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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by bigyin

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

Thank you. Its still a common misconception that e-cars are too expensive to maintain.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by bigyin
reply to post by multichild

Technically thats not actually true. You could make your own electric with a windmill, watermill, solarpanels.

People could get together in small groups to fund a bigger project, and become independent of the big companies.

It already happens here in UK, some folk have put up a windmill and actually sell electric to the grid. If everyone did that the big boys are out the window.

I'm all for it.

Diesel in UK is now £1.28 a litre where I stay ...... it's getting ridiculous.

Well, even that's not going to be true for very much longer, I'd bet. What about highway/road taxes?
Besides, the average person doesn't have the wherewithal (particularly the cash) to build something capable of powering a refrigerator, let alone a system capable of selling back.
A group could distill alcohol communally, or any single person could do it for themselves, with very little cash outlay. Do they do it? Very few, that I'm aware of... and those that do become responsible to pay a separate highway tax, a tax that is already added into the cost of gasoline.
When everyone is driving electric cars, will they tack the tax on everyone's electric bill? Won't the surge in usage raise the rates, the same as it has for oil/gas?
It seems this could even be a way to raise everyone's electric rates, and they have a lot more customers already paying for electricity than they do for gas.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by wonderboy2402
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)

No doubt. Instant torque on demand! It would be awesome...
I'd still have reservations driving my less than 40 miles if it wasn't beefy enough to protect the passenger compartment, though.
I guess we'll soon see.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:03 PM
A possible answer to the range problem is this.

If these cars where made with a standard battery pack that could be swapped in seconds at what is now your filling station you could be back on the road in as short at time as it takes you now to re-fuel.

Payment would be a rental agreement with the company, in other words they own the battery pack you just pay extra if you go over they rate that you have agreed to on your contract.

A lot of infrastructure to set up but once done you are on the road as much as you want and no more fossil fuel.

Power for charging would depend of the area but there is no reason the site could not operate on wind, pv cells etc,.

Anyway either expand on the idea or tell me where I am wrong.

edit on 16-12-2010 by MAC269 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

There is a very much needed change in mentality in order to become less dependent on Oil.

Less dependent on oil but more dependent on coal.

If it is a fully electric, plug in electric car, then its running off the power grid which supplies its electricity from coal or nuclear. If its a hybrid, it still uses oil and now we are dependent on all the various limited supply chemicals that go into make the batteries.

There are not a lot of options that are both clean and dont rely on a limited fuel source.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:14 PM
I will keep the 82 camaro with the 350 with a lumpy cam. It is expensive as hell to drive, but it pays off to be the first one to thiry miles an hour, or driving more than 50 miles at a time.

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 03:07 AM
reply to post by MAC269

One thing I thought about regarding the issue of range, would be building wind turbines into the air flow system of the car, perhaps built onto the sides of the vehicle. When the car moves, the turbines rotate, generating electricity in the normal dynamic method. Coupled with a regenerative breaking system and a solar recharging function, this could see the currently limited charge in many vehicles, increase dramaticaly, with relatively light and simple alterations to the body shell and inner workings.

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:35 PM
Scotland is currently developing tidal turbines, which use the strong and continuous surges of sea water flowing around our coast.

Once these are in place we are told Scotland will be exporting electric to the rest of europe, so we will have andless supply of electricity coutesy of the moon

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:42 PM
reply to post by bigyin

Hi I read the article, and an embedded link about the Smart EV, but so far haven't found any data about either the car's estimated range (between charges), time to charge, or the mileages used to calculate the estimated running costs in the comparisons, all data I would want to see before making any decision on purchase, value, or practicality.

Also, as a family of three, living in a hilly area, I'm not yet convinced that a Smart two seater would do the job.

Also, re:the car costs £14,000 - as I recall that same event that Quentin Wilson compared was on the national telly and he was also discussing the announcement of the newly agreed government grant/subsidy for purchase of these wholly electric vehicles - is that £14,000 before or after the grant/subsidy is included?

[Found some of the data on the Smart EV:
"The ev can travel up to 71 miles between charges, which typically take around 5 hours, "

"PRICES: leasing rates to be finalised

I can't find anything more on the prices as yet...however there is this on the UK gov. taxpayer funded grant/subsidy:

"Under the £43m initiative that starts on 1 January, buyers will get a 25% discount up to the maximum £5,000."

"The Mitsubishi is being advertised for sale from £24,000, after the £5,000 government grant. The Smart and the Peugeot electric cars will initially only be available through four-year leases."

If the Smart is only available via a four year lease - how does either the "cost of £14,000" or ten year plan fit in?]

edit on 17-12-2010 by curioustype because: Added missing data for post

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:51 PM
They are supressing hydrogen when hydrogen fuel cell would be a much better investment.....

No more bumps in the road then eletric cars have now.....

If you could produce hydrogen with nuclear power then you wont have to use ANY fossil fuel....

When they can get the cost down hydrogen will be the future say 30-50 years....

Hydrogen has long range, actually pretty fast, this is what NASA uses to fuel the rockets...

I wonder why people are trying to supress hydrogen energy so much...

Some hidden agenda??

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by thecinic

I agree, I think hydrogen fuel cells look very interesting, and I liked the BMW hydrogen fuel program too. However, I think the core issue on both fronts is immense infrastructure costs. Problem is virtually NONE of the existing energy infrastructure, including all trunk and branch distribution networks are compatible with the systems, whereas electricity is not so straightforwardly an obstacle - until a critical mass of electric vehicles begin to require more from the grid than the grid can currently manage.

The government know the electrical grids and power stations, nor the projected/funded maintenance/expansion of those elements could sustain a large-scale migration to grid-charged vehicles, but they don't seem to want to burst the bubble yet, can't think why?

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:20 PM
reply to post by curioustype

I have had a think about this, I hope I'm not getting the wrong end of the stick but if that £14,000 WAS refering to the cost of the Smart ED/EV that the link you posted seemed to be about, and that is only available on a four year lease, then isn't that £3,500 per year, so to get to the ten year cost you used in your argument you'd reach £35,000 ? Not sure it still beats the running costs quoted of £1,500 p.a on the ICE option plus say £15,000 (or less) purchase price...say over ten years?

For a two seat 71mile range Smart?

Leases are not something I'm not drawn to. I was encouraged to use them to sell in a previous life, and understand just how easily the contractual nature of them can stitch a customer up...and hide costs of otherwise uncompetitive products.
edit on 17-12-2010 by curioustype because: typo

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by bigyin

I do like the idea of tidal energy, I think it makes a lot more sense for the UK than wind turbines. If only we could get a load up and running, I think it may well prove to be the smarter more sustainable and better value option, yet again I think to some extent off-shore wind energy is gaining dubious funding commitments because it creates quick rewards for politicians, rather than the money going to what may be the better long term value for the taxpayer?

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:34 PM
I thought cars had a system of recharging on them now called an alternator! The only reason this coming about is because somebody found a way of making money out of it! Wind turbines are so inefficient, they have to be turned off when it's too windy?? We have had bearings and gears for hundreds of years yet they can't fit high speed bearings to wind turbines?? Please!

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:49 PM
I think we can all agree corn ethanol is a waste...........

Monsanto agenda anyone?

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:31 PM
as for internal combustion engines that have a auxilary fuel tank...for 500-800 mile excursions

versus the 50-150 mile ranges of e-vehicles... what good will that range do yo when checkpoints
at every city boundary, county line and State border are enforced... Tolls implemented for fuel
consuming vehicles but e-vehicles are exempted?

the Mad-Max muscle car scenario is kaput..its only taking the time of a planned obsolesence
to get those dinosaurs off the roadways...
to wit: i can't get a supply chain for the tune up parts for my '65 Econoline Van because all the
replacement parts resources are being bought up and closed down.
I reckon i'll need to set up a supply network for relic autos at the best source
in the western hemisphere --- of course thats' CUBA !!!

theres a twisted reasoning to electrics... one does not need a performance analog to muscle-cars,
one buys a electric to mosey down the road... buzz across town at a slower pace... to take a step
away from a hectic pace.... we in electrics are more akin to reliving the experience of riding horses

as opposed to acting stupid with the obnoxious abuse of showing off horsepower

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:59 PM
reply to post by TrueBrit

Dear TrueBrit

The regenerative breaking system works no problem because when you are breaking the whole point is to take away the kinetic energy the car is has at that point. The solar panel roof even bonnet would work some times put thinking of England and the weather there, plus parking in the city. I fear the cost would not warrant this.

As for the car with windmills, this is a no go. The power needed top turn them would totally out way the power they produced. The only time this would be effective would be when going down a step hill with the foot off the power.

edit on 18-12-2010 by MAC269 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in