Over here there was some discussion about California going forward with its plan to require that 10% of cars sold there be zero emmisions despite having narrowly averted a serious power shortage. Is that wise? They have good intentions, but good intentions don’t justify bad laws. Consider this:
a. Electric cars are still at the “expensive toy” stage. It will probably be a decade or two before someone comes out with an affordable electric car that’s good for more than commuting. Even if car manufacturers put all their effort into it, there’s no way they could develop one by 2003.
b. California would probably be experiencing drastic power shortages if this summer hadn’t been unusually cool. Battery chargers for electric cars draw a great deal of power. The GM EV1 has been dubbed the “house on wheels” due to the power consumption of its charger, and even the puny Corbin Sparrow needs to be plugged into its own 20 amp breaker.
c. Although fuel cell cars don’t have the problem described in (b), they have a problem of their own - availability of fuel. Not only are stations that supply hydrogen rare, there are numerous ways of storing it, and manufacturers have not agreed on a standard.
So what do you think? Is California’s plan a good idea, or should they hold off for a while?
(post edited to fix link - don’t forget that we have a preview feature)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 07-24-2001 at 06:10 PM]
Hey, back off. We’ve got the cleanest air in 50 years now.
That’s sort of where the debate comes from. That doesn’t count towards the 10% mark. A big part of the ongoing debate is to determine if zero emission is the way to go, or if a larger percentage of ultra-low emissions would work. It is a huge jump from “emits only water and CO2” to ZERO emissions. And only ZERO emissions count toward the minimum. Not natural gas, not gas/electric, not Really Really clean. Like a lot of things, this falls under the General Guidelines of Diminishing Returns.
Apparently, that’s not (yet) what it cost the manufacturer to build it. At the moment, buyers of conventional vehicles are subsidising the development costs for hydrids.
Actually, it remains a pretty large jump indeed, at least for the next several years. Hybrids get around the main limitation of batteries: short range in all-electric mode and lengthy recharge times. While more expensive to develop than conventional vehicles, they are still far less costly to build than all-electrics, since hybrids require less in the way of ultra-lightweight materials and exotic battery chemistry.
Unfortunately, no recent attempt to produce a viable all-electric passenger car has proven successful; this includes GM’s EV1, which is simply too limited in performance, and far too expensive, to serve as a useful primary vehicle. In any event, as someone has pointed out in the previous thread, all-electric vehicles are not zero emissions. The emissions are simply moved to another location, viz: the electric plant that supplies the current.
CARB states that a SULEV will on average, emit about ONE POUND of hydrocarbons in 100,000 miles of driving. What, then is the point of foisting all-electric vehicles on the public if hybrids can nearly reach the goal of zero emissions at far less cost?
Finally, it is my understanding that the batteries for these vehicles contain toxic compounds that are not 100% recyclable. what happens in about 15 years’ time, as the need to dispose of worn-out vehicle battery packs becomes acute?
Regrettably, electric cars will not become practical enough to form a significant part of the transportation pool until there is a major breakthrough in storage - ie, better batteries. There will have to be an improvement of at least an order of magnitude, along with a way to keep the overall vehicle cost reasonable, before electric vehicles are anything more than a expensive novelty.
I’d just like to chime in about California air quality. My parents and grandparents, all of whom lived here for much of their lives, have told me horror stories about the pollution during past decades. I’m sure that’s it’s improved a great deal recently. However, we need to avoid the trap of thinking that just because it’s improved, we can ignore the problem.
Where I go to college, in the valley east of L.A., smog is still a major annoyance for everyone and a health problem for some. I’ve been told that between five and ten percent of incoming classes have to visit the medical center at least once for respiratory problems during the first few months. Everybody who does outdoor exercise (including myself) notices that they run out of breath much faster and have decreased enudrance after moving out here.
I think it’s a ridiculous way of implementing policy. No private organization with any business sense would do things this way. If I wanted a computer, I wouldn’t just call up the local computer store and say “Hey! I want a computer! Just ship it over to me, and put it on my credit card. What? No, I don’t care how much it costs. Aren’t you listening? I’m putting it on my credit card. It doesn’t matter how much it costs.” Except the government can get away with it because it’s not their credit card. If the government thinks that ZEVs are worth more to the state than regular vehicles, then they should figure out how much more they’re worth, and subsidize them that much. If none get made at that price, then none get made. That’s how things work in the real (i.e. non-governmental) world: if you’re not willing to pay enough for something, you don’t get it. Everything has a price; if you want one thing you have to give up something else; TANSTAAL. Why is this so difficult for them to understand? It’s as if the legislators think they have some magic wand that they can just wave and poof suddenly there are ZEVs.
This is the part that gets me. I’m guessing the lanquage in the law is a little diferent. At least I hope it is.
I mean, what should happen if, I don’t know, nobody wants to buy these things!!! The ones that I’ve seen were pretty darn stupid lookin(although I admit that I’ve only seen 2 models). How, exactly is California going to mandate that 1 in 10 car buyers choose a ZEV?
The people on CARB (California Air Resources Board) are complete idiots. It’s like mandating fission by 2010, or mandating peace. Not going to happen. I bet all those idiots drive Caddys or big SUVs.
Those hybrids cost $100,000 each and are heavily subsidized.
All zero emission means from the tailpipe is that you get emission from somewhere else, like coal firing generating plants. And efficiency is always lost during each conversion.
Most of the pollution is coming from old junkers. New cars are very clean. If the manufacturers had spent the billions of $ they’ve spent on electrics in buying up old junkers, California air would be much cleaner by now.
I think all the auto manufacturers should just quit selling cars by 2004 or whatever because no one will meet the deadline, then the CARB board will be out on their behinds.
Now, hold on folks. They’re honestly saying that “zero emissions” means a completely self-contained vehicle? No water vapor, even? That’s just silly–I find it hard to believe that anyone is really suggesting this as a valid policy.
I agree completely that it isn’t going to work, and it’s a foolish idea.
But I see reduction of emissions as a valid goal. And innovation by fiat is nothing new. “Make it happen” has been extremely successful in the past–reducing industrial pollution, designing new agricultural standards . . hell, even making an atomic bomb was a matter of the gummint saying “do it or else.”
So if our society supports reduced emissions, demanding the results could possibly work, I suppose. Maybe. Kinda. At least it’s some kind of incentive–and there aren’t many others. Feelgud:
Cite? To the best of my knowledge neither the Prius nor the Insight cost anywhere near $100K to build. True, Honda and Toyota are still trying to make up development costs, but the cars themselves ain’t nearly that expensive. Or were you talking about some other hybrid?
“(The current Prius and Insight hybrid electronic vehicles do not meet all the requirements to earn either PZEV or AT-PZEV credits)”. A PZEV is equal to 1/2 a ZEV, in case you were curious.
Reductions are a good goal. I think higher gas prices would have been a more efficent way of accomplishing that goal, though. CARB has done a pretty good job in this regard, though.
Charging the batteries in an electric car typically takes 6-12 hours - far longer than anyone would be willing to spend at a service station during a long drive. I’ve heard that someone was working on a device that could recharge a battery pack in 15 minutes, but from what I know, charging batteries that quickly requires a charge current equal to at least 3 times the battery’s amp-hour rating. For an EV1 with NiMH batteries, that translates to over 75 kilowatts of power.
I don’t know which ones you’ve seen, but I think the EV1 is pretty cool.
Straight from the horses mouth. At the Jan 25, 2001 meeting of CARB Jim Olson, Toyotas senior VP stated that the Toyota RAV4 EV costs more than US$100K to build.
GM spend $1.5 billion to build their 1000 EV1s that the leases for $500/month (all to be recalled at the end of their leases). You do the math.
The EV1 has always been promoted as a commuter vehicle. You drive it to work and back and re-charge it overnight in the garage when the demand for electricity is at its lowest.
I think we’d be better off by simply expanding the bus system. (Did you know that MTA no longer runs buses to Dodger games?) You really want to reduce SoCal pollution and traffic, get more buses on the street. One fully-loaded bus takes thirty to fifty cars off the street.
I bought a Honda Insight.
Great Gas milage (personal MPG City=52 Hwy=63.5 is a nice car. I paid 18K (I had ins with the owner of the dealership.)
Is perfect, until a SUV nails me.
If I were to spend $500/month to lease a car, I’d want it to be good for more than commuting, and I’m sure the majority of Californians would feel the same way.
There’s a big difference between legislating new standards and legislating new science. We simply don’t have the technology to make ZEV’s practical, and no legislation is going to change that. If the government wants to have their own program, like they did for the atomic bomb, that’s fine. But mnadating that other people do what they can’t do seems silly to me. And if you’re going to bring up the atomic bomb project, then it’s only fair that I bring up Star Wars.
Feelgud: Wow. There has to be some qualifier to that somewhere. I mean, they wouldn’t seriously consider selling a vehicle unless they believe they’ll actually make money on it at some point.
Do you have any further info? A link to the full speech would be ideal.
:
Oh, you’re absolutely correct. But it hinges on what is and is not possible. I suppose the idea is that ZEV tech exists, even if only on drawing boards, and legislation is a kickstart to get the tech out to the public.
At least, I guess that’s the idea. I completely agree that it’s silly to legislate something like this knowing full well that the goal will not be reached. I’d much prefer to see a longer-term plan involving graduated reductions in gross emissions.
But . . . but . . . President Reagan said it would work!
(But you’re right, of course. We were much further along the path of nuke development than Star Wars, and much more highly motivated.)
