Why Electric Cars make No Sense these Days

http://www.chevrolet.com/cruze-compact-car.html

Enter the Chevy Cruz Eco - 41 mpg highway. That would put it right about the 35 mpg average to match the all electrics in emissions.

It is the same size as a LEAF

Now, according to the EPA, the LEAF will cost 600$ a year to power, the Cruz 1800$, so you gain $6000 over the assumed 5 year life with the LEAF...

BUT the LEAF costs $16,000 more than a nicely equipped Cruze.... Now you SAVE $10,000 over 5 years with the Cruz......

Plus:
no battery to replace
you can run the AC
you can run the heater
you can run 400 miles between fuelings
fueling takes 3 minutes, not 8 HOURS

and so on........

Now plz tell me why you should get a EV??

Compare to the Cruz and other latest gen cars:
It does not emit less pollution
It does not cost less to own/operate
It DOES use fossil fuels
It is HORRIBLY inconvenient to fuel

Etc. Etc. Etc.......

 

What frustrates me is the hybrid car has been put together really poorly for gas mileage, for being CO2 neutral.


An electric motor is much more efficient over a range of power than a engine.

An electric motor can put out more than rated power for short periods of time (starting and passing).

The energy density of diesel fuel is much higher than batteries.

A high boost diesel engine is ~55% efficient, a gasoline engine 25%.

So, combine a 20HP turbo diesel engine, a 30 HP motor and a 7000WH battery (120V 60AH - a small battery). That battery size is for a 4000 foot climb at 70MPH. It can be smaller where the terrain is flat, bigger in mountainous areas.

The motor powers the car all the time. The engine runs at high boost when needed to augment the motor on hills.

The diesel engine runs at low boost to keep the batteries charged (the motor is the generator). Battery life is longer when the battery is cycled less.

The motor doubles as a generator, starter, and flywheel for the engine (eliminating that weight).

No concern with charging the batteries, the diesel does that.

The mileage is much better than existing hybrids for two reason, the power train is more efficient, and diesel fuel has more energy per gallon.

If you want to be really green, use biodiesel (CO2 neutral), can't do that with the current hybrids, and you can't be sure your all electric car is charged with CO2 neutral sources.

 

I use the EV around town, during which the Cruze doesn't get 42 mpg. I use a Ford Fiesta on road trips (15K miles from April to July so far this year, which cost me $10.5k with 3k miles on it. 5 speed stick, nothing fancy, but returns 40-44mpg every time on the highway. Don't need no stinkin Cheby......

 

Now why is Chevy, and America in general, acting like 41 mpg is so great? In the UK, the volkswagen Lupo (launched in 1999) has been getting 94 MPG. And in 2011, they presented the volkswagen XL1, achieving 313 MPG! http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/technology/efficiency-and-bluemotion-technologies But if you look at the cars that the same company is selling in the US, the best MPG you can get is from the Golf, at 42 MPG. http://web.vw.com/vwcompare/?context=Footer So what the hell? We in America are clearly getting bent over. Now maybe this is somewhat off-topic, since it only deals with gas powered vs. gas powered, but if we are being denied existing technology on this front, which we clearly are, then there are probably also much better existing electric cars/batteries that are not being made available to us as well.

 

Electricity has a place in our transportation system, just not in personal transportation.

A great deal of fuel goes into trucks and trains moving stuff about the country.

An easy path is open. No new technological breakthroughs are needed. Direct electrification.

The first step is to subsidize or provide tax credits for the US long-haul freight railroads to electrify their mainlines. Were talking about 35,000 miles at maybe $5-7 million per mile, so tops we're talking 250 billion over a ten year period. A quarter million barrels of oil consumption goes away as the electrification will use coal, nuclear or natural gas to move the freight.

The next step is to apply this technology to our Interstate highway system. Electrified truck lanes. Truck would run on their engines along surface streets and low-density roads, but once on the Interstate, they'd raise a collector and get power off the catenary and shut down their IC engine on the long hauls, only restarting as they get off the electrified highway. A roadside communications system would bill the truckers for power consumed. Truckers would also be credited back for regenerative braking power put back into the grid on downhill runs.

Yup. This plan would require building a fair number of new power plants and transmission lines and substations, but stationary power generation is necessarily cleaner than mobile power production.

 

If you peruse this table:

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0208

…and look at 2008 data (the latest tabulated) you see that they average “heavy duty truck” travels more than twice the mileage of a personal use car and uses eight times as much fuel.

Personal-use cars have improved their MPG (again from the table) by 65% since 1973 where trucks have only improved their fuel economy by 12% in that same time. Given that trucks are imprisoned in their draggy shapes this is not surprising.

So switching freight transportation from internal combustion to direct electrification offers huge scope for reduction in transportation liquid fuel consumption.

The technology is well-proven. No super-duper battery breakthroughs are required.

 

The European market has all sorts of tiny high-MPG cars that are not available in the US.

There are two reasons for this.

The biggest is government interference. US collision standards militate toward a larger, heavier car. this is not a 100% airtight statement but that's they way to bet. the little VW 10 HP coffin-car gets fabulous mileage but could not pass US collision tests unless its made of uber-expensive carbon fiber.

The EPA despises diesel cars. Diesels are ruinously regulated by the EPA. Many of the ultra-high mileage euro-cars are diesels.

The second reason is the market. Two-seat cars barely sell at all in the US. Even the old "conventional" two seat pickup is nearly dead in the US. US customers want to carry (if only for short distances) more than two people. No doubt about it - a tandem seating arrangement would allow a lower frontal area and less aero drag, but that is a tough sell even to motorcyclists.

 

can't argue with 95% of what you say......but this:use biodiesel (CO2 neutral) You actually believe that??

 

I am guessing the Lupo has issues with American roads and trucks. The 0-60 time on the high milage engine is so slow that merging onto US interstates would be a death sentence. Plus I dont know about you but there is no way I am getting between 90 tones of freight (2 18 wheelers) at 80 mph in something with that little mass. The pressure waves knocks around a 3200 lb. car car plenty as it is.

Also the max MPG is actually 78 ....the 94 refers to the Imperial Gallon

 

Battery electric cars and teensy little Euro death traps make no sense to Americans.

What should make sense is a quick change over to CNG as fuel for private cars. CNG (where available) sells for 30-50% of what gasoline costs and with fracking the US will be hip-deep in natural gas.

Big problem: The EPA. Due to EPA regulations, CNG conversions cost $12,000. Chevy turuck offer a half-ton pickup to fleets that are set up for CNG. Problem is that the CNG setup commands a $11,000 premium over the RUG-only truck. Even with a $2/gal price advantage, you'd have to drive it 100,000 miles to recoup your $11,000.

LPG (propane) conversions cost about $700 installed. They have roughly the same components as a CNG conversion but the EPA doesn't impose the same regulations.

Once again, the government is in the way.

 

Those little Electric cars won't even be worth the plastic they're made out of in the event of an EMPattack.

 

LOL....a few years ago we wanted to convert all our pickups (about 20) to CNG...since we PRODUCE natural gas it seemed to make sense ( we can use it super cheap). THEN I discovered the facts you posted about having to get EPA Approved conversions to be legal and their COST. Hilarious isn't it that the gov't tells you to do something then puts roadblocks in the way.

We are STILL burning 1000 gallons of gasoline every day.......thanks EPA and Lord Obama !!!

 

It isn't? Why not?

 

We finally can afford solar panels from China, and they add a 31% tarriff.

 

The EPA is the enemy.

 

Because Americans were mostly raised around gas hogs, and haven't been forced by high fuel prices to appreciate the midget diesel powered tin cans the Europeans drive?

 

But....but....what would you do this those of us who are already using it that way? Find a way to get the EPA to regulate us off the roads?

 

Fortunately those don't happen all that often in any American cities, wet dreams of survivalist crackpots and peak oilers aside of course.

 

http://news.discovery.com/tech/are-biofuels-carbon-neutral.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574500013927534676.html

http://thepaperplanet.blogspot.com/2009/11/scientists-confirm-burning-biofuels-is.html

Even if you subscribe t the simple "logic" that bio fuel takes CO2 out of the air(ignoring the huge energy consumption needed to PRODUCE biofuel), then releases it when burned, hence carbon neutral, you are ignoring the land use issue. If you use land that should be forest for biofuel, then you no longer have the forest (which sequesters MUCH more per acre) sequestering ITS carbon.

 

Not land use (the best is the oil palm at 600 gallons per year per acre), algae at 5000 gallons to 100,000 gallons per acre.

If we want to sequester more carbon, stop recycling paper!

 

"...what would you do this those of us who are already using it that way?"

Taxcutter says:
If the transportation mission for you is limited enough that a battery car (unacceptable to most) works, then have at it.

 

The transportation mission for my EV covers 75% of the American commuting public. Doesn't mean all of them want to use American manufactured fuels of course, or stop going to gas stations, and not everyone has a garage of course, but certainly there are tens of millions of others who's transportation mission is the same as mine. Get to work in quiet and comfort, while spending less money doing it. EVs meet that requirement pretty easily.

 

A lot of Americans have long drives and have inclement weather to contend with.

Obviously, you don't. Lucky you.

 

Get to work in quiet and comfort, while spending less money doing it. EVs meet that requirement pretty easily.

Really?? What part of my original post comparing the LEAF and the Cruz are you disputing as inaccurate.
Pollution = wash
Cost = $10,000 over five years benefit Cruz
Comfort = size is same, fueling FAR more convenient with Cruz, use heat and AC whenever you like....etc.....etc.....

I for one would much rather stop at a gas station 1 a week for 3 minutes and NOT have to plug in my car every night for 8 hours......if you dispute that you have a strange concept of comfort and convenience....

 

What is the practical range of a battery electric like the Leaf, running the AC to counter a hot day?

Will its heater cope with a ten below winter morning? What's its range then?

Range wouldn't be such an obsession if you could recharge in 3 minutes. If it is really empty, I can refuel my truck in three minutes.