Steve-o mentions the major objections to electric cars: expense, performance, and range (if this is a fair summary).
But it looks to me that the cost of the cars as designed by the big manufacturers is artificially high because of the ‘exotic’ batteries and regenerative braking systems they often use. (That’s capital cost; given that batteries do wear out, lifetime cost may be high.) The electric-dragster link above answers for performance. And range really isn’t a problem; most cars are most often used for short trips, like driving to work or to the grocery store, and quite a few families have two or more vehicles anyway.
(Most of this stuff is mentioned in the article at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.03/drag.html .)
Bob the Random Expert
“If we don’t have the answer, we’ll make one up.”
I just wanna add to this -
I recently saw an ad for a new car (toyota? Honda?) that is a gas/electric hybrid & does not need recharging. I assume that they get charge from the “wasted” or unused energy - for example from the wheels turning (they could be generating!)
Somewhat like the “Impact” profiled in Discover that used “regenerative braking” as I recall it to gain electrical charge. Has anyone else seen this ad? Also, can anyone think of a car name worse than “Impact?”
In this hybrid, assuming that it really does not require recharge, I would suppose it is less polluting.
This space intentionally left blank