Sign In Join 



Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons

1586 messages,  Last post on Oct 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM

You are in the Electric Vehicles Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

What is this discussion about? Alternative Fuels, Coupe, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan, SUV


Messages Page 159 of 159
1
...
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#1576 of 1586
Re: EV charging station with credit card slot [larsb] by gagrice
May 16, 2009 (4:21 pm)
Reply

Replying to: larsb (May 15, 2009 6:55 am)

What is more interesting to me is the Smart ED (EV) being charged. Why don't we have those in the USA? We did not get the Smart diesel capable of 70+ MPG. Now other countries have the Smart electric powered by sodium-nickel chloride Zebra batteries. I don't think the US or state governments want what they say they want. Less use of fossil fuel. I don't like the meter idea either. I would not be taking off cross country in a vehicle with a 62 mile range. Drive for an hour charge for 8 hours.
 
No thanks, I will charge my EV overnight in my driveway. Don't hold your breath on seeing any for a good long while. The EPA and CARB and the Tax collectors will all have a say on when they are sold in the USA.
 
There are at least 10 EVs built world wide capable of highway speeds. NONE are allowed in the USA, except the $100k Tesla. Political talk is cheap. Politicians are not cheap.
#1577 of 1586
Carried over from the Diesels topic by larsb
Oct 21, 2009 (8:57 am)
Reply
Gary said, "I think the CEO of PG&E is better qualified to answer the questions on load. You have a lot of pie in the sky optimism about alternative energy. It is not making much headway in the market place. Not everyone is going to be satisfied with an 8 hour charge time. Many of the PHEV kits for the Prius are 220 Volt. The bragging points many have made including yourself is quick charging in as little as 10 minutes. The shorter the time the bigger the load. Charging a 16KWH battery in 3 hours equal to running about 3 large AC units at the same time. More than the average house uses at any given time. It would triple my electric bill. As you know we do not get the illusive NIGHT RATES in San Diego. EVs are not going to be practical in my area unless a person installs a large solar array and charges during the day. $40K for the EV econobox and $30k for the solar array. That is about 30 years driving a Diesel SUV for me. I don't expect to be around that long."
 
On your point: "I think the CEO of PG&E is better qualified to answer the questions on load."
 
I don't assume that at all. I have driven an electric car, and I drive a GEM car almost daily in my job. I follow electric car news and technology almost daily. I'm sure his job keeps him occupied with other issues. I'd take him on in a "who knows the most" debate ANY DAY.
 
On your point: "Not everyone is going to be satisfied with an 8 hour charge time."
 
That's correct - but you can't please all the people all the time. If you want an electric car, and you can only fit into your budget the one which only uses 110V for charging and takes 8 hours, then you will settle for that car. Like any gasoline car decision - the car that meets your needs and your budget is what you will buy.
 
On your point: "Many of the PHEV kits for the Prius are 220 Volt."
 
True, but the technology that Toyota uses for their first USA-available PHEV will be far superior to those add-on kits.
 
On your point: "The bragging points many have made including yourself is quick charging in as little as 10 minutes. The shorter the time the bigger the load. Charging a 16KWH battery in 3 hours equal to running about 3 large AC units at the same time."
 
Quick charging will be an OPTIONAL component on SOME of the cars. Probably a costly one. The owners who use it will be willing to pay for the cost to get the convenience. Like anything else in our economy, convenience will cost more. Nothing wrong with that. You want more functionality and faster charging? Pony up the Greenbacks, Amigo.
 
On your point: "EVs are not going to be practical in my area unless a person installs a large solar array and charges during the day."
 
You meant to say: "People who want fast charging and who want to charge during the day in the San Diego area are going to have to pay more for their electricity" and that's true. That does not make it "impractical" it just makes it "more costly." Like I stated before, most "early adopters" have the cash to fork out on this technology, just like the early adopters of Hybrid cars were people with more "disposable income" than the average Joe.
#1578 of 1586
Re: Carried over from the Diesels topic [larsb] by gagrice
Oct 21, 2009 (11:36 am)
Reply

Replying to: larsb (Oct 21, 2009 8:57 am)

The only thing I can say is a fool and their money is soon parted. Unless a vehicle fits my needs and is practical I will either not buy it or get rid of it very quickly while it still has some value. As much as I hate the poor mileage I get with the Sequoia, it is not practical to replace it until I find a diesel replacement vehicle I really like.
 
As much as I would like to go EV, I don't see it as practical in my lifetime. They will have to come up with better storage than Li-ioN batteries that are currently being tested. And I think you are wishful in your thinking on the PHEV Prius from Toyota. That could still be a decade off for the consumer. It depends on the trials with fleet owners. Notice how the Honda FCX has just fizzled out. I think they placed 5 units of the 100 or more they promised. Hydrogen is still many decades away if ever.
#1579 of 1586
Re: Carried over from the Diesels topic [gagrice] by larsb
Oct 21, 2009 (1:01 pm)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 21, 2009 11:36 am)

Gary says, "And I think you are wishful in your thinking on the PHEV Prius from Toyota. That could still be a decade off for the consumer. It depends on the trials with fleet owners. "
 
I did not put a time table on it. I just meant to point out that WHEN they do it, it will be done the RIGHT way.
 
Thus the current delay - they are getting it RIGHT, just like the got the Prius RIGHT before they introduced it.
#1580 of 1586
Re: Carried over from the Diesels topic [larsb] by gagrice
Oct 21, 2009 (8:30 pm)
Reply

Replying to: larsb (Oct 21, 2009 1:01 pm)

I have to think that was tongue in cheek.
 
Toyota was not even close to having even the 2nd model Prius offered here "right". There were hundreds of them stranded with the death triangle. They would stall cruising down the highway at freeway speeds. Even a few caused accidents. The first couple years the buyers were guinea pigs that bought the Prius. I would think they are a bit gun shy now with all the runaway acceleration cases coming to light.
#1581 of 1586
Re: Carried over from the Diesels topic [gagrice] by larsb
Oct 22, 2009 (6:08 am)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 21, 2009 8:30 pm)

You are basing your belief on a few hundred problems.
 
Are you ignoring the tens of thousands of owners who had no problems?
 
They got it right.
 
A lot of cars have a glitch now and then causing a recall.
 
The point is, no automaker wants the bad publicity that a failed electric car would give them.
 
No one will put one out there until it's RIGHT. Nissan, GM, Toyota, Mitsubishi, none of them.
 
But remember: No car in pre-release testing can be 100% fault-free. The real-world test of thousands of actual owners cannot be replicated in pre-release testing. A glitch here and there is inevitable.
#1582 of 1586
Re: Carried over from the Diesels topic [larsb] by gagrice
Oct 22, 2009 (6:49 am)
Reply

Replying to: larsb (Oct 22, 2009 6:08 am)

Your naivete' is showing. There have been many cases over the years of calculated risk by auto makers on known safety issues. Did Toyota know about the software glitches in the Prius before release? I doubt we will ever find out. The Japanese are much better at keeping secrets than we are.
#1583 of 1586
Re: Carried over from the Diesels topic [gagrice] by larsb
Oct 22, 2009 (7:56 am)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 22, 2009 6:49 am)

Gary, that doesn't make any sense.
 
Chief Engineer: "We know we have an issue that will STRAND DRIVERS AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. I say "release the hounds !!!"
 
That's total and complete ridiculosity to think that anyone would willingly do that.
#1584 of 1586
Re: Carried over from the Diesels topic [larsb] by gagrice
Oct 23, 2009 (5:51 am)
Reply

Replying to: larsb (Oct 22, 2009 7:56 am)

If you think that Toyota is any less greedy than Ford you are dreaming.
 
Here are the highlights of the memo on the altar worshipping the Almighty Buck:
 
1. With expected unit sales of 11 million Pintos, and a total cost per unit to modify the fuel tank of $11, a recall would have cost Ford $121 million.
 
2. But, using mathematical formulations of a probable 2,100 accidents that might result in 180 burn deaths, 180 seriously burned victims, and 2,100 burned-out vehicles, the "unit cost" per accident, assuming an out-of-court settlement, came to a probable $200,000 per death, $67,000 per serious injury, and $700 per burned-out vehicle, leaving a grand total of $49.53 million.
 
3. Allowing the accidents to occur represented a net savings of nearly $70 million.
 
4. Therefore, a human life was mathematically proven to be worth less than an $11 part.

 
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/true-conspiracy-the-ford-pinto-memorandum.- html
 
Chrysler did it with the Mini Van doors popping open. My guess is Toyota is doing it right now with the runaway acceleration in 3.8 million vehicles they have sold. Including all the Prius from 2004 -09. I agree that nothing is perfect. Where I get upset is when the manufacturer knows they have a problem and try to cover it up. And Toyota did just that until there were too many cases of the Prius Stalling at high speed. And they did it until this high profile case of the Lexus runaway that killed 4 people including a cop. Cop killers are usually targeted heavily by other cops.
#1585 of 1586
Re: Carried over from the Diesels topic [gagrice] by jeffyscott
Oct 23, 2009 (2:21 pm)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 23, 2009 5:51 am)

Actually they only decided that a life was worth less than 18,182 of those $11 parts.
Or that preventing 180 deaths (and osme other stuff) was not worth spending $121 million, which is $672,222 per death, or 61,111 of the $11 parts.
Or they decided that a judge and jury would value the average life at $200,000.
 
Not saying that Ford was right or wrong to do this, but the statement that "a human life was mathematically proven to be worth less than an $11 part" is simply incorrect hyperbole.

Messages Page 159 of 159
1
...
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement