Thread: Who killed the Electric Car?

Have any of you yet thought about the amount of fossil fuels it takes to generate the electricity to charge the car battery?

Also, today's current battery technology is not yet up to speed with the requirements for an all-electric vehicle. And those battery packs for electric vehicles are f'ing heavy. The high voltage battery used in Toyota's hybrids is over 400 pounds and takes up a good chunk of chassis space. With today's battery technology the battery required for an all-electric car is much heavier and much larger than a hybrid's battery. Taking a spare along doesn't make any sense.

Personally I don't blame the politicians. For one thing, they're not smart enough to figure out what's going on with electric vehicles. Second, as a Toyota Motor Manufacturing employee AND a former battery researcher I am well aware of the current limitations on electric cars. Now just isn't the time for an all-electric car. The power systems required to make it practical just aren't available yet. Lithium-polymer batteries are almost there, we just have to hang on a bit longer and settle for hybrids and ULEV gasoline cars.

GM yanked the EV-1 project purely on the basis that the numbers did not work out in a way that would make the shareholders happy.

Originally Posted by silverskater145

I think you need to step down from your soap-box. Bush isn't to blame for anything concerning 9/11. Secondly, ANY president would have been taken to a safe place when a national emergency of that nature happens. It comes with the job. Spare us the needless Bush bashing; he's not even the problem concerning Electric cars in general.

However, DB has got it right. Taking the gasoline car out of commission would put a damper on America's economy and businesses. In this day and age of capitalism, no one is going to change something that is simply bringing in the $$ for all kinds of people. Because let's face it, we all love our cars.

Anyway, I'm more interested to know if anyone doesn't blame the politicians. They are power and money hungry and will only look after themselves not the people they are elected to govern.

I believe that Dragon Ball was wanting to know about the Politicians and last I checked Bush is the head Politican seeing as how he is the President. So read the post fully before stating that it has nothing to do with cars or what Dragon Ball wanted.

It's not only Bush though I mean look at the government is anything they do really fair? Some can justify that it is right or some just turn their heads and say that it didn't happen but others don't like what the government is doing. Raising taxes for the stupidest of things for examples. I mean come on.

You sure know your stuff Zui Quan. Thanks for sharing this info. Thanks also Silver for bringing the topic back on focus.

Zui Quan has excellent points. I do realise batteries are quite heavy, but surely with a bit more research into batteries, then we can counter this problem.

Clear points I would like to make:

• Electric cars have no exhaust, hence we all know they are more environmentally friendly to use.
• Nuclear energy can be used to make electricity. We do not need fossil fuels.
• If the economy had to go electric, then I'm sure companies can produce better batteries to fill our needs.
• In the YouTube video, they showed electric cars to be quite powerful and zippy. So electric cars can surely fill our needs.

At this stage, it's just too convenient for the politicians to keep gas cars going.

Originally Posted by Zui Quan

Also, today's current battery technology is not yet up to speed with the requirements for an all-electric vehicle. And those battery packs for electric vehicles are f'ing heavy. The high voltage battery used in Toyota's hybrids is over 400 pounds and takes up a good chunk of chassis space. With today's battery technology the battery required for an all-electric car is much heavier and much larger than a hybrid's battery. Taking a spare along doesn't make any sense.

Personally I don't blame the politicians. For one thing, they're not smart enough to figure out what's going on with electric vehicles. Second, as a Toyota Motor Manufacturing employee AND a former battery researcher I am well aware of the current limitations on electric cars. Now just isn't the time for an all-electric car. The power systems required to make it practical just aren't available yet. Lithium-polymer batteries are almost there, we just have to hang on a bit longer and settle for hybrids and ULEV gasoline cars.

GM yanked the EV-1 project purely on the basis that the numbers did not work out in a way that would make the shareholders happy.

I agree and that what I was going to say basically, I don't think it is yet that economically viable for a mass electric car production.

Plus peoples thinking has to change. If any of you live with a huge V8/car lover you'd know what I mean. Any car lover just laughs at Electric cars.

Originally Posted by Dragon Ball

Clear points I would like to make:

• Electric cars have no exhaust, hence we all know they are more environmentally friendly to use.
• Nuclear energy can be used to make electricity. We do not need fossil fuels.
• If the economy had to go electric, then I'm sure companies can produce better batteries to fill our needs.
• In the YouTube video, they showed electric cars to be quite powerful and zippy. So electric cars can surely fill our needs.

At this stage, it's just too convenient for the politicians to keep gas cars going.

You totally wipe out the "environmentally friendly" as soon as you said nuclear energy.

Nuclear is not environmentally friendly, if you look at the amount of waste it makes, there would be a lot of cars on the road- therefore a lot of waste left over - where you going to dump it?

Originally Posted by Dragon Ball

Clear points I would like to make:

• In the YouTube video, they showed electric cars to be quite powerful and zippy. So electric cars can surely fill our needs.

Well, I guess I'll give you my own little list:

• I think a lot of that is exaggeration, though. That future 2010 Mitsubishi was said to go around 90 mph at top speed. I mean, come on, 90 mph? That is weak in terms of speed. A lot of my people I know all go 60-90 mph daily on any kind of road, and I can imagine this is true of most Americans, especially the teenagers. We simply want the speed, the horsepower, and the sensation. Most people won't go for a car that will only go 90 mph.
  
  
• Secondly, 90 miles per charge seems a bit short. That just won't cut it for a lot of people.
  
  
• Then you have the car itself and the targeted audience. Right now, the "hatchback" look is "in." I can name you a ton of cars that look that way: Toyota Yaris, Ford Focus, Suzuki Aero, Toyota Matrix, and so on... That's the current look that car makers are targeting, but I'm willing to bet that it will change in a couple years, and what then? I mean, a couple years back, they had a ton of half SUV/Trucks and half SUV/Vans that were in. Mitsubishi probably should have gone with a different design that might appeal to more people. They claim they're looking to sell to housewives, but the car does not belong in that category IMO. I don't think I've ever seen a 40 year-old housewife driving a Toyota Matrix.

Personally, I don't believe electric cars will ever replace current ones, even with better technology. Unless they can make them to be EXACTLY like the cars you see today, then 90 mphour/charge won't work. We should just look ahead to flying cars. We can call them Jetsons.

Originally Posted by _gwenibe_

You totally wipe out the "environmentally friendly" as soon as you said nuclear energy.

Nuclear is not environmentally friendly, if you look at the amount of waste it makes, there would be a lot of cars on the road- therefore a lot of waste left over - where you going to dump it?

Touché. And a good point.

Originally Posted by _gwenibe_

You totally wipe out the "environmentally friendly" as soon as you said nuclear energy.

Nuclear is not environmentally friendly, if you look at the amount of waste it makes, there would be a lot of cars on the road- therefore a lot of waste left over - where you going to dump it?

Good point? Maybe not. Society relies on energy. What we need to look at is efficient production of energy. To create 100 amounts of energy with coal would be more devastating to the environment than creating 100 amounts of energy with nuclear power.

Where to dump it? In space would be good. We also have plenty of uninhabited land on earth that would make ideal dumping sites. It's either nuclear waste or polluted air from coal burning.

There are other alternatives to both coal and nuclear - again solar, yes there is an issue of what happens when it rains or at night, but like the electric car, once the technologies get better we will be able to get over these obstacles. If not why not wind? wave? germo thermal? bio fuels?

Coal and Nuclear are just as bad as each other, if you don't get the air pollution from the burning of coal or oil, your going to get the issue with keeping nuclear waste. Nuclear waste doesn't brake down for thousands of years, we won't have to worry about but future generations will - let's not make the same mistake that our past generations have done and create another environmental disaster for the next gen.

Plus, if there is a major explosion/ leaks, either in the plants or where ever they are storing waste, the environmental effects are long term, it takes ages to get the radioactivity out of the area.

The main problem when it comes to energy, is not necassarily the need to move to alternative - we also need to reduce our consumption (stop using cars so much, stop using so much energy in homes)

I think governments need to spend more money researching these alternates. We would have better technologies for electric/green cars if scientist were given time and funding to research them. Energy companies will also have to make a shift, that's the same for oil companies.