Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

'Father of the Prius' Declares Electric Cars 'Not Viable'

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Battery powered anything that's going to be sitting outside 24/7 is pretty much useless where I live... Minus 35 celsius temps will kill a battery twice as fast, no matter what kind of condition it's in. Hell, I have a battery blanket around my standard car battery just to ensure I can get a few extra cranks out of it before it dies completely, in case the car is rough starting in the morning.

You'd be lucky to make it to the end of the street with one of those electric cars up here.


wot.motortrend.com...




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 



I live in the middle of about 25k windmills, and twice as many pumpjacks. That, and that our energy still derives from coal in a majority of cases, is all I need to know about our capabilities.

Ever notice that on the hottest days the wind blows the least? So have the electric companies, and the various PUC's. Wind is not going to save us. Neither is solar. Those are nice ideas, but nothing in those realms is going to get us there.

I HAVE floated the idea of nanogenerators being used as building materials for things that need energy. No one seems interested in that concept.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


The electric car infrastructure is generally far more efficient in terms of energy, than a gasoline equivalent. Which is why in most places you see a 50% or greater reduction in emissions (I'm talking CO2) by going to an electric car. I haven't done the exact math for Texas, but given electricity in Texas was 45% Natural Gas, 38% coal, 17% nuclear or renewable, Texas doesn't deviate significantly from this. Also note that those sources are significantly less volatile and are far more secure than oil.

The only place an electric car is going to be bad as an gasoline equivalent car, is if the region gets its electricity exclusively from coal, worse yet, brown coal. Or in other words, where I live. One of the power stations I get my power from is 1.550 kg-CO2/kwh, which is probably the highest in the world.
edit on 7/2/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


There was recently a huge shale oil discovery in Texas that has the world salivating. The real kicker: Gas To Liquid makes the newly found worlds largest natural gas reserve a viable form of low sulphur diesel. GTL will become the new fuel. It likely has more leg in it than electric, as well. Diesel engines are where the torque is. Anyway to cheapen the fuel for them is going to get investors howling.

And it doesn't cut the legs out from the oil companies. Instead, it will allow them to recover the value of natural gas, which was often just burned off before.

Gas To Liquid. There is already a plant in Dubai that has proven the technology. Soon they will build one either in the Houston area, or in Louisianna. Once that happens, the game will change (although not drastically), as diesel will become about 1/5 less expensive.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I went to Houston a couple of years ago. So many pickup trucks! We will always need energy so obviously conservation isn't the whole answer, but perhaps people should drive smaller cars if they don't want to spent so much money on fuel.
edit on 7/2/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I would say Hybrids are best option right now.

Most of the time our gas is wasted when..

1) staying at red light

2) accelerating to 60km(40Mi)

Some hybrids helps with these situation. Prius Hybrid, turn on electric power during red light(no gas consumption) and help the power train during accelerating so gas is consumed less.

I have Civic, which has good fuel economy, but my next car would definitely be a hybrid. Pure electric, i will wait 10 yrs.
edit on 2/7/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Men like Takeshi Uchiyamda receive 'incentives' to make remarks like this.. Incentives such as threatening their own or their families lives. We all should know by now that even the automobile industry is corrupt in such a manner, as it is the automobile industry that is directly linked to the dependence on fossil fuels, continueing the process for wars, control over populations and financial poverty.

I do not take Takeshi Uchiyamda's words seriously because of this, and also because it is utterly rediculous. One should consider that the explosive power of gasoline will always be superior in use for construction and military tools/mobiles, but for the average person and about 99 percent of all automobiles there is technology for electric automobiles that exists and is cost effective. It's a conspiracy to keep this technology unknown and control of those individuals who might create or talk about that technology.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


when my boss comes to town he laughs at all the pickup trucks in the parking lot. Literally, if we go out to eat and 30 vehicles are there, all 30 will be trucks. I drive a truck.

Where I live isn't like living in a city. If i didn't drive a truck, my car would fall apart after a couple of years. Not to mention the outdoorsmanship that my son and I are a part of. Hard to haul your hunting gear in, or meat out of the ranch with a station wagon.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   
In the interim why arent motorcycles pushed more?

40-50 MPG, takes up far less space.

Batteries are nice and all but they create their own problems. Most are toxic as hell, have very finite lifespans and still need externally generated power (right now mostly coal) to charge.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 




In the interim why aren't motorcycles pushed more?


Mostly because you can't take 2 kids and wife on it at the same time, oh, weather is a whole another thing.

And of course, during an accident, in car, your survival rate is very high compared to almost instead death on bikes.

But you are right, they are the most fuel efficient motor vehicle.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
Mostly because you can't take 2 kids and wife on it at the same time, oh, weather is a whole another thing.


Sidecars.


And of course, during an accident, in car, your survival rate is very high compared to almost instead death on bikes.


There is generally a significant overlap among global warming/fuel consumption people and those who believe there are too many human being on this planet. Win-win for them.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
This post, or story, excluded the most important piece of information: profit.

The title should read, "the electric car cannot be made profitable in a meaningful way."

Companies invest millions, or even billions, in finding ways to GET THAT MONEY BACK. They do not invest money in altruistic ventures, despite what their mission statement or corporate notes say. No company spends money to turn loose a free, or almost free, product that creates a loss for them. No government - being a corporation too, does that either. This mindset alters the creative process. Think of it this way, a musician who releases a self made album has a different set of songs, even style, the one who is employed by Sony Music and contractual obligated to produce a record that sells enough to make back the money invested. Those at Sony influence the effort, the alter the creation. Electric car makers are employed to make cars that will make profits, any results that contradict that mandate will be tossed away - forever.

So, research into these areas is inherently flawed, what said "father of the prius" is saying is, "the economic model is not sustainable in order to; A. Produce an electric car AND, B. Make a profit.

What this does not mean is an electric car is not possible, what it does mean is a corporation whose main goal is shareholder value cannot do it. Right now the electric car is a luxury, a high priced toy whose creation costs, both economic and environmental, are not much different then any other car. While folks love the idea of plug in cars, they have no %^&*$ing clue how the newly demanded electrons are going to be made - more Fukashima/San Onofre plants seem the best idea so far. So the notion of "overnight" change is also part of the problem, folks working to fix a 100 year problem in 3 weeks because the sound bites sound great. Every singe president since Kennedy has given the "we need to wean ourselves off foreign oil" speech - word for word, and yet in 50 years we.....

One should note about "alternatives" that oil is used for far more then gasoline, and gasoline is somewhat of a byproduct at this point of oil. Oil, for better or for worse, is important and were it to be banned tomorrow as many would like, the world would grind to a halt and I suspect a kind of global civil war will ensue - might be something to shoot for upon second thought.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by eXia7
 


Ex

I would not put too much weight in that guys article. For a start he is pushing hybrids. I have been driving an electric scooter for years and even on the old tech thats built on its fine. Its not going to win any TT race but thats not the point it gets me around town perfectly well.

As for the numbers its the usual stats game.
30,000 electric cars on US roads, watch the movie 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' and u will see why. The oil and energy industry were not happy. Paid off the clean air guys and sunk a load of money into biofuels that make food expensive. great. People were crying out for electric cars, but the big boys did the minimum required and asked for DNA sampels in order to buy them. IT was ridiculous. Ask anyone driivng a Tesla what they would prefer.

As for the 'billions' of dollars spent on developing the batteries. The car industry spends that much on colors and seat design. It is a tiny amount by comparison to the rest of the industry expenses. If they really commited to battery the tech would be there already. They just do not want to give up those noisy stinky petrol cars.

As for the range and current cost of batteries, this is easily solved. An enterprising dude solved it here in 3rd world cambodia for bikes at least. They just set up battery exchanges at various points and people changed them over after they ran down. In the commercial world the owner drivers would just lease the batteries, saving 60% of the cost of the electric car and paying over the years. It at least povides a half way house so the big Energy boys can keep sucking up that money for doing nothing. Stations can swap a battery out in less time than it takes to fill a tank on an F1 car.

Speed is certainly not an issue, Tesla cars outperforms ferraris and I know which I'd prefer. The non stinky one


Don't buy the auto industry hype its a crock with a well oiled machine behind it trying to convince those who have never tried and electric vehicle that they are shopping trolleys or golf carts.

Will



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Electric cars are stupid until the point that we can create zero emissions electricity.

We already can, it's called solar, wind, and water generated electricity.

Not really. Nobody likes to talk a lot about how much damage is done to the environment when you manufacture batteries, which tend to be quite toxic, or the other devices with which we can gather the precious nectar of sunshine energy. Solar panels look pretty benign, but they cost a lot to build, they've bulky and require a lot of materials to be included in the modules, and because of their theoretical efficiency limit (around 34 percent) you'll never be able to, say, power a car directly with them. And the sun shines at most 14 hours in a day, usually less, so you'll always need batteries to store the energy.

Now, there used to be talk of an atomic-powered engine, where you have a core of radioactive material feeding a direct electricity converter of some kind. But you again run into efficiency problems (most nuclear power reactors are just steam turbines that use water heated by radioactivity, and that wouldn't work well for a car). And there are obvious problems with creating a smash-proof core, particularly the weight of the shielding. Maybe you could figure out how to get an α-radiation system working, using something less toxic like a Nickel-3 isotope as a radiation source, but could you make it efficient, affordable and relatively safe for the environment?



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



In the interim why aren't motorcycles pushed more?

And of course, during an accident, in car, your survival rate is very high compared to almost instead death on bikes.

Ask my smashed and rebuilt ankle and arm why motorcycles aren't the best choice for transportation. Besides, I don't live in a Third World country where everybody jams the streets with scooters and bicycles and cows piled high with produce.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



In the interim why aren't motorcycles pushed more?

And of course, during an accident, in car, your survival rate is very high compared to almost instead death on bikes.

Ask my smashed and rebuilt ankle and arm why motorcycles aren't the best choice for transportation. Besides, I don't live in a Third World country where everybody jams the streets with scooters and bicycles and cows piled high with produce.


There was a episode of mythbusters that while you did get more MPG with a bike,you had worse emissions. There is always a trade off with any vehicle. Not to mention the danger factor on a cycle.
edit on 7-2-2013 by yuppa because: mispelled



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Advanced battery technology is military material.

This is why we dont see masses of advanced electric cars, because the military isnt ready to give every other nation on the planet all the new material research they spent trillions on.

As soon as something becomes a comercial product that means that its becomes basicly open source tech.

What obama is doing is building the production foundation for this future tech. in about 5 years or less we will know about new materials the military has been using and the productions lines will be hot and ready to pump it out
edit on 7-2-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Digging deeper than BreitBarts Ghost. 'Father of the electric car" is not saying that the electric car is dead he is saying current battery technology not adequate and that they (Toyota) will be moving towards fuel cell as an energy source for their ELECTRIC CARS -- Sometimes the Google can really take the slant out of a head line.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by indigothefish
Men like Takeshi Uchiyamda receive 'incentives' to make remarks like this.. Incentives such as threatening their own or their families lives.


How about something simpler. His employer, Toyota, has experience and a profitable line of hybrid vehicles, and no experience with pure battery-electric vehicles. No threats necessary, it's just ordinary corporate spin playing up their strengths and downplaying their weaknesses. Nissan said the opposite, screw hybrids we're going to battery-electric alone. It's just business.

Like Elon Musk saying that battery cars are great and he makes awesome rockets too. BTW, they're both true, for some definition of "great" and "awesome".



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder
Good find and very nice thread you posted.

Ontario is just finishing up with the moth balling of all of our Coal plants.
Ontario just finished up mandating smart meters for electricity.
Ontario just went into debt to the tune of California and then some.
Ontario promotes green energy at a very astounding cost.
Electric bills are through the roof.
Ontario offers a tax rebate/credit when you purchase a electric/smart vehicle.
Does any of the above make sense?


Yes. Coal sucks. Of course Canada should be using hydroelectric first, and CANDU nuclear second, they can build them much more efficiently than Americans it seems.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join