It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Who killed The Electric Car?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 01:47 AM

Originally posted by ebe51
Electric Cars....
A good concept but many technological challenges to overcome. Batteries have the exact opposite problem of hydrogen they are efficient however they takes up allot of space and they're heavy. Which means there weight is added to cars making it harder for motors to push the car down the road. The best electric cars are stuck about 100 miles between recharges, and again that the best ones.

Sorry, but you are quite mistaken.

First of all, yes the lithium-ion batteries used in the newest electric cars are indeed heavy, but in comparison to the weight of an internal combustion engine, etc., there's no argument there. Space is definitely not an issue either, since the only motion-generating component aside from the batteries and tires is the moving-part-free electric motor.

As for the mileage range, you again are entirely wrong. For example, the Tesla Roadster, which is currently in production, can go up to 220 miles per charge. That certainly transcends the corporate disinfo that electric cars are only efficient enough to be neighborhood vehicles. Below is a link to Tesla Motor's site:


Some others had the honor, but I would like to also reiterate the relatively green nature of electric cars. It has been said in this thread that electric cars are not "zero-emission" because the pollution output of power plants needs to be considered. This is true, but the efficiency of even the seemingly dirtiest power plants is significantly better than that of an internal combustion engine. On top of that, if one wants to purchase carbon offset credits from their power companies to cover the small footprint of their car's energy consumption, they are very cheap. Even further, one could produce their own electricity with solar panels or wind generators, which are quickly becoming more and more viable financially for everyone.

New Solar Panels Produced at Less Than $1 Per Watt (Treehugger)

Amazon Selling 400 Watt Wind Turbine For $800 (Treehugger) (it's actually on sale for $500 right now)

[edit on 12-3-2008 by iceofspades]

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:22 PM
I wanted to pop in with my 1st post here..

Google Video Link

Old one is dead..

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:31 PM
Thats the one I found when looking on this thread.

So what I said there goes for here as well.

EV cars smashed or vapor carburetors smashed by Standard Oil at the
end of WWII. The Illuminati always wins.

And then adding water in the 1950s making the vapor carburetor useless.

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:46 PM
Maybe there is hope!

Here is what they're doing outside of America!

Making sensible cars! ZERO Emission, No Noise.

In Canada. Hurrah to Canada!

Watch this:

It plugs into any electrical outlet. No electric charging station is needed.

I would buy one today if I could.

Send email out to all of your friends about the Google movie and about the ZENN car. Write Congress! Getting the word out is a way that the message can get to Congress and America's auto makers!

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:05 PM
What all the books and discussions on this matter didn't tell you....... the environmental whackos caused the downfall of the electric car.

Also, no-one really wanted the original electric car because it was too small, too slow, ugly and very unsafe. Period.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by KathyT

The ZENN car is small, ugly and sure looks like it would smash to a tin foil ball in a front/rear collision of any force.
Zero emissions???? Modern power plants are very climate friendly, but they still produce emissions when people use electricity..... like charging an electric car!! With a range so mileage range so low (15 miles max one-way, to be safe)
the car would be in the scrap yard long before it paid for the investment.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:29 AM
Power transmission without wires was demonstrated by HP
for wireless power to computers and components.

Unfortunately they used spiral coils as big, but not as many turns,
as the one behind the sitting Tesla.

There may be an antenna method, with the ball on top, to
transmit loss less power such that only the car picking up the
energy is the loss.

Hopefully this does not entail high voltage that gives the ground
hotfoot potentials.

A line of roadside power station, using atomic power, would power
each car.

Then of course each car might have it own atomic power source.

Gee, sounds like talk from 80 years ago when people foolishly
talked about atomic energy. What the heck were they talking

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:29 AM
Who killed The Electric Car is an important documentary film - A must watch!

From what I can gather the people who were shown in the film have started up an organisation.

"Plug In America is a coalition of RAV4-EV drivers, former lessees of Honda EV+, GM EV1, Ford Ranger and Ford Th!nk City electric cars, and advocates of clean air and energy independence. Prior to 2008, we functioned as a loose network of individuals organized around websites of various names (like and and then coalesced as a chapter of the Electric Auto Association. On January 2, 2008 Plug In America became a separate California Non-Profit Corporation. On August 18, 2008, we received our determination from the IRS, and we became an official 501(c)(3) public charity!"

Plug In America

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:57 PM
If you want to know who kill the electric car, just search who is
the most powerful players in oil

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:49 PM

I just did see the docu, on TV about the electric car, and the battery
is NOT GUILTY ! ! !

AARRRGGGHHHH ! ! ! The B^5T^RD5 ^55 HOLE5 who stoped and killed
the EV1 make me soooo ANGRY ! ! ! And that was inside 2003-2005 ! !

Blue skies !

posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 10:08 AM
I am amused by the ignorance concerning electrical vehicles as an energy saving and/or non-polluting reduced carbon footprint means of transportation. An electric vehicle will produce more carbon dioxide emissions and use more energy than its gasoline counterpart of the same size and weight. For example, let’s use our Hollywood activists impressing his friends with his overpriced electric vehicle powered by an electrical power plant burning coal on a Navajo Indian reservation in Arizona. For comparison purposes there are 115,000 Btu’s in a gallon of gasoline that will take a car of comparable size to the electric around 40 miles. Therefore a gasoline car will use 2875 Btu’s per mile. Meanwhile burning 115,000 btu’s of coal loses around 70% of its energy content in the conversion from coal to heat to steam to mechanical energy(generator) to electricity. (There’s a little problem called entropy where energy that does work creates losses in the form of lost heat, noise, friction, etc.) So of the original energy content we get 34,500 Btu’s of electricity. We’re not through yet because we lose another 5% warming bird’s feet in the power line going 1500 miles to Los Angeles. Then we convert the electrical energy to chemical energy (charging a battery) another 40% to 60% loss. Then we convert back to electricity to drive the wheel train another 10% minimum until we finally show up at the Oscars. So from the original 115,000 Btu’s of coal burned we probably get to utilize less than 15,000 Btu’s to actually move the vehicle. Assuming that the electric car also gets 40 miles to 115,000 btu’s we would have to burn about 900,000 Btu’s of coal to generate enough electricity to go the same distance as 1 gallon of gasoline. In short, the only accomplishment of the electric car is to move its emissions to Arizona rather than down town Los Angeles, make a Hollywood moron feel good and increase fossil fuel demand.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 07:37 AM
Hi Billyjack,

reply to post by billyjack

As far as my reading led me to believe electric vehicles are not going to 'save the planet' ( unless electricity comes from renewable's) as much as they export city pollution to the countryside. I think you have overstated the inefficiency, sources would be good, but i think you could still agree that there are clear health benefits to those living in cities when these pollutants are released elsewhere with the local environment then being able to absorb more of it.

As for it increasing the demand for fossil fuels i am not sure how you reached that conclusion when the point is in good part to stop using foreign oil and become more reliant on native coal which exists in massive abundance. Modern coal power plants can be made not only very efficient but also many times safer than they used to be. The fact that it's not being done is not due the absence of technology but due to the old fashioned bottom line. If government would invest as much money in these coal plants as they do in nuclear or bio-fuels far greater reductions could be brought about.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 01:12 PM

Appreciate the responce. Since BHA shut down Yucca mountain the only viable energy source is fossil fuels. For all the glue heads that have gone organic solar panels and windmills are a joke as far as replacing coal, nuclear or natural gas fired plants. With Cap & Trade or the EPA's ruling on CO2 if put into effect 50% of coal fired electrical generation would be shut down.

The other problem with electric cars not mentioned in detail is the time necessay to charge a battery. Again that old problem with physics gets in the way of fantasy. Until we build a hot rail on the freeways & interstates where one can be charging while driving, I can't see how the electric vehicle will supplant liquid fuels. Once this is done with electrical generation expanded then a transition to electrical cars may become practical. With a distance limit of 200 miles, there are very few places in the US that one can get more than 100 miles away from an interstate. Also has the advantage of transitioning away from gasoline over time.

Believe me the efficiency numbers are accurate although I did not include references. The only guess was the energy loss converting from chemical back to mechanical from the battery, but the 10% figure is probable way less than actual.


posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:02 PM
Electric cars are an absolute JOKE.

First of all, what does that car use to get around? Tires. Where do tires come from? OIL.

How is the car made? In a factory that uses hydraulic machines. OIL.

How do they paint the cars? OIL.

Plastic parts in the cars, OIL.

You people who think electric cars are the future really need to educate yourselves. The electric car will NEVER save this planet from fossil fuels. NEVER.

posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 01:54 PM
Hi Semus,

I have a few questions for you;

If electric cars are a joke what would you propose we use for personal transportation that we can do right now and do not emit any toxic gases in and around our cities?

You mention that many of a cars parts still require the usage of fossil fuels but i thought it was understood that the major problem were in fact not the production but the continuing emissions? Electric cars are as far as i know much longer lasting with far fewer non recyclable materials with the added benefit that as we gain more and more electricity generation from renewable resources electric cars will be more and more environmentally 'friendly'.

Your argument about paint, plastics in cars and 'hydraulic machines' are largely spurious doing little but showing that you do not seem to have a clear understanding of the usages of oil and the comparative savings that can be made if they were no longer used to fuel our global transportation networks.

I don't think many are suggesting that electric cars will 'save us' if we do nothing else but i think it's relatively clear that they very likely will and clearly should play a significant part in whatever local or global strategies we employ to protect our environment. As for fossil fuels according to our current conservative estimates we have until around mid century to make significant changes before we run into any serious supply constraints. I am confident that barring any cataclysmic world wide event ( world war, etc ) we have the time and the supplies of fossil fuels to still make the necessary changes without the global upheavals that might result if we put if off till then.

In conclusion the electric car has been maligned and certainly kept from the market far longer than seems technologically justified but it's slowly gaining , especially in the East, and there is not a whole lot that can be done to keep on artificially stimulating fossil fuel usages ( as has been done for the last century) over electric generation and employment in this primary sector.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 02:42 AM

Appreciate the responce. Since BHA shut down Yucca mountain the only viable energy source is fossil fuels

The lack of any permanent repository for nuclear waste at this moment in time does not prevent us from investing in nuclear energy, nor does it create any technical limitations. Reactors can store spent fuel in pools and later dry-casks for the entire life of the reactor (60 years) with no reason they cannot store it for longer.

That's 32 years worth of waste from the 620 megawatt (electric) Vermont Yankee reactor. After 40-50 years of storage, the heat and radioactivity of spent fuel have fallen to one thousandth of the level at removal from the reactor, therefore it is much easier dispose of waste when its overall radioactivity is only about 0.1% of its original level. Obviously nobody wants to deal with nuclear waste, however it is abundantly clear that renewables at this point in time, just do not work.

Also, one must remember that coal is an order of magnitude cheaper than oil in terms of power generation which is one of the reasons oil is NOT used to supply our electricity. Furthermore, centralized infrastructure is generally significantly more efficient than decentralized infrastructure, hence why we have super-sized coal boilers to supply our base-load electricity, instead of diesels at every house, business, or factory. Therefore, it is not only a question of energy losses, but if energy losses negative the advantage of low cost coal and electricity. Simply put: Does it make economical sense? (and Nuclear is marginally more expensive than coal, less expensive than clean-coal, and less expensive than coal with any sort of carbon tax).

Also, coal plants have efficiencies that range mostly around 40%, and I'm pretty sure transmission losses in the US are around 7%, while charging losses in electric cars are around 15%. What is the efficiency of a petrol engine compared to a electric engine?

If that techonology replaced our current reactors we would be paying $.04 per kilowatt hour.


Current nukes are already sub 3 cents per kilowatt hour wholesale.

[edit on 24/3/2010 by C0bzz]

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 05:57 AM
reply to post by Semus

The only joke here people who can't think outside the box.

1972 Gas Datsun converted to electric

We use oil to manufacture things because it was and still is inexpensive. That doesn't mean we can't use other materials to manufacture products that require oil today.

Besides the purpose of going to electric cars & this thread is about greatly reducing or eliminating the use of oil to make gasoline not eliminating other uses for oil. It takes 2.1 gallons of crude oil to produce 1 gallon of gasoline. If we quit using as much gasoline (hint) we will have more oil to use for other purposes. Gasoline is a waste of oil and gasoline engines are inefficient for personal transportation.

Railroads use Diesel electrics because electric is more efficient. They have been for a hundred years or so.

Automobiles don't need as much power as a train, thus eventually with better battery technology & solar panels their range will be extended greatly.

They are already selling solar panels for RV's to cut down or eliminate generator use, So, they don't need to run their generators as often while in the bush.

Embedded panels on an electric cars outer surface could extend the range & allow the car to charge while parked in an outdoor lot. At the very least one could have a portable solar charger at home or while on the road to charge without plugging in to the grid.

I find the idea that we need a bigger grid to accommodate electric cars a joke. All we need is car parks with wind & solar generators to charge the cars batteries. For those that need extended range they have to buy diesel electric hybrids and eventually they will come up with quick charge stations that take 15 minutes or so.

[edit on 24-3-2010 by verylowfrequency]

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 07:25 AM

I find the idea that we need a bigger grid to accommodate electric cars a joke. All we need is car parks with wind & solar generators to charge the cars batteries. For those that need

I highly doubt it is possible to get all our automotive energy from wind turbines and solar panels located at car-parks. The issue is that small scale wind and solar are simply not economically competitive at this moment, and they are very intermittent. It would be disingenuous to suggest that we can only drive on sunny days when the wind blows. Tesla Roadster has a battery which holds 53 kW·h of electricity, therefore to charge in three and a half hours you're going to need 15,000 watt of electricity, and to charge in 15 minutes you would need 212,000 watts. If you have a car park which is filled with cars, then it would be extremely difficult for wind and solar to keep up with the demand. It would only work if each vehicle was charged at longer intervals, for example, having a $12,500 solar array storing all of its energy into batteries, charging the car fully only once a week.... or you could spend less than $10 on grid electricity per week. Personally, I'd rather spend $10 on grid electricity.... (a loan on a $12500 solar panel would probably have $10 interest attached to it anyway.)

An economy petrol car might get 15 kilometers per dollar.
Tesla roadster might get 60 kilometers per dollar.

Grid electricity is VERY cheap. If you do that math, it becomes very clear that the electric car makes a whole lot of sense, I just think the only problems at this time is the cost and the charging time. One problem, however, is that using grid electricity to drive the Tesla Roadster puts out significantly more CO2 than a small car would, over twice as much! The grid really needs to be cleaned up...

[edit on 24/3/2010 by C0bzz]

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Semus
Electric cars are an absolute JOKE.

First of all, what does that car use to get around? Tires. Where do tires come from? OIL.

Uhh, really?

See, I thought tyres came from rubber. And nearly half of the world's rubber supply each year comes from trees. Rubber trees. And more than half of the world's natural rubber crop is used in tyres and tubes.

So, your condescension

You people who think electric cars are the future really need to educate yourselves. The electric car will NEVER save this planet from fossil fuels. NEVER.

would actually have some bite if you were even slightly acquainted with a few facts.

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:43 AM
i'm about to watch this documentary. I want electric car right NOW! I will give my thoughts after i watch it but it seems pretty obvious what they will be. F the oil companies, those damn dirty pigs.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in