fleet. I also know that Altairnano entered into an agreement where they now have a 16% stake in Phoenix Motorcars. My point is that we have a situation that is not at all straightforward. So its hard to say whether or not this particular vehicle is more or less viable compared to others.

Mr_Shiftright

It's funny I don't see any of this stuff as "cutting edge".

In 1899 (that's not a misprint, yes 108 years ago) Camille Jenatzy broke the speed record for automobiles in a fully electric car going over 65 mph.

There are electric cars for sale right now that still can't go that fast!

Given that the Tesla has only doubled the speed in 108 years, I'd say electric car progress has been rather pokey compared to planes and trains and gas cars (the latter being about 5 times as fast as they were in 1899.

I think the most commendable aspect of the Tesla is not its technology or capabilities, but rather its ability to at least excite the public about electric cars again. For the last 100 years, they've been among the car world's most boring subjects.

But the Tesla has given the electric car some great PR, and I think this is even MORE important than the technology---in the sense of getting something started.

gagrice

Is the Tesla really that leading edge? Is it in a league with the Zap-X that has the weight of Lotus behind it? I think of Tesla as one car company that is hoping to hit the jackpot. The brains behind it are very good. I am not so sure that they are positioned well. I think it is still too early to be jumping up and down for joy. Somebody behind Zap must have a lot of money. They have been trying to get a hit for a long time and keep striking out. I thought the Smart car would do it and the EPA shot them in the foot. The power of lobby money is not to be forgotten. There are those that do not want EVs to succeed. It was about 10 years ago when the EV-1 had us all excited. Now it is a crushed memory. That was about $2 BILLION down the drain. Much of it OUR tax dollars.

Mr_Shiftright

It didn't succeed because it wasn't good enough, is my read on the EV-1. You can't stop something that everybody really wants. Nobody has such power. Did cassette companies stop the CD? Did coal companies stop natural gas? Did Detroit stop Honda?

Nope.

gagrice

A large percentage of the EV-1 lessees would have bought them if GM would sell. I am not saying that it would have made a dent in the auto market. It was a niche vehicle. I do not see any electric being viable until a better battery comes forward. Li-ion has not shown me it is close to ready for prime time. I think that Lexus would have liked to use Li-ion in their new tuna boat hybrid if it was ready. Am I the only one that can see a world of problems with 6800 cells in a battery?

reddroverr

This analyst also seems to think that the price point is somewhere around $80,000 per battery pack. He gives the same analysis for why the batteries are worth that as Bill Moore did in his article reporting on the EDTA conference. That is, the Type III ZEV credits are worth $5,000 a piece, and with this battery in Phoenix's car you get 40 of them.

this is from a posting elsewhere. Can you nutshell thses ZEV credits for me? I didn't see an explaination readilly available on my search. Is it state money right back to the manufacturer/distributer? The whole thing seems a bit insane.

reddroverr

alright, it looks like CA has a schedule for % of ZEV (zero emmission vehicles) sold. I guess they will fine carmakers that dont meet this goal. not sure how you force consumers to buy electric cars. The standards appear to be in place for 2003 on...of course not being met. I guess there will be some sort of understanding in the future. Other wise folks will just drive to nevada to buy a car.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1269626.html

reddroverr

alright, it looks like CA has a schedule for % of ZEV (zero emmission vehicles) sold. I guess they will fine carmakers that dont meet this goal. not sure how you force consumers to buy electric cars. The standards appear to be in place for 2003 on...of course not being met. I guess there will be some sort of understanding in the future. Other wise folks will just drive to nevada to buy a car.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1269626.html

daysailer

"not sure how you force consumers to buy electric cars."

You don't "force" consumers. You must provide a product that consumers want at a price that they are willing to pay, a feat that EV technology has not accomplished.