VW's USA head Stefan Jacoby: EVs are 35 YEARS away

[wtmusic]

"Earlier this month at the Geneva Motor Show, Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn mentioned to a group of reporters that, in his mind at least, electric cars were at least 15-20 years away. Now, Volkswagen of USA head Stefan Jacoby has been quoted as saying it will take even longer. Specifically, it could be as long as 35 years before EVs take a significant percentage of market share away from the tried-and-true internal combustion engine.

Why? To answer, Jacoby asks a question: "What would happen if 50 million new electric customers would plug their electric cars in an electric socket? There is no country on earth that is really properly prepared for electric cars." Further, Jacoby suggests that emerging markets like China and India will take the longest to eschew fossil fuels."

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/14/vws-jacoby-says-few-countries-ready-for-electric-vehicles/

OK so I get it: VW has a big commitment to diesel, and their PR machine going on the offensive. But they had better come up with better talking points than that one, which is debunked around here on a daily basis (psst, Stefan: the US isn't properly prepared for 50 million diesel cars either).

[msongs]

1. for the most part EV's will plug in at night during off-peak demand times. & solar

recharging schemes of some sort would make that less necessary as well.

VW is just trying to protect it's own dying internal combustion engine model.

Another dinosaur company heading for disaster IMO. Must be taking advice from...GM lol .

Msongs

[librechik]

2. does he mean in the past, cuz we had them 35 years ago, and if they had done something

about infrastructure back then, instead of crushing the cars, we would be sitting pretty.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Which cars were crushed 35 years ago?

As far as electric cars go, we've had them for much longer than 35 years. We've essentially had them longer than gasoline-powered cars.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/electric-car-timeline.html

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarselectrica.htm

…

The decline of the electric vehicle was brought about by several major developments:

• By the 1920s, America had a better system of roads that now connected cities, bringing with it the need for longer-range vehicles.
• The discovery of Texas crude oil reduced the price of gasoline so that it was affordable to the average consumer.
• The invention of the electric starter by Charles Kettering in 1912 eliminated the need for the hand crank.
• The initiation of mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford made these vehicles widely available and affordable in the $500 to $1,000 price range. By contrast, the price of the less efficiently produced electric vehicles continued to rise. In 1912, an electric roadster sold for $1,750, while a gasoline car sold for $650.

…

Today, gasoline cars essentially retain these advantages.
A gasoline vehicle generally has greater range on a full tank than an EV has on a full charge. A gas tank can also be refilled much more quickly than an EV can be recharged. Gasoline is still relatively inexpensive, while the difference in price between the types of cars is quite significant.

If you assume a car's useful life is 200,000 miles, and that a reasonable car get's 20 MPG, during the life of the car, you'll put 10,000 gallons of gasoline into it. If you assume the gas costs $4/gallon, that's $40,000.

Electricity is not free, but assume that it is. The price difference between a Tesla™ roadster and a http://www.lotuscars.com/elise.html">Lotus™ Elise (two http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster">comparable cars) is more than $40,000. Add in the cost of the electricity…

As the price of gasoline increases, this formula will get better. Eventually, it should favor EV's. Then the market for EV's will improve. Until then…

[librechik]

10. we had them 35 years ago==they weren't crushed until recently

and if we purposed the EVs properly, not so much for distance but for in mass transit/city fleets and so on, they could be part of our society right now--if the auto companies had adopted them

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. EV's were killed by economonics, not by the car companies

The economics were against them 100 years ago, and they still are today.

The little GEM cars are becoming a common sight. I thought about one for commuting (30 mile maximum range, 25MPH maximum speed.)

The base model (two seats, no frills like doors or bumpers) is http://www.gemcar.com/build/accBuild.asp?model=3">over $8,000!

[wtmusic]

15. The car companies in league with the petrochemical industry

did their fair share. If economics are still against them, why are the little GEM cars becoming a common sight? Why are companies like Nissan and Renault investing $billions? :shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. GEM cars are successful in niches, because of subsidies/grants/tax incentives

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/autos/0902/gallery.electric_car_credits/3.html

Electric cars get charge from stimulus

GEM Car

Cost: $7,000 to $13,000
Tax credit: $2,500 for 2009, $700 to $1,300 after 2009*
Global Electric Motorcars, a subsidiary of Chrysler, LLC, is said to be the biggest seller of electric vehicles in America, and by no small margin.

The Electric Drive Transportation Association, an industry group for plug-in car makers, estimates that there have been about 60,000 low-speed electric cars sold in America. Of those, 40,000 are GEM cars.

…

Under current rules, which remain in effect until next year, GEMs are eligible for a $2,500 credit. Next year, according to GEM, new rules take effect under which they would be limited to 10% of the purchase price up to $2,500.

…

(They're particularly nice in situations where people would like to avoid exhaust fumes and/or the noise of an ICE.)

Why are Nissan and Renault investing Billions in R&D? Because they think that economics will favor EV's in the relatively near future. Renault has built fuel-efficient cars for Europe for years, and Nissan has built them for Japan.

Both Japan and Europe have higher gasoline prices than the US, which is one reason why there is more of a focus on MPG (and why in the 70's and early 80's both companies enjoyed a boost in US sales.)

BTW: Volkswagen is also doing R&D:
http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080528.008/volkswagen-working-on-high-performance-energy-storage

Volkswagen Working on High-Performance Energy Storage

by Clinton Deacon
May 28, 2008 12:00 PM

Announced today, Volkswagen Group have entered into a dynamic partnership with Sanyo to develop extremely efficient high-performance storage systems based on lithium-ion technology. The effort will look to build on existing technology to create zero-emissions electrical powered cars and will look to utilize energy recovery which is normally lost with Braking being one of the most common known issues in this area.

"Our focus in future, will be directed more strongly at making electrically powered automobiles alongside ones driven by more efficient combustion engines,” commented Prof Martin Winterkorn, CEO of the Volkswagen Group.

…

Do you want to see EV's succeed faster? Raise the gasoline tax.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. Answer a simple question for me…

Assuming that GM (for example) is in league with big oil to deny us EV's, and that it isn't a simple problem of economics, why are none of GM's major competitors marketing a consumer EV? (Or have the oil companies successfully bought them all off?)

Yes, yes, I know, we've seen plenty of EV's announced; and they're all supposed to be on the market tomorrow. Why are there none available today?

[wtmusic]

18. IMO oil has successfully bought off any company

that appeared to have a viable product on the horizon. And if you think there isn't an incentive look at the numbers: we're talking about a $250B of oil revenue every year.

It's not some shady conspiracy, just good business sense. It may not even be illegal. But they should be called out on it.

I have yet to meet one unsatisfied owner of a Toyota RAV4 EV. Not one, and I've met ten or so. They are great cars full of utility, and they aren't made any more. Why? There's a simple question for you.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. The Toyota RAV4 EV

Did you ever wonder why when California was running their EV trials, so many of the EV's were trucks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_EV
(Nominal) MSRP $50,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_S10_EV


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV


(They needed a beefy suspension to carry around the batteries.)

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_EV_Plus">Honda EV Plus was a reasonably designed EV, with a (nominal) MSRP of $53,000.


How much did those RAV4 EV owners pay for them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV">The (nominal) MSRP was $42,000.

Today, the MSRP for a RAV4 is $21,500.
http://www.toyota.com/rav4/trims-prices.html


It all comes down to market economics.

[wtmusic]

21. Chevron-Texaco is DIRECTLY responsible for the demise of the RAV4 EV

"The MSRP was $42,000; but in California, ZIP-grant rebates of $9,000, decreasing in 2003 to $5,000, and a $4,000 credit from the Internal Revenue Service brought the price down to a more palatable $29,000 ($33,000 for some 2003 deliveries), including the home charger.

By November 2002 the 328 RAV4-EV’s Toyota had committed to were sold, yet demand was continuing to build. Toyota was caught off-guard by the extent of the demand because the vehicle's retail buyers had outsold the projections far faster than the vehicles could be supplied to market - despite very little advertising, and very little public awareness of the product.

<>

As it turned out there were more RAV4-EV's sold than there were cars available. It is noteworthy that Toyota did, in fact, play fair and filled every last order despite the fact that the last few dozen vehicles had to be painstakingly assembled from spare parts due to a shortfall of production components. This unexpected development caused deliveries to trickle on into September 2003. It also caused variations in the vehicles such as heated seats, retractable antennae, mats, etc. As an example, seat covers ordered for a 2003 RAV4-EV won't fit, you must order them for the 1999 RAV4 gas model.

<>

Whether or not Toyota wanted to continue production, it was unlikely to be able to do so, because the EV-95 battery was no longer available. Chevron had inherited control of the worldwide patent rights for the NiMH EV-95 battery when it merged with Texaco, which had purchased them from General Motors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV

Like you say, it all comes down to economics - with a healthy dose of collusion, conspiracy, and market manipulation thrown in the mix. :eyes:

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. Go back and read your posting

The fact is that in order to get people to buy what was (nominally) a $42,000 vehicle, they had to give people $9,000. (i.e. people wouldn't pay the full price.)

If you can't convince people to pay the full price, then you don't have a marketable product.

Decades back, there was a joke about TI's microcomputer, "We lose money on every one we sell, but we're making it up in volume." (When was the last time you saw a TI microcomputer?)

[wtmusic]

23. You are in denial.

What is the "full price"? It's what people have to pay - whether there are rebates or not. And there were obviously more than enough people willing to pay it.

Do you think the price would have come down if Toyota made 400,000 instead of 400?

Back to the issue at hand - I'd like to hear you admit that Chevron-Texaco deliberately bought the patent to NiMH to stymie the development of electric cars. It's obvious, but I don't think you can do it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. I think they bought the patent so they could make money off other people's NiMH's

(Simple business decision.)

http://www.ovonic.com/al_alliances_licensees_battery.cfm

Question: During the time when multiple companies were trying out NiMH-based EV's in California, where did the other companies (i.e. other than GM) get their NiMH's?

[wtmusic]

32. Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries

Of course! A simple business decision. Except they weren't selling any, to anybody.

"In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacture, including patents controlling the manufacture of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries. In 2001, Texaco purchased GM's share in GM Ovonics. A few months later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics. Chevron's influence over Cobasys extends beyond a strict 50/50 joint venture. Chevron holds a 19.99% interest in ECD Ovonics. Chevron also maintains veto power over any sale or licensing of NiMH technology."

<>

"Toyota employees complained about the difficulty in getting smaller orders of large format NiMH batteries to service the existing 825 RAV-4EVs. Since no other companies were willing to make large orders, Cobasys was not manufacturing nor licensing any large format NiMH battery technology for automotive purposes. Boschert concludes that "it's possible that Cobasys (Chevron) is squelching all access to large NiMH batteries through its control of patent licenses in order to remove a competitor to gasoline."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries

[kristopher]

36. Excellent support for the obvious. Thank you. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

41. "Toyota employees complained about the difficulty in getting smaller orders of large format NiMH"

OK, so apparently there wouldn't have been a problem with a large order.

Let's see what Toyota says about the RAV4 EV:
http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/rav4ev/

RAV4 EV

Toyota Motor Corporation discontinued production of the RAV4 Electric Vehicle worldwide in the spring of 2003. Therefore, Toyota will no longer take orders for the RAV4 EV.

Toyota remains committed to developing an "Eco Vehicle," one that will have a minimal impact on the environment. Toyota believes that in order to have a positive environmental impact, a large number of consumers must embrace the technology. In order for this to happen, the vehicle must meet the lifestyle needs of, and be affordable to, the mass market. Although a significant marketing effort was undertaken for the RAV4-EV, we only sold about 300 vehicles a year.

In addition to overall customer acceptance, technical issues tied to electric vehicles remain a major hurdle. Industry practice regards batteries to be at the end of their useful life when capacity decreases to 80% of original capacity. A battery's capacity is the amount of charge that it holds, and is commonly measured by the range of the vehicle. It is cost-prohibitive to replace an EV battery. The cost to replace the battery is more than the value of the vehicle.

Although Toyota's electric vehicle sales have proved disappointing, Toyota was able to leverage valuable technology from the development and sales of the RAV4-EV. For example, some of the technology involved in the Hybrid Synergy Drive® system on the next generation Prius came from the RAV4-EV. Toyota was the first company to introduce a hybrid vehicle to the mass market in 1997.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-greencar15-2008jun15,1,1131521,full.story

…

BMW burns hydrogen in a conventional internal combustion engine. GM and Honda, like most other carmakers developing the technology, mix hydrogen gas with oxygen from the air in a device called a fuel cell to create electricity that drives electric motors.

Proponents note that hydrogen vehicles emit no greenhouses gases, unlike gasoline-powered cars. They have greater range than today's electric cars and can be refueled faster than a battery can be charged.

"Petroleum is not a long-term solution for cars, and battery cars have real limitations," said Bill Reinert, national manager for advanced technologies at Toyota Motor Corp. "Hydrogen technology is getting much better."

…

[wtmusic]

62. The conspiracy thing touches a real nerve with you.

Seeing as you once referred to GM as "we" it's a safe bet you're an employee or a PR contractor, so here's a suggestion: if you're going to post, pick posts where your position isn't so blatantly at odds with facts. Do your company a favor, they could use it.

Case in point: accepting some mindless Toyota PR that says electric vehicle sales were "disappointing" as fact, when the fact was they sold more than they could make. Nonsense, isn't it?

[OKIsItJustMe]

71. I don't know why I bother…

Go back and find that reference to "We" please. Then, look at it in context.

Chasing conspiracies is simply a waste of energy, and I never learn that arguing with someone who believes a conspiracy theory is a waste of my energy.

I've argued against "9/11 Conspiracies" 'til I'm blue in the face. (There was a conspiracy by-the-way, and all of the hijackers were in on it. It just didn't involve missiles and demolition charges. It involved hijacking large planes which were relatively easy to fly, and piloting them into buildings.—A 747 for example is a larger, heavier plane than a 757, but not as easy to fly.)

The Bush administration was all too willing to take advantage of the events to "justify" invading Iraq. They may have been negligent in guarding against such a conspiracy. However I don't believe they played an active role in it.


At one point, you say that NiMH's are great, because Toyota uses them to "power the 1 million Priuses on the road."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=189500&mesg_id=189547

Then, you claim there is a conspiracy, because Toyota is prevented from using them! OK, which is it?

[wtmusic]

75. I don't know why you bother either.

Your talking points are stale and debunked immediately. And yet they return.

But your false dichotomy ("NiMH's are great" vs. "Toyota is prevented from using them!") was kind of fun.

:D

[OKIsItJustMe]

76. False false dichotomy

The dichotomy was this:

Toyota uses Millions of NiMH's -vs- Toyota is prevented from using NiMH's.

As I said, I can't stop you from twisting my words.

[wtmusic]

78. A false dichotomy, and a straw man. One more and it's a hat trick.

Toyota was prevented from buying replacement NiMHs to repair RAV4s, but they did successfully purchase millions of NiMHs for the Prius - an entirely different product line. One, that I might add, consumes a great deal of Chevron gasoline.

Now think real hard on this before you waste my time again. :eyes:

[OKIsItJustMe]

81. Let's be clear

"Toyota employees complained about the difficulty in getting smaller orders of large format NiMH batteries to service the existing 825 RAV-4EVs."

This does not mean that Toyota discontinued making and selling RAV4 EV's because they could no longer get batteries for them. This is after they'd stopped selling them.


Decades ago, I worked at a company which had designed, manufactured and sold a limited quantity of a specially designed computer for a very important customer in the past. Some years later, that customer asked to buy some more of that exact computer. This required restarting an assembly process, and also required getting suppliers to restart their old processes to manufacture some (what were now) obsolete components. The new computers were built, but they didn't come cheap.

Fortunately, the end customer had very deep pockets…


How many specially made batteries are we talking about here?

Is Toyota prevented from selling Priuses with more NiMH's in them? (You know, to make a "plug-in hybrid?")

[kentauros]

58. Okay, who do we talk with to invoke Eminent Domain on this patent?

I know I've mentioned its use before and have seen the support around here to do that. Why is patent-encumbrance/patent-sitting even allowed? Why isn't it against the law? If you haven't put it into production in a reasonable amount of time (would seven years be reasonable?) then it goes into the public domain. And if you do put it into production, then it should show a profit, or some similar criteria where it is truly doing the public good by being produced. Because you know Chevron-Texaco would put it into production but at a very reduced amount, yet still making a profit, and it would never be a competitor to Big Oil even then. Better to simply do some eminent domain on it and make it available to all to produce :)

Things like this are too important to allow the fearful to control.

[wtmusic]

66. That's a great idea

they should do the same thing with domain names.

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. What is the "full price"?

Any company selling a product needs to make back their costs, and make a profit. That's what the "full price" is.

Now, the government (the people) may decide that society has an interest in a product being sold at less than the full price. In this case, the "full price" is the total amount the company receives for its product, from all sources. (Not just what the consumer pays.)

It's also possible that a company may choose to sell a product for less than its full price (ex. Toyota initially sold the Prius at a loss, and given how much less the MSRP for the RAV4 EV was than the other EV's, I suspect they anticipated selling them at a loss as well.) A company cannot do this for very long (see the TI joke above.)

http://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v10n3/30_Texas_Instruments.php

…

A joke went around the industry that TI was losing money on every computer it sold, but was making it up in volume. And at the January '83 Consumer Electronics Show, TI spokesman Bill Cosby joked about the rebate then in effect pointing out how easy it was to get people to buy a computer if you paid them $100 to do it. The funny--and sad--thing is: neither one was a joke.

…

[wtmusic]

33. Um, can we bury that TI anecdote already?

especially since it isn't applicable. As you say yourself, "In this case, the 'full price' is the total amount the company receives for its product, from all sources. (Not just what the consumer pays.)" CA was willing to foot the bill to help get Toyota, GM and others off the ground and make money from the start.

Sounds like a winner to me. Why didn't automakers think so? Hmmmmm?

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. Sure, but first, bury your silly conspiracy theory

My point is that the EV was essentially an unsellable product at that time. If they brought them out today, with Li-ion cells, I don't think they'd sell all that well.

When gas is back up to $4 a gallon, they may sell better.

The typical American consumer when faced with the choice between a $14,000 gasoline powered car and a $40,000 electric car is going to go for the gasoline powered car.

A quick parallel: CFL's have been around for decades. Why didn't people buy them until relatively recently? What changed?

[kristopher]

38. You are confusing cause and effect.

You "prove" there is no conspiracy by pointing to the economics of EV vs ICE. Your argument, as I understand it, is that these economic factors are somehow just there and have no connection to the fossil fuel companies except as they are able to provide the the least cost alternative in the equation.

That isn't a proof of no collusion among fossil fuel interests. The longer the economic disparity can be maintained, the better it is for the fossil fuel interests. If they fossil fuel companies DO NOT act in every legal manner possible to prevent technical and economic advancement in an area that presents a substantial threat to their profitability then they are violating their fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders.

The claim that they haven't worked actively to obstruct development and deployment of the most promising technologies that threten them (including EVs) is simply absurd.

[OKIsItJustMe]

39. "That isn't a proof of no collusion among fossil fuel interests."

By a similar token, I haven't seen any proof of collusion either.

So, I'm left with two explanations:

• A complex conspiracy involving the oil companies and all of the car companies
• A simple explanation using consumer preferences and market economics

Hey, Occam! Got your razor handy?

A relevant NY Times article:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E2DE1039F935A15754C0A96E958260

BEHIND THE WHEEL/General Motors EV1, Toyota RAV4-EV, Honda EV Plus; Charge! Doing an Electric Commute

By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: Sunday, July 26, 1998

A TURTLE icon suddenly lit up on the dashboard of my Toyota RAV4 Electric Vehicle. The car's batteries were exhausted and I had entered ''limp home mode,'' which would allow me to putter along at a reduced speed for a few miles to make it back to a charger.

But instead of slowing down, the car stalled completely on a dark street a mile from my home. Panicked, I jumped out, pushed the car to the side of the road and began scrounging for coins to call a tow truck.

But after turning the car off for a few minutes and then restarting it, the RAV4-EV moved again, though for only another block before it stalled again. It took about 15 minutes of starting and stopping, including a heart-pounding dash across busy Wilshire Boulevard, to make it back to my garage.

Running out of charge is the worst nightmare for the driver of an electric car. There are few places for recharging, and you cannot walk to a service station and buy a can of charge to get you moving again. In this case, however, as part of my effort to assess the everyday practicality of three electric vehicles, I had ignored low-battery warnings for 20 miles and deliberately run down the batteries to see what would happen.

…

[kristopher]

49. False choices

A third alternative is that some entities are of sufficient size, wealth and power to be able to effect their will on the system they are operating within. Several commonly motivated economic actors making decisions in self interest is not a conspiracy.
You say you have seen no signs of collusion. Then you must be either simple minded or blind, for these same companies have engaged in a coordinated, systematic and very public disinformation campaign to deny the existence and importance of global warming.
Your propositions are so far out they meaningless.

[OKIsItJustMe]

50. Great!

So, if I understand you, the oil companies were conspiring in the late 1990's to keep prices low enough to defeat EV's. Right?

OK, given that an EV in 1998 cost 3-4 times as much as its conventional equivalent, just how low would that price have to be? (Oh, that's right, they were also keeping the price of NiMH's high, but what about Lead-acid batteries? Yeah, they probably cornered the market on them too…)

Of course, OPEC openly conspired since the 1970's to keep oil prices high. How successful were they? Not terribly, because of the "prisoner's dilemma." They all agreed that if they all limited production that supply & demand would raise the price of oil. They came up with a way to limit production, based on each country producing no more than a certain percentage of their "reserves." Then, countries inflated their own "reserves" so they could sell more, and make more money…

OK, so OPEC is trying to keep prices high, and the oil companies are trying to keep prices low. Right?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/2002/oilcollusion.htm

Senators Say Oil Executives' Memos Indicate Collusion

By Kenneth Bredemeier
Washington Post
May 1, 2002
Big Oil was on the congressional griddle yesterday with no shortage of senators seeking to question major oil company executives about allegedly anti-consumer positions expressed in corporate memos from years ago and about the recent increase in gas prices.

The five executives uniformly rejected suggestions by members of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that the industry manipulates gas supplies or refining production to prop up gas prices.

…

Levin cited a 1999 internal memo from BP Amoco PLC that said "there are significant opportunities to influence the crude supply/demand balance," two of which were to "offer supply agreements in exchange for (refining) capacity shutdown" and to "move product into southern Ontario." But Ross Pillari, BP's group vice president for U.S. marketing in Warrenville, Ill., told the panel that "all these suggestions were rejected."

Not satisfied, Levin asked, "Would you agree these proposals are outrageous?"

…

A good rule of thumb is that the more complicated a system gets the more likely it is to fail (this is especially true for conspiracies!) To be involved in an illegal conspiracy, its members must be dishonest. However, for a conspiracy to succeed, all of the conspirators need to cooperate… (not impossible, just highly unlikely.)


So, let's assume for a moment that the oil companies colluded with GM and Ford and Toyota and Honda to keep EV's off the market, even though they were viable products (they could be produced cheaply and reliably and there was sufficient consumer demand.)

If the idea here is that the oil companies didn't want to see a dip in demand, why would they tolerate one of their co-conspirators producing something like the Prius? (Or was that just a crack in the conspiracy?)

Why wouldn't Nissan or Renault or some other company take advantage of a market opportunity and introduce their own EV?

Why wouldn't some small entrepreneurial company (like Tesla™) step forward and sell an electric car at a competitive price?

[kristopher]

52. False choices

A third alternative is that some entities are of sufficient size, wealth and power to be able to effect their will on the system they are operating within. Several commonly motivated economic actors making decisions in self interest is not a conspiracy.
You say you have seen no signs of collusion. Then you must be either simple minded or blind, for these same companies have engaged in a coordinated, systematic and very public disinformation campaign to deny the existence and importance of global warming.
Your propositions are so far out they meaningless and only merit repetition.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x190392

[OKIsItJustMe]

53. Redundantly repetetive

It's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down">turtles all the way down, isn't it!?

In the end, evil Mr. McGreedy always wins. He's kept electric cars away from us for 100 years, and he will keep them away from us forever, because evil Mr. McGreedy will never never die! (Cue maniacal laughter…)

[kristopher]

54. Still again...

A third alternative is that some entities are of sufficient size, wealth and power to be able to effect their will on the system they are operating within. Several commonly motivated economic actors making decisions in self interest is not a conspiracy.
You say you have seen no signs of collusion. Then you must be either simple minded or blind, for these same companies have engaged in a coordinated, systematic and very public disinformation campaign to deny the existence and importance of global warming.
Your propositions are so far out they meaningless and only merit repetition.

[OKIsItJustMe]

55. Do you have a point?

Or do you just like acting childish?

[kristopher]

59. Sure, try addressing it.

A third alternative is that some entities are of sufficient size, wealth and power to be able to effect their will on the system they are operating within. Several commonly motivated economic actors making decisions in self interest is not a conspiracy.
You say you have seen no signs of collusion. Then you must be either simple minded or blind, for these same companies have engaged in a coordinated, systematic and very public disinformation campaign to deny the existence and importance of global warming.
Your propositions are so far out they meaningless and only merit repetition.

[OKIsItJustMe]

60. Against my "better judgement…"

You inserted yourself into a thread about Electric Vehicles. You may want to review it. Look for words like "in league" and "collusion."

…

PHRASES
in league — conspiring with another or others : he is in league with the devil.

ORIGIN late Middle English (denoting a compact for mutual protection or advantage): via French from Italian lega, from legare ‘to bind,’ from Latin ligare.

— New Oxford American Dictionary

col•lus•ion |kəˈloō zh ən|
noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, esp. in order to cheat or deceive others : the armed forces were working in collusion with drug traffickers | collusion between media owners and political leaders.
• Law such cooperation or conspiracy, esp. between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.
…

— New Oxford American Dictionary

It is true that a large enough entity can attempt to exert control over a system, see "monopoly."
It is also true that a large enough number of entities collectively acting in their own similar self interests can have a similar effect without a coordinated effort on their parts.

You maintain that there is "collusion" i.e. "conspiracy" (see above.)

I have said that there is a perfectly suitable explanation for the discontinuance of the trial marketing of EV's in the 1990's & early 2000's, which does not require conspiracy. (i.e. NiMH-based EV's simply were not a viable product.)


You've been acting like a child, holding his hands over his ears and shouting the same thing over and over. Next time, just threaten to hold your breath til you turn blue. OK?

[kristopher]

61. If anyone acts like a child...

The inability to accurately face and acknowledge the legitimacy of arguments that run counter to your position is a very childish trait that you possess in abundance, my friend. You have yet to address the points in the post you deride; preferring instead to try and divert attention towards your insinuations centered around the use of "conspiracy".

There is abundant evidence of the fossil fuel industry working together with the automobile industry to pervert public perception of the threat of climate change. (See "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air by the Union of Concerned Scientists for an overview of their actions)
Given the nature and extent of these actions and given that the motive is industry self preservation, it is absurd to dismiss speculation that these motives would extend to killing EV technologies.

You hang your entire argument on Occam's Razor. While that is a useful tool for sorting answers by probability, never is it a proof of any given position. In this case there is, as noted, a great deal of evidence that the more complex explanation has merit. Your reductionist view ends at the effect created by the behind-the-scenes actions taken by industries that could be threatened by advancing green technologies such as EVs.

The "economics" you cite do not exist in a vacuum, they are a product of governmental policy, market inertia and the relative strength of market players. To simply point to the final decision presented to consumers as the sum total of factors involved in the "economics" that led to ending production of EVs is nothing short of simple-minded. If you don't believe this just ask yourself this question, if the policies of Carter had been continued and strengthened, would the same set of economic circumstances relative to personal transportation have been at work through the 80s and 90s?

Next ask yourself what entities most influenced energy policy in the post-Carter era.

The next time you are inclined to accuse someone of acting like a child, I suggest you look at the petulant face in your mirror.

[OKIsItJustMe]

73. I don't know where to begin…

Give me one point I haven't addressed. Be explicit. Back it up with documentation, cite your sources.

I'll address it as best I can.

[kristopher]

83. ???

I don't know how to make it more clear:
There is abundant evidence of the fossil fuel industry working together with the automobile industry to pervert public perception of the threat of climate change. (See "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air by the Union of Concerned Scientists for an overview of their actions)
Given the nature and extent of these actions and given that the motive is industry self preservation, it is absurd to dismiss speculation that these motives would extend to killing EV technologies.

You hang your entire argument on Occam's Razor. While that is a useful tool for sorting answers by probability, never is it a proof of any given position. In this case there is, as noted, a great deal of evidence that the more complex explanation has merit. Your reductionist view ends at the effect created by the behind-the-scenes actions taken by industries that could be threatened by advancing green technologies such as EVs.

The "economics" you cite do not exist in a vacuum, they are a product of governmental policy, market inertia and the relative strength of market players. To simply point to the final decision presented to consumers as the sum total of factors involved in the "economics" that led to ending production of EVs is nothing short of simple-minded. If you don't believe this just ask yourself this question, if the policies of Carter had been continued and strengthened, would the same set of economic circumstances relative to personal transportation have been at work through the 80s and 90s?

Next ask yourself what entities most influenced energy policy in the post-Carter era.

If you need documentation, then go to the UCS website and download the referenced report, it isn't peer reviewed, but it is well documented and draws from original sources.

There is no question that the record shows these corporations (fossil fuel and automobile mfg) cooperate to take aggressive action to thwart perceived threats to the status quo. Your arguments totally fail to take that willingness into account. Instead, you seem to be premising your position on two ideas: 1) the sector doesn't engage in cooperative action to protect their economic turf, and 2) EVs pose no threat to the status quo.
I maintain that past behavior gives us a clear basis to reject both of those assumptions, and that the conspiracy/collusion/best business practices (however you want to describe it) is an ongoing, long term effort that involves maintaining the dominance of ICE vehicles for as long as possible.

[wtmusic]

67. Andrew Pollack is a moron.

He "deliberately ran down the batteries to see what would happen." He found out that being stupid has consequences. Surprise!

Funny, when my gas car runs out of gas I can't even "limp home". If there's no gas station around, I'm worse off than poor Andrew.

[OKIsItJustMe]

40. Why did Toyota kill the electric car? Slow sales

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6153394-7.html

January 25, 2007 12:33 PM PST

Why did Toyota kill the electric car? Slow sales

by Michael Kanellos
There are a lot of theories about why large auto manufacturers killed off their electric cars in the '90s. GM came out with one. Ford did as well, and so did Toyota.

Some believe oil companies pressured the car manufacturers to kill the electric car lines. Others have said that once the legislative mandates got weakened, the manufacturers lost interest.

Mary Nickerson, national marketing manager for Toyota, has a different take. Customers didn't want it.

"The Rav4 EV had a 100-mile range. That range was not sufficient for most people in the marketplace," she said during the Clean Tech Investor Summit which took place this week in Palm Desert, Calif. "If it is the only vehicle in your garage, it is not enough for a typical American household."

…

[wtmusic]

65. An SUV with a $14,000 sticker price?

Pray tell, where might I have found one in 2001? :shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

72. The word I used was "car"

However, please, feel free to twist my words. I (obviously) can't stop you.

[wtmusic]

74. The RAV4 is an SUV, and you're comparing it to what...a subcompact?

Unless you're talking about the RAV4 sans rebate, I have no idea where you get your $40,000 figure from. Help me.

[OKIsItJustMe]

77. Actually, I wasn't referring to any specific vehicle

The 40,000 figure was a "ballpark figure." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=190076&mesg_id=190163">If you look back, you'll see I included a few MSRP's I was able to find for different vehicles. (They were all over $40,000.)

Be that as it may, the MSRP for a RAV4 in 1999 was http://vlane.com/specifications/1999/Toyota/RAV4/4dr-Manual-summary">apparently $16,418.

So, rather than a decision between a hypothetical $40,000/$14,000 car, in the case of the RAV4, it was more like $42,000/$16,500. (Is that really enough of a difference to mention?)

[wtmusic]

79. With rebates, try $29,000.

Hundreds of thousands have paid more of a markup than that to buy the hybrid version of the Ford Escape, which will cost you about $35,000 out the door, even in this economy. And that still uses gas.

Is that really enough of a difference to mention? :shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

82. Remember the discussion about "real price?"

(I won't repeat it.)

Despite all of the rebates, and the tax incentives, Toyota still couldn't sell enough to make it worth their while (http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/rav4ev">or so they say…)

Of course, we can't trust Toyota to tell the truth. (Now, can we?) After all, they're embroiled in the conspiracy.

---

As for the Escape™ hybrid, I'm pleased to hear it's selling so well. I understand the Prius sells well too. What does a conventional Escape™ sell for?
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escape/
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escapehybrid/

(Oh, and let's not forget the $3,000 tax credit.)


Now, is there any difference between a hybrid and an EV? You know, some critical difference that might appeal to consumers?

http://www.icaa.eu/company/Toyota/article/4452.html

23rd August, 2000
Toyota Goes Electric with New Prius Hybrid Vehicle

Eddie and Cindy Bedford of Naperville are doing their part to help the environment... by driving a car. The Bedfords were selected by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (TMS) as a test family for the new Toyota Prius, the new gasoline/electric hybrid vehicle.

… The Prius never needs charging. It automatically recharges its on-board battery pack during braking and deceleration, making it ideal for urban stop-and-go driving.

…

[Terry in Austin]

20. $8K GEM car

What should a car like that cost, then?

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. What should a car like that cost, then?

An excellent question. Let's put it this way, the Kia Rio has an MSRP of $12,145. Doors and bumpers come standard!

Take that base model GEM car, add hard doors, good bumpers, high-low headlights, and a heater, and you're looking at $11,000. (The doors alone will set you back 2 grand.)

In my experience, the typical American car buyer faced with the choice between $11,000 for a car with a top speed of 25MPH or $12,000 for one that will go highway speeds, will probably go with the $12,000 car.

[XemaSab]

43. Is the GEM car street legal?

I've only ever seen them on construction sites, where they're the boss-mobile.

Also, do they make a model with ANY storage?

'Cause usually the "boss" is driving with one hand and trying to hold a pile of flapping blueprints with the other hand. :P

[Terry in Austin]

46. NEV

It's in a class known as "neighborhood electric vehicle," meaning it's legal on streets with posted speed limits of 35 mph or less.

GEM also makes versions with longer bodies and truck beds. Boss with flapping blueprints comes extra. ;-)

[OKIsItJustMe]

48. One option is like a little electric pickup truck

Another option is to tie a little "trunk" onto them.

They're street legal most places:
http://www.gemcar.com/company/default.asp?ID=339

NHTSA Ruling Clears the Way for GEM Vehicle Street Use

The GEM Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) is included in a classification of federally approved "low-speed vehicles" which can be driven on community streets posted at 35 mph or less* if they meet certain safety criteria, according to a ruling announced in June, 1998 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The ruling affects NEVs and other electric vehicles that have top speeds of 20 to 25 miles an hour. (GEM cars travel at speeds up to 25 mph.)

Under the rule, electric vehicles, including thousands of golf carts now used for transportation in retirement communities and on golf courses, are required to have seat belts, headlights, windshield wipers and other safety devices before they can be used for street travel.

GEM cars, however, already come with anchored three-point safety belts, headlamps and windshield wipers as standard equipment. The GEM car's other standard safety features include four-wheel hydraulic brakes, rack-and-pinion steering, automotive safety glass, front-wheel drive, taillights, front and rear turn signals and stop lamps.

…

[Terry in Austin]

45. IC vs. electric

> the typical American car buyer faced with the choice...

No doubt about it, that would be the expected consumer choice.

But that describes the consumer choosing an internal-combustion car over an electric car. I'm interested to know what a car like the GEM -- an electric car -- should cost.

[OKIsItJustMe]

47. My problem is with the word "should"

Do you mean, "What should it be priced at to sell?" Or "What should GEM charge for it to profitable?"

[Terry in Austin]

56. Just curious

You pointed out that the GEM "cost over $8,000!" It seemed like you thought the price was too high.

Just wondered what price you thought was more appropriate for a car like that -- what price you'd be willing to pay. No biggie.

[OKIsItJustMe]

57. OK, got it

I don't really know how much I'd be willing to pay…

Let's start by cutting the price in half, and work our way down from there. ;-)

[XemaSab]

42. Why not increase the efficiency and road-worthiness of golf carts?

I'd totally take a golf-cart type deal to the grocery store or downtown if it was safe and street legal.

If you're only going two miles, so what if it only goes 25 mph? So what if there's no heat, AC, or CD player?

Hell, I'd share one with the neighbors if price was an issue.

Since most trips are short trips around town anyway, why not just work with improving existing technology instead of reinventing something with the speed and range of a modern internal combustion car? :shrug:

[wtmusic]

68. That's what GEM did.

[amitten]

3. As if everyone is going to buy a new one at the same moment.

This guy's an idiot. If they start selling the vehicles today, it will take years for them to be the main car on the road. By the time that happens, the US energy grid will have adjusted accordingly.

Nothing happens overnight. But it sure as hell shouldn't take 35 more years, either.

[IDemo]

4. AJNTSA

Mileage from megawatts: Study finds enough electric capacity to "fill up" plug-in vehicles across much of the nation

RICHLAND, Wash. – If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 70% percent of the U.S. light-duty vehicle (LDV) fleet, if they were plug-in hybrid electrics. (Note: an earlier version of this release referenced 84% capacity based on LDV fleet classification that excluded vans).

http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Science marches on.

First, FWIW: the study you cite deals not with EV's, but with plug-in hybrids.

Second, notice that your press release is from December 2006. Here's a more thorough study (also of PHEV's) however this one is from January 2008. It is by no means a "show stopper" but the 2006 study was a bit overoptimistic.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v41_1_08/regional_phev_analysis.pdf

Potential Impacts of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles on Regional Power Generation

Stanton W. Hadley
Alexandra Tsvetkova

January 2008

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
managed by
UT-BATTELLE, LLC
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725

…

5. Summary

In aggregate, the model predicts an increase in demand, generation, electricity prices, and emissions from the utilities created by the introduction of PHEVs. It also suggests that by 2030 almost all regions (10 out of 13) will need to add capacity to provide for charging PHEVs, mostly in the scenario where PHEVs are charged at 6 kW in the evenings. In all likelihood, to avoid these problems the utilities in the regions would expand their capacity, increase their imports, or establish demand response programs beyond the level that NEMS had calculated, but these factors were not modeled in the scenarios.

The specific results differ from region to region and are to varying extent sensitive to the alterations of the scenario considered. Some of the indicators are less sensitive to the charging rate, others to time of charging. Predicted changes in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council – Northwest Power Pool Area are all the same regardless of the analysis setting. Overall, increase in generation is least responsive to the set up, while price is the most sensitive. The changes in emissions levels do not follow any constant patterns; in some regions they are higher with night recharging, in some with evening recharging, depending on the predicted generation mix and capacity available to satisfy increased demand.

Electricity price is the most sensitive indicator estimated by the model. Depending on the scenario, price may increase by only 1.2% - 2.7% (in WECC – RMP/ANM) or, for evening recharging at 6 kW, by as much as 141% (in FRCC), 196% (in WECC-CA) and 297% (in SERC). In contrast to what was suggested by other research (Kinter-Meyer, Schneider and Pratt, 2007), the model predicts increases in electricity prices for almost all regions. The most likely explanation for this is the competitive electricity market assumption incorporated into the model. Increased demand, which has to be met by the capacity planned without consideration of possible effects of PHEVs, drives prices up. The only region that, under certain circumstances, may experience price drops is FRCC. If the hybrids’ owners prefer to recharge their vehicles at night and less powerful batteries are utilized for hybrid production (1.4 kW or 2 kW), this will exert downward pressure on prices, which may decrease by 3.2% and 2.2% respectively. This result is contingent on time of recharging. If the owners plug in their PHEVs earlier, electricity prices may increase by 41 to 141%.

The generation mix varies substantially from region to region, as well as regions’ means of satisfying the increased demand associated with PHEV market penetration. The majority of regions are likely to use their coal and gas technologies. Some of the regions may increase their oil based electricity generation (e.g., MAAC and NPCC – NY), which may diminish the positive effects of PHEVs. Other regions are expected to increase their renewable electricity generation as a response to the increased demand (e.g., WECC – NW). The evening charging scenario is more likely to increase oil-based generation, while later charging is more conductive to adding renewable generation. Coal plays a role mainly in the Midwest and South, and generally during night charging periods, as in the VACAR region described earlier. A few regions show renewables, mainly biomass, as a marginal fuel. New England has the largest amount, with power coming from wood-fired power plants. The NPCC/New York region shows a large component of oil-fired generation, despite oil representing less than 7% of generation in the region. There are a number of plants that can operate with either natural gas or residual fuel oil, and ORCED modeled them as running on oil because of the lower cost of fuel.

…

[excess_3]

5. correct headline is ... VW's EVs are 35 years away

others, much sooner

[DCKit]

6. OK. Say I buy an electric car and a gas or diesel generator...

Charge my 85% efficient electric car from the 15% efficient gasoline/diesel generator, but use the waste heat to provide all my hot water and heating in the winter and, with an ammonia chiller, all my AC in the summer.

The electric grid takes no hit and I get free electric, AC and hot water.

[kristopher]

7. Then your generator is much more efficient than 15%

A standing engine with a direct link to it's load is probably already around 30% efficient, and when you capture the waste heat you raise that efficiency rating.

It is probably going to end up being less efficient and more expensive than just hooking into the grid, however, since the cost of setting up the home system would have to be part of the overall analysis.

[Bread and Circus]

12. What he's saying doesn't make sense to me. And no matter what, Peak Oil

will force the transformation within 20 years.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. There will be some sort of transition.

It may be to EV's. It may be to FCEV's.

Or, we may find that we're burning hydrocarbons produced using solar power, water and CO₂…
http://live.psu.edu/story/38108

My guess is that we'll see a combination of EV's, PHEV's and FCEV's.

[Bread and Circus]

14. I agree. I'm intrigued by hydrocarbons from solar, thanks for the link.

[abqmufc]

27. Electric cars (plug in) = "not out of my tailpipe" mentality

The plug in car is a joke. To put it bluntly. A few months ago, this is what I got from the representative for Toyota USA, at a recent Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. Why? Ask yourself where does your energy come from? Odds are in the U.S.A. that answer is from a coal fired power plant. So while the tailpipe of your plug in electric car is clean, its fuel source is dirtier than your old gasoline cars tailpipe as it's "fuel" is electricity form a coal fired power plant.

Electric cars are creating a new NIMBY attitude, one that I coined "not out of my tailpipe".

In addition to the source of the fuel for an electric car(coal, nuclear), the issue of battery disposal will be a major issue in years to come.

The solution is to find a fuel that burns clean, and renewable or fast producing, that can go into a car/truck that is already on the market. To me the solution lies in a mixture of algae fuels, fuels that are grown (with a major focus on industrial hemp). Not developing a new technology that requires us all to buy a new car. I say hemp b/c European Union studies show it has the best result of any plant (when converted to fuel). I rebuilt a 1983 nissan truck(4wd) a few years back. I redid all the exhaust with high-end after-market parts. Two years later, I still get 25 mpg in town and I've gone through emissions twice with registering no emissions whatsoever. Why do I want to buy a new car when the one I have gets better mpg and emissions than most new cars? I just want a better fuel that is not from ears of corn or petrol.

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. It's not as simple as you think

An electric car uses its energy more efficiently than a gasoline powered car. The coal-fired power plant produces electricity reasonably efficiently as well.

As a result, the DoE/EPA developed what they call a "Petroleum-Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculation."

http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2000/June/Day-12/i14446.htm

The upshot is, although an EV may (in essence) be coal-powered. It's better for the environment. (Similarly, an electric lawnmower is better than a gasoline powered one.)

[abqmufc]

29. good but....

the reality is no answer is the answer, or it would be used already. that is the reality i found being in the trenches of national clear air act issues.

the problem i still say with EV's is "where is your energy coming from". For many you may have a cleaner coal source. In the southwest, we have some of the dirtiest coal plants in the country, so unless they put on the emission controls I'd argue it won't improve the overall air quality.

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. How about a practical example

The Tesla™ Roadster's equivalent fuel efficiency is calculated to be 135 MPG, which is 5-6 times as good as the Lotus Elise (a comparable gasoline powered car.)

Let's say that the coal is burned in a really bad plant. Would you say that it is 5 times as polluting as an ICE?

However, since you're in the SW, let's take a flight of fancy, and put some solar panels on your roof with which you'll generate an equivalent amount of electricity…

[abqmufc]

31. that would be the way.

actually that is the way in my opinion. right now the 13 federally recognized tribes in New Mexico are moving to create an energy company that would compete with our current utilitiy company. this would allow folks in NM (hopefully in 5 to 10 years) to have a choice, get the power from current provider, or from the tribes (which will be 100% solar or wind). i think this is what you'll see out west, as tribes can move big alternative energy projects faster through their governments than cities or states.

I'll look up the numbers, I'm at EPA this week so the data is easy to grab.

[wtmusic]

34. Even when the electricity comes from coal

electric cars are 10-20% cleaner than gasoline cars. And 95% (or higher, depending on your source) of large-format battery materials are recycled.

Debunking the Myths of EVs and Smokestacks

http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf

Welcome to DU

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[XemaSab]

44. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[TreasonousBastard]

35. Amazing how many DUers know so much more about...

auto design, manufacturing, and marketing than people actually in the car business do.

I do know people around here who could use an electric car, since they never go further than 20 miles away. It would have to be a real car, though, with doors and stuff, and have some guarantee that they won't be stuck 10 miles from home. And, irony of ironies, I bet that happens right in front of a gas station. Or on a grade crossing. It would also be nice if it didn't cost much more than a Yaris or Mini so that there would actually be a serious cost saving during ownership. And not need a separate 220 three phase line.

It would also have to deal with our winters, which aren't the worst in the country, but headlights, heaters, and windshield wipers put an extra load on batteries that are already losing power from the cold. And, don't EVER forget to plug that thing in at night. It's fairly flat around here, but we do have some hills, and we can have some ferocious headwinds, so any estimate of realistic mileage on a fully charged vehicle is an uneducated guess. Guessing wrong can be embarrassing, at best.

Our electric rates are around 20 cents a kilowatt here, pretty much blowing away a lot of the anticipated savings unless you have your own personal windmill or solar roof.

Now, me, for my part-time jobs that pay me shit, I have to drive 135 miles this Sunday, and 75 miles one day during the week. Doctor's visits, or visiting my mother mean over 120 miles round trip. Often, I have to do these trips two or three times a week, or more, but even once a week means I would need two cars-- one for local and one for distance. How much am I saving with the two cars?

[wtmusic]

63. Guess an electric car isn't right for you.

I really don't give a crap, you can make all the extra CO2 I'm saving. I don't need to drive 135 miles in the snow into a headwind uphill.

PS your gas car can run out on a grade crossing too. Amazing isn't it. :eyes:

[TreasonousBastard]

69. But, what if you did, like millions of other people...

who don't have the luxury of skipping into town just once in a while. Or have bus service that goes everywhere we have to go, or makes it less than an all-day trip to get somewhere. Nice that you don't have to deal with all that, but it doesn't make you any better, just luckier, and it sure doesn't mean there's a huge market for electric cars yet. There's a lot more people in my situation than yours.

It's not like we WANT to drive this much, it's what we have to do to pay the bills, and some of us aren't thrilled with the smug air of superiority that luckier, not necessarily smarter or more responsible, people have.

And, no, I've never run out of gas on a grade crossing, and can't think of anyone who has. Gas gauges are remarkably reliable now.

[wtmusic]

70. Luckier than you? I don't think so.

You're missing the point.

In my family there are two IC cars. They are both pushing 100K miles plus with plenty of mechanical problems (as I write, my Ford minivan is getting a new transmission). So I think my situation is pretty average. We have two kids and we use the Ford often - for sports, trips, you name it.

I built my electric car last year because I thought it would fulfill a need and it does perfectly. 4/5 of my errands are accomplished with it, and my wife uses it for a 26-mile commute every day. It takes absolutely zero concentration to plug it in at night (I plug it in every time I pull into the driveway), and I've never, ever, been stranded.

You're probably right that there are a lot more people in your situation than mine. That doesn't change the fact that there are likely millions of American families in my situation, who could save money driving a clean electric car. I pump up the tires and check the batteries once in a while, but other than that there is no maintenance. So your take that EVs are not viable because they're not right for you is a stretch.

BTW, GM chair Bob Lutz said as recently as 2002 that hybrids "don't make sense". Of course that was before Toyota went and sold a million of them in the US alone, and GM belatedly hopped on the bandwagon. Moral of the story: those people in the car business make mistakes too, and sometimes they're whoppers.

[abqmufc]

51. Web link to Toyota power point

This was given to the Clean Air Act Advisory committee back in September. This is a public meeting (published in Federal Register). Thought you might find it interesting. When asked if the USA would be ideal for plug-in cars, the presenter did state France was the ideal location b/c of their utility source (nuclear) is a cleaner burning energy than the USA's main source (coal). I don't see this as advocating for nuclear energy, but was refreshing to hear a auto rep speak in a public meeting honestly.

http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/pdfs/2008_09_Toyota.pdf

BTW the web site for the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee has some good info directly from EPA political appointees.

[wtmusic]

64. Couldn't agree more.

Twenty years from now we will be a nation of electric cars powered by nuclear energy.

[Oerdin]

80. wtmusic

Talk about seeing a conspiracy theory behind every door. Yes, VW sells lots of diesels just like every western European automaker sells a lot of diesels because in Europe 50% of the auto market is made up of high fuel economy diesel cars. BTW the US could easily take 50 million more diesels because the gas stations selling diesel are every where. In any even I believe Winterkorn is correct and that pure electric cars won't take off any time soon because most of them only have about 50-80 miles worth of charge and then you need several hours to go further. This is why hybrids make such a nice compromise and in the long run will even help improve battery technology.

Still, stop seeing conspiracies under every rock and accept that there are limits to current technologies.