Pure Electric Vehicles.
I believe pure electric vehicles need to be our first priority. For one thing Detroit already knows how to build them. They have done so already.
No new infrastructure needs to be installed. Every home has a "fuel station" in the form of an electrical outlet.
90% or everyone's daily driving needs can be met with an electric vehicle using today's batteries. For the occasional longer trip, rent our use a "time share" gas vehicle ( Or NGV )
Provide "instant rebate" at dealers who sell electric vehicles and include a "time share" loaner vehicle for the occasional long trip beyond battery range.
Start to provide "swap-out" standard batteries a person can trade along the highways for longer trips later. Pull into a "gas station" they measure how much energy is in your battery, give you credit for that and replace it with a fully charged replacement battery. They charge the one they got from you and trade it off to the next person.
Tie in the wind power to supply current to charge these vehicles. Clean travel, NO emissions and quiet !
For those who continue to fight against the advancement of transportation to exclude alternatives to burning fuel for transportation, this forum is not for you.
While this forum is geared toward pure-electric vehicles, it does not deny or exclude other methods of powering the family car which may prove to be of equal value with the exception of hybrids which still burn fuel on board. I still consider a hydrogen-electric to be a fuel burning vehicle even though it "burns" its fuel in a fuel cell and not an engine.
I would omit Natural Gas burning vehicles here for the same reason. Not that I have anything against them, but they simply don't fit this particular discussion.
This is a place to discuss moving forward and away from burning any on board fuel to move around. Every technology runs it's course and needs to be replaced by something better, more efficient and cleaner. Fuel burning cars are tomorrow's dinosaurs.
It is expected that comments here will be respectful of the other's opinions and will contribute to the dialogue about vehicles that do not burn fuels.
Let's now wander too far off topic into areas about taxes or government incentives etc. This is about the viability of alternative vehicles. A minor jog to the subject of incentives to boost availability is ok...
We can all stay on top of government regarding energy issues. Let's take advantage of the new momentum ... join me here. http://www.joethevoter.org
No new infrastructure needs to be installed. Every home has a "fuel station" in the form of an electrical outlet.
90% or everyone's daily driving needs can be met with an electric vehicle using today's batteries. For the occasional longer trip, rent our use a "time share" gas vehicle ( Or NGV )
Provide "instant rebate" at dealers who sell electric vehicles and include a "time share" loaner vehicle for the occasional long trip beyond battery range.
Start to provide "swap-out" standard batteries a person can trade along the highways for longer trips later. Pull into a "gas station" they measure how much energy is in your battery, give you credit for that and replace it with a fully charged replacement battery. They charge the one they got from you and trade it off to the next person.
Tie in the wind power to supply current to charge these vehicles. Clean travel, NO emissions and quiet !
For those who continue to fight against the advancement of transportation to exclude alternatives to burning fuel for transportation, this forum is not for you.
While this forum is geared toward pure-electric vehicles, it does not deny or exclude other methods of powering the family car which may prove to be of equal value with the exception of hybrids which still burn fuel on board. I still consider a hydrogen-electric to be a fuel burning vehicle even though it "burns" its fuel in a fuel cell and not an engine.
I would omit Natural Gas burning vehicles here for the same reason. Not that I have anything against them, but they simply don't fit this particular discussion.
This is a place to discuss moving forward and away from burning any on board fuel to move around. Every technology runs it's course and needs to be replaced by something better, more efficient and cleaner. Fuel burning cars are tomorrow's dinosaurs.
It is expected that comments here will be respectful of the other's opinions and will contribute to the dialogue about vehicles that do not burn fuels.
Let's now wander too far off topic into areas about taxes or government incentives etc. This is about the viability of alternative vehicles. A minor jog to the subject of incentives to boost availability is ok...
We can all stay on top of government regarding energy issues. Let's take advantage of the new momentum ... join me here. http://www.joethevoter.org
Tags: ZEV, air, automobiles, cars, electric, emission, zero
Views: 3
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Kruger on
-
Permalink Reply by dave murray on -
no new infrastrute? if you spread all these batteries out like that america will become a battery grave yard. but that's ok we can come up w/ a new program to spend money on to fix it. if this is the case wouldn't it be much more sensible to use compressed air which the tanks can be swapped out in 3 minutes and the only thing it can leak is air.[at a cost of$2.00] what will happen is the batteries will go bad and the owners of these cars won't be able to afford new ones. oh ok a new program to help them pay for that. people will be in their cars like they are their mortgages today. as far as infrastructure what do you do when you need to plug in and don't have a public place to do it? it would seem much cleaner, easier, and make alot more sense if you just set up fueling stations[they are already there] and replace these tanks like you would your gas bbq grill. these type of cars would have the same range as electric cause less enviormental dangers and the tanks are a lot cheaper than batteries.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Kruger on
-
Have you ever bought a new battery? You either turn in the old or pay a fee for recycling. The infrastructure is already in place to recycle batteries. Newer technology batteries will probably be zinc air batteries, now coming out. More power to pound than Lithium and more easily recycled as well.
Most people won't ever need to recharge anywhere but at home since the daily commute for most is far less than the range available today. I mention the "trade in" battery as a possible response to people who worry about range and can't grasp the idea of a rental or time share fuel burner for the occasional long trip.
Today's batteries are expensive...due to low production. Also any battery regardless of where it is charged will still cost the same. What you save on fuel would pay for a new battery every 5 years or so. Assuming you don't just trade the car in by that time as most people seem to do now.
Nothing in my article would prohibit an air powered car. I simply speak about electrics as an alternative. Did anyone say only one alternative is a good thing?
-
Permalink Reply by Daryl L. Hunter on -
We need to greatly increase our nuclear capacity in order to benefit from electric cars, lets get r done!
-
Permalink Reply by Lock Piatt on -
Paul,
The long term solution will include electric autos/trucks with electricity provided by nuclear plants. In the short run only Tesla Motors has a car that can go 240 miles to dead and takes 3 to 4 hours to restore 100%. This technology will be available in the next three or four years; their first car is an electric Lotus based sports car at $ 100,000 each and only limited production this year it will have little impact. They are starting to build a four passenger model.
Some have estimated that we have excess electricity capacity at night that could lower overall electric costs and power 1,000,000 cars now.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Kruger on
-
GM build a good electric already...then smashed them to bits. See my article for links.
-
Permalink Reply by Kenneth Koch on -
Your car should be available in 2010. It's the Chevy Volt. It will travel 40 mile on a charge. When the charge is depleted a gas or NG engine will charge the battery. R and D is going forward to increase the range by a factor of five (google for silicon nanotubes). Also; see gm-volt.com
-
Permalink Reply by Auntie Tutu on -
I am on the waiting list---more than 26,000 people now------for the VOLT
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Kruger on
-
Not suitable as it should. Still burns fuel. My idea is a car that burns NO fuel. The Volt would be a good car to rent or to own a time share in to drive when you need to drive a long distance. Pure electric will take most people where they need to go on a daily basis. No fuel, No engine to maintain. No exhaust at the vehicle.
Detroit is still in the clutches of oil companies who keep insisting we buy fuel despite the growing demand and dwindling resources. We have to STOP burning fuels completely except in certain circumstances where technology has not provided the range...over the road vehicles.
-
Permalink Reply by SJC on -
I could get by with 40 mile range in an EV and maybe that is the point. We should ALL live within a 40 mile round trip from work and drive EVs. Leave those big SUVs in the garage and run to work and back in the EV. Then put solar panels on your back patio and net meter. Charge your EV at night with low rate low demand energy. People need to see if this works for them. Unless I miss my guess, more people will say that they can do it and when they do, even more people will see that they can do it too.
-
Permalink Reply by Ron on -
Swapping out batteries make sense, and in fact Israel is working on such an initiative. The idea was first proposed by Shai Agassi. Renault-Nissan will manufacture the cars.
Still for many people the Volt, or similar plug in hybrid would be better for most people. In my, as well as most peoples, normal day to day commute a 40 mile range is high enough, that the gas engine won't be used. If I do want to take a long trip, then I can use my car, rather than renting a car.
Semi-trucks use a large percentage of the total oil consumption. Even with 10x the power capacity, the amount of batteries to move a semi is still cost prohibitive, cutting the carrying load too much. I believe it will take 20 years or more before technology gets advanced enough to make a difference, and by then fuel cell will have hopefully caught on.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Kruger on
-
I used to own a motor home. I paid for a motor, insurance etc even while it sat unused in the drive way. I finally wised up an sold it because it was cheaper to drive the car and rent a motel room the few times I traveled than to use the motor home.
The additional coast of the motor and all the control electronics of a hybrid vs. pure electric means, for the average driver, they will be paying to buy and maintain an engine that may seldom even run. This is not unlike buying a motor home you only use a few times a year.
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
