Who Killed the Electric Car?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tony Manasseri @ Jul 19 2006, 01:44 AM) [snapback]288565[/snapback]</div>

I saw the movie with a friend I dragged last Friday, it's opening in Hartford. There were maybe 20 people in the theater for it's 7:30 showing which I thought was sad, but other reports indicate that it is doing very well for a documentary.

While I had picked up much of the information on Darell's extensive website and other sources already, it was great to see it presented as a complete story with all the great video footage from the DontCrush.org rallies, the full interviews with all the people, and I think I even spotted Darell once in one of his brief appearances.

I do now recall seeing the the "toaster" commercial aired when the EV1 was actually being <ahem> "marketed" (possibly either as part of a news broadcast or on a Discovery program or something) where all the household appliances come alive and come out to the street to greet the newest electric "appliance." The ad was cute and imaginative, but a bit creepy on a "Twilight Zone" level, although, that one was in color.

Now the other commercial which I had never seen before, in black and white and very shadowy was completely Alfred Hitchcock-esque scary. It showed a "family" only as frozen, cardboard cut-out sillouette shadow images on the pavement. Once they got to the car, it never even moved, just sat there. My friend said it reminded her of a post-nuclear war movie scene. At least in the "toaster" commercial, the EV1 glided to a stop sign. Of course neither demonstrated that it could actually handle highway speeds, a historic complaint against EV's. Both commercials screamed "New and damn scary technology that you're just not ready for!"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 19 2006, 10:27 AM) [snapback]288638[/snapback]</div>

I'll take the Hawaiian vacation over the snowy mountain climbing anyday!

I'll also take the vision of solar power and EV automobiles in general use.

I don't recall anyone saying that air flight was not an appropriate and efficient use of liquid petroleum fuel. But how much fuel is used in airplanes compared to how much is used in cars everyday, where there IS an alternative of EV's?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jul 19 2006, 04:38 PM) [snapback]288641[/snapback]</div>

The only thing I would be interested to do in Hawai would be scuba diving...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jul 19 2006, 04:38 PM) [snapback]288641[/snapback]</div>

I wasn't really serious, it was more of a joke since this thread has passed the limit of reason a while ago already. But actually, I do claim that most air flights are inappropriate and an inefficient use of liquid petroleum fuel. These days, we use air planes to transport virtually everything over the entire globe, from tourists over meat to fruit. In the winter, if I buy an apple in a store in Belgium, chances are it has been transported by a plane from -literally- the other side of the world: New Zealand. This brings the sillyness of our consumption society to a new level. I have friends that drive a Prius to be more green, conserve oil and ease their mind, and yet every winter they fly to Indonesia for fun. That's just plain rubbish.

Another example is comparing prices of travel in Europe. If I want to go to Rome with three people, the cheapest way of doing this is by plane. The second cheapest way is by car. And, guess what, the most expensive is by electricity-powered public transportation (the train). It's also the slowest and least convenient. I still find this hard to believe, but it's reality.

If anybody can explain me in a reasonable way why electric-powered public transportation is more expensive than cars or planes, than maybe I will accept that this world is not going nuts.

You see, I'm launching doom scenario's again. But for those who are concerned about my mental sanity: I'm fine, thank you. I'm enjoying this party as much as anybody else. But at least I realise that there will be a very hard awakening. And I realise that EV's or pulse & glide are not going to save us. I don't believe in Utopian scenarios or Santa Claus.

And by now I realise that I have very few friends left on this forum...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 19 2006, 11:28 AM) [snapback]288688[/snapback]</div>

While I do think it is silly to transport fruit and other food around the globe for continuous off-season consumption, I don't think that annual pleasure travel is "rubbish," although I would prefer to vary my destinations year to year. Consider how much energy they're NOT using by going some place warm and not staying home in the winter.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 19 2006, 11:28 AM) [snapback]288688[/snapback]</div>

Interesting. Possibly lack of subsidies compared with car transportation? I can certainly believe that the airplane would be less expensive as far less real estate and infrastructure is involved, and the per-person energy expenditure involved in the transportation would probably be quite a bit less.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 19 2006, 11:28 AM) [snapback]288688[/snapback]</div>

We're all still friends and all still on the same side, even if we don't all agree with the solutions or if there even are solutions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jul 19 2006, 09:38 AM) [snapback]288641[/snapback]</div>

My brother flies for a private air service. We figured out he gets about 1 mpg. of whatever it is they use. He says it's more like kerosene than gasoline. But it is derived from oil. He's living in Florida now. I have high hopes he'll be buying a Prius or other hybrid eventually. He has a TransAm but that is garaged. He has a truck but that is only used occasionally when he needs to haul. I'm not sure what their daily driver is, but I expect at some point that will be traded in for a Prius. He was curious about my car. When he starts to ask me some questions, I'll know he's on the verge.

My sister already wants one. Money is the only thing stopping her.

 

funny how things have changed. back when i was in Europe in the early 80's, the train was the cheapest form of transportation by far

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jul 19 2006, 06:09 PM) [snapback]288716[/snapback]</div>

Of course I won't deny pleasure travel to anybody. But I believe it is rubbish to think you live green by driving a Prius and yet do a long distance vacation every year. Let's do some back-of-the-envelope math:
* Passenger airplane efficiency averaged 4.8 l/100 km per passenger in 1998 (thanks Wikipedia!)
* Suppose a destination that lies 10 000 km away
* Suppose 2 persons are travelling
=> 2 x 2 x 10 000 km x 4.8 Liter /100 km = 1920 Liter of fuel burned for transporting two persons on that vacation.

Now, on the other hand, suppose that they own a car, and drive 15 000 km per year. By driving a Prius rather than a similar regular car, you can save something like 2 liter/100 km (very optimistic!). This means you save 300 liter per year by chosing a Prius.

In other words, that vacation burned 6.4 times more fuel than they saved by driving a Prius. Somebody who drives a big fat SUV but doesn't go on such type of vacation would be much greener! In fact, that single holiday burned more fuel than their car during the whole year, even if they drove a fast BMW. Of course, this is a very crude calculation, and it ignores a lot of aspects (such as the differences in fuel types). But it gives a good idea about the order of magnitude.

Concerning warming the house in the winter: for a two weeks period, this would perhaps be only 100 Liter saved...

As I said, I don't deny pleasure travel to anybody. But I strongly deny anybody's claim to live green if they do a long-distance vacation trip every year. But then again, we all prefer not to think about it, because giving this up really hurts. Driving a Prius doesn't really hurt, is actually fun, and gives us a good feeling...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jul 19 2006, 06:09 PM) [snapback]288716[/snapback]</div>

Actually, most public transportation systems in Europe are de facto subsided by the governments, because they make huge losses.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jul 19 2006, 06:09 PM) [snapback]288716[/snapback]</div>

Now that feels good

Yes, this has totally changed. At that time, the train transportation was roughly paid by taxes, the fare was only a small part of the real cost. Now they are changing towards a model where trains are zero-belance or even profitable.

 

Post removed.

Never mind. Life is too short, and I promised not to care while I'm here. Aloha.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 19 2006, 01:30 PM) [snapback]288791[/snapback]</div>

What kind of airplane? What kind of cargo? How does it compare to the cargo and fuel mileage of an 18-wheeler? Or does he carry passengers? How many passengers does the plane accomodate?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 19 2006, 01:57 PM) [snapback]288816[/snapback]</div>

10,000 kilometers one way is quite a distance for a vacation. This is a destination more than half way to the opposite side of the earth. How many people do this in a lifetime let alone on an annual basis?

Okay, this is an interesting disagreement, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't really know the answer. My assumption has been that modern jet aircraft provide a more efficient people-miles-per-gallon than driving a typical car (solo, anyway). I suppose I've based this assumption on the comparative costs of driving a long distance (say Connecticut to Florida) vs. taking an economy airflight (say Southwest Airlines). The same seems to also be acknowledged in vtie's earlier post regarding car vs. electric train vs. plane from Belgium to Rome.

 

Reply removed
Enjoy Hawai! I have been there on a business trip once, and it's a very beautiful place...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jul 19 2006, 08:10 PM) [snapback]288825[/snapback]</div>

Yes, airlines are more efficient per person per km than a car (4.8Liter/100km, a bit like a Prius). But the big difference is that people do travel much further with airlines. You can go to a holiday destination as far as 20000 km with a plane, something you obviously would never do with any car. So, cheap airline transportation has opened up an entirely new set of possibilities, and people use them. While doing this, they also burn an awful lot of fuel. In many cases, more than they burn with their car during an entire year.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jul 19 2006, 08:10 PM) [snapback]288825[/snapback]</div>

Maybe you didn't notice, but my entire calculation was in kilometers. 10,000 kilometers is almost exactly half-way to the opposite place of the Earth. Given the fact that you never fly straight, it's less than half-way. It's approximately the distance my friend-couple fly every year, and I know a lot of people of my age who do that every year at least once.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 19 2006, 10:27 AM) [snapback]288638[/snapback]</div>

The best vacation I ever had was a bicycle trip from Vancouver, Canada to Los Gatos, California. Not that this would be everyone's favourite holiday, but it can be done.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jul 19 2006, 08:27 PM) [snapback]288840[/snapback]</div>

Sigh... Again, this was in a reply to a post about a vacation on Hawai (and telling that mine will be in the Alps). I was saying that both these vacations would be impossible without oil. Of course you can have vacation destinations without oil! But this was a specific remark in a specific context.

 

My apologies, vtie. Sorry if I took your comments out of context.

 

Nobody should have to give up vacations. We should all be driving to them in electric cars fueled by solar power. Or go overseas on sailing ships.

So what if the wind dies down and your vacation takes an extra week! Society just has to adjust and lose some excess productivity.

 

Looks like there are pics of the Tesla on the Internet already.... :lol:

http://blog.wired.com/teslacar/index.album?i=0

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 19 2006, 02:26 PM) [snapback]288837[/snapback]</div>

Do forgive me, I'm still stuck in this archaic old "inches-feet-miles" system. Yes, I did notice and went to edit when I realized my mistake, but you quoted me before I managed to do so.

 

Could they design a "standardized" battery cell?

If so, couldn't you just swap one depleted cell for a charged one at the "gas station?" Then it wouldn't take any time at all. Especially if it could be inserted and removed like a (large) cartridge.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 7 2006, 10:18 AM) [snapback]282508[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JasonInNJ @ Jul 20 2006, 04:50 AM) [snapback]289148[/snapback]</div>

An interesting idea, and it would solve several problems if it would work. But I see a few problems:

* It might be perceived as a solution that limits individual freedom of choice (although it doesn't have to be). But if people think about it in that way, it's never going to be accepted

* More fundamentally, such a standardized battery system would interfere with the innovation and creativity of individual companies. For example, it would become very hard for a company to come up with a new kind of improved battery, given the fact that it would require e.g. a different way using or recharging.

* Batteries in a big, long-range, performant EV would be *very* heavy, and they would have to be located somewhere under the car. It wouldn't be easy to change them. I can imagine some kind of robot you drive over that does the job automatically, but that's still SciFi of course (sorry, folks! )

* Batteries have a very bad usable energy / weight ratio. If you establish such a system, you have to be prepared to transport huge amounts of heavy batteries over a long distance because of demographics (just imagine the holiday season, where lots of people drive to the South for a few weeks and then go back)