-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
ElectricVehicleSite blog
- Thread starter EVnut
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Transportation
That's a pretty easy one to answer.
Should we judge coal power the same as solar power? (Should they both receive incentives?) Should we judge a meal at MacDonald's the same as a meal from a local organic restaurant? (Should they both cost the same? Are they equally good for us?) Should we judge domestic energy the same as imported energy?
The gasoline car hastens our demise and sends billions of dollars outside of our economy for fuel. The Electric car slows all this down. Sometimes we have to do what's best regardless of the initial extra money. And until we figure that out, we waste money and we waste lives.
When the gasoline car first came into being, we didn't know how damaging they would be - we just thought it was neat technology to rid ourselves of the limits and pollution of horses. In theory, we have learned a thing of two over the past 100 years... We'll see if my optimism pans out.
Last edited:
I was compelled to come back to this one. Have you read somewhere that AC will severely impact range in a properly designed EV? would you like to know the real situation at hand?
From six years of experience in driving our current EV, I can confidently tell you that this is a non-starter. If I drive ONE mile per hour slower, I make up for the energy that the AC consumes. So if I can go exactly 100 miles at 65 mph with the AC off, I can go 100 miles at 64 mph with the AC on. As an aside, I live in an area that regularly sees 110 F in the summer, so I know about AC loads.
My point, of course, is that you needn't continue worrying about using HVAC in a proper EV.
1) I reiterate that a useful, mass produced, reasonably (as in not in the stratosphere) priced EV does not exist. EVnut, you don't have one. You have a $100,000.00 custom built conversion. Yes, they made a few hundred of them. That does not count as mass-produced.
2) The money spent in research to build these conversion and custom EVs would not all carry over to a mass produced version. Setting up to produce tens of thousands of cars is much more expensive than setting up to make a few hundred or a thousand copies. Setting up to make hundreds of thousands is still more expensive. Add to that the fact that manufacturers would have a learning curve for the new technologies.
3) There is no guarantee that a mass produced RAV4 EV would cost $60,000.00 less to build than yours did.
4) The gasoline powered automobile was better than the alternatives at the time. Horse pollution was a nightmare. Housing prices were going through the roof because people had to live within practical walking distance from mass transit. Now we need to improve on the gasoline automobile.
Martin Eberhard was right. The way to start a new technology is with high end models. The first automobiles of any type were for rich people. For most people shanks mare, horses, and mass transit were more practical. Henry Ford changed that. He didn't invent the automobile. He made it practical.
The EV isn't there yet.
You wrote that like it's a bad thing!
You're absolutely right that's conservative. This is ultimately an engineering problem. It needs a conservative answer. A conservative is someone who is careful not to throw out the baby along with the bath water.
We need creative answers judged by conservative criteria.
The stakes are high. The uneconomic answers will kill companies. A kludge could kill people.
2) The money spent in research to build these conversion and custom EVs would not all carry over to a mass produced version. Setting up to produce tens of thousands of cars is much more expensive than setting up to make a few hundred or a thousand copies. Setting up to make hundreds of thousands is still more expensive. Add to that the fact that manufacturers would have a learning curve for the new technologies.
3) There is no guarantee that a mass produced RAV4 EV would cost $60,000.00 less to build than yours did.
4) The gasoline powered automobile was better than the alternatives at the time. Horse pollution was a nightmare. Housing prices were going through the roof because people had to live within practical walking distance from mass transit. Now we need to improve on the gasoline automobile.
Martin Eberhard was right. The way to start a new technology is with high end models. The first automobiles of any type were for rich people. For most people shanks mare, horses, and mass transit were more practical. Henry Ford changed that. He didn't invent the automobile. He made it practical.
The EV isn't there yet.
You wrote that like it's a bad thing!
You're absolutely right that's conservative. This is ultimately an engineering problem. It needs a conservative answer. A conservative is someone who is careful not to throw out the baby along with the bath water.
We need creative answers judged by conservative criteria.
The stakes are high. The uneconomic answers will kill companies. A kludge could kill people.
And I don't see anybody arguing that. I was answering your questions, not claiming that EVs have ever been cheap in the tiny quantities they've ever been made in. It appears that you may not have wanted your question answered (specifically why we should judge EVs differently than gasoline cars).
This I don't understand. Was the EV1 a conversion? No. Neither was the Rav4EV. It was designed from the beginning to be gas or electric. And certainly TONS of relevant stuff was learned in the process - that would have carried over to mass production. I see nothing to argue about here.
Not per vehicle it isn't! I guess it is obvious that it would cost more to set up to build 50,000 EVs than it would cost to build 50. And the cost would be significantly less PER VEHICLE, would it not ???
If you're going to wait for a guarantee, then you're in luck! The status quo is on your side. The only guarantee we have today is that burning gasoline is terrible for our country, for our environment, for our health and for our economy. I'm willing to take a bit of non-guaranteed risk here!
And it won't be for a long, long while if we all wait around for the EV to be "there."
All in the perspective, I guess. A conservative is also someone who coddles the status quo and is afraid to try something new because it may be *different* and comes with fewer "guarantees."
If we judge our creative answers exclusively by conservative criteria, then we don't even get the baby IN the bath water.
The way things are *now* is killing companies, and is most certainly killing people by the tens of thousands every year. No need to wait to fail... we're already failing! Maybe the time is ripe to look at fixing the problems now?
Last edited:
The RAV4 EV was a conversion. They put electric drive in a mini SUV glider. It has all sorts of compromises a ground-up EV would not have.
The EV1 was a custom built car. You can watch one-of-a-kind custom cars being built on the Discovery channel. It's a relatively straightforward process. It's not cheap.
GM then built around a thousand of them. They used lead-acid batteries. It still cost $80,000.00 each to build. Many of the parts didn't come from the GM parts bin. There were all sorts of teething problems.
Look at the Volt development project. They've got much better battery technology. They have all the experience from the EV1. It still costs like the devil.
Look. I want an electric car. Right now I can't have one. It's not a matter for debate. It's nobody's fault. The numbers don't work. When they do, I'll buy one.
Meanwhile I'll watch things progress. I'll cringe at the bad karma various people are laying up for themselves. I'll cringe at the ugly radiator grille on the Fisker Karma.
Eventually I'll start a thread for Tesla Roadster spotting in North Texas. There is at least one more besides John Carmack's.
Last edited:
You say that I'm saying the glass is half empty. I tell you that I say the glass is half full. But only half.
Last edited:
Wether an EV makes sense economically today entirely depends on politics.
Imagine two water reservoirs, Lakes High and Low. Gravity will cause water to flow downwards, but gravity has zero imagination, so the water from High will only reach Low if the path of least resistance leads towards Low every increment of the way. If you want the water from High to end up in Low because you have a hydroelectric generating station downstream of Low, then it might be a very good idea to help gravity along by drilling a tunnel.
Fossil fuels are bad in almost every way and we need to stop using them as soon as possible. But if the transition to EVs is to happen before it is forced upon us, someone must be willing to spend resources to make EVs competitive before Peak Oil does.
Of course EVs will not be cost competitive by themselves initially. As long as there is oil available and we are unwilling to spend the necessary resources to tunnel through that hill, the cheap and reliable ICE is very hard to beat.
Across Europe, fuel is heavily taxed. 95 octane gasoline here in Norway today costs USD 7.6 per U.S. gallon, of which about two thirds is tax. It's no cheaper in Sweden or Denmark, a little bit less expensive in the UK at USD 6.5 per U.S. gallon. This policy has resulted in a huge improvement in average fuel efficiency compared to the US, and is a strong incentive for electric vehicles. The cost is that transportation is more expensive in Europe than in the US, harming our competitiveness. I don't know wether the net economical result is positive or negative for us in the short term.
In Norway, many roads are financed through road toll, from which ZEVs are exempt. ZEVs are also exempt from congestion charges, VAT, the astronomically high vehicle registration tax, are allowed to drive in the bus lanes, have access to free parking, etc. Other European countries have started to copy Norway. Sweden and Denmark are likely to drop the registration tax and possibly VAT too. EVs are exempt from the London congestion charge.
European politicians want EVs to succeed and are helping to get the ball rolling. The cost of special ZEV incentives is next to nothing, because there are few ZEVs so far. The incentives will obviously be axed whenever a certain percentage of the vehicles are ZEVs, but by then, economies of scale will hopefully have brought the price of EVs down.
Our 2001 Think City, bought used for about USD 16k, has saved us about 75% of its price in just three years, and then I'm not counting the time saved by driving in the bus lane. Its top speed is 53 mph (the highest speed limit in Oslo is 47 mph), its range is only 50 miles, and it's a two seater. Even so, it has been both very useful and economical.
In my eyes, the low fuel and ICEV taxes in the US give the ICEV an extremely unfair advantage. Fuel and internal combustion engines pollute and consume resources better spent elsewhere or not at all. Therefore they should be heavily taxed to make people think twice before using them. If that for some reason is impossible, then alternatives should be equally heavily subsidized and incentivized.
Imagine two water reservoirs, Lakes High and Low. Gravity will cause water to flow downwards, but gravity has zero imagination, so the water from High will only reach Low if the path of least resistance leads towards Low every increment of the way. If you want the water from High to end up in Low because you have a hydroelectric generating station downstream of Low, then it might be a very good idea to help gravity along by drilling a tunnel.
Fossil fuels are bad in almost every way and we need to stop using them as soon as possible. But if the transition to EVs is to happen before it is forced upon us, someone must be willing to spend resources to make EVs competitive before Peak Oil does.
Of course EVs will not be cost competitive by themselves initially. As long as there is oil available and we are unwilling to spend the necessary resources to tunnel through that hill, the cheap and reliable ICE is very hard to beat.
Across Europe, fuel is heavily taxed. 95 octane gasoline here in Norway today costs USD 7.6 per U.S. gallon, of which about two thirds is tax. It's no cheaper in Sweden or Denmark, a little bit less expensive in the UK at USD 6.5 per U.S. gallon. This policy has resulted in a huge improvement in average fuel efficiency compared to the US, and is a strong incentive for electric vehicles. The cost is that transportation is more expensive in Europe than in the US, harming our competitiveness. I don't know wether the net economical result is positive or negative for us in the short term.
In Norway, many roads are financed through road toll, from which ZEVs are exempt. ZEVs are also exempt from congestion charges, VAT, the astronomically high vehicle registration tax, are allowed to drive in the bus lanes, have access to free parking, etc. Other European countries have started to copy Norway. Sweden and Denmark are likely to drop the registration tax and possibly VAT too. EVs are exempt from the London congestion charge.
European politicians want EVs to succeed and are helping to get the ball rolling. The cost of special ZEV incentives is next to nothing, because there are few ZEVs so far. The incentives will obviously be axed whenever a certain percentage of the vehicles are ZEVs, but by then, economies of scale will hopefully have brought the price of EVs down.
Our 2001 Think City, bought used for about USD 16k, has saved us about 75% of its price in just three years, and then I'm not counting the time saved by driving in the bus lane. Its top speed is 53 mph (the highest speed limit in Oslo is 47 mph), its range is only 50 miles, and it's a two seater. Even so, it has been both very useful and economical.
In my eyes, the low fuel and ICEV taxes in the US give the ICEV an extremely unfair advantage. Fuel and internal combustion engines pollute and consume resources better spent elsewhere or not at all. Therefore they should be heavily taxed to make people think twice before using them. If that for some reason is impossible, then alternatives should be equally heavily subsidized and incentivized.
Last edited:
SByer
'08 #383
It's not just that they're not taxed, but subsidized very, very heavily. It's all upstream so it's generally hidden, but I think a reasonable estimate would be about 4$/gal. Coal, likewise, has a very heavy upstream subsidy. I think if the US were actually capitalistic (where all the actual or best estimated costs, including environmental and health damages, were priced in up front at each sales level), alternative energy would already be a huge win.
Similar threads
