Who wants an ALL electric car?

[Afrobean]

Your poll is extremely biased to the point that I am offended.

Yes, you do not need to pay for gas for a fully electric car, but you pay for other things. For example, the straight electricity has to come from somewhere. You'll pay for that. In addition, the poll implies that maintenance and insurance costs disappear with a fully electric car. Not true. I'm not sure how insurance costs would be affected, although I'd guess they'd go up due to the higher initial value of the vehicle, but I'd also like to point out that I'm sure the overly specialized niche market of electric car maintenance will lead to higher costs there as well.

So yes you save gas money, but you still have to pay for the electricity, and you split the difference by paying a high initial cost, possibly high insurance, and high maintenance costs. I don't feel like even attempting to run numbers to estimate a break even point, but I can say with absolute confidence that a traditional automobile will be more cost effective for the amount of time an average person generally keeps a car (bonus points if it's diesel... but then again that corn ethanol stuff is a load of crap).

Fully electric should only be an option for SUPER crusaders of ecology. The folks who would hold their own breath for fear of their own CO2 emissions damaging the atmosphere. The folks who are willing to throw away money to feel like they are helping the environment (even when they clearly are not). Hybrid's break even point is probably a lot more reasonable and makes a good middle ground, I suppose.

If they simply reinforced the 55mph and everyone followed it, everyone would save money on gas.

I don't think you understand a thing about how the real world works, nor how fuel economy works in relation to this. To put it bluntly, I'll just say that automobiles traveling at a constant fast rate make better fuel economy, but when the speed limit is lower, there is going to be slowing down, and traffic jams will become increasingly problematic for longer periods of time.

Many people will still drive at roughly the same speeds, the only difference is that you'll have others following the law to a T that will muck things up for everyone else, and even worse, put themselves and others at risk for accident by going way too slow.

Originally Posted by Purplegrasshopper

These "green" arguments for electric cars always make me laugh. Where do you think electricity comes from? While some of our electricity comes from damns and wind turbines, the majority comes from coal, natural gas, and nuclear fission. There's nothing green about burning coal or dealing with nuclear waste. The decrease in vehicle emmisions would be nullified by the increase in the pollution and waste from power plants.

Actually, nuclear waste management isn't a problem at all. Yes, it takes a long-ass time to half-life, but with proper facilities, it can live out that long-ass time without negatively affecting anything or anyone.

Nuclear really is the best bet for the future of energy. Solar and wind and water can't cut it even with government subsidies. But nuclear still meets with a lot of resistance by people who don't know, people who think things are dangerous or hazardous. Nuclear energy won't hurt you.

[xtop]

So yes you save gas money, but you still have to pay for the electricity, and you split the difference by paying a high initial cost, possibly high insurance, and high maintenance costs. I don't feel like even attempting to run numbers to estimate a break even point, but I can say with absolute confidence that a traditional automobile will be more cost effective for the amount of time an average person generally keeps a car (bonus points if it's diesel... but then again that corn ethanol stuff is a load of crap).

kind of stating the obvious. of course 100 years worth of technology is going to be cheaper than a new technology. give it time

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I don't think you understand a thing about how the real world works, nor how fuel economy works in relation to this. To put it bluntly, I'll just say that automobiles traveling at a constant fast rate make better fuel economy, but when the speed limit is lower, there is going to be slowing down, and traffic jams will become increasingly problematic for longer periods of time.

LOL. I commute 60 miles a day to work. I know how the "real world" works. I travel on some of Southern California's busiest freeways. The 60, 57, and the 405. To say I don't understand is rude and not necessary.

The 55mph speed limit was created because that's where the moajority of cars achieve the highest mileage. Traffic jams and other problems are caused by over congestion, accidents, and stupid drivers.

As cars increase in speed over 55mph their mile per gallon decreases.

Don't be rude.

[tron3]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Your poll is extremely biased to the point that I am offended.

Yes, you do not need to pay for gas for a fully electric car, but you pay for other things. For example, the straight electricity has to come from somewhere. You'll pay for that. In addition, the poll implies that maintenance and insurance costs disappear with a fully electric car. Not true. I'm not sure how insurance costs would be affected, although I'd guess they'd go up due to the higher initial value of the vehicle, but I'd also like to point out that I'm sure the overly specialized niche market of electric car maintenance will lead to higher costs there as well.....

The poll assumes "in a perfect world". Excuse me for ommiting the disclaimer. C'mon, it's a personal poll. No industry could seriously use this as an indicator.

While true that higher cost new cars cost more to insure, the overall cost of insurance is cheaper because there is no gas involved. I think All State insures electric cars and discount them for being safer. As the car ages it becomes cheaper to insure in the long run.

All electric cars have fewer mechanical issues and thus cheaper to maintain. Battery cost and maintainence is the killer here. I still believe a fuel car emits more pollution than is generated to charge an e-car. The electric company supplies power to the grid on an as-needed basis. They monitor the draw and only generate more power when demand is higher. The power is there wether we use it or not.

[Rike255]

In terms of maintenance, an electric motor has almost no moving parts and are some of the most robust pieces of equipment in existence and can last many many years without any/little maintenance. A gasoline engine has a LOT of moving parts, the more you have, the more points of failure that exist.

As the above poster said, batteries will be the expensive part, fortunately with the huge advances in the field recently this is becoming much less of a problem. The big problem is what to do with batteries after they're of no more use.

Finally, powering cars does take electricity from your house and will be an expense, but on most electric cars out now (Tesla Roadster especially), the well-to-wheel figures is MUCH lower then it is on a conventional gasoline car or even the best hybrids out now.

[Bigdog]

Originally Posted by mikejet

LOL. I commute 60 miles a day to work. I know how the "real world" works. I travel on some of Southern California's busiest freeways. The 60, 57, and the 405. To say I don't understand is rude and not necessary.

The 55mph speed limit was created because that's where the moajority of cars achieve the highest mileage. Traffic jams and other problems are caused by over congestion, accidents, and stupid drivers.

As cars increase in speed over 55mph their mile per gallon decreases.

Don't be rude.

Actually it increases for me, just recently going to South Carolina the speed limit is 70 mph on much of 95 when you get into North Carolina and i hit my absolute best ever mpg rating with my truck at 21.8, not bad for a 5.3 v8.

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by Bigdog

Actually it increases for me, just recently going to South Carolina the speed limit is 70 mph on much of 95 when you get into North Carolina and i hit my absolute best ever mpg rating with my truck at 21.8, not bad for a 5.3 v8.

That's why I said majority as it does not apply to all cars. It depends on where the peak performance RPM is at. I know on my car once I get past 60 I'm sacrificing MPG because I have to over work the engine to keep at that pace. It's that way too for most Honda's and Toyotas because at higher speeds VVTi and VTEC kick in and you burn more fuel.

I think Nissan also uses a variable valve timing system of some sort and the same rules would apply to them.

[Rike255]

Wind becomes a factor at 75km/h (46.6mph). Above that speed the engine has to work harder to overcome drag, below that it is negligible.

At 100km/h (60mph) my car got 52.2mpg (calculated over 600km), at 120km/h(74.5mph) this number drops to just over 50mpg. Normal city driving at 60km/h (37.8mph) yields approximately 42mpg.
This is on a 2008 Honda Civic driving at about room temperature (20C).

According to those numbers on a common 4-door sedan sounds like mikejet's numbers are pretty accurate.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by tron3

That was the EV1 and I believe it was closer to the 1990's. GM stated the car was an experiment which failed because they took a loss on the car due to battery cost and maintainence. A few EV1's were saved but most went into the grave yard and litterally shredded to bits.

Naturally, this was before the advent of Lithium cells and other newer battery technologies we see today. Fuel cells are a joke because I believe once they are exhausted they must be replaced and can not be recharged. If you know differently, please tell me. Fuel cells are more of politically correct "green" gimmick.

Personally, I think sub-atomic batteries with low level radioactive isotopes in shielded casing to be a better solution. Providing they can't be converted into a weapon of mass destruction.

Incorrect.

GM had two ways of going, they could have put their money into the EV1 or they could have put their money into the Hummer.

We all know which way they went, and how that decision turned out for them.

Watch the movie "Who killed the electric car" enlightening stuff.

Logan

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Incorrect.

GM had two ways of going, they could have put their money into the EV1 or they could have put their money into the Hummer.

We all know which way they went, and how that decision turned out for them.

Watch the movie "Who killed the electric car" enlightening stuff.

Logan

It's weird because in many parts of Southern California they still have charging stations and reserved parking spaces for the EV1. Unless there is some other electric vehicle I don't know about that is compatible with the plugs.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by PH3AR

Nope i happy with my big old truck that gets 12 mpg!

Way to kill the Earth man........

I'm getting 14-15 mpg in my jeep.... so I'm doing my part to go green

I wonder if "GO GREEN" is available as a vanity plate for my jeep?



*not mine... but mine is the same color... I just don't have a good picture of it*

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Your poll is extremely biased to the point that I am offended.

Your post is so full of half truths and lies that it's offensive, I guess things even out then.

Yes, you do not need to pay for gas for a fully electric car, but you pay for other things. For example, the straight electricity has to come from somewhere. You'll pay for that.

If you have solar pannels some of that cost is negated.

In addition, the poll implies that maintenance and insurance costs disappear with a fully electric car. Not true. I'm not sure how insurance costs would be affected, although I'd guess they'd go up due to the higher initial value of the vehicle, but I'd also like to point out that I'm sure the overly specialized niche market of electric car maintenance will lead to higher costs there as well.

You 'guess'?

You're 'sure' that there'd be more maintenance on electric cars?

Wow, if I lived in fantasy land I'd be able to make stuff up too...

So yes you save gas money, but you still have to pay for the electricity, and you split the difference by paying a high initial cost, possibly high insurance, and high maintenance costs.

'possibly'?

How's the weather in fantasy land... is it pleasant today? Tell the truth.

I don't feel like even attempting to run numbers to estimate a break even point, but I can say with absolute confidence that a traditional automobile will be more cost effective for the amount of time an average person generally keeps a car (bonus points if it's diesel... but then again that corn ethanol stuff is a load of crap).

And the hits just keep on coming.

Corn Ethanol isn't even remotely crap, anyone who says that {and makes up numbers and 'facts' for other stuff} obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.

Fully electric should only be an option for SUPER crusaders of ecology. The folks who would hold their own breath for fear of their own CO2 emissions damaging the atmosphere. The folks who are willing to throw away money to feel like they are helping the environment (even when they clearly are not). Hybrid's break even point is probably a lot more reasonable and makes a good middle ground, I suppose.

Must be why most cars might end up being electric in the long run.

I don't think you understand a thing about how the real world works,

Says the guy who makes up facts and numbers...

nor how fuel economy works in relation to this. To put it bluntly, I'll just say that automobiles traveling at a constant fast rate make better fuel economy, but when the speed limit is lower, there is going to be slowing down, and traffic jams will become increasingly problematic for longer periods of time.

You mean the traffic jams in which people could re-charge their cars with their solar panels?

Many people will still drive at roughly the same speeds, the only difference is that you'll have others following the law to a T that will muck things up for everyone else, and even worse, put themselves and others at risk for accident by going way too slow.

The speed limit is 'way too slow'?

Actually, nuclear waste management isn't a problem at all. Yes, it takes a long-ass time to half-life, but with proper facilities, it can live out that long-ass time without negatively affecting anything or anyone.

Nuclear really is the best bet for the future of energy. Solar and wind and water can't cut it even with government subsidies. But nuclear still meets with a lot of resistance by people who don't know, people who think things are dangerous or hazardous. Nuclear energy won't hurt you.

Unless there's a problem...

Logan

[mikejet]

That's one thing that people don't realize and I'm glad you mentioned it jaded. A normal car at a stop still burns fuel, same as in traffic. A hybrid and an all electric car would not. An electric would actually only be running the interior electronics and not wasting things because the engine needs to idle.

I would have gotten a hybrid but at the time I needed a car so I got the Fit. I swear when it idles it almost sounds like the engine isn't even running.

[SlmShdy1]

Did anyone ever see that film "Who Killed the Electric Car"? I remember them being big when they first came out. Heck, in the town I live, they have charging stations all over the place.

I would like an electric car if they weren't so damn ugly. I don't get it. Just because it's electric, why do they all have to look so retarded?

[newtype]

My car is pretty good on gas, and I drive maybe 5-10 miles a day a electric wouldn't benefit me at all. My car is nearly 10 years old and has less than 70k miles, I could probably save my daily mileage and ride a bike if I didn't live in the south and it was hotter than hell right now.

[GLaDOS]

I'd love an electric car. It's nice to save tons of money and conserving the environment with it, but as a stepping stone, I'd start with a hybrid.

[proxpilot]

the only problem i see right now with electric, is batteries, Batteries are so effin heavy. the battery for my fork lift at work weighs 3000lbs. you can get about 6-8 hrs out of it but that's only at 10mph. the plus is you wont have to run any hydraulic pumps. you could run a giant LiPo batt to save weight but then your driving around on a giant Bomb!

[Purplegrasshopper]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Actually, nuclear waste management isn't a problem at all. Yes, it takes a long-ass time to half-life, but with proper facilities, it can live out that long-ass time without negatively affecting anything or anyone.

Nuclear really is the best bet for the future of energy. Solar and wind and water can't cut it even with government subsidies. But nuclear still meets with a lot of resistance by people who don't know, people who think things are dangerous or hazardous. Nuclear energy won't hurt you.

Wow...just wow. As a life long resident of Southern Nevada and the decades long debacle that is Yucca Mountain, I can tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. Do some research on storing nuclear waste...it's not as carefree and easy as you make it out to be. There are so many issues with it, they even considered blasting the stuff into space at one point.

Originally Posted by kotsedriver

I'd love an electric car. It's nice to save tons of money and conserving the environment with it, but as a stepping stone, I'd start with a hybrid.

Did you read the rest of the thread? There is no evidence that electric cars will do anything to "save our environment." In fact, some suggest that the increase in pollution and waste from electrical power plants would offset any advantages from the decrease in automobile emissions.

And what about the trucking industry? I'd like to see an electric motor haul a 50-ton load.

[quexos]

I'd love to have one, except I'd much rather have a Porsche Carrera GT !

[proxpilot]

Originally Posted by quexos

I'd love to have one, except I'd much rather have a Porsche Carrera GT !

+1 but i wouldn't mind a 68 Yenko Camaro with an all Aluminum 427 W/ Cross Ram Induction.