Who killed the electric car?

I don't doubt that EV's could be fun to drive, but nobody has addressed the issue of what happens when we start plugging these millions of cars into the grid. We're already arguing about coal vs nuclear vs wind etc etc blah blah, nobody wants any of it in their backyard to generate the electricity we demand now, much less what it will take to recharge all these cars. EV's are still a pie in the sky dream with a few practical examples being offered here and there.

I love the idea of hydrogen cars. The problem there is, making the hydrogen. That takes energy. At this point, it's probably only marginally more efficient than making corn ethanol...which isn't efficient at all. Then there's the whole infrastructure and safety aspects, both of which I think are surmountable. But until someone figures out how to make a lot of hydrogen inexpensively, it too will languish.

Ddavid-the current(haha) idea is to charge at night while the powerplants are idling and putting out more electricity than used.

V2G solves some of the power generation problems.

Charge at night when output is higher than use.

Have EVs feed back to the grid so you get $$$ back.

Two pages of posts and we are still on the EV-1? Nobody even mentioned the Stonecutters yet? Disappointing....

MrJoshua wrote:

neon4891 wrote: Might I suggest hydrogen? Or will I get flamed with a mile long list of bull E36 M3 reasons of why it is not the answer?

Because it is bullE36 M3?

Isn't that methane?

MrJoshua wrote: Ddavid-the current(haha) idea is to charge at night while the powerplants are idling and putting out more electricity than used.

That makes a lot of sense. Everyone unplugs their fridge and AC at night don't they?

I used to like Hydrogen. I saw a Hydrogen electric SUV (GM product) buzzing around New York a little while ago. I think its time has already passed though. Look, you use electricity to break apart the Hydrogen and Oxygen. Then you move the Hydrogen to a fill station. Then you pump it into your gas tank (which has the same storage capacity limitations that batteries are facing now). Then you need to convert it to electricity again. It just becomes a storage medium that is difficult to move when compared to electricity.

Why not just move the electricity to your fill station (your house or a station along the road), put it in your battery, and be on your way? We're close. I'll buy a Volt as a second-owner car.

confuZion3 wrote: I used to like Hydrogen. I saw a Hydrogen electric SUV (GM product) buzzing around New York a little while ago. I think its time has already passed though. Look, you use electricity to break apart the Hydrogen and Oxygen. Then you move the Hydrogen to a fill station. Then you pump it into your gas tank (which has the same storage capacity limitations that batteries are facing now). Then you need to convert it to electricity again. It just becomes a storage medium that is difficult to move when compared to electricity. Why not just move the electricity to your fill station (your house or a station along the road), put it in your battery, and be on your way? We're close. I'll buy a Volt as a second-owner car.

I think we will have all sorts of fuels for our vehicles; some electric, some ethanol, some gasoline, some diesel/biodiesel/VO.... It just makes more sense to diversify.

Luke wrote: Yes. Also;

Best of both worlds - Mazda made a hydrogen-powered rotary Miata 15 years ago. It's in the museum in Hiroshima, I believe.

WilD wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: Ddavid-the current(haha) idea is to charge at night while the powerplants are idling and putting out more electricity than used.

That makes a lot of sense. Everyone unplugs their fridge and AC at night don't they?

Business shut down and AC loads drop quite a bit at night.

If the main concern is recharge time... wouldn't it make sense to make the batteries easy to swap such that you could lease them like you do gas cylinders? Pull in to the fill station... roll out the dead, roll in a full one and drive away.

Some sort of detachable cart or something that you can access or maybe drive onto a ramp where it can be removed from underneath quickly.

autoxrs wrote: One could argue that at a 200 mile range that is nearly 10x the average distance traveled.

Sure. And it would be a correct but mostly useless argument. That was my point. It doesn't matter much what the ratio of range to average distance is. To get a big enough market share ( to be able to offset development to be able to get the price down) it needs to be capable of being an only car. And to do that it's the range:maximum needed ratio (or a better option for extending the range) that's the stumbling block to being that car. 200 miles is just fine, if I can fill up on the way to grandmas house (or whatever non-standard trip makes up that 10% that's not an "average" day).

Even people who already have another car will shy away ftom a vehicle choice that can't be used as a replacement in a pinch. To get over this hurdle you have to bee able to leapfrog the "make it cost about as much as a traditional car" to get to "make it cost significantly less than a traditional car." A tough spot to make it to without already having the market...

It's a very circular problem. One that I suspect outside influences may someday solve (other industries are currently are driving the battery improvements far more than the automotive industry for example) but one where the solution happens to apply to cars, not one where the solution was engineered originally for cars.

Personally, I think the practical electric cars unlikely to happen. Not because it will never be possible, I think we're not that far from it being possible now, but because by the time it is, I think it will have been bypassed already for another superior option.

confuZion3 wrote: Why not just move the electricity to your fill station (your house or a station along the road), put it in your battery, and be on your way? We're close. I'll buy a Volt as a second-owner car.

As far as your " ...a station along the road" that's exactly the problem. You can't (currently) charge your batteries fast enough for that. You can stop and fill up your gasoline/diesel/LP/hydrogen tank provided there's a distribution network. Battery swapping may be an option, but I have my reservations. Swapping still better than being stranded though.

Further, a Volt isn't a pure electric car... That's a whole different kettle of fish. One that I think is almost ready for prime-time. You have a backup plan for when you run out of battery mid trip in a Volt. And therefore essentially unlimited range. Brining the volt up in a discussion about the problems with electric cars doesn't seem terribly relevant. Those issues are why the volt isn't a straight electric car.

In reply to ddavidv:

I'm a big fan of nuclear power for either electric cars of hydrogen ones. And they're free to build the reactors in my backyard, I don't mind at all.

The NIMBYism so prevalent here in the US is the biggest hurdle we to lots of problems, including energy.

walterj wrote: If the main concern is recharge time... wouldn't it make sense to make the batteries easy to swap such that you could lease them like you do gas cylinders? Pull in to the fill station... roll out the dead, roll in a full one and drive away. Some sort of detachable cart or something that you can access or maybe drive onto a ramp where it can be removed from underneath quickly.

A possibility. But I suspect impractical from several angles.

1) I think the level of standardization required is unlikely.

2) Economically, how much labor are we talking to do the swap each time?

4) Continuing in the economics vein... If we don't usually need to swap batteries because the capacity is well past "average" use, how does that usage patternn support the swapping station infrastructure at sufficient density?

3) Further economically, who is responsible for the batteries then? What about when they die? Gas cylinders are a lot less expensive than batteries. If they don't take my cylinder because I (or maybe the guy before me) goobed it up, I'm not out that much. What about my several thousand dollars worth of batteries (assuming that for now, battery technology will continue to advance and we'll want the "good stuff" in our cars so that prices may not come down even as capacity goes up)

keethrax wrote: In reply to ddavidv: I'm a big fan of nuclear power for either electric cars of hydrogen ones. And they're free to build the reactors in my backyard, I don't mind at all. The NIMBYism so prevalent here in the US is the biggest hurdle we to lots of problems, including energy.

You can't put a nuclear reactor in my back yard, there is a highway there. I would not have a problem if you wanted to put it across the street though!

I believe it was them

Trans_Maro wrote: Some of us just plain like something that goes "HOOOOOOAAARRRGGHHHH" when you stomp on the gas pedal.

+1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Omj6zxtIB0

:)~

Wally wrote: I believe it was them

This was way overdue. Thank you.

All right, so I watched the movie. It made some compelling arguments, but much like a Michael Moore movie, numerous parts of the film were frustrating to watch because I knew they were omitting important facts which didn't fit their narrative.

In the end, I was pretty 'meh' about the movie because its premise of finding a 'killer' is already irrelevant. It's a plea for awareness of a brief moment in time in which a generation of e-car experiments were being phase out... a time which was then followed by a new generation of more viable battery/powertrain technologies and a growing public interest in green technologies.

Who killed the electric car? Nobody.

Today every major automaker has partial-electric cars in their showrooms or has programs in the works to bring partial or fully electric cars to market in the next few years. Boutique manufacturers are selling everything from electric neighborhood runabouts to fully featured electric luxury and sports cars. Enterprising companies are bringing conversion kits are hitting the market to convert existing vehicles to electric. Green power generation and battery technologies are among the hottest investments for venture capitalists and stock brokers alike.

The electric cars which everyone in the movie were gushing over are on their way to showrooms, but it remains to be seen whether or not the masses will buy them.

A friend of mine is looking to buy another car. He has a fairly long commute, and he lives in Ottawa. Ottawa gets a fair bit of snow, but it also has serious snow infrastructure. The roads are dry most of the year, and the plows come out after only about 2 cm of snowfall on the major roads and bus routes. He lives by a bus route and could probably telecommute if he had to. But he insists on buying a car that will get him to work on the very worst day of the year, and accepting compromises because of that.

Similarly, many people will buy a truck gets one that will take care of the biggest load it'll ever possibly have to carry. If it can't carry that big enclosed trailer full of your entire house when you decide to move cross-country and hump it over Eisenhower pass at 70 mph, it's too small.

Now, how many of these people will buy a car that will fit their needs 95% of the time?

MrJoshua wrote:

neon4891 wrote: Might I suggest hydrogen? Or will I get flamed with a mile long list of bull E36 M3 reasons of why it is not the answer?

Because it is bullE36 M3?

I don't know about a mile long list, but I do know that hydrogen not only isn't THE answer, but more than likely isn't even an answer. Unless you can figure out a way to build a pipeline from the sun, we do not have a ready store of hydrogen. To make it takes energy, more than you can get out of it by burning or through a fuel cell. Not an energy source, more like a battery.

Keith wrote: Similarly, many people will buy a truck gets one that will take care of the biggest load it'll ever possibly have to carry. If it can't carry that big enclosed trailer full of your entire house when you decide to move cross-country and hump it over Eisenhower pass at 70 mph, it's too small. Now, how many of these people will buy a car that will fit their needs 95% of the time?

Important point. And frustrating. Most two vehicle households would barely notice the difference if one of their vehicles was smaller or had limited range. Most Americans are sold on the practicality of SUV's. They are practical, but not necessarily economical. I love all the fun wagons you see in Europe. I also love the practicality of wagons--that's why we now own two of them. Not too many tasks are too much for our Legacy's, but if we need more capacity U-Haul is nearby to rent a trailer or a truck.

So let's all band together and push for more fun and practical wagons!

P.S. Hey Subaru, you just ruined the Outback!!!

keethrax wrote: . And they're free to build the reactors in my backyard, I don't mind at all.

You must have a bigger backyard than I do...

PeterAK wrote: Important point. And frustrating. Most two vehicle households would barely notice the difference if one of their vehicles was smaller or had limited range.

Sure. But unless it's cheaper (not just the same cost) why limit even the second car? And without being able to be the primary car (where the range very much is relevant) I don't see it getting enough of a slice of the pie to offset development/tooling/etc to the point of being cheaper. As I said, a nasty circle.

The things I'm willing to put up wiht in a secondary (or tertiary like the truck I'm shopping for) vehicle is a much bigger list than what I'll put up with for my pimary (and only) vehicle.

Until a car can compete for that single car option, it won't have the $ potential to bring the price down to where it could compete for the secondary car market (where even a range-limited electric commuter-mobile makes a ton of sense).