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.


Electric Cars Flooding the Market

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Is there an electricity shortage? If so I wasnt aware of that.

It's an issue that's been kept at a simmer for the better part of this decade...but give us a hot summer with lot's of extra AC and we get the brown-outs. It's the reason for new generating plants being built.

And I suspect that Big Coal is financing the electric car.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:53 AM
I live close to Purdue University, which for those who do not know, is a huge engineering school, and also has one of the highest volumes of foreign students in the country.

Anyhow, Purdue just setup it's first Electric Station for cars. (opened this week)

Very interesting times we live in.

The problem with electric cars is that in a lot of situations they are still using fossil fuels, just a different kind of fuel.

I think the investment needs to be in natural fuel sources, such as alcohol or something like that. Though, the big corps would get no money from that now would they.
edit on 16-12-2010 by thewholepicture because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by thewholepicture
I think the investment needs to be in natural fuel sources, such as alcohol or something like that. Though, the big corps would get no money from that now would they.

How about Thorium fuel for nuclear reactors?

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:55 AM

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

And how exactly is that electricity being generated? Here's a conspiracy theory...there's lots of coal out there...dirty coal...and the only way that you can run a car on it is to use it to make electricity.

You can use nuclear reactors electricity and gasify coal, turn it into liquid fuel.

Then there's no dirty anything. Shoveling coal into a furnace is so 19th Century......

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:14 AM
First cars roll out of electric car plant

ELKHART - A northern Indiana plant owned by a Norwegian company that makes electric cars has finished work on its first fully-electric cars.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Is there an electricity shortage? If so I wasnt aware of that.

In Canada, we're constantly upgrading our electrical grid as the population grows, and/or moves around. Ontario gets overloaded often, in the summer with air conditioners, as the great lakes area is known for hot, high humidity.

Much of our electricity is generated with hydro dams, but other sources are coal and fossile fuels still. The constant upgrading ends up costing the consumer. Until they start using more nuclear, sun, and wind, it's still using coal, oil, and gas in the generation of electricity.

Hydroelectric energy is the main source of electricity in Canada, representing nearly two-thirds of all electricity produced. Electricity in Canada is also generated from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy. Some electricity is produced with alternative fuels like geothermal energy, wind power, biomass, solar energy, and fuel cells.

So much open land here, many isolated places are using geo thermal, and wind, and solar, but the people on those sources have to restrict their usage to whatever amount the storage batteries (?) hold. Plus a house costs a small fortune to set up with solar, wind, and geothermal.

Up here, some places are so distant from one another, electric cars would never work. In Saskatchewan, if living in a smaller town, it takes an hour to drive to the next town. I'm 2 hours from anything I would call a city.

Our colder weather might also be harder on the batteries, for those living on the prairies or northern communities. I can't see electric cars catching on very fast up here. A couple of years ago, Saskatchewan government bought all their people hybrid cars. First snowfall, they had to trade them all in for 4 wheel drives.

They might be good in cities, but then to get stuck in a traffic jam for hours......

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

I am sorry but the electric cars are a bad thing. In an attempt to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide (a very innocuous compound) we are increasing the amount of lithium (very toxic). We are not saving on fossil fuels because there is no such thing. Crude oil is a-biotic and renewable, just as is bio fuels. And where do you get the electricity to charge your battery for the electric car anyway. That is right, burning fuels. Environmentally speaking the ol' gas hog is much nicer that these toxic waste dumps on wheels.
As far as owning one they are nice of the show-room floor but after just a few years you lose power, battery charge life and efficiency. These things have a 5 year expectancy before it is replaced by a new vehicle.
Bottom line more money for manufactures less environmentally safe places on earth.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:15 PM
blah@ electric cars
i never liked them and never will. HEres a question..suppose everyone has an electric car. thats gunna be ALOT of electrical consumption! could our nuclear generators work that hard and put out that much energy? how about isolated areas, like is souther CA, where they use wind and damn water to generate electricity? places liek that wouldnt be able to deef the need,a t least on a constant bases per car owner*
I like the documentary, who killed the electric car. it was mostly about GM when they made hybrids. the got them back form the walthy ones who purchased them, and had them destroyed out in the new mexico desert..makes one wonder why they did that. BUsh was thier saying hydrogen is the way of the future* for cars. 10 years later and its a deader than dead issue. and their was a guy on the documentaty, who had made a computer electric car. it woulda cost like $6,000 only, and would go like 350 miles till you had to refeul..electricity im asuming. he sad he talked to our governemnt, auto makers ford and GM about his invention..and they werent interested at all.
the auto makers game and government are in it to make money, not the environment. if at least government really cared, they wouldnt have allowed chemicals too still be added to thigns we use we wash with, let alone the corrosive toxicity of fluoride. just something to think about, thats all. the guy had a 98% pollution free car, and no one was interested in it.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:22 PM
I agree remembering...i was talking with a guy from china at work last night..he has been in america since 1979. He was telling me, back then, fuel was .99 cents a gallon. i dont know if he meants diesel or car i had beent alking about home heating oil, which is essentialy diesel anyways...just has 2 or 3 less carbon atoms thats all.
Imagine that .99 cents a gallon. he was saying today its outta control he has no idea whats goin on wtih OPEC and the oil gas companys. 2 or 3 years ago, 87 around me was $4 a went down like a year or 2 ago, to like $2 something gallon,,and now its kreeping back up to the $4 mark. hell i got home feul yesterday, 180 gallons was $3.49 a gallon! but we kinda know eachother, so he gave it to me for $3.39 a gallon. that was $600 for 180 gallons, whcih even at 60 degrees in the house, and a well maintained furnace, will get about a month with 3 people using full month
he said, right now, oil is $88 a barrel. and seems like its gunna go up, being in the oil/delivery business he is in.
HE dosnt even know why thier jacking the prices up! it isnt fair, the only answer even he found thier ripping us off* and its always a bull ___ excuse when they answer for it..oh funds to clean up an oil spill, or get back what theys epnt on it or the CEO needs to make his milions...things like that.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

There may be a surge in releases of 'mainstream' electric models into the market, however, I really think it will be some considerable time before sales figures indicate that actual adoption of those vehicles comes close to challenging sales of ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicles.

Take the Nissan Leaf - here in the UK it would cost £30k new (although our government have indicated large taxpayer funded subsidies will now be available to persuade people to take the plunge on such all electric vehicels). Yet a conventional - highly economic (say 60 odd MPG diesel Ford Focus) would cost half or less. Then the batteries last only 8(?) years, (unless damaged by cold temperature - below -10c - or impacts) and are all yours for what - >£9k? Range is c. less than 100miles...and for at least the next ten years, most of the electricity you will charge it with will come from fossil fuels, often gas SHIPPED from other continents...

What a bargain, how versatile, what an eco-warrior I would, hmmm?

From the government and corporations point of view it makes a lot more sense. Firstly they just secured a deal to build the car in the UK with Nissan = (manufacturing - rare as hen's teeth) jobs/money/votes. Then there's the tax issue, they can happily ramp up the tax on the majority of vehicle users: 'dirty' ICE users (via road tax, fuel tax, maybe even purchase tax) safe in the knowledge that their 'viable' electric alternatives will remain a niche market trend for the considerable future, and also safe in the knowledge that criticism for their position would be difficult to sustain in the face of such well established 'green' mainstream political views.

I would also suggest that the last thing that the UK government (and this may be applicable in other countries that are facing electricity supply/generation issues...US?) wants, given how much they are strugggling to get together the funds and speed of delivery to even maintain current domestic electricity demands, is additional pressure to invest in enough additional new electricity generation to supply enough power to cope with a more substantial switch from ICE to grid-charged electric vehicles. I think they'd be quite happy to just continue to see electric vehicle adoption remain at a trickle for some time, at least until the debt crisis and future business models are sorted out...? They quite like the PR opps for electric model releases for now, but as time drags on and electric vehicles remain a small minority product, perhaps they'll get less drawn to the awkward events?

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:11 PM
No more big bore exhausts or induction kits then. Everyone will be silently gliding around at 60mph.


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by ziggy1706

HEres a question..suppose everyone has an electric car. thats gunna be ALOT of electrical consumption! could our nuclear generators work that hard and put out that much energy? how about isolated areas, like is souther CA, where they use wind and damn water to generate electricity? places liek that wouldnt be able to deef the need,a t least on a constant bases per car owner*

Indeed, I think you may be correct. I'm afraid I have no evidence to hand, but certainly I have seen a number of reports a few years back relating to both the USA and UK that suggested that on then existing proposals for investment and regeneration plans for the ageing nuclear and fossil fuel power stations, they would struggle to keep pace with the projected growth, or maintenance of domestic electricity supply.

I know that since I saw those reports, we had the economic crash, and I know that on both sides of the pond new investment plans have been instigated. However, from what I have seen, I would remain surprised if the new investments I have heard of could cope with anything but a very slow adoption/migration to electric-grid-charged vehicles instead of ICE vehicles ON TOP OF all other electricty demands.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:19 PM
The Enron's of the world will love electric cars.

They will start not building power plants just like oil companies have not built refineries in the US for the last 30 years to raise prices

This will cause a major shortage of power and then the Enron's out there can jack up electrical prices 200% to 500% for everyone.
People not owning electric cars will be paying for those that do. people without cars will be paying.

Enron did this to Calif a few years ago and the public in Calif is still paying for it.

Anyone that buys a electric car should be forced to buy a solar system to off set the power used.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by ANNED

Interesting idea, so you spot a cynical means of squeezing corporate profits from undersupply of elctricity to everyone whether they use a vehicle or not, and I spot a cynical means of squeezing government tax revenue from hikes on (vastly more affordable/practical/necessary) ICE vehicle users for a good ten years or so too...what a wonderful vision!

I would love to think it won't happen.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Is there an electricity shortage? If so I wasnt aware of that.

Hmm, dont know about Canada but I have heard that the electric grids in America need upgrading, if Canada is tied into US grids then sure, they would need some work done too. I'm not sure about Mexico.

That's basically why I popped into this thread. There is a movement toward new batteries for electric cars as someone mentioned above, and the current battery tech is one of the main reasons the electric car is not used more widely. However, even if a new battery was made, with a long and large enough lasting charge in terms of capacity and life, then this still doesn't cover the grid and infrastructure issues. Imagine hundreds of millions of people charging their cars on top of the already high use of electricity throughout the continent. This is not counting Mexico or Canada, but factoring those two in, you can imagine the sheer power production and output would certainly be a concern. We can all start in the US but it has to carry over to both countries.

Secondly, and in order to upgrade grids on a mass scale, we need something that conducts and carries electricity efficiently just as much as we need new batteries. Most would say copper or aluminum currently, but think of costs and amounts available for something of this scale, so the need is not just for conductivity, it is likely in a need for alternative here too.

Third you have the oil companies, of course who are basically the mainstay for combustion and will be until this (electric power) actually takes off, but they allow for the weening off of the need for 100% fossil fuel use. That would explain any sort of hybrid boosts in the markets. We cant just dump fully electric into them for now as it is likely just as unsustainable. These companies to move on this across this board in upgrading installing electric service pumps, they arent in a hurry to do that and the ones who do, have some involvement with electric providers which will make the most in terms of money from the electric charge.

Fourth, we currently do not have in terms of auto production deals, the means to mass manufacture fully electric vehicles as many of our current trade projects involve one country making injection systems, another making transmissions, another making tires ect ect. those trade deals are major parts of economy. So abroad, it doesn't really make sense monetarily, nor in diplomatic scenarios to terminate auto trade agreements unless other countries manufacturers can make this switch with us and keep contracts ongoing as well. This is not taking into account how this would effect plant manpower.

One last point, coal will not be leading the way toward electrically powered cars. Sorry. It is too dirty. Plain out truth there.

Anyway, just a few things to consider there, changing infrastructure is key despite the appearance of a hybrid boost or any other, major changes need to happen before we seriously see anything close to a flood of electric cars on the market.
edit on 16-12-2010 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:25 PM

Originally posted by multichild
reply to post by bigyin

Ok that sounds good, but that solves one of my issues of not being under the control of big oil companies, but what about the charging issue.

I drive quite a bit, and at the moment, i fill up twice a week and then usually gets me through, but what it also measn is that if I need to go at a moments notice then I can as I have fuel.

What if after driving all day im running low on charge and I also forgot to put fuel in, I will then have to wait hours for the car to charge up so I can go.

In the future I would prefer more efficient and less costly travel, and this doesnt tick that box does it.

I thought about this recently and came up with the idea that you could have batteries that clip in and out easily then every corner shop could hold a supply of already charged batteries and for a small fee you swap over the empty one for a full one. A bit like camping gas bottles.

At home you could have several backup batteries on charge, even carry a few in the car for longer journeys.

I don't know how technically feasible this would be at present but thats what they could aim for.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:05 PM
I was told by an industry insider that they are developing fake motor-sound-devices on a mass-scale. The reason is that the silent hovering of electric cars is actually dangerous since everyone has become accustomed to hearing cars approach.

I found that interesting and also that he was talking about companies getting ready for the big e-car era.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by bigyin

I believe Renault (who are oft linked with Nissan on R&D) have been pursuing a technology that combines removeable under-car batteries that can be removed and replaced by robotic means at specially equipped garage/depots. I guess that indicates how heavy/difficult the logistics would be though. So instead of getting out and filling up with petrol/diesel, you park in a bay and your batteries are replaced. I think the idea involved a lease type arrangement to fund the batteries/charge...?

It would mean people wouldn't necessarily need to charge - either at home or in town, which may have some benefits, and would also deal with one of my big fears about the Nissan Leaf, which is that it's re-sale/2nd hand value/depreciation could be severely damaged by the prospect of having to replace/fund the very expensive batteries (costing more than the subsidygrant the gov. is providing for initial purchase and which I understand last several years), given that the body/interior/suspension etc will be deteriorating like any other car by the time the issue comes up...

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:19 PM
I think many people would be interested in owning an electric vehicle. Considering most people don't travel more then forty miles in a day... An electric car that you could charge from an outlet or solar paneling on your roof would be awesome. I would like to drive one.

However, the cost of these vehicles is still way to high for most people... If they could crank these things out for under $10 grand, similar to the affordability of the first model T...

edit on 16-12-2010 by wonderboy2402 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:20 PM
reply to post by curioustype

Quinton Wilson a UK tv celebrity and motoring expert was talking recently about electric cars

heres a link to one of his articles

He says that to run an electric car costs £170 a year wheras a petrol car would cost £1500 a year. Thats a saving of say £1300 a year

The car costs £14000

So if you got 10 years out of it you have got your money back.

I think it's getting to the point you would be daft not to buy an electirc car on economic grounds.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in