In the early hours of Friday morning I will be driving 560km. This will be done (depending on wife’s bladdder) with maybe one 20 - 30 minute stip. there might be one or two more 5 minute stops.
If I had an electric vehicle only there would be NO WAY I would let it get below 20% so I would need most likely 2, maybe three charging stops in that distance (part of the drive will in a traffic jam).
I just don’t see electric only as a viable alternative for such a trip. And do remember, I will be driving a wagon with six pax plus luggage, so I don’t think talking Tesla range is really a good indication.
I would be the first person on board if electric was a viable alternative - I just don’t see it for anything other than very specific niche users. I certainly don’t see it as a viable alternative for the sort of driving that I do - let alone those that actually have a commute or more uncertainty than my relatively mundane days.
Yes I was - hybrids present a whole 'nother set of challenges. Not least of which is the idea of well to wheel emissions.
A hybrid is significantly heavier than the equivalent petrol (or diesel) variant, which needs to be taken into account.
As a further note, diesel in some countries (like here) is cheaper than petrol. Further, with the fine partiuclate matter that was a problem in the past has been basically eliminated in modern Euro5 standard vehicles. These cars get incredible mileage.
To me, I think full electric has come a LONG way, but it still has a massive distance to go, and some ground changing battery technology needs to come about before it is viable (and let’s not even talk infrastructure). At the moment the batteries are not the most environmentally friendly things around, so any emissions gains are questionable anyway.
My own wild arse guess is that some form of low emissions liquid fuel or fuel cell (hydrogen?) is a more likely bet for the medium to long term future than a battery pack car. But that is just a wild arsed guess.
I don’t get your point about hybrids being significantly heavier. (Not that I doubt you, but do you have a cite for that?)
Even if they are heavier, they use demonstrably less gas, so whatever efficiency is lost in weight is obviously more than made up for by the hybrid technology.
The point about them being heavier is
a) they take more resources to produce
b) when used in gas mode only they are significantly less efficient (due to all the extra weight)
c) if you are then in a situation when you are rarely using the electric motors (such as mostly highway driving) you are carrying a lot of extra weight for no reason.
d) when the gas engine is recharging the battery it’s not a very efficient solution (however stuff like regenerative braking etc is a great idea)
First off, you haven’t given me a cite showing that they are heavier.
The construction of my Insight didn’t use as many resources as some giant SUV does. Okay, I realize that that is comparing apples and oranges. Maybe it does use more resources than a similarly sized pure gasoline vehicle. Maybe it does, but maybe it doesn’t. The regular car has a bigger gasoline engine so maybe it evens out. Even if it doesn’t, a hybrid’s reduction in gasoline usage (and all of the resources that go into creating that gasoline) may more than make up for the resources that originally went into it.
As to your other points: You claim that at times they are less efficient than regular cars. That misses the point that they are on average more efficient than regular gasoline vehicles. That’s what counts, whether or not they are more efficient overall. To argue that there may be moments when they’re less efficient is missing the point.
I don’t have the knowledge or the mathematics to build a model as to whether or not they are more efficient overall. When all the different factors are taken into consideration.
I DO know that there are significant resources in the production of the batteries and that battery disposal is a bit of an issue due to the toxicity (and yes, ICE does have to be disposed as well, but remember that the battery is an additional component to an existing system).
I just checked a local (to me) motoring forum…the Lexus RX 350 is 1975kg kerbweight while the RX450H has a kerbweight of 2110 kg. Some of that difference may be down to equipment levels, but certainly not all.
The difference in weight between incremental increases in engine size is pretty much negligible.
Yeah, but the efficiency figures don’t take into account production.
And in the usage pattern that is tested they ARE more efficient. That is not doubted. That doesn’t mean they are ALWAYS more efficient. This will depend on the individuals usage patterns. Someone that does all highway driving and no city / stop start driving will be better advised not to buy a hybrid.
Hybrids are a great solution - don’t get me wrong on that. I would still like to reserve judgement on whether well to wheel they are more efficient overall, and as mentioned, there are some driving patterns that are better for hybrids than others.
They shouldn’t be sold as the be all and end all is the only point to be made.
As far as city vs highway: it depends on the design. My Insight uses an integrated motor assist power train which is actually more efficient on the highway than in the city.
So you can purchase the hybrid that best fits your needs.
I have a second generation Insight which is rated City 40 mpg-US, and Highway 43 mpg-US. Strangely enough, if the dash display is to be believed, I can often beat that highway rating. A few weeks ago I made a combined city/highway trip, which consisted mostly of highway, that showed an avg mpg of 60 for the entire trip. Granted, that was unusual, and may have been because a large portion of the highway trip was a construction zone with a 45 mph limit.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
You were in a thread discussing about making 250 K. You are rich and could afford a Tesla.
[/QUOTE]
You should go back and re-read what I said in that thread, since you’ve gotten every aspect wrong here. The bottom line is that I can’t afford a Tesla, much as I’d love to have one…or, at least I could buy one, but it would cost me more than I’m willing to spend on a vehicle of this type and needlessly drain my financial resources.
If your claim is that some (very few) electric cars can get high mileage then I don’t think anyone is disputing that. The thing is, to get a car that gets that mileage you have to be willing to pay more than a high end sports car. The batteries alone cost more than a low end sports car. The rest of the cars in your cite get much more modest ranges from their battery charge…and those ranges are below the level where most people will invest in buying such a car…which means that such cars are going to be for the rich or at least the wealthy, not for the average consumer.
Will they get better? Probably. But there are limits to how much better they can get right now, and unless there is some kind of breakthrough in battery technology they will only get incrementally better (or incrementally cheaper).
Actually, the thread is about whether or not electric cars can replace gasoline cars. It’s right there in the title.
Do you really not understand that the range of electric cars has been offered as a factor in determining whether electric cars will supplant ICEs? The Volt is attacked because it’s range on electric means it will not permit a owner to drive without gasoline forever. That all is thread responsive.
The info that some electrics already have a much longer range is also information pertinent to the discussion.
The Volt is an electric car, which you plug into your garage outlet.It qualifies as part of the discussion. It also is innovative . It will cut down on oil dependency.It is also responsive to the thread.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Do you really not understand that the range of electric cars has been offered as a factor in determining whether electric cars will supplant ICEs?
[/QUOTE]
You really don’t seem to be grasping what I or other posters are even saying, so I don’t know how to answer this question, to be perfectly honest with you, gonzomax. The simple answer is that, yes…I understand perfectly how an electric cars potential range factors into the decision process of whether or not to buy an AEV, a hybrid or a regular hydrocarbon burning ICE. You don’t seem to understand the point I was making, which was that the cite you linked too didn’t say what you thought it said. Only one vehicle manufacturer (of very high end cars) were able to get your stated 200 miles on a charge…the rest were far below that.
Again, this isn’t a thread about the Volt, and I’m not attacking it. I LIKE hybrids and think they are a good interim solution.
It is…but you have to look at it in context. The Tesla is VERY expensive. It’s a high end vehicle. I’ve seen no indication that the technology is about to become less expensive anytime in the near future. It’s an interesting vehicle, and it’s way cool that it can get the performance characteristics it gets, but it’s not going to be a mainstream solution to get the average Joe to buy an all electric vehicle to replace their current vehicles. That was the point.
And that’s fine, though the OP was whether electric cars (by which I presume the OP meant ALL electric cars) will replace gasoline cars. A hybrid is a gasoline car that simply uses an electric motor to extend it’s range and increase it’s fuel efficiency. I think the Volt is cool…I LIKE plug in hybrids, as I’ve said before. I don’t see them taking over either, though…I see them as a niche market, at least as long as gas prices don’t go through the roof. The reason is that hybrids still cost substantially more than regular cars, and the ROI is still too long. If a hybrid saves me $100/month in gas costs, but it costs $12,000 more than a comparable car then that’s going to take 10 years before you break even, if cost is the only factor…and in 10 years you might have replaced the vehicle (IIRC, Americans usually keep cars an average of 7 years).
Electric Car - Powered by batteries
ICE Car - Powered by burning gasoline or diesel or alternate fuel in an Internal Combustion Engine
Hybrid Car - Powered by both batteries and an ICE
It makes no sense to call a Volt Electric, it is a Hybrid, and Hybrid is a perfectly accurate descriptor.
Electric cars (as defined above) have a range problem. Hybrids generally do not as their ICE can support fast refueling, which batteries cannot.
Accepted: there is certain fraction of the American driving public whose needs would be served by the current and announced release crop of pure BEVs and the current supporting infrastructure and a certain fraction not.
Accepting: the first several years of EV production will be in limited numbers. Total EV sales of 100K a year by three or four years from now building to several hundred thousand a year a few years from there from there would be make most of the producers happy. Sales of 20% of all new vehicles within 5 to 10 years would be amazing.
Is the fraction of new car purchasers whose needs could be met by these vehicles within that range?
[QUOTE=DSeid]
Accepted: there is certain fraction of the American driving public whose needs would be served by the current and announced release crop of pure BEVs and the current supporting infrastructure and a certain fraction not.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, as long as you put in the additional caveat that there is a smaller fraction of that fraction that could afford the vehicles and wouldn’t care about paying the extra money because their second car is a Mercedes.
It would be great if 10 years from not all new auto sales are EV’s of one type or another. I have no idea how realistic that is…it will probably depend on costs and possible improvements or breakthroughs in technology, as well as public perception about things like the threat of Global Warming or CO2 emissions.
I don’t think so, since you have to factor in cost as well as capabilities, since that’s the calculation the average car buyer is going to be making. Just because a Tesla COULD meet my requirements for a new car doesn’t mean I could (or would) purchase one, no matter how cool it is. As the cost equation changes the purchasing direction of people will change. If gas becomes $10/gallon then my own calculation would radically change, and I’d seriously consider either a hybrid or AEV for work if nothing else. It costs me around $50 to fill up my car right now, and I have to fill it up on average 3 times a month…around $150 (less really, but might as well go high). At $10/gallon, however, that equation totally changes, and suddenly it’s costing me as much to fill up the car as my car payment ($120 per fillup, 3 times a month)…which would certainly encourage me to sell it and get something else!
20 minutes on a 240 fast charge circuit would get you 3 miles in a Chevy Volt. When the battery is spent then the car gets 37 mpg which is less than the Chevy Cruize high mileage engine package sold for a lot less.
It’s not an electric car. The Leaf is an electric car. A volt averages 35 miles on charge. After that it averages 37 mpg fuel economy with the ice motor.
The Volt is a fully functional automobile that will go 100 mph entirely on electricity alone for 25-50 miles. That will fit certainly some peoples definition of an electric car. It has further functionality that addresses the range issue you mention will an additional source of power, mostly to maintain state of electric charge, via an ICE.
If carrying around the additional power source is enough to cause you to not considerate it a “pure electric”, so be it. Functionally it does operate as one within it’s electric range.
Accepted, they do not pay for themselves. They do not make a profit for their producers. They do not represent a breakthrough in technology.
When batteries are considerably cheaper, faster to charge, and hold denser energy charges they will remain a novelty and as such will not make a difference. If they do this in 5 to 10 years it won’t be amazing for sales of 20%. It will be normal market forces.
