Why I like the ELECTRIC CAR (don't hate me)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
820
Location
Sacramento CA
Yes, I know many hate the electric cars and one might think I would naturally hate them too. Or at the very least be indifferent -Especially given that I drive a v8 currently, have owned 2 BMW m3s and 2 Ducati and a slew of other fossil fuel gulping monsters..I love to shift, I love the sound (and I even like the smell of gasoline!!) No Doubt.

However, I am PRO electric car. In a big way. I even like the Leaf enough to own one (someday, hopefully). As I know not many people are like me. Many, like my mom for example would benefit greatly from the electric car. She works 10 miles away, shops on the way home for groceries - and doesn't really deviate. The electric car would be a great fit for her. To me this is a positive for the rest of us who want- Motorcycles, muscle cars and M3s etc as this will ease the demand for fuel.

Jay Leno said something to the effect of -Gasoline technology engines saved the horses and electric cars will save the gasoline engines.

I realized that is a very simplified answer but I kind of agree- Electric and fossil can coexist.
 
Last edited:
Electricity, for the most part, requires the burning of fossil fuels or nukes to produce. Unless, you want to install a costly solar charging station or wind power.

It blows me away that many think that the electric car is some panacea that will save us from the downfalls of the ICE, because it's far from it.
 
The only real solution to our energy situation, in the medium term (forget short term), is to have more nuke plants producing electricity, and consumer automobiles that are like the Volt, but instead of gas their engines run on compressed natural gas. Semi trucks also need to be converted to run on CNG. In the long term I think we are looking at the same thing, but with hydrogen instead of CNG. All these other things are pie in the sky and will never be able to be produced in enough quantity.
 
Originally Posted By: meangreen01
Electricity, for the most part, requires the burning of fossil fuels or nukes to produce. Unless, you want to install a costly solar charging station or wind power.

It blows me away that many think that the electric car is some panacea that will save us from the downfalls of the ICE, because it's far from it.
01.gif
Yep!!! Though an eletric car could be nice for a city car.
 
Originally Posted By: meangreen01
...
It blows me away that many think that the electric car is some panacea that will save us from the downfalls of the ICE, because it's far from it.


it runs cleaner, at higher efficiency and uses fuel generated in its home country. Isn't that enough?
 
The fossil fuels we use to generate electricity are generally not imported and cost less than oil. And there are other, perhaps more expensive options for generating electricity that are cleaner. But even options like Wind or Solar, while "expensive" are still less costly than gasoline, so I think the argument they are too costly makes no sense. Lastly, a electric power plant is so much more efficient than a automobile engine you can loose half the energy in transit and still come out ahead.


Most importanlty, these are the first really viable electric cars. They are barely competitive. That will change in time. Battery technology moves so fast, compare a cellular phone now to one from 10 years ago, 20 years ago... In a decade who knows what can happen.
 
Originally Posted By: Ray Garlington

it runs cleaner, at higher efficiency and uses fuel generated in its home country. Isn't that enough?


Not really. Will those who share your stance allow for the needed power plant expansion, mining, drilling, etc. to affordably provide the electricity for these cars?

Our local power company wanted to build a new, much needed, coal-fired plant equipped with all of the modern emission scrubbers. They were fought tooth-n-nail over it. Clean, American power to power all our newfangled gadgets- including electric cars.

I suppose it's a good game to talk until someone actually wants to do it.
 
MeanGreen,

Much needed? Wisconsin has an oversupply of electricity which will become even worse now that the Racine coal plant is online. With the Point Beach nuclear power plant also expanding over the next few years, we will be selling quite a bit of electricity to other states.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bepperb
MeanGreen,

Much needed? Wisconsin has an oversupply of electricity which will become even worse now that the Racine coal plant is online. With the Point Beach nuclear power plant also expanding over the next few years, we will be selling quite a bit of electricity to other states.


You act like it is a bad thing to have the ability to produce more power than is currently needed. It gives a buffer for economic expansion, if they'd stop doing everything possible in DC to kill economic development. I'm pretty familiar with WI, and think you are also exaggerating just how much power is produced there (minus the new Racine plant).
 
Here is a direct paste from Nissan's Leaf web site:


your Nissan LEAF™ is built to go 100 miles on a single charge(1) how far you'll go will depend on a number of variables

a fully charged new battery has a range of 138 – 62 miles. range is most affected by the following factors:
Climate control – the more extreme the temperature is outside, the more energy used to heat or cool the cabin.
Speed – higher speeds require much more energy to overcome air resistance.
Driving style – smooth acceleration and deceleration will extend range while aggressive acceleration and deceleration will decrease range.
Cargo and topography – heavy cargo and driving up steep long inclines will reduce range.

there are an infinite number of range scenarios(2), based on many variables. Here are just a few, starting with the EPA LA4 test cycle:EPA LA4 test cycle: 100 milesThe Nissan LEAF has been tested under the EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule, a laboratory test commonly called the LA4 test cycle, which represents city driving conditions. Top speed is 56.7 mph and average speed is 19.59 mph. Ambient temperature can vary from 68 - 86 degrees. Climate control is off. The Nissan LEAF easily achieved 100 miles.

Ideal driving conditions: 138 miles
Speed: Constant 38 mph
Temperature: 68 degrees
Climate control: Off
Driving on a flat road at a constant 38 mph means less air resistance, and therefore less energy use. And at 68 degrees, there's no need for climate control, extending the range even further. The result: a range boost up to 138 miles.

Suburban driving on a nice day: 105 miles
Speed: Average 24 mph
Temperature: 72 degrees
Climate control: Off
The average speed in this scenario is 24 mph; common when commuting and running errands. The ambient temperature is 72 degrees and the climate control is off. Not using the air conditioner and driving at slower speeds mean less energy use and a little extra range.

Highway driving in the summer: 70 miles
Speed: Average 55 mph
Temperature: 95 degrees
Climate control: On
Averaging 55 mph on the highway, in 95 degree weather, with the air conditioning on high may produce range figures like this. Higher speeds require more energy to overcome air resistance. Running the air conditioner means energy that could be used to increase range instead goes to cooling the car.

Cross-town commute on a hot day: 68 miles
Speed: Average 49 mph
Temperature: 110 degrees
Climate control: On
Driving from a rural area into the city at an average 49 mph with the a/c on high may produce this range. Under these conditions, climate control combined with higher-speed driving produces increased energy consumption, hence the effect on range.

Winter, urban stop-and-go, traffic jam: 62 miles
Speed: Average 15 mph
Temperature: 14 degrees
Climate control: On
Though the average speed is only 15 mph with stop-and-go traffic, the 14-degree temperature means the heater is doing a lot of work so you spend considerable time and energy heating your car rather than moving forward. Despite these conditions, it would still take more than 4 hours to run out of charge!

Disclaimers:(1) 100 miles based upon EPA LA4 city cycle conducted in laboratory tests. See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml. Based upon EPA five-cycle tests using varying driving conditions and climate controls, the EPA has rated the Nissan LEAF a driving range of 73 miles. Battery capacity decreases with time and use. Actual range will vary depending upon driving/charging habits, speed, conditions, weather, temperature, and battery age.
(2) All above scenarios based on new battery life. Estimated range based upon specific variables studied through computer simulations.


My Nasty Comments:
1. Nissan says that the driving range on the EPA LA4 Driving Cycle in the main text, but when you read footnote 1, you find that the EPA rates the range at 73 miles.
2. Running the climate control or driving in hilly terrain reduces the range.
3. The best-case driving range is 138 miles, if you're willing to drive 38 mph for 3.6 hours. Some people regard that their time is worth the extra money spent on gasoline if they could drive the 138 miles in 2 hours, and not be a rolling roadblock at the same time.
4. The summer highway driving range of 70 miles is attained at 55 mph. Picture driving at 55 mph on LA freeways; you might get shot the first day you take the Leaf out into traffic.
5. In the fine print, they finally get around to saying that all of the range scenarios were based on a new battery pack, and that range would decrease as the battery ages.
6. Also in the fine print is the fact that all but the EPA LA4 ranges were the result of computer simulations, not real world testing.

After a couple of months of living with a Leaf, I think that the average American driver would begin to wonder why he was putting up with constant anxiety over whether or not he was going to reach his destination, and begin to wonder if the car was serving him, or he was serving the car.
 
Electric is good for where it can be applied most efficiently. The ICE is the answer for everything else until a better solution can be found, and until then the environmentalists shouldn't harass those users who can't apply that electric efficiently IMO.
 
Last edited:
As I said before, for people like my mother who have a 15-25 mile a day commute, it would be perfect.

Yeah I get that it there is fine print attached and 100 miles per charge is quite optimistic.

But don't underestimate the people who have a very short commute or need a vehicle seldom.
 
I like the idea of owning an electric car, but the price would have to come WAY down in order to make it worth my while. When the Volt arrives here in Canada it's going to be $40,000! Compare that to a Chevy Cruze or Honda Civic or other similar car that's priced at $15,000 here, and you can see that it would be almost impossible for me to make up the difference that I'd save in fuel. And how much $$$ is it going to add to your electricity bill to be plugging in that electric car for 4-8 hours every day? I'm sure it will be less than the cost of gasoline, but by how much?
 
Originally Posted By: needsducktape
As I said before, for people like my mother who have a 15-25 mile a day commute, it would be perfect.

Yeah I get that it there is fine print attached and 100 miles per charge is quite optimistic.

But don't underestimate the people who have a very short commute or need a vehicle seldom.



that's the problem. people who drive alot, can't drive more than 30 miles on one charge, or travel across country without being inconvenienced. so if you drive short trips or very seldom, you won't need to pay a ton more money for an electric car when a cheaper fuel efficient gas engine would be fine.
 
Yeah electric cars require power, but the economy of scale makes the production of the electricity needed to move a car a given distance is FAR more efficient than an equivalent ICE.

Electric won't work for long haul truckers. But that misses the point: most cars are traveling only a handful of miles a day, and a viable electric alternative fits the bill very well. I'd be completely happy if the subsidies for electric matched the history of subsidies for ICEs. Only fair, right?

Having said that, coal is a really nasty way to make power. There's just no getting around that, no matter what the lobbyists say.

On a side note, I chuckle when people complain about those "environmentalists". Do you fish and like clean water? Then you're an environmentalist. Do you prefer that your neighbor doesn't pour his used oil down the sewer that leads to the lake you swim/fish in? Environmentalist, check. Try not to throw garbage out of your car window? Check.

The term has been invented and abused by righties who protect polluting interests over common sense.
 
If backwards PUCs allowed off peak metering a bunch of people would start charging their Leafs at 2 am. Plenty of power available then. Some utilities pump water uphill into a holding dam overnight so it can run the turbines under peak needs! While we're at it make a clothes dryer that runs then.

I think gasoline is pretty cool and applaud efforts to keep a bit of it in the ground for my kids to play with.
smirk.gif
 
People forget that electricity (and hydrogen) aren't fuels, but have to be made from existing fuels.

i.e. there's no such thing (on Earth) as a hydrogen mine.
 
They are a great idea for most people, gas just needs to stay high enough to make the switch make economic sense.

My mom would be a perfect candidate for the electric Rav4 that Toyota is coming out with, since she never drives on the highway or more than 15 miles from home. A 100 mile range would almost last her all week!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom