|
0
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by NPR Science Friday and CNN have stories about a movie called Who Killed the Electric Car, which focuses on General Motors EV1 users upset because their electric cars they leased were involuntarily taken back and destroyed by General Motors with no option to purchase or keep any of the cars whatsoever. The movie strongly implies that the cars were destroyed due to some kind of cabal between politicians, oil companies (wanting to retain their lucrative business of selling fuel) and automotive manufacturers (making profits selling spare parts and services), whereas many in the automotive industry say the cars just were not ready for the public and they were forced to release the ones they did under a now defunct California law. GM and other engineers specifically cited battery technology as a problem.
The proponents of the electric car claim that they are far better economically and environmentally than any other means of transport, including hybrids. The Watt Podcast conducted an analysis that showed the Well-to-Wheel efficiency of a variety of platforms, showing the Tesla Roadster (a performance vehicle, not optimized for efficiency) with nearly double the efficiency of even the Toyota Prius. Proponents of the electric car also cite that even if the car is powered 100% by coal, its CO2 emissions would still be 50% less than a 24mpg gasoline powered car.
While these people bemoan the loss of the EV1 and make claims of conspiracies, this perceived gap has created an opportunity for other advocates and market forces to step in. Myers Motors engineered, produced and is marketing the NmG (No More Gas) Electric Vehicle for $24,900, well within the reach of the average commuter and much more practical and affordable than the performance oriented Tesla Roadster, which comes in at $200,000+. Vectrix also has an affordable electric product for efficient transportation.
Add a Comment (16)
Email This
Message Author
I heard that story on NPR Science Friday, which can be a decent program. I have no opinion whatsoever on the conspiracy angle -- other than being naturally skeptical of such theories. But ... the story highlights -- or provides the opportunity to highlight -- a larger issue, to wit America's dependence on oil, foreign or otherwise, and the sundry nastiness that flows from that dependence. No, I'm not talking about the blood-for-oil nonsense or all the feigned outrage over gas prices. But the simple fact is that oil is the reason the Middle East has been a major focus of U.S. foreign and military policy since about 1980 (for a great discussion of this, see Andrew Bacevich’s article “The Real World War IV” in the Winter 2005 issue of the Wilson Quarterly). There is nothing the least bit sinister or conspiratorial about this: oil is very important to our economy, and oil has given the Middle East an importance it would not otherwise have (Where would Saudi Arabia be if it didn't have oil?). And unfortunately for a very long time, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, our whole focus has been to enhance rather than minimize this state of affairs. But shouldn’t U.S. economic and energy policies focus on changing the economic circumstances that cause the Middle East and the governments of the Middle East to be so important? Or put another way, shouldn’t our government concentrate on making the Middle East as unimportant and irrelevant as possible? And if so, shouldn’t we truly maximize efforts to develop alternative agency sources and encourage (strongly encourage) the expanded use and availability of existing alternatives to oil? Like I said, I have no opinion on the cars that were the subject of those news stories. But there is something just a little bit odd about the fact that in the year 2006 we still get around in 2,000 pounds of metal propelled down the highway by exploding gasoline.
I've wondered the same thing (about the '2,000 pounds of metal propelled down the highway by exploding gasoline'). Recently I've been investigating different electric-only options for getting to work - being motivated by having spent an average of $189/month on our 1996 Camry in maintenance only over the past 30 months.
One of the great things about electric cars is the simplicity. I work in the oil industry designing subsea production equipment (subsea trees, specifically) and there is nothing quite like designing pressure-containing equipment; it is regulated like nothing else (as it should be). Such equipment takes up all kinds of resources in inspection, testing and quality control and it uses the most expensive materials. The seals and valves involved are expensive and must be extremely reliable. All of this complexity revolves around pressure containment - and yet, we decide to carry an ICE around under the hood with all of the same kinds of issues. CAM seals, crank seals, radiators, etc - Think of how simple auto maintenance would be without all of these critical pressure containing systems.
And that's exactly what an electric car is. No contained exploding gases. No intricate cooling system. No transmission with all of its moving parts. Just a motor, some batteries and wires (basically).
Back to the electric car conspiracy issue, though, a friend of mine sent me a link to this electric 2000Ford Ranger for sale on Ebay. No, it's not a conversion; it was designed and manufactured by Ford - yet another electric vehicle discontinued and then recalled/smashed.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the Tango. Great range, power and features all for a projected price under $20,000 once it goes into mass production.
Great range, power and features all for a projected price under $20,000
The Tango seems like an interesting concept, but I disagree with your characterization of it. From the link you provided, it appears to have a max range of only 80 miles (on standard batteries, 150 mi. on "high-tech" batteries [presumably not included]) between charges. For longer ranges, a 10-minute charge every 50 miles would be required. For max battery life, the site recommends charging the battery every 20-24 miles. As for features, it seems to be equipped with fairly quality components for a car that small, but it only holds 2 people, and the legroom is pretty limited - the passenger has to straddle the driver's seat. Even when trading the passenger for cargo, the storage space is tight, with a max capacity of about 7 small boxes. Also, the trim levels are widely separated by price - the $20K figure is for the base model, the mid-level model jumps to $40K, and the top-end model comes in at a staggering $108K(!).
I agree that electric cars are the "wave of the future," so to speak, but I don't think the technology has caught up to the demand. Speaking for myself, if I'm going to spend $20,000 or more on a car, it had better have at least a little bit of versatility. I understand that the Tango is being marketed as strictly a commuter vehicle, but that is really all it can do. I need a car that can not only take me to and from work, but also carry 2-4 passengers occasionally, transport a reasonable amount of cargo from Safeway or Home Depot, and from time to time, drive more than 80 miles before recharging/refueling. I would venture to say that a sizeable majority of the car-buying public would also desire similar features in a $20K+ car.
Battery technology has a long way to go before being able to compete with gas-powered cars in range and cost. Hybrids are a start, but even they aren't quite there yet.
I guess it depends from where you're coming. In my shopping for an electric vehicle, I never wanted something that could become the only car in the family - only as a commuter/short-tripper that would be in addition to our Honda Accord. From that perspective, the 80 mile range, 1-2 person capacity, and other limitations don't seem so bad - especially when you compare them to the EV current competition.
I think that if the right incentives were offered, I would definitely buy an EV commuter for under $20k. I don't think the incentives would have to be extravagant, either. If the state would forgo sales tax and if the city would allow free parking, free access to the HOV lanes, and free tolls, that would be about all it would take. (Free tolls alone would probably save me 5-10 minutes a day on my commute.) The feds would also step in with income tax breaks as a bonus, no doubt.
Another thing that I think could help EVs catch on is the possibility for customization. I can't imagine it being very difficult to upgrade the battery when the time comes for replacement after 50k-80k miles. I also think it would appeal to buyers of the highly customizable Scions and Honda Civics. The readily available electric outlet would also no doubt lead to all kinds of setups inside the vehicle - without the battery hookups needed in ICE vehicles.
Also, from an economical perspective, replacing even 50% of the commuting vehicles only would be a huge step in reducing (if not completely removing) dependence on foreign oil. (I feel an article coming on ... "Is an Electric Vehicle Worth It?" It might have to wait until a couple of them are readily available, though.)
I agree that the limitations of range & capacity aren't a bad thing when using such an EV only for the purposes of short-distance commuting. But if I'm going to be limited in that regard, and will therefore need a second vehicle to fill the gap in my transportation requirements, I'm not going to spend $20K or more on that EV. If the cost of gas is enough to cause a family some hardship, that sort of expenditure isn't likely to be within their budget. I'm thinking somewhere from $10K - $15K would be more reasonable for the average consumer, but not yet economically or technically feasible for manufacturers - thus my statement that EV/battery technology hasn't "caught up" to economic reality yet.
Plus, that Tango model isn't exactly the best-looking car on the market today. I mean, efficiency is well and good, but would it kill the manufacturer to hire a decent design team? Why can't we have an EV that looks like this?
I actually don't think it looks that bad. Slap an O-Nerd decal on the back and bring all the oglers to the fold! Seriously, though, I'm sure weight and size have a lot to do with it. I mean, one of the cool things about the Tango is that you can park it perpendicularly. It's difficult to design something that small and light without it looking rather funky.
I agree, though, $20k is still a little steep - but I'm sure that competition will drive down prices.
I'm sure weight and size have a lot to do with it ... It's difficult to design something that small and light without it looking rather funky.
Certainly, but it's really not that light at all ... the Tango is a very small but very heavy car. When compared to the car I drive, the Tango is 70 inches (41%) shorter and 28 inches (42%) narrower, but only 108 pounds (3%) lighter. 1,000 pounds or so of that hefty weight is batteries -- a half-ton of batteries and it can still only travel 80 miles between charges?
This is what I'm talking about when I talk about the technology needing to be more mature before these cars will be economically viable. Lighter batteries and lighter electric motors mean you could design a slightly larger chassis that might look slightly less ridiculous driving down the freeway, which in turn would mean that Joe Consumer may be more likely to actually buy it.
True, true. The technology and the looks are major hurdles. Speaking of those, I talked to a representative from Myer Motors today about the NmG. I had questions about safety, upcoming developments, maintenance, battery life, etc. and the rep did a good job of answering my questions. Most of it was as I expected, except for the battery life (which was only 9-12k miles) and the way he approached the economics of the vehicle. He stated that my motivation to buy an NmG (the Camry situation) "wasn't enough," that I had to be mad at the oil industry/companies or want to make an environmental point to buy one as it didn't make sense economically.
He also seemed a bit jumpy at the mention of the Tango, quickly quoting the price of the highest trim level. He did have a point that the NmG was available right now, unlike the Tango, however.
He also estimated 2008 as being when Myer Motors would come out with a new version of the NmG. He said there would be major changes in the way it looks - "sportier" was the word he used.
The weight issue is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it uses regenerative braking when you decelerate.
I feel an article coming on ... "Is an Electric Vehicle Worth It?" It might have to wait until a couple of them are readily available, though
Well, you can get some preliminary info from the cost of the vehicle and the Well-to-Wheel efficiency tests over at the Watt podcast. Even if you don't care about the actual thermodynamic efficiency and wanted to go by cost, you can convert that over to kW-hours of electricity at the rate you pay locally (and you can get it cheaper off peak if you have your electricity metered by time of day) to figure out the "fuel" economics. You could even throw solar into the mix and figure out how long it would take a set of solar panels for charging your car at your house and the price differential of the car to pay for themselves vs. a standard car.
Even the designer admits to the limitations of the vehicle (I can't remember where I heard it), and they see this as one of the two vehicles in a two car family. One for commuting to work, and the other for vacations, road trips, etc.
That's pretty much the combination I've had for the past 14 years. One minimalist, small, cheap car to get me back and forth to work at the lowest possible cost of ownership, and the other for road trips, vacations, going to Home Depot, getting groceries for the family (without having to go multiple times per week or make lots of flips).
So yeah, if you are single, or plan on having just one car, maybe this isn't the one "end-all-be-all" jack of all trades car for you, but if you have more than one car and can afford to specialize just a little, I think this has fantastic promise.
One minimalist, small, cheap car to get me back and forth to work at the lowest possible cost of ownership
I agree, and that's exactly my point about this particular car. It's not at all cheap ... I could get, say, a Kia Rio for less than $12,000 that gets 32/35 mpg if I wanted a "minimalist" 2nd vehicle. I'd venture to guess that at that price and fuel efficiency, the cost of ownership is probably pretty close to what a $20,000+ EV can claim.
Where would Saudi Arabia be if it didn't have oil?
It's very interesting you mention this, because I heard a podcast last night discussing pretty much that. It was an old one about the UAE port deal, and how the Bedouin Arabs would still be living that lifestyle and pretty much squandered their oil money, whereas many of the Arabs in places like the UAE used it as an opportunity to invest, because they always were about trading. It will be interesting to see how different places in the Arab world look after Peak Oil and see who made the jump into other industries to sustain themselves and who will be left floundering like a fish out of water when their resources run out. Note: I don't wish any ill will on anyone, and I certainly hope they all wise up and start investing wisely as the UAE group has. If Saudi Arabia starts to decline and lose its wealth post-oil, it will be very ugly as there will certainly be enough money, intent for mischief, and dangerous toys laying around along the way.
As far as your proposal to make the governments in the Middle East as irrelevant as possible, I would say that you might want to make that "as irrelevant as possible to us". I would love to see an immediate cessation of imports of oil from that region and use oil purely from domestic, Canadian, Mexican, European, etc. (more friendly, politically stable, free, and with more aligned interests) until we can wean ourselves off oil altogether. However, as stated above, I wouldn't want to see the economies of those countries collapse, which would lead to a hellacious mess, even if we didn't give a hoot about the oil. Well, even if we didn't, some countries in the world, whose economies would presumably still rely at least in part on oil, such as China, India, or Japan would still very much have interest unless they made the leap in step with us. I personally think we need to be more aggressive in encouraging democracy and legitimate prosperity (as opposed to the squandered "windfall" prosperity provided by oil) in the Middle East, and being able to tell them "You can drink your oil for all I care" after we move on to other energy sources would remove a lot of cynical blowback against us and free us from the strategic limitations imposed by giving a crap about the oil infrastructure.
As for the cars themselves, the electric car looks really promising, and I agree weight reduction is the most important aspect of improving efficiency, but I have to wonder what you had in mind for a transportation method based on your last comment.
Don't discount the snob appeal of being environmentally virtuous.
The Prius also gained enormous popularity thanks to endorsements by celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio in its early days. If a Hollywood type buys an electric car and it gets in People, sales will start an upward climb.
On another note, two people carpooling in most V6-or-smaller cars do more for the environment than a Prius owner who doesn't carpool; I believe most of the latter group don't want to share their moral superiority. Commuters, do an informal study next week: how many Prius drivers are alone in their Earth-saving supercar?
I got an apartment 5 miles from work (not to save the planet but because I hate commuting)- where's my public esteem? My Corolla burns less fuel than any Prius that commutes for 10 miles or more!
Well, although I don't think its a bad thing that we have a culture that makes being "envirnmentally virtuous" appealing its true that people are often misguided when turning their good intentions into actions.
The Smart car is a good example of this. When something has to call itself "smart", it a sure sign it's to be marketed to the stupid. The smart car is very impractical, much more expensive than other small economy cars and consumes not that much less fuel. I sure smart car owners all have to have two cars which offsets the environment benefits.
Its much better to buy a stardard economy car like a Yaris or a Fit. They are cheaper, more practical, more spacious, they can carry more people, they have almost twice the power so you can actually use highways and do not use much more fuel than smart cars.
Still there's always going to be stupid people and I rather they spend on speudo environmental things which contribute to a healthy environmentalist culture than on other stupid things.
RSS
Good Things about the Electric Cars. by Eye.Of.Sage :: NR6 :: on 28 July 2006
You know I heard a joke once about the electric cars. It goes: "The good things about the electric car is that if you want to kill someone, you don't actually have to blow it up, you just push it into the river and the electricity will do the rest."
Electric cars are the way to the wonderful future of Earth. That is until they invent 'the transporter'.