I see articles like this and I wonder to myself...why can't I have one? The only reasonable explanation is influence by the oil companies. A hybrid that will pay for itself in 4 years? 150 MPG? Every American should be driving something like this in the next 10 years.
The electric companies have to be beating off at the thought of everyone in American plugging their cars into their home electricity sockets every night for the next 100 years. (Or more) But basically, if there was no such thing as a "Big Oil Lobby", we would have been driving electric cars long ago.
My usual commute is about 4 miles and is on suburban surface streets. A car that could run on just battery power would be great for most of my everyday driving and I intend to look into this when I get a new car in a few years.
I can see this helping to minimize our reliance on oil. As far as being good for the environment, it just shifts emissions from the car to a power plant. So no real environmental benefits there.
I thought that underground society in Springfield held back the electric car...it's in their song. "Who holds back the electric car? We do! We do!"
I know lots of people like to blame "Big Oil" for our reliance on Oil however I have it on very good authority (friends very high up in 2 of the largest Oil Companies) that they are hanging their hat on Hydrogen and already look at ways to deliver Hydrogen to the public. I know GM a couple of years ago was putting a lot of effort into Hydrogen as well, while taking a beating about not having electric cars. Electric (or Hybrid) cars are a stop gap to a better car it is not the long term answer.
Neither Hybrids, nor electrics are the future. They are will be by passed by hydrogen or other technologies. The sole reason we still have oil (gas and diesel) cars is because NOTHING has come along that is as economical. That is the bottom line. Heck, just look at the fact that the Toyota Prius leaves the same size energy footprint as a fuel efficient gas car of similar size, and with the added greatness of toxic batteries. Biofuel is NOT the future either.
As much as I hate to admit it, I think the reason we do not have electric cars is because OPEC has done a pretty good job of keeping oil prices stable since 1986. Now, demand for oil is increasing because of worldwide economic growth, especially in China and India, so oil prices are rising and there is not much OPEC can do about it. The only thing that could potentially lower oil prices in the short-term is worldwide recession, and that would be worse for us than high oil prices. Reducing consumption in the US could bring lower oil prices over the long-term, because we currently consume 25% of the world's oil production. Also, using oil more efficiently will allow our economy to absorb higher prices more easily. So even if the price remains high it will not matter if we have to pay $4/gallon, because we can drive 100 miles on that $4. Hybrids are proving popular and meeting the demands of consumers, and the current premium is easily recovered when the hybrid auto is used as a taxi. As for plug-in hybrids--lithium-ion battery technology is the key, and we can develop that technology here at home, instead of filling Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia's coffers. Still, I will believe it when I see these autos on dealership lots and they prove to meet the demands of the consumers, but there was a lot of promising technology at the Detroit auto show, so maybe this will actually show up at a dealership in the near future. Also, I have read several articles recently about Israel investing money in electric car technology.
There are big environmental gains to be found through switching from oil to electricity for cars, but it is not free of problems. It is easier to control emissions from one source than thousands, and some of the power plants, maybe all eventually, can be made to produce clean energy. Plus there are enormous political and financial gains to be found in jettisoning the use of most oil products for fuel and heating. Hydrogen may be a better long term answer. An electric plug-in hybrid car would be ideal for many urban commuters-I hope they start coming out soon.
I'm waiting for teleportation pods. I hear there's a problem keeping the *** attached to the backside though. And yes, I have nothing of substance to add to this thread.
Here is a company working on a 100 mpg vehicle that will retail for $20k and they say will be on sale in the next few years. Who knows if they will be successful, but if they are I'm buying one. It's a pretty funky design but it looks like it's fun and cars today are way bigger than they really need to be anyway.
the reason why we do not have better oil efficient cars is not because of "big oil." it is because of the auto manufacturers are losing money on the hybrids. not enough people are buying them to make it cost efficient for the auto companies to make them. 50% of all auto sales in the US are pick-ups and SUV's. Americans want big cars.
damn all that... if you can get me $0.06 / kwh, i'll stick with my big-*** Chevy Avalanche (and no commute). proceed.
Y'all should watch "who killed the electric car?" We could be at least 10 years more advanced in terms of cars, motors, and infrastructure for refueling than we are now. Electricity makes the most sense as a final common pathway for delivering energy to the wheels from a myriad of sources. Demand was growing for that technology, even with cheap, plentiful gas available, and then the manufacturers pulled the plug. I wonder why? HH, get off the grid and go "nuculer"
Hydrogen powered fuel cell/electric vehicles are most likely the long term solution. Virtually no pollution. Plug-in electric/gas hybrids may be the next step as an intermediate solution, but the electricity still needs to be produced and that means burning more hydrocarbons in power plants. More nuke power plants would alleviate that issue, but they're not without their own problems.
What most don't address when they say we are going to hydrogen and that hybrids are a stop gap, is the hydrogen you use has to come from water otherwise you we be adding water to the atmosphere. What no one wants to admit is water is a major greenhouse gas along with CO2. So if you switch the world to hydrogen powered cars and the hydrogen does not come from water you are stuck with the same global warming problem.
1. Water is not only a greenhouse gas, it is the 800-lb gorilla of ghgs. The concentration and absorption spectrum of water both heavily outweigh those for CO2. 2. Hydrogen power, electric cars, etc are nice, but they are storage media; they are not energy sources. Energy ultimately is stored chemically or nuclearly. Chemical sources include all fossil fuels and all crop-based fuels. All chemical sources currently used or envisioned release CO2 (and H2O) on use. Some energy (typically what is referred to as renewable) is not stored away yet when we snatch it up: geothermal (radiant heat from a natural nuclear reactor), solar (radiant multi-spectral from natural nuclear), wind (kinetic), or hydro (gravitational potential/kinetic). These unstored sources pale in comparison to stored forms in terms of maximum theoretical available power. We should try to increase efficiency and lower pollution, but those are very different ideas from finding new sources of energy. Harnessing fusion = long-term solution. More/better fission reactors = medium term solution. Stretching our chemical resources = short term solution. Renewables = cute adjunct to a solution.
So we're going to mix dirt with our gasoline, solidify it, burn it to generate electricity, run it through large resistors, and then use it to power the car? Electric cars are and will continue to be a horrible idea until the nation's power generation and transportation technology make them a better idea that moving refined crude products around. When our energy is primarily generated by nuclear, hydroelectric, solar and wind sources AND we have a low loss national electric grid, then it will make sense to plug in cars.
