In the news from the Big Auto show:

GM announces a pure electric car.. and then goes on to sell it to the public.. It is a prototype so what they say can be all Roses

Electric cars are sure not new.. 1832 from scotland, 1835 American , 1859 the invention of the more modern Rechargable storage battery.. 1900 about one third of the cars on New York roads were electric. The steps of improvement came faster and faster...

In 1996 GM launched the first modern-day commercially available electric car the EV-1. by reports that I have read it was a superior car (could beat a porsche off the line)

I am not surprised. it apeared the automakers did not want the project (driven by the government) to succead for it would affect their other cars.. At that time gasoline was not much of a worry. It was scrapped !!!

Much better batterys and the concerns of global warming seems to have revived the idea..

Hey HOT RODDERS A new ecectric motor producing over 250 hp and small enough to fit inside a automobile wheel is out there.. I have not seen many pictures but I have heard the comments.. it is about a Mini Cooper BMW version that had one electric motor installed in each wheel. Now as I figure it that is 1000 HP

Now we have the "Hermaphrodite" and the pure lady Just keep your extension cord ready... Climate friendly or not lets hear from you...
Talk to me.. and see if Doc is still alive..

 

I've never quite bought into the various conspiracy theories about this. It seems to me that the plug-in electric cars were too expensive and had too limited a range to be very practical. A few people loved them, I guess because they don't ever venture far from home.

I don't know why Detroit would be all that beholden to the oil industry, and even if they were, another car manufacturer like Toyota would have come in and competed, if there was a market for the cars.

But I'm not an expert on any of this, by any stretch.

 

If it had been carried through, and mass production, then the cost would have been close to 28% less than gasoline cars.. Today's gasoline engines are around the 7 to 10 grand cost.. And way up from there for higher performance.. The electric motor was projected to be less than $1,000 if production reached 50,000. The battery at that time was a sealed lead acid.. Chryler prototype had a reserve battery, charge time was about 30 min. quick charge.. Regular charge overnight.

It did charge some on braking-deacceleration. Charging stations were to be provived just like parking meters.. 100 miles was about average range. With the new lithium it would probable double that.

For a factory to re-tool is a tremendous cost..

 

I'm not convinced by the whole electric car thing at all.

Don't get me wrong. Whether you believe Global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels or not, I do believe it and I think we need to cut down on the amount of fossil fuels we burn.

Stopping using big gas-guzzling cars would be a big step in the right direction, and so an electric car that recharges from the mains seems like such a great idea.

But where does the juice come from to re-charge it? Well, we burn some fossil fuels to generate it! So the net benefit to the environment is not nearly what it seems at first glance.

I don't know the precise numbers but it does appear to be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Or George or Ringo for that matter (MM, that's for you, mate).

 

I do not think that the electric car is a do all save all. Let me attack the burning of fossil fuel.. Much better control of co2 can be had from power generation plants than automobiles.. second coal is used a lot. third, we do have atomic power plants. but the bigger boost in this part of the country is the hydroelectric power..

Over al there is a big carbon advantage to the elec car. Both at the mfg stage and at the operation stage..

Every city has vehicles that only run 50 to 100 miles in a day... The meter reader, in his little truck running all over town . Building inspector, dog catcher, parking ticket writer.. I look over the city lot on a sunday and see about 100 vehicles that could be totally electric..

For the other long distance uses,, the new generation desciel and the hybrid would be a plus....

 

bump

 

Because of the slow speed (What everyone thinks)

And expense?

 

Sorry, but this is crap, the most likely fuel for an electric car is the hydrogen cell, the biggest investor in fuel cell (hydrogen technology) in the world, the oil industry, they need a product for when hydrocarbons run out.

 

I do not understand your response! Because of the slow speed. do you refer to how people think, or the speed of the cars.. If it is the speed of the cars you are very wrong. the AV 1 could beat a porsche in a drag race.. I have heard that the BMW based elec prototype is capable of potentially 235 mph top speed

The technology is here today... others like the hydrogen cell is not..and not afforadable. the electric car can be built and sold for 20 to 30% less than conventional...

 

I do not understand "the most likely fuel for an electric car is hydrogen cell" ..
The public relations force of the oil company is strong and skilled. But logic is not there.... The infrastructure for one thing..

 

Electric cars

There are many people, some who are forced to do it, riding around in rechargeable fairly inexpensive electric motorized chairs, with room for carryons. Then there are the electric golf cart vehicles, that all the apartments in Las Vegas use. They can carry 4 people, and are used on the streets in at least one subdivision here.

One of the auto stores here, Pepboys has started selling 3 or 4 wheel similar vehicles at very low prices compared to any auto including used ones.

I still maintain that a recyclable chemical reaction that produces heat to make steam to run a steam turbine to run the vehicle is the most efficient and environmentally friendly way to go. Source material: rocks and seawater. Waste product: Salt water. No emissions. Nothing new in the reactions used, therefore not patentable as a process, therefore no fortunes to be made. The fuel is available in bulk at 50lb or so containers right now. The reactors are off the shelf. The turbines are off the shelf. It will never happen though.

 

Maybe that is why there is a distinct smell along the sea shore,, it is the sea water mixing with the rocks.. Please explain the process.. If you don't to go public with it them PM me... I will not give out any information on it.. You have established prior rights with this.. TR

 

Chrysler's chief economist Van Jolissaint has launched a fierce attack on "quasi-hysterical Europeans" and their "Chicken Little" attitudes to global warming.
His attack is in sharp contrast to the green image that the US car companies have been trying to promote at this year's Detroit motor show.
Mr Jolissaint was speaking at a private breakfast where the chief economists of the "Big Three" US car firms presented their forecasts for auto industry sales this year.
Most of the audience - which was mainly made up of parts suppliers - seemed to nod in agreement with Mr Jolissaint.
Neither Ford's chief economist Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, nor General Motors' chief economist Mustafa Mohatarem, who were on the panel with Mr Jolissaint, questioned his assertion.
Uncertain magnitude
Mr Jolissant, a Chrysler veteran who was recently appointed the chief economist for the German-US DaimlerChrysler Group, said that since he started spending more time at the company's corporate headquarters in Stuttgart he had been shocked by the absurdity of European attitudes towards global warming.
In response to a question from the floor, he said that global warming was a far-off risk whose magnitude was uncertain.
He said that from an economic point of view, it would be more rational to spend lots of money on today's other big problems, and only make small and limited changes in policies relating to global warming, such as a slight increase in gasoline or carbon taxes.
Mr Jolissaint was particularly scathing about the Stern Report, which was recently published by the UK government.
The report urged governments to take urgent action now to tackle climate change, arguing that it would be much cheaper to act, rather than face the $10 trillion cost of not doing anything until later.
Mr Jolissaint said the report was based on dubious economics, did not include a discount rate, and was written by an informal adviser to Gordon Brown - in fact, at the time of the report, Mr Stern was the Second Permanent Secretary at the UK Treasury.
He said that he had been surprised by how much support there had been in the Daimler office in Stuttgart for these "quasi-hysterical" policies that smacked of "Chicken Little" politics - referring to the US children's story in which Chicken Little runs around in circles saying "the sky is falling".
If nothing else, Mr Jolissant's remarks illustrate the yawning gap between mainstream opinion on climate change among the educated elites of Europe and America.
But they are also consistent with the cynical view held by some in the US environmental lobby that announcements by car companies about the future development of green vehicles are nothing more than window dressing.

 

Ok let me do a little correcting here. 1st off the car that GM is producing is a conbination of gas and electric. The car can plug into a standard 110v outlet.The gas is for the engine to recharge the battery photo cells. Where as you can travel a little over 600 mile on a single tank of gas or flex fuel. The problem is that they have to find a way to mass production the batteries because the batteries are too expensive to produce now. Which makes the car too expensive to sell on the open market. But once they figure out the battery problem you will see them on the streets. I plan on going to the auto show this weekend. I will find out more.

 

The car I saw on the news was a prototype, Not production. The EV-1 was a limited production from a few years back.. I guess I missed the gas elec combo..

 

In reality, Hydrogen is better than Electricity to run a car. You need to burn fossil fuels to recharge the car, while the hydrogen... well Who knows where they extract the hydrogen from, but its only output is pure water. How about that.

 

No goverment will allow an electric car it would not be good for the motor industry or their economy

 

If you need to burn fossil fuels to recharge a car you also need to burn them to make the free hydrogen in the first place.

 

hydrogen is usually taken from water, by electrolis. Please explain your statement, "Hydrogen is better than electricity to run a car" This authorative statement should have some backing.. Frankly I do not agree with it..TR