Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Electric Vehicles 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
|
Replying to: rorr (Aug 04, 2006 12:39 pm) This is the Tesla Roadster thread so lets put it into that perspective. If a person was debating whether to purchase the Tesla Roadster or a Dodge Viper, IMO, the Tesla would be a better purchase from a US best interest point of view.
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Aug 04, 2006 1:11 pm) Curious about something concerning the Tesla: I know that the range is supposed to be pretty good; and the video was self-explanatory regarding the performance (  ). My question is, what kind of range do you get if you include 1/4 mile run like that? A seperate question (and this gets back into the whole EV vs. ICE question): how quick is a standard Honda powered Ariel Atom compared to the EV version (Tesla roadster)?
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Aug 04, 2006 1:18 pm) As fast as the Tesla Roadster is it could be quicker. When I first heard about this car I assumed that there were 4 separate electric motors driving each wheel. This is very doable with EVs. The Tesla car has one motor driving the rear wheels. Their claim of 0-60 in four seconds is probably limited by the point wheel spin occurs. An all-wheel drive EV will be capable of unmatchable acceleration. |
|
|
Replying to: michael2003 (Aug 02, 2006 2:35 am) As the electric car technology is refined, it will become relatively easy to add a small and very efficient internal combustion motor that will start when the batteries are below, say, 50% and start producing energy to recharge the batteries. The engine would run at WOT and at low RPMs, and would therefore be more efficient than if it were driving the wheels directly. |
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Aug 04, 2006 6:32 am) Here are a few more interesting docs to look at: This is an interesting Wheel-to-well analysis for Japan. Of course it is not apples to apples with US, because their power mix is different. I find it interesting that their numbers show a large advantage for BEV over FCV, but their conclusion states "BEV is a little better than FCV both in terms of required energy and CO2 emission, but still needs total evaluation including driving range per charge.". They have to discount their own numbers because BEV comes out to well! http://www.jhfc.jp/data/seminar_report/04/pdf/06_h17seminar_e.pdf This is a fairly recent large, very detailed Wheel-to-well analysis of energy use and emissions from Argonne National Labs and GM. They compare 18 different future vehicle/fuel systems. Guess which future vehicle/fuel system was not considered in the comparison? While there is some very good info here, this is the kind of government study that really pisses me off because government policy will be made based on it without accounting for the glaring omission. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/339.pdf Here is a similar Japanese study by Toyota (just to show I am not biased towards GM!) It basically does the same thing. http://www.mizuho-ir.co.jp/english/knowledge/documents/wtwghg041130.pdf |
|
|
I just stumbled across something very cool. It should help with the discussion on emissions. I just loaded it up and haven't done much with it yet, but I thought I would pass it along. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/ |
|
|
I've posted this link before on other Edmunds chats but I think it belongs here. Electric cars with their batteries charged by nuclear power stations are the only way to go. The link describes safe nuclear generating plants. http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/pebble_bed.html
|
|
|
Replying to: 3745 (Aug 08, 2006 2:54 am) I agree that it is a very good way to go and far superior to generating electricity from coal. My objection to expanding nuclear energy has to do with the fact that we live in a world with terrorists and that's not going to change. Nuclear plants and their waste materials are going to be very attractive to these people that want to do us harm. The cost to provide security for these facilities will be considerable and will only increase as the threat becomes more sophisticated. I think from a domestic security perspective we are best off generating our electricity on the most local level possible. Homeowners producing their own electricity through wind, solar, etc., being tied together in a small community grid.
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Aug 08, 2006 3:56 am) Meanwhile, America lags behind. Solar and wind power can only provide a small percentage of power needed. It is also unreliable and dependant on the weather. Coal mines and their environmental impact are more dangerous than nuclear power. Coal fired power stations pollute the atmosphere. How many coal miners have been killed in America and how many people have died due to nuclear accidents in this country? |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: 3745 (Aug 08, 2006 2:54 am) Somewhere someone will come up with a system that charges a battery or capacitor in someones garage using solar panels which the electric car can be plugged into at night.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Electric Vehicles Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
