• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Who Killed Her Electric Car? I WANT MY TESLA...

Joined
10 April 2000
Messages
6,126
Location
Silicon Valley
(copyright CNN)
Editor's note: Alexandra Paul is an actress best known for her four years starring in the television series "Baywatch". She has been driving electric vehicles since 1990 and is a founding member of Plug in Americaexternal link. Paul can be seen in the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" in theaters this summer.


LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- I drive an electric car. Not a hybrid -- a gasoline-powered car that gets some help from an electric motor -- but a full electric vehicle. I plug it in at night and can drive 100 miles the next day and go faster than 80 mph on the highway.

So don't think "golf cart"; these cars have power and pick-up.

While you won't see many electric cars on the road, they've been around longer than you might think.

In 1900, electric cars outsold both gasoline and steam vehicles because electric cars didn't have the vibration, noise and dirtiness associated with gas vehicles. But soon afterward -- with the discovery of Texas crude oil that reduced the price of gasoline, the invention of the electric starter in 1912 that eliminated the need for a hand crank, and the mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford -- the electric vehicle went the way of the horse and buggy.

The energy crisis in the 1960s and 1970s revived interest briefly. There was another push in 1990, when General Motors Corp. unveiled the (ineptly named) Impact, a sporty, aerodynamic electric car prototype.

In 1998 the California Air Resources Board decided that if a car company could make such a car, it should, and mandated that 2 percent of vehicles sold in the state in 1998 must be emission-free, with that number rising to 10 percent by 2003.

Since California is a huge market, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Chrysler, Ford and GM started building electric vehicles -- about 5,000 were manufactured. But by 2005 the mandate had been eviscerated because of pressure from those same car companies, and 4,000 perfectly good electric vehicles were crushed.

But did car companies really want electric cars to succeed? The success of electric vehicles would have threatened the status quo and core business models of two of the world's biggest industries -- oil and automobile. It is more expedient for these companies to give lip service to hydrogen in an attempt to appear "green." But hydrogen is a technology that experts say is decades away.

Because the small print in California's mandate allowed for car companies to manufacture only as many cars as there was interest in them, the game became to pretend there was no interest. Virtually no advertising money was spent to let you know electric cars existed, and even if you did find out about them salespeople actively dissuaded you from getting one.

As with any new technology, an electric vehicle was more expensive than its gas counterpart. Also, the limited range scared off customers, even though the average American drives only 34 miles a day and every electric car could go at least twice that far on a full charge.

These cars had great potential, but no media covered their subsequent crushing. It is only with the release this summer of the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" that the full story comes out. This film chronicles the rise and fall of the General Motors EV1, an electric car I leased on the day it was released in 1996. Zero to 60 mph in 7.4 seconds, a top speed of 140 mph and a range of 120 miles. GM discontinued this car just a few years later. No car company today makes a mass-production electric vehicle.

My current electric vehicle, a Toyota RAV4 EV, also was discontinued a few years ago. This car costs me the equivalent of 60 cents a gallon to run. I never need to get a tune-up, change spark plugs or add water to the batteries or oil to the motor. The only maintenance for the first 150,000 miles is to rotate my tires. This car is quiet, fast and emission free. I plug it in every night at home, and it charges on off-peak energy.

Even if it were getting power solely from electricity derived from coal -- a common criticism of electric cars -- my vehicle uses 50 percent less carbon dioxide than a 24 mpg gas car (for a summary of more than 30 studies on the emissions of electric cars, hybrids and plug in hybrids, go to www.sherryboschert.com/FAQ.html). When I have to get new batteries, which I expect I'll will be when my car is 10 years old, the old ones will be over 90 percent recyclable.

The concern I hear most often about electric vehicles is their range. Well, at 100 miles per charge, my electric vehicle fulfills 98 percent of my driving needs, and I live in a city where everything seems to be 40 minutes away.

When I want to go further, I borrow my husband Ian's Toyota Prius. I don't like driving it. Am I supposed to be amazed when a car gets 43 miles per gallon? The average fuel economy mandate for cars in 1985: 27.5 mpg. For 2006: 27.5 mpg. No wonder our expectations are so low. Progress in fuel efficiency has been glacial compared to improvements in computers and cell phones.

There is a solution: The plug-in hybrid. This vehicle will run on pure electric power for up to 60 miles, and then automatically switch to gas (or a biofuel) if you drive farther. Because around 85 percent of Americans travel less than 50 miles a day, this means that most people who charge their cars at home each night would hardly ever dip into their car's gasoline tank.

The infrastructure to charge is already in place (electric outlets are everywhere), and the technology (batteries) has been tested in the field and greatly improved upon for over 15 years. National security experts, including former CIA Director James Woolsey, are advocates for these vehicles because they say these vehicles can help break our dependence on foreign oil. Environmentalists support them because plugging in means getting an average of more than 100 mpg. Consumers like them because they will be saving thousands of dollars in gasoline costs.

Once you have known the quiet smooth speed and the clean efficiency of an electric vehicle, you will never think "golf cart" again.
 
Hal-

Since you are on top of things in the green world, I have a question for you. Do you know/heard of anyone using diesel powered generators to produce power?

My current thought is to somehow get an electric car in the next couple years for commuting around the area. However, I would like to plug it into an alternative energy source for it's regular charging. I think it would be neat to build some sort of hybrid setup with solar power and a bio-diesel fueled generator for use in recharging the car. I'm sure there are easier things to deal with than bio-diesel, but I have access to an enormous supply of used peanut oil via my restaurants... I'd like to take advantage of that resource.
 
Sig, the idea you have is a great one, given your situation. The only costs you have to consider are the cost of a high quality diesel generator that will produce clean, regulated power, and the cost of the conversion equipment which is a good $3-4K alone (I did not price a generator since they vary so much). You obviously amortorize the cost of these items over the life you use them, and if you drive a lot I can see it being of some savings in a diesel truck or other heavy vehicle, but the cost for conventionally-sourced electricty is so small that you may never cover the cost of the initial equipment investment, not including the space needed to house it, the noise from the generator possibly causing you not to run it through the night when recharging would be needed, and quite simply the hassle and mess of transporting the oil, and refining it. In large scale use (since you can turn out about 40 gallons per day with the typical setup), you and a few buddies with F350 Powerstrokes who put some drive a bunch of miles, etc. could quickly save $$, but on an electric car set up I think you end up like the guy who drives accross town because gas is 2 cents a gallon cheaper: you feel like you saved money, but in the end you just fooled yourself. Just some food for thought.
 
Shumdit said:
but the cost for conventionally-sourced electricty is so small that you may never cover the cost of the initial equipment investment, not including the space needed to house it,

I agree. I think you will come out ahead if you sell the peanut oil to someone else to make biodiesel and used the proceeds to pay your electric bills. At the end of the day, the oil is consumed and your car is fully charged. The outcomes are roughly the same and it saves you the trouble of preparing each batch of fuel.


-- Joe
 
There lots of reasons I think electric cars are a bad idea. Here are a few:

- Batteries last 100,000 miles and cost around $3,000 to replace.
What impact will this have? Right now, my old Type-R with 110,000 miles has a second life with a new owner. It will probably see 250,000 miles before making it to a land fill and resources drained to make a new car. With hybrids, noone will be able to afford to buy a used one. They will go straight to the land fills. How much will this offset the gain?

- How much more efficient is it to use coal to make electricity, to power your car then it is to use gasoline to power it? Seems like gas would be much more efficient and would produce much less polution...

- We dont have the infrustructure. Look at cali. They dont have enough power to run air conditioners! Imagine if everyone had cars to charge!

- Cars can be improved. If a 400hp corvette can get 30mpg, we can make a 120hp civic get 70mpg. Just improve aerodynamics, add another gear or two. Done.

- Oil will not run out. What percentage of the earth is covered by water??? All we need is the technology to tap oil in the ocean and we'll be set for thousands of years. If we can land on the moon, we can do this without mess.
 
How expensive will the "Moon Oil" be???

I don't think we'll actually run out of fossil fuel... because it will become too expensive to get the rest of it.

Just an example - but the new Tesla Roadster that's been floating around this board... it's battery is recyclable. That's a huge thing. $3000 every 100,000 miles is not a big deal. It's not much more money that a timing belt service that has roughly the same intervals.

If it is done with recyclable materials, like the batteries in the Tesla, we can slow down oil consumption. Another plus is there are other ways besides fossil fuel to make electricity... hydro/wind/solar/nuclear(not much better)... all of this combined with fuel efficient cars is nothing but a good thing for the environment.
 
Sig said:
Hal-

Since you are on top of things in the green world, I have a question for you. Do you know/heard of anyone using diesel powered generators to produce power?

My current thought is to somehow get an electric car in the next couple years for commuting around the area. However, I would like to plug it into an alternative energy source for it's regular charging. I think it would be neat to build some sort of hybrid setup with solar power and a bio-diesel fueled generator for use in recharging the car. I'm sure there are easier things to deal with than bio-diesel, but I have access to an enormous supply of used peanut oil via my restaurants... I'd like to take advantage of that resource.
(to be clear, i'm not really up on these things, though i do confess since we bought our prius, i'm much more aware of our energy (not just gas, btw) usage).

wow, yours sounds like an interesting al gore meets willy nelson kind of idea... (seriously). i haven't read the other posts to this, but i'm betting others have much better knowledge / comments than i do... though, quite likely liberally spilled with flames, too :)
 
jond said:
- Batteries last 100,000 miles and cost around $3,000 to replace.
What impact will this have?

If thats the biggest service I have to worry about, I would consider it a bargain. In 100,000 miles, I would spend $10,000 on tires alone for the NSX. $3000 is a drop in the bucket.

Batteries are also very recyclable. For instance, over 95% of lead acid car batteries are recycled in the US.



- How much more efficient is it to use coal to make electricity, to power your car then it is to use gasoline to power it? Seems like gas would be much more efficient and would produce much less polution...

The last I read, internal combustion engines and coal plants have about the same peak efficiency but power plants are run continuously at peak efficiency whereas your car's efficiency fluctuates wildly with its load, RPM, engine temp and state of tune.



- We dont have the infrustructure. Look at cali. They dont have enough power to run air conditioners! Imagine if everyone had cars to charge!
Much of our power problems are due to environmentalist protesting the construction of new power plants (ie, not in my back yard) to replace the closure of old or dirty ones. The power crisis a few years back was also caused by market manipulation, which can happen to oil just as easily.

In fairness, we have more of an electrical infrastructure than a hydrogen or alternative fuel one. Just build a few more power plants (which we need anyway...)

-- Joe
 
Jond,
While I have heard your points of view before, I have looked into this pretty in depth, and the truth is that what JoeSchmoe said about coal fired power generation vs. internal combustion engines is true. Overall a less polluting way to generate power needed to run cars for Urban use. I also think that there will be some refurb program for Hybrid battery stacks to lower this cost down further as the number of units in use grows, so $3K might be a high estimate 5 or 10 years from now, much like the $1000 VCR of the 80's or the current $1K BluRay DVD players that will be $200 a year or two down the road.

I do agree with you that we can get more MPG out of current IC engine equipped cars, but the cost to get these MPG improvements will also keep rising so there is only so much to be gained for a reasonable cost. Sort of like putting a low restriction exhaust on the NSX for an easy 15 HP. The next 15 are harder to get, and the next thing you know you are spending $5K for another 10HP. Also, not everyone is willing to trade the style of their cars or the performance for more MPG, which most Hybrid owners consider a badge of honor. Without tax incentives continuing I do not see Hybrids being a good decision purely on the $$$-equation, since some IC cars can approach the same real world MPG with much less upfront costs, but I think the plug-in hybrid, of which there are a number already on the road (aftermarket or owner converted at this point, which makes them very expensive) will help real world resource consumption and emissions issues in larger cities. I also think that with the rate that oil prices are climbing we will see much more interest in E85 compatible engines with the ethanol coming from newer cellulose based manufacturing technologies instead of corn based ones, since we can not produce enough surplus corn to make a big dent in the energy needs we have, and will continue to increase our need for in the future.
 
so when they say "plug-in hybrid", are they talking about a new car or a mod for something like a Prius? I heard there are kits that you can buy for a prius.
 
TURBO2GO said:
so when they say "plug-in hybrid", are they talking about a new car or a mod for something like a Prius? I heard there are kits that you can buy for a prius.

A plug-in in hybrid is currently only available if you do it yourself or buy one of the $10K-12K kits to covert a conventional hybrid (that might be an oxymoron!), so obviously the people doing it at this point are not doing it for financial reasons. Still, a lot of people in and outside of the automotive industry see this as a possible real alternative to hydrogen power, at least in the short term, since the technology and infrastructure is in place. It would not work well for heavy or large vehicles or for pulling a load, but for commuting and urban use, which is what the hybrid's strong points are, it would be a real benefit if the production costs came down or were subsidized.
 
There are quite a few reasonable and seemingly economic reasons why electric cars should be a hit given current technology and the >100 mile range on a charge. Then you hear about the car companies killing the projects because of the long-term threats to their businesses due to decreased vehicle turnover resulting from less wear/tear. I'm not a consipiracy theorist at all and usually laugh at most people that are:smile: , however I wouldn't be surprised at that one being true.

What I don't understand is this: Why in a capitalist society are there not a bunch of electric car companies coming to market in a big way? I can understand the big auto-maker's reluctance given their business models, but I can't understand where the new market entrants are? If it is such a great idea, there should be some amazons, yahoos, ebays, etc hitting the market. In the absence of this, it makes me wonder how viable the elctric car actually is in today's world.

I say this as devil's advocate, primarily because I would like buy one myself as soon as there is a company with an affordable offering that will be there to warrant and stand behind the vehicle. I think hybrids are cute and all, but they are the equivalent of putting a small band-aid on the gaping wound of a severed leg. No offense to hybrid owners intended.
 
Sig said:
What I don't understand is this: Why in a capitalist society are there not a bunch of electric car companies coming to market in a big way? I can understand the big auto-maker's reluctance given their business models, but I can't understand where the new market entrants are? If it is such a great idea, there should be some amazons, yahoos, ebays, etc hitting the market. In the absence of this, it makes me wonder how viable the elctric car actually is in today's world.

I think it is a demand problem. There is not a big enough # of people who will the risk buying the car, even though the ones that would are a pretty loud and vocal group, possibly making the demand seem to be larger than it acutally is. I also think that until very recently oil prices were not consistently high enough to make the product marketable, although currently I think we are at a oil price point that a company could come in and clean up so to speak if they were first out of the gate with a good product at a price that would not preclude the masses from affording it. This may be the kicker.
 
Drove a pre-production one about a year ago. A friend of mine is one of the engineer. While it is a nice car, I think it really caters only to environment friendly enthusiast. The car is by no means a performance car. Being 2 seaters and lack of trunk makes it impractical as daily driver too.
 
Sig said:
I think hybrids are cute and all, but they are the equivalent of putting a small band-aid on the gaping wound of a severed leg. No offense to hybrid owners intended.

Why do you say that? I average 50 real world MPG when I drive my girlfriend's Prius. She gets about 47 because she does not have my driving habits (which is alltogether different when I am in my NSX).

While I do think that many other hybrids could be seen as a band-aid, because they still only manage around 30MPG at best, I think the Prius is a notable exception. And I have to say, I don't see anything missing in it. 4 doors, a CVT, roomy hatch, lots of electrogizmos, smooth, and utterly quiet when running on batts. Its a great car. Especially for 22K. I am pretty amazed. Its really grown on me.
 
TURBO2GO said:
Its a great car. Especially for 22K. I am pretty amazed. Its really grown on me.

From what I read a couple of years ago, the $22K price tag is possible only because it is heavily subsidized by Toyota and it actually costs $33K to make. Toyota has been rather quiet about the profitability of this vehicle. Its a bargain only because the other toyota buyers are coughing up the difference. If every toyota customer bought only priuses, toyota would have to raise the price.

-- Joe
 
TURBO2GO said:
Why do you say that?

Because they still require fossil fuels. We need a disruptive technology/vehicle to change the dynamics of the marketplace to the degree that fossil fuel powered vehicles become an inferior choice... not only in cost but practicality. Only a shift this significant will do anything to help the environment. Keep in mind, even though we are a dirty/wasteful species... human contributions to greenhouse gases are still minute compared to nature's contribution. Thus, marginally changing the emissions output of a small percentage of the world population just won't cut it. We need massive adoption for every vehicle, worldwide. Only then will the air change.

Bring on the disruptive technologies!
 
Sig said:
Bring on the disruptive technologies!

I agree this is a big step in the right direction, but it only addresses the symptom.

The main problem is that people work too far from where they live. A hybrid may be more fuel efficient, but why try to do something more efficiently when you can just not do it at all?

For instance in 2004, I spent $300 on fuel every month. A hybrid would might have cut that in half. Instead I moved to within 3 miles of the office. I could still drive the NSX every day, but my monthly gas spending dropped to below $80. This also eliminated an hour of commuting each day (a bonus that a hybrid could never offer no matter how fuel efficient it was).

The "American dream" of raising a family in a house with a big yard and 3 car garage is one of the biggest reasons for the fuel problem today. Land is getting more expensive by the day and people are forced to buy houses further and further in the boonies. I know of several people who commute over 100 miles each day to/from work. This is insanity.

The disruptive technology needed is called urban planning...

-- Joe
 
I agree electric cars have some great advantages but there are major disadvantages. Comforts like heating and A/C are a huge drain on battery life. Many people live where using the waste heat from the gasoline engine to warm the interior of the car and keep the windows clear is required many months of the year. To provide the heating required in an electric car would drain the battries in short order. Also cold temps kill battery capacity so it's a double whammy. Conversely cooling the interior of the car would also severely tax the batteries and the associated high temps would also reduce the capacity and possibly the life of batteries.

Electric cars just don't meet the needs of more then a very small part of the driving public so they are at best novelties. Hybrids work better but just on dollars and cents basis the fuel savings realized do not cover the higher purchase price at the present $3 a gal.
 
queenlives said:
(to be clear, i'm not really up on these things, though i do confess since we bought our prius, i'm much more aware of our energy (not just gas, btw) usage).

Just for the record, I just bought our second hybrid. We have had a Civic hybrid for a year or so and I just picked up an Insight for myself.

Think globally, act locally. :wink:
 
ChopsJazz said:
Just for the record, I just bought our second hybrid. We have had a Civic hybrid for a year or so and I just picked up an Insight for myself.

Think globally, act locally. :wink:
kewl!

you know, ken, i was going to start a thread to see if anyone might put together ballpark figures to convert my nsx to an electric car... the tesla's drivetrain / 0-60 performance / minimal noise stuff i like, but i'm not keen on a lotus.

i wonder what it would cost? maybe i could get foose and sos on it....

hal
 
JoeSchmoe said:
<snip> For instance in 2004, I spent $300 on fuel every month. A hybrid would might have cut that in half. Instead I moved to within 3 miles of the office. I could still drive the NSX every day, but my monthly gas spending dropped to below $80. This also eliminated an hour of commuting each day (a bonus that a hybrid could never offer no matter how fuel efficient it was).<snip>
i like your thinking on this.

in oct of '04 i stopped working as an employee of a software company and in the process, completely eliminated commute driving. since that time i've established a consulting business with a client base located around the world. we do all of our communication via email and skype / webcam; our disparate infrastruture / systems are 100% accessible 24/7 as if we are working wherever those particular servers are located. (none of this is rocket science, btw)

my monthly fuel bill is ~$40 USD... and i'm burning less fuel / polluting less.

i like it.
 
queenlives said:
kewl!

you know, ken, i was going to start a thread to see if anyone might put together ballpark figures to convert my nsx to an electric car... the tesla's drivetrain / 0-60 performance / minimal noise stuff i like, but i'm not keen on a lotus.

i wonder what it would cost? maybe i could get foose and sos on it....

hal

This sounds like a great idea! Can I have the CTSC? :wink:
 
Back
Top