Electric cars are a pipe dream

No Billy, not LNG, the discussion was about CNG. They are NOT the same

And no, no one is building tanks like that for CNG

And that includes the vehicle we have shown that was designed for CNG

And you keep saying that these many parallel tube tanks are MORE efficient.

They aren't more efficient.

They clearly use more material than a cylinderical tank does for the same volume of gas stored, they just fit rectangular spaces better.

http://www.ppidts.com/propanep/about-conformable-tanks.html
 
Last edited:
Syzygys said:
Maybe we should go to Mars instead...
Any takers????
Click to expand...
Since Mars is smaller than Earth, everything would be that much closer. If solar powered batteries were used and communities were laid out efficiently, then the limited "free" energy, though meager, might do. :shrug:

I have met people impatient for U.S. to catch up with Europe with their higher gas prices. Well, European infrastructure that developed prior to the automobile has probably diminished the distances that they must travel. So much of American infrastructure has spaced out that survival there might come only from a substitute from physical travel. (Like the internet, as long as we can afford the electricity.) :eek:
 
adoucette said:
Well the November sales figures are in.

The Chevy Volt continues to slowly increase its monthly sales and in November, sold 1,139 Volts. (+31 over October)

On the other hand, the Nissan LEAF sales fell again to just 672 units. (-177 below October)

So far in 2011, the Leaf has sold 8,738 copies in the U.S while the total sales for the Volt stands at 6,142.

Which is 14,880 for both or even with $111 Million in Federal Subsidies so far this year (and more in State subsidies), just a paltry 1,352 vehicle sales per month.

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/12/01/volt-sales-climb-to-1-139-leaf-drops-to-672-in-november/
Click to expand...

Well the December and thus 2011 sales figures are in:

The Volt has shown growth over the past four months of the year:
723 in September
1,108 in October
1,139 in November
1,529 in December (1/3 were fleet sales)

For a year total of 7,671 Volts

The Leaf finally had a positive month after declining sales in October of 849 units and November of just 672 units, they sold 954 units in December.

Which was still far under the Volt.

For a year total of 9,674 Leafs.

Or ~18,000 total EVs for the year (estimated ~600 Tesla sales) and $135 Million in Federal Incentives (~1,500 EV sales per month).

2012 should add the Electric Ford Focus to the mix, but priced at $40,000 and 100 mile range I suspect similar anemic sales volumes to the Volt and Leaf.

Tesla and Toyota are going to release an EV version of the Rav 4. Expect it to be very expensive with a range of 100 miles.

Toyota may be the big winner with the release of the Prius Plug-in for ~$33k with a 15 mile battery range.

Toyota is still in the limited production mode for pure EVs next year (less than 1,000 or so cars world wide)

Honda's EV the Fit, is a subcompact hatchback at $37 k and will initially only be sold in California and Oregon (late spring?). Honda claims 123 miles in city driving, which suggests that the car is underpriced, which may be why Honda only plans on making about 1,100 Fit EV's over the next 3 years.

Mitsubishi sold just 4 of its MI EV in November, I can't find any December sales data. It has a short range of but 62 miles and about $30k.

Former BMW designer Henrik Fisker will try to sell his $102,000 plug-in Karmas with but a 30 mile battery range before going to IC.


http://www.the9billion.com/2011/11/04/ford-taking-orders-for-2012-focus-electric-priced-at-40000/

http://www.torquenews.com/106/chevy-volt-wins-december-sales-battle-nissan-leaf-wins-2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster
 
Syzygys said:
GM's Volt caught fire after crash tests:

http://www.slashgear.com/gm-tries-to-comfort-volt-owners-after-fires-during-crash-testing-29198576/
Click to expand...


GM will make modifications to the Chevrolet Volt after a series of fires occurred following test crashes of the plug-in hybrid vehicle.

GM said the fires were caused by a coolant leak that occurred when the battery pack in the vehicle was punctured during the tests of severe side crashes by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The fires occurred hours to weeks after the tests as the coolant leaked and eventually created a short circuit.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-chevrolet-volt-20120105,0,5930518.story
 
billvon said:
I was thinking of the 1500 or so RAV4 EV's they made back in 1997.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they, like GM's EV1 were never meant for general sale to the nation like the Leaf and Volt are, but only made to pass the moronic California Air Resources Board Zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate.

They cost far more back then to make then they could sell them for.

the California Air Resources Board passed the Zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate in 1990 which required the seven major automobile suppliers in the United States to offer electric vehicles in order to continue sales of their gasoline powered vehicles in California. Nearly 5000 electric cars were designed and manufactured by GM, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Nissan, and Chrysler; and then later destroyed or donated to museums and educational institutions.

Toyota discontinued the RAV4 EV program one day after the passing of new air-quality requirements by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB eliminated most of the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) requirement, substituting a greater number of Partial Zero-Emissions Vehicles (PZEVs) to meet the requirement.
Click to expand...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV
 
HEXiT said:
i personally think we should switch to hydrogen run engines... we just need a clever clogs to make something that will easily and cheaply extract hydrogen from sea water.
Click to expand...

So... all we need is some technological magic? That shouldn't be so hard. :shrug:
 
draqon said:
we could set up magnetic highways instead, that way we dont really have to change the current infrastracture that uses various of fuels. For long distance we would set up maglev-like highways which would have an individual base for every vehicle. A vehicle would enter on this base and it would use energy from the maglev-like highway to zip it long distance to any destination, than the vehicle uses its own engine and gets off. We could have train like station but for cars going long destination.
Click to expand...

i am agree with you.:)
 
Of course the whole premise is wrong:

we could set up magnetic highways instead, that way we dont really have to change the current infrastracture that uses various of fuels. For long distance we would set up maglev-like highways which would have an individual base for every vehicle. A vehicle would enter on this base and it would use energy from the maglev-like highway to zip it long distance to any destination,
Click to expand...

This is both changing ALL the existing infrastructure of our Roads and Highways but also the propulsion mechanism of ALL the cars, and also converting their fuel source to Electricity which would require lots more generation capacity.

Which is why this is the most impractical idea of all.
 
Perhaps just the idea of trying to maintain personal vehicles is the problem in and of itself, we are simply designating too many resources to each individual, and with so many anomalies in the system, we create the inevitable misusage/ inefficient execution of resources.

I think a more realistic proposal would be to simply create a better public transportation system (Both commercial and casual, but perhaps start with casual. Imagine how much revenue/resources would be saved if we eliminated traffic by 80%) when it comes to long distance travel, and thus electric cars/bicycles/motorcycles would be an excellent source of transportation.

Well the fact of the matter is that we are running on fossil fuels at the moment, both gas and coal are non-replenishing resources we are currently tapping into to maintain and progress our current infrastructure, it is just a matter of time until we run out, this is inevitable. The real question is what the replacement is and I think our best bet is geothermal/nuclear, which are viable sources of renewable energy. When the earth's core cools down and our plates stop moving (Which will be long after I'm gone), we can worry about what comes afterward.
 
metadawn said:
Perhaps just the idea of trying to maintain personal vehicles is the problem in and of itself, we are simply designating too many resources to each individual, and with so many anomalies in the system, we create the inevitable misusage/ inefficient execution of resources.
Click to expand...

And yet you can pretty much equate a countries GDP to it's transportation system, so it would appear there is a lot of value to having effective personal transportation. The savings in time over generally inefficient public transportation is one key factor that is usually overlooked in this simplistic analysis.

I think a more realistic proposal would be to simply create a better public transportation system (Both commercial and casual, but perhaps start with casual. Imagine how much revenue/resources would be saved if we eliminated traffic by 80%)
Click to expand...
if everyone still travels how is 80% of traffic eliminated?
Indeed, the MOST inefficient transportation systems we have are the Public ones, Buses on average get fewer passenger miles per gallon than do the average car and FAR less than efficient hybrid cars like the Prius.

when it comes to long distance travel, and thus electric cars/bicycles/motorcycles would be an excellent source of transportation.
Click to expand...

But that's what electric vehicles can't yet do.
Give good range to enable long distance travel.
Virtually none of them can be used for typical inter-city distances.
Indeed, ranges over ~100 miles tend to make the cost of any electric car very prohibitive.
 
billvon said:
By replacing 200 cars with a single commuter train.
Click to expand...

Not this again.

More than 50 cities in the United States currently provide rail transit as a means of regional public transportation.

Regional rail systems in America cost over $8 Billion per year to operate and take in about $4 Billion in fares so they are heavily subsidized and yet they logged but 24 billion passenger miles in 2002.


On the other hand, private automobiles on roads largely paid for out of use taxes, were used for 2,500 Billion passenger miles, and used the same roads that our trucking and commercial vehicles used (which don't use regional rail at all).

Build all the more expensive regional rail you want, it's NOT going to make a dent in the miles we need our cars for.
 
billvon said:
It already has in many places. In NYC, 41% take the train to work vs 24% who drive themselves.
Click to expand...

No shit, but the rest of the country hardly resembles NYC does it?

By the way, most of the workers in NYC each day come from the suburbs.
Virtually all of them drive back and forth to the train station.

And of course, that model is why NYC has the longest average commutes.

http://www.115volts.org/voltage/2005/11/CommuteTimeMapping.pdf
 
Last edited:
adoucette said:
No shit, but the rest of the country hardly resembles NYC does it?
Click to expand...

Nope! I am sure you'll agree that Chicago does not resemble NYC, but there as well rail makes a big dent in traffic. 800,000 commuters, 300,000 of whom take the train.

By the way, most of the workers in NYC each day come from the suburbs. Virtually all of them drive back and forth to the train station.
Click to expand...

Yep, I did that for years. Drive about 5min to the train, take a 40min train ride, a 5min subway ride then a 10min walk. It was an hour on a good day, 90 minutes on a bad one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top