Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons

reddroverr

something like battery rotation is just the thing that could keep the dealerships happy despite losing all their other gas-related maintenance work.

I am not so concerned about keeping dealers happy. If that is some sort if major stumbling block to availability and production..well so be it, then lease away. I don't want to pay an extra whatever..(10%+?) over the life of a car for the battery. Perhaps the boiling frog syndrome might occur and dealers don't scream bloody murder until its too late. If 1% of vehicles sold in 1010 were EV it would be a miracle. So we are talking about a very slow evolution if it comes to pass.

Also, without this, there might be the tendency to unload your car for a new one just as your battery pack is failing. Battery leasing would keep trade-in values more stable.

Same sort of stuff happens with ICEs. At 100k miles your ICE vehicle has lost a lot of value. Buyers must play a guessing game as to how much the components have deteriorated or been abused/neglected and reduce price accordingly.

I assume there would be some monitoring device to measure battery strength so a lot of the guesswork might be taken out of the equation. OTOH aren't those mars rovers still going that were supposed to have failed a year or more ago?

At any rate, it is not the thing for me as I've said, hopefully there will be a buy it now option.

If you buy an EV with a leased battery you might think it is cheaper, but I believe you will pay more in the long run...much as you do for a leased car now. There is quite a bit to a car without the engine..though EV should simplify. I note that Tesla has a liquid cooling system. Interiors wear, paint oxidizes, electric windows fail, tires wear, all that metal, etc.

gagrice

$20k to get a 250 mile range EV down to what a comparable hybrid costs.

I think a better comparison is the CNG cars. They have some of the same limitations. They are getting more popular in spite of having a $5000 device in the garage to fill them at night. They are gaining in popularity even though a CNG tank requires periodic testing and expensive maintenance. If someone sells an electric car that will go 180 miles on a charge, keep up with traffic and cost equal to the Honda CIvic GX, it WILL sell. It would have one big advantage over CNG. You can plug the thing in at work for an added charge. Many locations in CA put in those very expensive charging stations for the EV-1. My Costco had two of them and the electricity was FREE. I don't see any need for high speed charging. You are at work for 8 hours that would be enough for a good slow charge. Just like the Civic GX, they are not designed for cross country trips. They are commuter vehicles that save on fuel costs and have extremely low emissions.

tpe

I don't see any need for high speed charging

Neither do I. This lengthy re-charge time is somewhat of a red herring. If you drive over 200 miles non-stop on a regular basis then an EV isn't for you. Guess what? You represent a fairly small minority of the drivers on the road. Then some people have commented about the unexpected trip that suddenly comes up in the middle of your normal routine. Well I typically drive 35 miles a day and occasionally I do have to make the unexpected trip. Let me think, how many times have I had to drive an extra 200 miles that wasn't anticipated? Hmmm... The answer to that would be zero. Then there are the comments regarding what if the person forgets to charge his car overnight? That would be a problem. Forgetting to do something often has undesirable consequences. What if you forgot to turn your car off when you got home? You might find that the next morning you were out of gas.

midnightcowboy

"i don't see any need for high speed charging"

Well, backin 1970 no one saw the need for PCs either and In the 1960s no one envisioned Pong, let alone a wireless innternet capable Xbox 360. nd in 1950s and 1960s no one envisioned a need for color TVs.

You have the think out-of-the-box and think future, not just one or two years out. By the way, if you weren't aware, horses are no longer the primary means of transportation.

High speed charging will be needed. A high speed charging infrastucture will be needed. EVs could or will become the transportation mainstay instead a novelty that plugs in at night.

EV go Electric!

MidCow

tpe

And once again I disagree. Charging at home is not a novelty but a beneficial feature that makes EVs more desirable. This is the method of re-charging that most EV owners would utilize. Your examples of technological advances are totally missing the point. Here's a better example. Air conditioners represent a nice invention but one that has little significance for people living in Alaska. For the vast majority of people that will charge their EVs at night these fast re-charge stations have the same level of significance.

rorr

"High speed charging will be needed."

Eventually.

"A high speed charging infrastucture will be needed."

Eventually.

The EV issue is NOT a classic "chicken and egg" issue. (high-speed charging infrastructure needed before EV's are acceptable, but high-speed charging infrastructure won't be installed until EV's are widely accepted).

Where I think we all differ in opinion is our perception of the rational market for plug-in EV's that recharge overnight. How many families currently have 2 (or 3 or more) cars of which 1 is used PRIMARILY as a commuter vehicle covering less than 100 miles/day? Personally, I think the number is in the 10's of millions. I don't think it is a stretch to anticipate that, if gas prices are high enough, millions of drivers would entertain the idea of a plug-in EV WITHOUT requiring high speed recharging.

Once the vehicles are on the road (in large numbers), THEN you would expect to see high-speed charging infrastructure being constructed.

Think outside the box? Okay, let's assume for the sake of discussion that reliable, inexpensive batteries are on the shelf RIGHT NOW to allow for high-speed charging. Who will fund the necessary charging infrastructure IF THE VEHICLES ARE NOT ON THE ROAD? Get the cars out there, and the infrastructure will follow. But to get the cars out there, you must FIRST rely on relatively slow, overnight charging.

terry92270

Hmmmm....do not most studies show the "average" American driver puts on 12-15,000 miles per year :confuse:

If that is the case, people driving longer distances are not the minority. Those only driving 10-25 miles would be....

tpe

What's your point? If most Americans drive 12-15k miles per year by my math that comes out to 33-41 miles per day. Less than half the range of the EVs made by Toyota, Honda, and GM 5 years ago. On the other hand someone that regularly drives 200+ miles per day would be putting driving over 70k miles per year. I'd guess that would place him in a pretty small minority and someone that probably wouldn't be interested in an EV. Like I said, an EV isn't for everyone, only about 90% of the population.

terry92270

Bah! :mad:

My "point" was, replying to your post, remember making it :confuse:

'I don't see any need for high speed charging'

Neither do I. This lengthy re-charge time is somewhat of a red herring. If you drive over 200 miles non-stop on a regular basis then an EV isn't for you. Guess what? You represent a fairly small minority of the drivers on the road. Then some people have commented about the unexpected trip that suddenly comes up in the middle of your normal routine. Well I typically drive 35 miles a day and occasionally I do have to make the unexpected trip. Let me think, how many times have I had to drive an extra 200 miles that wasn't anticipated? Hmmm... The answer to that would be zero. Then there are the comments regarding what if the person forgets to charge his car overnight? That would be a problem. Forgetting to do something often has undesirable consequences. What if you forgot to turn your car off when you got home? You might find that the next morning you were out of gas.

Was there something confusing in my post that I can clarify? My response was only to your saying people who drive 200 miles often were some arcane minority, while your 35 per day comment implied you somehow feel you are typical.

reddroverr

I think there can easily be an audible and visual warning feature when the battery reaches various stages of discharge to jar memories.

reddroverr

I agree with that. I favor Electricity because it can be generated by various means for more flexibility in means of generation..even solar to a degree. We are already fussing about importing LNG. Slow, at home charging is just the running of a circuit away..perhaps not even that in some cases.

reddroverr

"How many families currently have 2 (or 3 or more) cars"

I posted a link some time back that there are more cars than drivers in the U.S. Most households I know have more than one car.

tpe

I happen to be one of those fabulously wealthy individuals that you've probably read about who can afford two cars. Trust me, we do exist. I can assure you that I would never be visiting a high speed charging station that some think are so necessary because I just don't see how its more convenient than plugging in at home.

tpe

There seems to be a disconnect of sorts here. You stated that the average American drives 12,000 to 15,000 miles per year. I pointed out that this equates to between 33 and 41 miles a day. So yes, my 35 miles per day does make me more typical than someone who regularly travels over 200 miles per day. BTW, every source I've looked at says that the average miles driven per year is 12k.

terry92270

I did not say 200 miles, you did in your post, and I recognized that wasn't normal.

12-15,000 miles per year, which is what the leasing companies set annual mileage at, is fairly typical.

My only point, if there was one, that most people make trips that amount to more than 200 miles, round-trip, more often than you do.

It was a casual observation, and in no way disputed your point, which I have agreed with before. This is a hostile forum, in all ways.

gagrice

do not most studies show the "average" American driver puts on 12-15,000 miles per year

Exactly. The average commute in So California is 32 miles each way. That works out to 16k miles per year with two weeks off for vacation. That means the average commuter in CA could use an EV with no problem. Charging is not the issue. It is still getting batteries that will last and are not horribly expensive.

terry92270

I've never made charging an issue.....and agree with you.

gagrice

I guess I misunderstood. Some make out the charging to be an issue. There are more places to plug in a car than there are places to buy gasoline. For myself I make so many short trips 3 miles or less. It would be ideal for our usage. If they build them people will buy them. Provided they are affordable. I am still skeptical of the Lithium Ion battery direction. Maybe capacitors will hold the charge needed.

I spent so many years in Alaska you got used to everyone plugging their cars in at night all winter long. I think a bigger issue will be keeping the car warm and cool on battery power. Both are big consumers of power. At first the EV will be a mild climate solution.

rorr

Count me in on those who also misunderstood you terry.

When you were harping (no offense, but that's what it read like) on the 12k-15k miles per year and making the impression that more people make regular long (>200 mile) trips every year in their car, it certainly SOUNDED like you were trying to make a case that quick recharging is THE issue with EVs.

Maybe I'm just confused (go figure) but just what point ARE you trying to make? (again, no offense meant; since it seems like we have a few thin-skinned individuals in here.....)

terry92270

My point was that even if someone's average commute is longer than what seems "normal" to you, if that is the use of the vehicle, mainly a daily commute, even 50 miles each way wouldn't require charging stations.

Any need for "re charging stations" certainly limits the ability to mass-market anything, and will ultimately not be as successful as bringing along better/lighter/smaller battery technology, chargeable at home. That is why fuel cell technology is touted by so many scientists. It is merely a matter of what comes first. I don't buy the cost savings argument to choose which is "better", I just know a success for newer batteries, or the success of a dependable, easy to replenish fuel cell will short circuit one technology or the other in achieving sales equal to ICE's.

All that is assuming someone doesn't come along and make some breakthrough in Nuclear type fuel cell technology. :P

Pointing out certain or even possible negatives doesn't mean one is opposed to your little electric, it just recognizes things others are all too willing to overlook, or gloss over, in a single-minded support of one form of propulsion over another. True technical advances come when people are willing to put as much effort into exploring alternatives as they do in favoring one type of "fuel", propulsion, and don't get caught up in making others feel, or actually be besieged with cross examinations....

All of the current technologies being talked about will most likely be nearly obsolete by the time they are "ready" to be replacements for the ICE. That's simply how fast technological advances are being streamed in today's world.

But talk of changing, on a mass scale, what the public will accept, unless the alternative is nearly equal to in features and performance is, in my opinion, pie in the sky stuff. 4 bangers were a very small market segment within my memory, and it wasn't until my Dad test drove a four cylinder Camry, without knowing it was one, did he accept they could perform on an equal level with the 6. That same experience is what lead a million others to change from 8's and 6's to 4's. Back then, they saved big on gasoline. Now GM and others are making 8 cylinder cars with nearly the same gas mileage! Who would have thought that possible 10 years ago :confuse:

I think we can all agree the age of the ICE for mass transportation is on its final legs. I do not believe the answer will be batteries as we now know and define them, or that they will be any but a small part of the future.

The market will move toward self-generation of whatever is cheaper and easier to produce, be that electricity, steam, plasma/fusion. The one thing I do know is, most people (outside of enthusiasts and boosters, the political/environmentally active) will never be willing to reduce speed, performance and features to save the planet or themselves. It will have to be something that doesn't require them to feel they are "giving up" anything they presently have. Think about it. Isn't that exactly what caused many of our biggest advances? Not willing to settle for less, or as good as?

Slavishly nit-picking and shooting down with great zeal, other propulsion ideas doesn't present a solution, but compounds the problem. This forum is "Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons", not electric vehicles, or death. The good news is, some form of electricity will most undoubtedly propel cars of the future. Now, in 2006, no one now knows if that current will come from magnetics, fusion or some type of storage....

tpe

But talk of changing, on a mass scale, what the public will accept, unless the alternative is nearly equal to in features and performance is, in my opinion, pie in the sky stuff

That's not true. Honda, Toyota, Datsun, Volkswagon all made money in the US market offering smaller, less powerful cars than were being offered by the domestic 3. People buying these cars traded power and size for monetary savings. I agree that the American public is not big on making sacrifices but trade-offs and sacrifice are not synonymous. If a battery EV can offer some things that an ICE cannot then the situation exists where it is a matter of the individual weighting his particular priorities. In the case of a driver who rarely travels over 100 miles, long range would be a very low priority.

Let's say by some miracle hydrogen fuel cell technology rapidly advanced. I suspect that at least some of these vehicles would have plug-in capability because using grid electricity would still be cheaper than hydrogen. Then its just a matter of time until these evolve into pure EVs.

I understand that GM is working on a home hydrogen refueling unit. It would be interesting to see how many kWh goes into producing and pressurizing a certain amount of hydrogen and then how many miles could be driven. Now compare this with how many miles you could have driven by putting these kWh's directly into a battery.

midnightcowboy

then that is what you will achieve only a small home solution. What captial investor or entrepenuer in his right mind would sink money into a dead-end niche. The answer is NONE.

The EV needs to take off with a larger picture in mind. The ned result will be total EV dominance with "quick charge" stations being as common as gas pumps.

Okay, a lot of the thinking is limited here and I can accept that. Is just that,that doesn't mean you have to keep denigrating my "quick charge" stations and 'charging infrastructure". It is on solution and one idea. It may not be the same as yours but is a ptotentially valid future solution.

Power On,

MidCow

snakeweasel

The ned result will be total EV dominance with "quick charge" stations being as common as gas pumps.

I would suspect that 100 years from now there won't be a dominance of one type of power but maybe two, three or four types of systems.

I cannot see EV's being anything more than a niche market until there are quick charge stations and/or public perception of them changes.

As far as quick charge stations being as common as gas pumps, it will never happen.

stockey1

Gentlemen, stop your engines
EEStor's new automotive power source could eliminate the need for the combustion engine - and for oil.
By Erick Schonfeld and Jeanette Borzo, Business 2.0
September 20 2006: 2:16 PM EDT

SAN FRANCISCO (Business 2.0 Magazine) -- The Disruptor: EEStor

The Innovation: A ceramic power source for electric cars that could blow away the combustion engine

The Disrupted: Oil companies and carmakers that don't climb aboard

Forget hybrids and hydrogen-powered vehicles. EEStor, a stealth company in Cedar Park, Texas, is working on an "energy storage" device that could finally give the internal combustion engine a run for its money -- and begin saving us from our oil addiction. "To call it a battery discredits it," says Ian Clifford, the CEO of Toronto-based electric car company Feel Good Cars, which plans to incorporate EEStor's technology in vehicles by 2008.

EEStor's device is not technically a battery because no chemicals are involved. In fact, it contains no hazardous materials whatsoever. Yet it acts like a battery in that it stores electricity. If it works as it's supposed to, it will charge up in five minutes and provide enough energy to drive 500 miles on about $9 worth of electricity. At today's gas prices, covering that distance can cost $60 or more; the EEStor device would power a car for the equivalent of about 45 cents a gallon.

And we mean power a car. "A four-passenger sedan will drive like a Ferrari," Clifford predicts. In contrast, his first electric car, the Zenn, which debuted in August and is powered by a more conventional battery, can't go much faster than a moped and takes hours to charge.

The cost of the engine itself depends on how much energy it can store; an EEStor-powered engine with a range roughly equivalent to that of a gasoline-powered car would cost about $5,200. That's a slight premium over the cost of the gas engine and the other parts the device would replace -- the gas tank, exhaust system, and drivetrain. But getting rid of the need to buy gas should more than make up for the extra cost of an EEStor-powered car.

EEStor is tight-lipped about its device and how it manages to pack such a punch. According to a patent issued in April, the device is made of a ceramic powder coated with aluminum oxide and glass. A bank of these ceramic batteries could be used at "electrical energy stations" where people on the road could charge up.

EEStor is backed by VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and the company's founders are engineers Richard Weir and Carl Nelson. CEO Weir, a former IBM-er, won't comment, but his son, Tom, an EEStor VP, acknowledges, "That is pretty much why we are here today, to compete with the internal combustion engine." He also hints that his engine technology is not just for the small passenger vehicles that Clifford is aiming at, but could easily replace the 300-horsepower brutes in today's SUVs. That would make it appealing to automakers like GM (Charts) and Ford (Charts), who are seeing sales of their gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks begin to tank because of exorbitant fuel prices.

">link titlehttp://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_eestor.biz2/index.htmlink">

gagrice

On the contrary. I think your quick charge station ideas are mainstream thinking. Look at the EV-1 where hundreds of charging stations were installed all over CA for just a few thousand vehicles. It was doomed to failure because it was planned to fail. The state and federal government and the auto makers never intended it to become mainstream. It was pandering to the wacko environmentalists. If they had built the cars for home charging. Or where they could be plugged in anywhere for a little boost they would have had a better chance for survival. These high powered charging stations have a lot of downsides. That system for the EV-1 was expensive and potentially very dangerous. When you dump 100s of amps into a battery in a short time frame you are raising the potential for problems. I would not want that kind of device in my home. Give me a small car or PU with a 110volt plug and 100 mile range at 65 MPH and I am going to be thrilled. I would not think of taking such a vehicle cross country. I see people driving there golf carts on the street on a regular basis. It is illegal on any street posted over 35 MPH. They do it anyway. Probably never get stopped. I think you are underestimating the market for EVs with no additional infrastructure. The ZAP Chinese Xebra will be an interesting experiment. If they continue to sell out as fast as they hit the dealers you will see the big guys jumping into the fray.

gagrice

8000 bid for Xebra on eBay

SANTA ROSA, CA--Oct 2, 2006 -- A Massachusetts man joined nearly 8 thousand other eBay users in a bidding war to win the only electric city car available for sale in the United States. ZAP (NYSE Arca: ZP) says Steve Palmer paid $10,800 dollars for its new XEBRA sedan, which plugs in to any household electrical socket, puts out 90 percent fewer emissions than the standard car and eliminates those expensive monthly gas bills.

According to Palmer, he's been trying to find an all-electric vehicle for more than a year. He paid about eight hundred dollars more than he would through a ZAP dealer. "I really wanted the car so my family and I could enjoy this newest technology." Palmer knew he would get his car more quickly by being the highest bidder.

EV start

tpe

I cannot see EV's being anything more than a niche market until there are quick charge stations and/or public perception of them changes.

What is your definition of a niche vehicle in terms of market share? Is the Prius a niche vehicle because it accounts for less than 1% of vehicle sales? Do you think a company can make money with a 1% market share? I sure do. Basically I want a car manufacturer to offer a home charging, battery EV with at least 100 mile range for around $25k and I'll buy it in a heartbeat and I suspect at least 1% of the market would too. I could care less if this group is labeled as some fringe whackos buying niche vehicles.

rorr

Hi stockey1! Welcome to the party.

You might want to start reading around post #299 in this thread.....

snakeweasel

What is your definition of a niche vehicle in terms of market share?

Couldn't say, I would define a niche vehicle as one that appeals to a very limited segment of the market for whatever reason (be it real or perceived). The fact that EV's have a limited range and rather long recharge times greatly reduce its appeal.

Do you think a company can make money with a 1% market share?

A company can but the question is will it.

Basically I want a car manufacturer to offer a home charging, battery EV with at least 100 mile range for around $25k

I would want a longer range or a cheaper price point. I would want 250 mile range (400 preferred) or a mid teens price range.

I could care less if this group is labeled as some fringe whackos buying niche vehicles.

No one said that those who buy a niche vehicles are "fringe wackos".

gagrice

I would want 250 mile range (400 preferred) or a mid teens price range.

How about under 10 grand and 40 mile range? Perfect for the wife to shop or kids to drive back and forth to school. Check out the videos. Less than a penny per mile!

I want the PU

rorr

"The fact that EV's have a limited range and rather long recharge times greatly reduce its appeal."

Actually, I think the perception that EV's are performance slugs and simply overgrown golf carts is what greatly reduces their appeal.

I have not been a big EV fan in the past; I'm not even a big EV fan at present. But that has been because in MY PERCEPTION, EV's were slugs. But IF I take a rational look at my vehicle needs, 95% of my driving is less than 50 miles a day.....WAY under the 100 mile range mentioned as the 'minimum' for general acceptance.

Do I occasionally drive more than 50 (or 100) miles a day? Absolutely, but our family has another vehicle at hand for those occasions (actually more than one) so, if I HONESTLY assess my situation I could see where a EV with moderate range and over-night charging WOULD meet my requirements.

And I don't think my situation is unique in the slightest.

The biggest hurdle to EV appeal is NOT (IMO) range, or quick recharging, or even performance. The biggest hurdle is getting enough consumers to HONESTLY assess their vehicle needs vs. their vehicle wants. And that is a HUGE hurdle.

rorr

You couldn't PAY me 10 grand to actually use that vehicle.

There's another hurdle that needs to be addressed: MUST EV's look like such dorkmobiles?

tpe

I would want a longer range or a cheaper price point. I would want 250 mile range (400 preferred) or a mid teens price range.

Why not both? A 400 mile range and a mid teens price.

Most people will be using this vehicle as a secondary commuter car. At least at first. With the battery pack being the most expensive component why pay for more batteries than you will use? The range on an EV will probably be somewhat configurable. The buyer will determine how he will typically use this vehicle and have it equipped with a battery pack big enough to suffice. You can always upgrade as battery technology improves and prices come down. I suspect that the state and federal government will offer tax breaks at least equal to what you can get on a Prius, why wouldn't they? In addition I think typical fuel savings will be around $1,000/year given that electricity will be around 1/4 the cost of gas. These two factors will make a $25k price tag seem a lot more appealing.

midnightcowboy

"As far as quick charge stations being as common as gas pumps, it will never happen."
Thomas Alva Edison said the same thing about PCs :P and he was wrong!

Listen to "In the Year 2525" by Zager and Evans or read Nostradamus.

Cheers,

MidCow

P.S.- Let me know what happens 519 years from now!

midnightcowboy

You missed the real reason EV-1 failed. Interesting reading about it. It is easy to Google and find the real story, but it wasn't "doomed to fail because there were hundreds of charging stations"

Cheers,

MidCow

tpe

I am a big EV fan but didn't start out that way. Initially I was just someone that hated our dependence on OPEC oil and hated the fact that I was part of the problem. I bought into the hydrogen hype at first but after learning more realized that it didn't hold a lot of promise. I started researching EVs and the more I learned about them the more they seemed like the simplest and most effective solution, or partial solution. China is currently investing billions of dollars on battery and EV R&D. Now are they smarter than us, dumber than us, or is it that they aren't beholding to the same special interest groups?

I agree with your assessment of that Zap EV's appearance. It perpetuates a negative stereotype.

daysailer

"The biggest hurdle to EV appeal is NOT (IMO) range, or quick recharging, or even performance. The biggest hurdle is getting enough consumers to HONESTLY assess their vehicle needs vs. their vehicle wants. And that is a HUGE hurdle."

In the marketplace, the only "honest" assessment that matters is whether utility, performance and economics are at parity with alternative market choices, i.e IC engine vehicles.

Despite decades of intense EV development and the best efforts of CA to invent by fiat, a battery that can approach the energy density of gasoline has not been conceived at ANY price. THAT is the impediment to the EV market!!!!!!!

snakeweasel

How about under 10 grand and 40 mile range?

Not with a top speed of 40 MPH.

snakeweasel

Actually, I think the perception that EV's are performance slugs and simply overgrown golf carts is what greatly reduces their appeal.

That too, thanks.

And I don't think my situation is unique in the slightest.

No your situation is not unique and I have always held that an EV with decent range would be a great second car for most two car families. I was just posting my personal preferences since I do regually make long (200-400 miles round trip) trips in my daily drive.

snakeweasel

Why not both? A 400 mile range and a mid teens price.

Why not? Both would be better.

rorr

"...a battery that can approach the energy density of gasoline has not been conceived at ANY price."

Absolutely correct.

However, an honest assessment would be if one NEEDS that energy density.

I'm not saying that MOST people could get by with the energy density of batteries. I AM saying that a VERY large number of folks who currently have a 2nd car used primarily for commuting COULD meet their needs with an EV.

rorr

" I was just posting my personal preferences since I do regually make long (200-400 miles round trip) trips in my daily drive."

Okay. In which you would not be in the market for an EV in the foreseeable future. Nothing wrong with that.

In all honesty, I think that YOUR need for regular 200-400 mile round trips is somewhat more unique than my 50 mile daily usage.....

snakeweasel

Thomas Alva Edison said the same thing about PCs and he was wrong!

Lets see, PC's came along in the 70's (computers late 30's early 40's) and Edison died in 1932. I don't think Edison said that about the computer.

Anyway, since EV's would have the capacity to charge up at home there wouldn't be the need for them to stop at a station. Recharging stations would be used by those who may not be able to recharge at home (apartment dwellers?), those who end up driving past their range and those who are forgetful and forget to plug in the cars at night.

Every car now needs to use a gas station every time it refuels (ok I know there are alternative fuel cars out there but the make up so few cars percentage wise). It won't be the case with EV's, so fewer will be needed.

Listen to "In the Year 2525" by Zager and Evans or read Nostradamus.

Why? Neither one is prophetic.

rorr

"Both would be better."

Sure both (400 mile range and mid-teens price) would be better. But to expect we would (or could) jump straight from today's technology to 400 mile range/mid-teens price (and not have the thing look like a dorkmobile) is unrealistic.

snakeweasel

Okay. In which you would not be in the market for an EV in the foreseeable future. Nothing wrong with that.

Actually I would, just that it might be difficult to get she who must be obeyed to agree. And if I do get the EV, I would then need to use her car several times a year and talk her into using the EV. She might go for it or she might not.

snakeweasel

Yes I know thats why I said one or the other.

rorr

Oh lord, how could I forget 'she who must be obeyed'... :surprise:

I still remember the tussel I had getting SWMBO to agree to a minivan instead of upgrading from our 4runner to her desired Sequoia...

rorr

"Yes I know thats why I said one or the other."

Sorry - I must have missed that in my hurry to 'get one in'.

daysailer

The "need" of any product in the marketplace is to be competitive with existing market alternatives. Why would a buyer narrowly define his "needs" when there are existing choices that will surpass those requirements at lower cost?

tpe

Despite decades of intense EV development and the best efforts of CA to invent by fiat, a battery that can approach the energy density of gasoline has not been conceived at ANY price. THAT is the impediment to the EV market!!!!!!!

No that represents an area where ICE's have a distinct advantage over EVs. If you choose to focus solely on that aspect then EVs will not be gaining acceptance in the near future. Why not consider a few other aspects? An electric motor is 3x more efficient than an ICE. An EV requires much less maintenance than an EV. An EV can be charged at home, no more trips to the gas station. An electric motor produces more torque over a greater range of rpms. An electric motor at least has the potential to be non-polluting. In terms of electricity production the US is self sufficient. For a good percentage of American drivers the limited range of an EV is a trivial or non-issue compared to these other factors.

A gallon of gasoline holds 36 kWh of energy. An EV could conservatively travel 150 miles on that much energy. Its misleading to cite gasoline's energy density without pointing out the fact that this stored chemical energy cannot be efficiently converted into mechanical energy. At least not in an ICE.