# 10% electric cars by 2003? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 24, 2001, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/10-electric-cars-by-2003/73571 "2001-07-24T00:47:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Akatsukami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea666f/32.png) [@Akatsukami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akatsukami)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2001, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/10-electric-cars-by-2003/73571/21 "2001-07-27T19:57:51Z")
**andros** exclaims in disbelief: > [@](#): > > **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. although the referent is not identified, it is likely > [@](#): > > 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. Remember though, that the penalties for _not_ complying with CARB’s ukase are: [ul] [li]Moby fines (USD 5000 per non-qualifying car sold; see [Health and Safety Code section 43211](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=43001-44000&file=43200-43213)) and the imposition of accelerated ZEV standards[/li][li]Abandoning the California market[/li][li]Having the California Department of Environmental Justice send its storm troopers to Detroit and drag automotive executives back to Sacremento in chains[/li][/ul] (Just kidding about the last…I’m pretty sure.) The question becomes not “How do we maximize our return on any given vehicle?” but “How do we maximize our return on _all_ vehicles?” There _was_ a time, I believe, when it would have cheaper for the manufacturers to not comply with the standards and eat the fines, although this is not currently the case. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2001, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/10-electric-cars-by-2003/73571/22 "2001-07-27T23:19:25Z")
Last night on KCAL Channel 9, they did a story about Honda’s hydrogen-powered car. It looked like a standard Honda. It ran fast enough for the freeway. It doesn’t pollute. They also showed a prototype solar-powered fueling station (which looked like a 1960’s Disneyland Tomorrowland attraction), which is the big stumbling point, having to set up an all-new infrastructure to keep these cars fueled. (Though I suppose some current gas stations could be modified to dispense the hydrogen.) If you want to see the video, it’s at the [KCAL website](http://www.kcal.com/), but I don’t know for how long. There doesn’t seem to be a written version of the story on the site. Would having millions of hydrogen-powered cars cause a water shortage? Or a power shortage, since you need electricity to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen? ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2001, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/10-electric-cars-by-2003/73571/23 "2001-07-28T00:58:58Z")
I seem to recall a few years ago that the target date was 2001, though I’m not sure what percentage was required by that date. I also remember that here in Massachusetts there was a similar law. This was even more stupid, because electric cars would be virtually or even entirely useless in the winter. In ten degree weather, batteries work very badly, thus dropping the limited range to a mere fraction of what the stated value is. I believe that in a rare display of understanding the limitations of legislating economic impossibilities this law is no longer on the books. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/10-electric-cars-by-2003/73571.md?page=1)