Electric vehicles!

[Darell]

OK, folks. Some of you may remember the L O N G running threads we had in the Cafe on CPF proper. They were very active for a long time, and then dwindled. Now we're where we SHOULD be discussing this stuff!

I'm a bicycle-riding EV advocate. Most of my transportation is by bicycle. But my wife commutes to work every day in the EV, and we use the car for some errands and family trips. Well over 90% of our automotive trips are made with our EV (currently a Rav4EV, though we had an EV1 and a Ford Ranger EV before that). Our EV is powered almost exclusively with the power we generate from our 2.5kW roof-top solar array.

Our second car is a 2006 Prius that stays parked for weeks, even months at a time. We only use it for long trips, or when I NEED a car when my wive has the EV at work. You'll hear many people say that an EV can work as a "second car." Well, that's just not how it works with any EV driver I know. The EV is the primary car, and the gas car is the "backup."

My big push is to make full-feature EVs available for anybody who wants to buy one. So far Tesla is the only one in the game, and "anybody" in this case, unfortunately means the rich... but they're getting there. The next car will be half the price. All major car makers have promised cars with a plug by 2010 or 2011. Exciting times are ahead! I'm not a huge fan of the NEVs (low speed EVs) though I do know that they have their place. I'm looking for cars that can replace a full-function gasoline car - and do everything cleaner, cheaper and more conveniently.

So who else has an EV? Who wants to find out more? There is a ton of information on my site (see my sig) EVnut.com. Take a visit and see if it creates more questions that it answers. Let me know when you find errors on the pages, or want to discuss anything you find. (ooh, and I need to remember to put a link back to CPFG on my site... note to self!)

I am just fine with controversy... but only *educated* controversy. "EVs suck because I read it on the internet" doesn't quite count. Guys like Idleprocess will take me to task for over-stating things, or over-simplifying. And that sort of dialog leads to everybody learning something. I don't have all the answers, but I am steeped in this stuff every day. I have lived with an EV as our main vehicle for seven years now. We have about 80,000 EV miles, and know the ups and downs of EV ownership. The EV is driven just about every day, for every type of automobile trip you can imagine. What I offer is direct, extensive experience in ownership and the CA situation surrounding the ZEV mandate of the 90's - the mandate that gave us all the cars I've owned.

I did not start driving an EV to save money. Nor did I install our PV system to save money. But MAN, it sure turned out that way. When gas hit $5 around here, suddenly I was transformed from the "crazy guy with electric cars and solar panels," to the smartest guy on the block.

OK, I'll stop. You go.

[idleprocess]

Wow. I've been called out. Or at least named.

I am an outsider to electric transportation, but have been interested in it for years - mostly after reading Natural Capitalism (which regrettably got it terribly wrong when it came to alternative energy sources for transportation).

I would actually like to see individual transportation re-thought in this country over time. Presently, the accepted modes of actually getting someplace are first and foremost drive, with walking a distant second and biking dead last. If you're going to drive, it has to be in a 4-wheel vehicle of some sort weighing in at more than a ton or take your chances with a motorcycle of some sort that offers zero protection in the event of a crash. Walking can be done, but it is usually over great distances through terrain hostile and inconvenient to pedestrians. Bicycling is mostly thought of as recreational (thus meandering "bike trails" running through residential areas), or done out on the street with cars massing more than 10 times as much typically traveling 4 times as fast.

We should probably consider balancing transportation to suit how people really move around in a city.

Instead of catering exclusively to highway-capable automobiles, we ought to think about designing cities on a more human scale and with a second mode of motorized transport ... something like those NEVs that Darell dislikes (and given the present realities of urban/suburban layout, I do too).

Look at the present layout of any city. Some huge percentage of the land is dedicated to the motor car, be it superhighways, deadspots around highway interchanges, city streets, parking lots, or the garage attached to most homes.

A much smaller, lighter vehicle sized for going intermediate distances (across the city and back) that doesn't have to be able to survive colliding with four-ton trucks, sized for carrying a few people and a reasonable cargo capacity coul dissplace the automobile for most commuters at a fraction of the cost, energy use, and allocated space.

This would require significant re-layout of cities with dedicated routes for these "local commuter" vehicles - perhaps blending in bike lanes with a hard separation between them and automobile lanes? Not a small project by any means.

...

Of course, this isn't happening anytime soon. We're looking at evolutionary approaches to transportation rather than civillization-restructuring revolutionary changes, so highway-capable BEVs will be the best way to address the energy-independence, national security, pollution, and cost-of-ownership problems associated with the automobile.

I'm looking foward to all the PHEVs that have been announced, myself. I may be in a position to take the plunge on one in 2010 when they're supposed to be hitting the streets in quantity.

[Darell]

Well written. And of course there's nothing to disagree with there. (come on, you can do better than that!)

Seriously, I love your description of the various transportation modes. I spend lots of my time trying to bring bicycling up into the "transportation" mode in my city. You are correct that it is ONLY considered recreation here, and thus an afterthought in any sort of infrasctructure planning. Build it and they will come... that's just what we get with roads and cars. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

[idleprocess]

I would hate for this to become the Darell and Idle show since we don't disagree on a whole lot...

I will say that one thing bothering me about numerous other EV advocates I've talked with is how conceited and condescending they can be towards the rest of the driving public.

The average person seems to have a number of concerns about EVs - mostly along the lines of being able to drive distances comparable to a gas car between fillups, the ability to refill quickly, and able to drive on the highway.

Most EV advocates are realistic enough to accept that highway-capable EVs are a must (save for the NEV crowd that manages to fit most of their life into the tiny footprint a NEV can work in).

It's maddening watching some EV supporters snap back on the other two concerns - and I don't understand why.

40/60/80/etc miles' range might be fine for someone exceptionally dedicated to the cause able to structure their work and living arrangements around such a number, but the general public isn't likely to accept the concept. Even if public charging were available nearly everywhere for free, I doubt the range limitations would go over so well in a society where everyone is pressed for time.

Same for recharge time. While 6-8 hours, overnight would work for most commuters, it could be a bad limitation for anyone that needs to make an unexpected long-distance errand. The ideal 5-minute total recharge concept simply won't work on a practical level, but having no choice but to trickle the juice in over 6-8 hours is not going to go over well for the masses.

I realize that newer EV designs are addressing the latter two points, but EV movement does itself no favors by dismissing them. I'm not sure why they do it ... "green" snobbery? Elitism? Scoffing those unwilling or unable to shape their life around such limitations?

[jtr1962]

Originally Posted by idleprocess

I realize that newer EV designs are addressing the latter two points, but EV movement does itself no favors by dismissing them. I'm not sure why they do it ... "green" snobbery? Elitism? Scoffing those unwilling or unable to shape their life around such limitations?

I think part of the reason is many EV advocates tend to look at the big picture. In the big picture car simply isn't the best way to travel long distances. It's way too slow and energy intensive compared to steel wheel on steel rail. The fact that we often don't have viable alternatives to the car is really what is overlooked. If the US had an extensive system of high-speed rail connected to local transit systems then the answer is obvious-if you're going much further than the range of an EV then you're probably better off taking the train. Since that's obviously not the case in most of the country then this means our cars will occasionally be pressed into long distance service.

Now one of the things which annoys me personally is the tendency of many people to exaggerate their need for high range. If you only travel further than perhaps 200 miles round trip a few times a year then why does range matter? Just rent a gas car for those times. If you do long trips more frequently but also a lot of short trips, then why not have both a gas car and an EV? The problem is most people aren't rational when it comes to car purchases. How many people buy an SUV just in case they need towing or off-road capability, even when they never needed either of those things with their previous vehicle? Maybe what we need to do is have new vehicle buyers fill out a questionaire about their actual driving habits. This might make them see they don't need towing capability, 4-wheel drive, or the ability to get to 60 mph in 7 seconds. So to answer your question I think it comes down to EV advocates not understanding why the general driving public simply doesn't buy a car more in tune with their needs. Given the present state of the art ~300 mile EV range, I'd say most drivers would be quite happy, even without 5 minute recharge. If we can ever get 5 minute recharge to work, then the range issue just went out the window. After that it's all about getting EV costs in line with gas cars, and IMO that will be done within a few years.

[idleprocess]

Originally Posted by jtr1962

I think part of the reason is many EV advocates tend to look at the big picture. In the big picture car simply isn't the best way to travel long distances. It's way too slow and energy intensive compared to steel wheel on steel rail. The fact that we often don't have viable alternatives to the car is really what is overlooked. If the US had an extensive system of high-speed rail connected to local transit systems then the answer is obvious-if you're going much further than the range of an EV then you're probably better off taking the train. Since that's obviously not the case in most of the country then this means our cars will occasionally be pressed into long distance service.

We've been down this avenue of discussion before...

Society is not going to completely restructure its infrastructure just because it's inefficient and has certain downsides ala urban sprawl. There is too much invested in the physical infrastructure which does its job in spite of it all.

Mindset is not going to change with any speed either. The American dream by and large is to own a freestanding house with some breathing room around it. This does not implicitly require personal mechanized transportation, but it sure makes things easier.

The ancient cities of Europe and Asia are crowded little places with room on the wider streets for horsecarts and generally have not changed much over the eons - the "old city" remains old. Modern settlement patterns largely predate the motorcar - much like the east coast of the US - so cities are dense and well suited for mass transit. The western US was mostly settled post-motorcar, so sprawl is the reality.

I'm not suggesting that everything must go more or less as it has been going because human inertia is unstoppable, but we're not going to see anything like in my second post anytime soon.

[jtr1962]

Actually, I wasn't necessarily referring to the mass transit model in big cities on the East coast where you walk to the train. With park-and-ride you can integrate rail transit into almost any community. Sure, personal transit of some sort is absolutely the most convenient way to locally get around places with mostly single family homes on large lots. However, this is by definition fairly short hops ideally suited to EVs. You specifically mentioned longer trips where EVs might lack the range (let's say 250 miles or more each way), and for that I submit high-speed rail would be a much better option, even in the US. Stations can be spaced perhaps 30 miles apart, meaning for most people the station is well within the range of an EV if no local transit options exist. The speed of the train would more than make up for any waiting time. The ride is smoother, you don't need to kill your average speed by stopping for meals or bathroom breaks, you can do something else while riding the train, and it's way safer. At night the high-speed rail network can ship priority freight. In short, HSR can basically replace the Interstate Highway system with something which does the same job better, faster, and cheaper. Best of all, it requires no change at all in settlement patterns although that would be a good thing also.

While I agree things aren't going to change overnight regarding settlement patterns, I'm starting to see a certain disenchantment with the so-called American dream. People are spending almost as much time in their car as in their house. And for many a lawn is just a chore they lack the time for, so they hire gardeners. Besides all that, spread out living tends to result in isolation. The pre-motorcar settlement patterns were pretty much what existed throughout human history. It worked well for thousands of years. What happened post-motorcar was mostly an artificial construct designed around the automobile. We had residential, commercial, and industrial areas all neatly separated by miles of nothing, with no consideration at all given to those with no personal transit. It was neither organic nor logical. It may have offered a few tangible benefits to its residents, but the price paid was enormous in terms of land, resources, and mostly importantly time. So in the end the great experiment will fail, and we'll go back to time-tested patterns of living. It may take us another 50 years to see the charges completed, but with the real-estate bust we're already starting to see a mini-migration from the exurbs back to the cities, or at least the denser suburbs.

[Darell]

Originally Posted by idleprocess

We've been down this avenue of discussion before...

Society is not going to completely restructure its infrastructure just because it's inefficient and has certain downsides ala urban sprawl. There is too much invested in the physical infrastructure which does its job in spite of it all.

Idle... while what you say here is true, it gets away from your question which JTR answered so nicely. If I'd taken the time to answer your question, I'd at least want an acknowledgement of it! You asked why EV advocates sometimes responded about range the way they do, and JTR gave his well-reasoned take on it.

I'll give my own response when I have more time... unless we are now just arguing where society should be headed?

[idleprocess]

I can appreciate the long view, but given the relative slow creeping towards just changing the power source for EVs, long-range highway-capable EVs isn't a bad thing at all...

[McGizmo]

Maybe I can keep up with this thread although it is really out of interest and not need that I would do so.

Most of us have wants and we have needs and these may not be in sync but in either case, they are based on our knowledge and understanding of the situation, what is available and how it all fits together.

I am convinced that the automotive industry and related industries have done all that they can for the last 50 years, if not longer to, manage and manipulate our perceptions and understanding of transportation in a fashion best suiting their sales goals and often at odds with the reality at hand. Their interest is in telling us what we want and need and not aiding us in making informed decisions or providing us solutions based on what we might decide we want in light of truths and reality.

This forum and threads like this can aid members in making better self informed decisions on what they might want or need but ultimately they will be stuck with the alternatives and solutions made available by the industry.

If there is a sufficient and realistic demand for something, it is likely that a manufacturer will step up and supply that demand. However the demand has to be cohesive and recognized. If the past is any indication, beyond lip service, Detroit only listens to demands as they are manifest in the purchasing habits of its customers; not in terms of what their customers might like to purchase. As long as they feel they can dictate to their customers, I expect this is what they will do. I am optimistic that ultimately they will come around to some extent but not without significant loss to domestic jobs and and a customer base that was theirs by default but lost to indifference and greed, on their part.

I am rambling here. I read in some thread about some 60 billion dollar bail out the auto makers are seeking? If 60 billion dollars were seeded to a company like Tesla, would we possibly get more bang for our buck?

Darell, like his situation and circumstances, is atypical and not a model, IMHO, for the masses to follow. That is not to belittle his lot or to diminish what we can learn from his experiences.

I think there are a number of us members who are atypical and what works for us is not a widespread solution or reasonable to propose, in any significant scale. This is certainly true for me at any rate! Hell, I want an EV but don't need one and can't justify one; at least at present. My commute transportation consists of bare feet and there really is no viable option. In terms of a vehicle, my wants and needs are based essentially on sport and utility. I would love to put my money where my mouth is and drive around in a clean EV and make a political statement in doing so. However this would cost me a bundle and it is a cost I needn't pay; a luxury as it were.

I think the reason I feel compelled to post even though I realize that my personal situation is of no interest or significance to any of you is a perception that the SUV is a vehicle that does have its place and it is human nature that many will want it; regardless of actual need or the level of that need. Darell's primary vehicle at present is a SUV. My personal and selfish concern is that the thrust on EV's to a great extent seems to be primarily focused on the transport of people and this transport is in terms of comfort and safety. I have a friend who is adamant that she own a pickup and not just a passenger vehicle. She needs her pickup to be able to transport her garden waste and recycle materials to an appropriate place in lieu of leaving it at curbside. I see a real irony there! She is forced to a large carbon foot print vehicle in her attempt and desire to do the green thing!

The last car I purchased but later sold was a Toyota Matrix. What a cool and well designed utility vehicle!! The whole interior, aside from the driver's seat, could be converted into cargo space. Big on utility and in terms of sport, the car was fun to drive and allowed one the ability to transport not only needed stuff from the grocery or hardware store but fun and sporty equipment as well.

OK, I'll come out of the closet now. I want a SUEV and I am willing to pay for it well beyond actual need!

[jtr1962]

Originally Posted by McGizmo

I am convinced that the automotive industry and related industries have done all that they can for the last 50 years, if not longer to, manage and manipulate our perceptions and understanding of transportation in a fashion best suiting their sales goals and often at odds with the reality at hand. Their interest is in telling us what we want and need and not aiding us in making informed decisions or providing us solutions based on what we might decide we want in light of truths and reality.

Indeed, and it goes further than that. The auto industry has had great influence in helping shape settlement patterns which predispose one to needing an automobile. Prior to the 1950s, the auto was mostly a solution in search of a problem. The fairly well-to-do bought them. Even some working people could afford one. However, cars were nothing more than expensive toys for most. Sure, that drive to the country on weekends was nice, but if push came to shove you could dispense with the auto entirely.

After WWII it finally occurred to Detroit that they had to make the auto an indispensible part of life 7 days a week if they hoped to increase their market share. They did this with a vengeance by buying trolley/interurban lines, and then gutting service, or replacing them with inferior buses. As the poor service caused ridership to go down, Detroit said it was because they wanted cars instead. And disgusted or with no alternatives, many did indeed start buying cars. In order to get things further in their court, they pushed to build housing ever further from city centers. Lured by the promise of fresh air and land, many left the cities. We all know how this turned out. Detroit sold many cars, but at the same time sprawl, pollution, and traffic jams spread like wildfire. Nowadays in most parts of the country life without personal transportation is at best inconvenient, at worst impossible.

The only solace I take from this is that the auto industry can exert its great influence for the common good if they wanted to. I'm honestly hoping someone in Detroit gets the bright idea they can make a fortune building high-speed trainsets instead of cars. If they approach it the same way they did 50 years ago we'll be plowing over the entire Interstate Highway system. True that profit will still be the motive, but the country will end up with something which is sorely needed and makes a lot more sense than what we have.

If there is a sufficient and realistic demand for something, it is likely that a manufacturer will step up and supply that demand. However the demand has to be cohesive and recognized. If the past is any indication, beyond lip service, Detroit only listens to demands as they are manifest in the purchasing habits of its customers; not in terms of what their customers might like to purchase. As long as they feel they can dictate to their customers, I expect this is what they will do. I am optimistic that ultimately they will come around to some extent but not without significant loss to domestic jobs and and a customer base that was theirs by default but lost to indifference and greed, on their part.

I think someone here said it best. If enough people go to car dealers asking for a straight electric (not an EV with a gas engine like the Volt), and refuse to buy anything else, then the EVs will be made, including the SUEV you desire. I just hope they'll do better on the aerodynamics. There's no reason at all that SUVs have to be boxy in order to fulfill their function. Besides, good aerodynamics help with the all critical range issue.

I am rambling here. I read in some thread about some 60 billion dollar bail out the auto makers are seeking? If 60 billion dollars were seeded to a company like Tesla, would we possibly get more bang for our buck?

Now the figure is more likely $25 billion but I don't feel we should bail out the auto industry. They're failing because they advertised to get people to buy the vehicles they felt like making, as opposed to making vehicles more in tune with people's actual needs. And I guess consumers can share the blame for not critically evaluating what their actual needs were before buying a vehicle.

[Darell]

Originally Posted by McGizmo

Darell, like his situation and circumstances, is atypical

Probably the nicest thing you've said about me, Don. :sniff: I'm touched!

I really do have all kinds of neat replies to this (the question about why some EV advocates are all uppity about range and refuel time) that I've formulated in my mind while out riding today, but hell if I can suck up the effort or time that it would take to make it all cohesive.

[idleprocess]

Originally Posted by jtr1962

I think part of the reason is many EV advocates tend to look at the big picture. In the big picture car simply isn't the best way to travel long distances. It's way too slow and energy intensive compared to steel wheel on steel rail. The fact that we often don't have viable alternatives to the car is really what is overlooked. If the US had an extensive system of high-speed rail connected to local transit systems then the answer is obvious-if you're going much further than the range of an EV then you're probably better off taking the train. Since that's obviously not the case in most of the country then this means our cars will occasionally be pressed into long distance service.

I agree that rail needs more attention and investment. Regrettably, the only place that high-speed passenger rail works right now under present market conditions is the densely-populated northeast corridor.

It would probably be more cost-effective to build and maintain a high-speed rail network than the current airline system.

Now one of the things which annoys me personally is the tendency of many people to exaggerate their need for high range. If you only travel further than perhaps 200 miles round trip a few times a year then why does range matter? Just rent a gas car for those times. If you do long trips more frequently but also a lot of short trips, then why not have both a gas car and an EV?

For family vacations and other long car trips planned in advance, that's doable ... but not as convenient as using the family car you drive every day. For unplanned long-distance trips it might be a show-stopping nuisance if one is unable to rent a car within 30 minutes at 9PM because you need to drive to see your ailing grandma who was just taken to a hospital 500 miles away.

If there is a resulting push to make gasoline cars easier to rent or some other convenience for those rare occasions where you need a vehicle now, then the limited-range EV argument will be rather solid. Or if the commuter EV becomes cheap enough that you can easily own one and your mostly garage-kept gas car. Or some other circumstance I can't foresee at this point.

The problem is most people aren't rational when it comes to car purchases. How many people buy an SUV just in case they need towing or off-road capability, even when they never needed either of those things with their previous vehicle?

I agree - it's the fractional-percentage uses that sell vehicles. The carpool to the soccer game realistically happens once a month for three months. The boat is either never bought or spends all but three weekends a year occupying space in the backyard. The vast majority of SUVs never see legitimate off-roading ... even those with upgraded suspensions and brush guards (curiously, nickel-plated brush guards). Most sports cars don't approach their published 0-60 time on a regular basis at every stoplight or even accelerate faster than average getting on the highway.

But people buy them for those things anyway. And it's important to them for reasons they can't explain, are embarrassed to admit to, or will (usually wrongly) claim they need on a regular basis.

So to answer your question I think it comes down to EV advocates not understanding why the general driving public simply doesn't buy a car more in tune with their needs. Given the present state of the art ~300 mile EV range, I'd say most drivers would be quite happy, even without 5 minute recharge. If we can ever get 5 minute recharge to work, then the range issue just went out the window. After that it's all about getting EV costs in line with gas cars, and IMO that will be done within a few years.

Humans, while having immense capacity for being rational, do not always exercise said facility - even when it might benefit them. Excess appeals to us rather than what actually suits our needs - which are often boring or even displeasing to us.

I could personally "settle" handily for a 200-300 mile range EV, especially if public recharging in the 30-60 minute range became a reality should I need to take a long trip somewhere. 300 miles would get me to my parents' house some 200 miles away where I'm sure they could be talked into letting me plug into their dryer outlet overnight. 200 miles would probably get me there, but that would be stretching it - would be a real shame to stretch out the trip some and explore some of the local flavor between here and there while recharging that I usually experience at 60 MPH nonstop.

[Darell]

Originally Posted by idleprocess

IIf there is a resulting push to make gasoline cars easier to rent or some other convenience for those rare occasions where you need a vehicle now, then the limited-range EV argument will be rather solid.

I've been saying this for years. And how hard would it be? Most folks discount the "rent when you need long range" idea because of the hassle of the current model. Sure doesn't need to be like that! The company that sells you an EV could also be in the long-distance car rental business. They find out your credit history and all that when you buy the car, so now they know more about you than they need. You are issued a membership card, and when you are ready to rent, you go on line to see what is available, and reserve it. You drive your EV to the lot (where they keep it/wash it/ charge it for you). You swipe your card to gain entrance to the rental lot, hop in your reserved car and you're own your way. Return and swipe again, and the bill is sent to you. They're doing car share all over the place now, and it is astonishingly simple. The car rental industry could easily do the same thing.

[Darell]

Originally Posted by idleprocess

I will say that one thing bothering me about numerous other EV advocates I've talked with is how conceited and condescending they can be towards the rest of the driving public.

The average person seems to have a number of concerns about EVs - mostly along the lines of being able to drive distances comparable to a gas car between fillups, the ability to refill quickly, and able to drive on the highway.

...

It's maddening watching some EV supporters snap back on the other two concerns - and I don't understand why.

40/60/80/etc miles' range might be fine for someone exceptionally dedicated to the cause able to structure their work and living arrangements around such a number, but the general public isn't likely to accept the concept.

...

but having no choice but to trickle the juice in over 6-8 hours is not going to go over well for the masses.

...

but EV movement does itself no favors by dismissing them. I'm not sure why they do it ... "green" snobbery? Elitism? Scoffing those unwilling or unable to shape their life around such limitations?

OK, I'm going to take a stab at this and *attempt* to make it short. I could probably write for days...

I'm going to pretend that you were asking the question of me directly since it is easier than talking around it. And I know for a fact that I've ticked some people off with my "snapping." I am an EV advocate. No surprise there... I talk to the "general public" about EVs every day, as most EV drivers do. And it is often an AMAZINGLY frustrating experience. We hear the same negative/mis-informed/ignorant comments over and over. And you know what? We're human. It gets to us. We screw up. Everything we do does not advance our "cause." If we "snap back" it is not out of snobbery or elitism, it is mostly out of frustration. We are told, in no uncertain terms, that we're idiots for driving EVs. That they're too constricting and inconvenient. They are "scoffing" at us for being such slaves to our transportation. (You'll notice how I'm using your same words on the other side of the fence here??) Folks will read or hear something negative about EVs, and then instead of choosing to ask or to discuss the subject with a person who quite obviously has direct experience in the subject, this information will often be presented as indisputable fact. When this information directly conflicts with reality, it is not always easy to keep smiling and nodding.

I so often see just the opposite of what you say here. I see the EV opponents being all the things you accuse the proponents of being. Conceited and condescending. How many times do we have to hear, "I drive this gas guzzler because I can afford to?" As if I'm driving an EV because of my financial status, and I'm just jealous of the people rich enough to afford a Navigator?

So we're told that the motoring public won't accept low range and long recharge times. It is stated as if this is indisputable fact. Isn't even that a bit snobby? To know what everybody else wants? And we're told this by people who have never experienced the limited range of EVs. We're told it by people who somehow just *know* that the motoring public won't accept anything less than 400 miles range and 5-minute refill. Do they know this because they have their finger on the pulse of the motoring public? Or are they saying it because that is their personal situation/experience/guess? And does this personal experience/guess count more than mine? Recall that the American car makers have said that they're just selling the cars that Americans want. That worked out REALLY well there for a while, didn't it? How's it working out now? Did the car makers forget that our wants might change?

All EV drivers that I know were and often still are, gas-car drivers as well. We can compare and contrast the convenience/limitations/benefits of the two technologies side-by-side. A luxury that non-EV drivers don't have. (uh-oh, does that make us eliteists?) Non-EV drivers have direct gas car experience, and no EV experience. And yet many want to argue the EV experience. I'm not about to argue with my wife about how the delivery of our daughter couldn't have really hurt THAT much.

You use the word "maddening" - and again, you've got to try on my shoes for a bit. How maddening is it for people to tell me every day that my batteries will need to be replaced every two years? That plugging in is a real hassle? That my tires will wear out in 20,000 miles because of the extra battery weight? That my car can't go up hills? That my car might be good for "around town." (how many towns are 100 miles across, exactly?)

When EV advocates are defending EVs, they are not doing it for personal reasons, that I can tell. Hell, we already have our EVs! In fact, the more EVs we have on the road, the more competition there will be at the public chargers! We're trying to crush the rumors and and misinformation that people have been inundated with for years. We're not doing it for personal gain, we're doing it because we think it is the right thing to do. And we screw up. We sometimes piss people off. We tell them things they don't want to hear, or we say things that are taken wrong. When I say that EVs will work for about 80% of the automotive trips taken in the US, a normal response is, "EVs won't work, because I can't use one for everything." It is maddening, because no car works for everything. Because a car doesn't have to work for everything nor everybody for it to work perfectly for somebody else. And most importantly, I never said EVs would work for everybody, nor every trip! NEVER. Haven't even implied it. Maddening, yes.

I agree that the average person has a number of concerns about EVs. Unfortunately, the average person also seems to be quite familiar with all the real and perceived negatives of EVs (coal-powered! Pollutes somewhere else! Batteries are heavy! Takes lots of energy to build them! Batty disposal! Short range! Expensive!) and seems to know almost nothing about the benefits. And the benefits, for many, far out-weigh the negatives.

Somehow, and I'm not sure how it happened, we decided as a society that in order to be viable, that our cars must go for 400 miles between fill-ups, and that fill-up must be very fast. And some folks definitely need this ability long-range fast-fill ability. So let's concentrate on the millions upon millions who never need it... and then maybe the ones that rarely need it. That's a lot of cars to replace before we have to work on the harder cases. And in the meantime, the range and refill times will be incrementally improved for even the higher-hanging fruit.

There comes a point when we realize that we can't have everything just because we wish it to be true, or because we're used to having it that way. Sucks for sure. But that's reality for you. I'm not willing to accept gasoline over $1/gallon, for example

OK, I'm going to try to stop because my arthritic hands are killing me.

Thanks for listening to my ramble.

[McGizmo]

I think the rental idea is sound and it could extend to the larger utility needs as well. Actually it already does but most people only think of renting a car when they have flown to a destination and not in their own back yard. If you need a pickup once every month to haul some rubbish I suspect it pencils out on the save side to rent a truck once month as opposed to driving a truck every day and only needing the bed and capacity 12 times a year.

Here on Maui, tourism is big and it wouldn't surprise me if rental cars aren't a very significant portion of the vehicles on the road.

I have this fantasy that I think would work but doubt it will come to be in my life time anyway. On the island, even if you are a tourist and plan to drive around the island and up to the crater, it is unlikely you would put more than 200 miles on a rental car in a day. There is a new development near my house and I understand that in order to get the permits to build, the site is close to self sufficient. It supposedly has its own desalination system for water and PV and generators for its own power. My fantasy is that a development like this would have its own rental fleet of vehicles and that they would be electric. A shuttle takes you to and from the airport and you have an EV for personal transport while vacationing.

I think if properly designed and implemented, a resort could have as its theme, "A Green Vacation". I think it would sell and it would also give EV and other green programs a chance to be experienced and appreciated by folks who have not had such an experience. Hawaii has wind, sun, wave action and geothermal and could showcase alternative energy systems. It could also benefit in reducing the freighters coming and going with fuel and waste!

The islands are perfectly suited for EVs. On a much smaller scale, I think of Catalina Island off So. Cal where the majority of vehicles are golf carts and this has been the case for a long time; well before any advances in batteries or electric motors.

Man if I had Darell's PV and EV set up here, I would really be smug! Unfortunately the economy and industry and infrastructure over here is focused primarily on the tourist trade and the local market and needs are secondary.

[Darell]

Oh man, that's a beautiful dream, Don. For many years I have been pained to see all these 500-mile capable gas cars on the small island of Kaua'i. Tip to tip of the island is about 70 miles. Gas, of course, is expensive and imported at great environmental and financial expense. And there's a bit of native sunshine!

If there ever was a place where PV and EV would be ideal (hey, and no rusted exhaust pipes!) it is HI. There IS no long-range travel. Ever. There is enough sunshine everywhere to make power. Importing energy is a big ol' loser.

Last statistic that I heard about Kaua'i is that approximately half of the automobiles on the island were vacation rentals.

If I had any business sense whatsoever, I would be trying to build a PV/EV business on Kaua'i. Problem is, how would I fit it around the swimming and diving?

[McGizmo]

Darell,
The concept eludes me but time shares are real big over here. The Westin has overwhelmed the beach I go to and I understand they are now selling units at a new development on Kauai. We pitch the concept of "Green Time Shares" to a new development and then consult and aid in the design and construction and then augment the economy of scale of the EV fleet by extending it beyond the complex and into the hands of additional tourists and local residents. Get on it , would you.

I have thought about pitching a "Haole's Dream" to the local Maui paper. In it, ideas such as this but in addition a local industry of PV systems and SSL are integrated in rentals, condos, time shares and private residences. A Maui Green; Tried and True line of products could be made local and used local and shipped out as well. The islands have a bunch of incoming freight but I imagine that the freighters leave partially empty. Why not send them off with some cool green stuff! The locals need work! The building trades can hardly be sustainable given the finite land. At least I hope the building slows down!! The sugar cane and pineapple industry is not what it once was. The fish are being depleted at alarming rates.

[Darell]

When will the building stop? I mean really. Our economy depends on expansion to stay healthy. So a healthy economy means unhealthy everything else? Help!

This is one of the problems I face as an EV proponent. I don't want ever-increasing numbers of automobiles on the planet... but if we take that for a given, then they'd better stop burning gas. Not sure where to draw the line.

But back to reality for a moment... you get that business going (either island, or both) and I'll come empty the trash and mop the floors. I'm dependable!

[Darell]

And for my non-sequiter of the day... (well, maybe it fits in with what the public is willing to "accept" in thier vehicles relative to what they've gotten used to)

I often wonder what would happen if EVs had 100 years of development behind them, and today they were capable of 400+ miles of range, phenomenal performance (don't need any more development for that!) and capable of quick recharge (ah, don't need much development for that either - just deployment if we determine it is worth the effort and expense). Assume that the same money as has been spent on gas stations was instead spent on charging infrastructure, and we had quick chargers every 10 miles on the interstates, and at every large parking facility. Mechanic's shops are obviously tooled and educated for battery maintenance (meaning not much to do). The energy all came from renewable sources, so we were energy independent and our air was as clean as Beijing during the Olympics.

Then, suddenly, in 2008, some crazy guy has the idea to introduce a gasoline car! What does the public conclude when they hear from the press the following key features.

• The car is powered with gasoline, a toxic, flammable, carcinogenic liquid fuel.
• We have almost no control over where our oil to make the gasoline comes from, its supply, or how much it costs.
• We'll use tax money to keep our oil "rights" secure.
• You are prohibited from fueling your car at home, and must drive to a special location for this service
• You must stand around at this "station" while the tank fills... and don't smoke, or create static electricity, trying not to drip any on your hands.
• There are so few gas stations, and they are so expensive to build that you can only really drive these cars in CA where there are at least a few gas stations.
• The price of your fuel changes daily, for no apparent reason and with no advance warning.
• The fuel is 8-10 times more expensive (and rising) than the electricity you used to use.
• Only about 15% of the energy in the gasoline you buy goes into pushing the car down the road. The rest is lost in noise and heat and forming pollution.
• You won't be able to easily drive across the country unless billion$ is dumped into fueling infrastructure first
• All fuel to the gas station must be delivered by huge (fuel-burning) trucks that you are sharing the freeway with.
• You cannot make your fuel at home from the source you choose.
• The fuel only lasts a short time in storage, and there is no safe way of disposing of "sour gas."
• You will have a constant fear of "running out of juice."
• The car requires regular, expensive maintenance to keep it running correctly; oil changes, plugs, filters, etc.
• The cars make these "vroom, vroom" noises.
• The cars all spew exhaust that is toxic to everything that lives.
• Rescue personnel will leave you to die instead of risk the danger that spilled gasoline would present at an accident site.
• Nobody knows how to work on these cars, so the danger of being stranded with a breakdown is significant.
• The technology is untested, and relies on so many high-precision parts to work perfectly, that the chance of breakdown is significant.
• The cars get worse gas mileage and pollute more as they age.
• They can be difficult to start on a really cold morning... unless you keep them plugged in over night (finally, something familiar!)
• Oil must circulate, and the engine must warm up a bit before you can use the full power of the engine.
• The car must have a transmission that changes gear ratios constantly to give you enough power to be happy.
• The car will have NO torque at zero RPM.
• When you slow down, all of your kinetic energy is simply wasted to heat instead of used to refill your fuel tank.
• The car will continue to burn fuel and pollute even when you are stopped.
• You have to keep the car running if you just want heat or AC
• The cars eventually leak oil on your garage floor and on the roads... and into the storm drains.

Quick, get on the list to buy one of the first units!

[jtr1962]

Darell, I love it! That should be posted all over the Internet. Yes, if gas cars were invented today, there's no way anyone would even consider them.

[Darell]

Thanks!

On the same subject, could you imagine trying to make the case to commercialize gasoline as a transportation fuel today... assuming we'd never used it before.

So you hand out the MSDS (have a look!) for this product, and tell folks that they'll be dispensing it themselves next to other people doing the same, and then driving around with thousands of others on the road full of this stuff. You can easily spill some on yourself, and you'll certainly be breathing it at the filling station. You'll be parking many 10's of gallons of this stuff in your attached garage... right next to where your kids sleep! It will be dumped on the pavement in the event of a big accident. There will be tanker trucks with thousands of gallons of this also dodging the little cars on the roads.

But you haven't lived until you've started a siphon of it by mouth!

Honestly, I don't think it would ever be allowed to be commercialized today.

[idleprocess]

Originally Posted by Darell

Thanks for listening to my ramble.

Great post. I appreciate it.

[Steve K]

hi gang,

Great to listen in on this discussion!

On the subject of renting ICE cars for long trips, I have two ideas/thoughts:

1. If 25% of the households try to go out and rent a ICE car to meet family for Thanksgiving, how many cars will that be? And will a rental company want to keep that many cars in inventory if they only get rented on Easter/Memorial Day/Thanksgiving/Christmas? (for non-USA members, insert your own holidays of interest).

2. instead of renting a separte ICE car, what if people rented a small trailer that houses a ICE & generator? If it allowed you to provide charge to the battery while driving, you could still travel long distances and quickly refuel. Sort of like a plug-in hybrid that could leave the ICE behind when needed. In a perfect world, you could also use the generator for back-up power at your house.... at least to keep the freezer from thawing, or to keep medical items powered.

I'd swear that I saw a small Honda set up like this years ago. Is this possible or practical?

*note: I'm basing this on life here in the mid-west, where mass transit really doesn't exist.

Steve in Peoria,
contemplating what car to buy when my '96 Acura Integra eventually croaks..

[Darell]

Originally Posted by Steve K

1. If 25% of the households try to go out and rent a ICE car to meet family for Thanksgiving, how many cars will that be? And will a rental company want to keep that many cars in inventory if they only get rented on Easter/Memorial Day/Thanksgiving/Christmas? (for non-USA members, insert your own holidays of interest).

Yeah, the time of demand thing is a good point, but not a show-stopper I think. There will be times when there are no rentals available when people want them. Just like sometimes there are no airline flights available when people want to get somewhere. The supply/demand will have to find a happy place. I'm sure that rental places all over the country deal with this already. There must be times when nobody wants a car, and other times when they run out.

2. instead of renting a separte ICE car, what if people rented a small trailer that houses a ICE & generator? If it allowed you to provide charge to the battery while driving, you could still travel long distances and quickly refuel. Sort of like a plug-in hybrid that could leave the ICE behind when needed. In a perfect world, you could also use the generator for back-up power at your house.... at least to keep the freezer from thawing, or to keep medical items powered.

Well, this was already seriously considered. Check here: http://evnut.com/rav_longranger.htm

A good friend of mine currently owns that very generator trailer. There are some advantages and drawbacks. One of the big drawbacks is parking with the thing. If Grandma lives in San Francisco, you're screwed. But in some cases it would be ideal. You drive around at home for most of the year. Then you go visit Grandma and hook up the trailer for the 2,000 mile drive. You get there and unhook the trailer for all your local driving around grandma's. Repeat. But then you need some place to store that trailer (or rent it like you suggest). Definitely has some possibilities. But I'm afraid that your typical driver is not going to want to deal with hooking/unhooking/parking/backing with a trailer.

The idea behind the Chevy Volt is that you have a generator trailer built into the car. The down-side there is that you have to drag around the ICE, gas tank and exhaust everywhere you go, even when all you need is battery power for 50, 70, 90% of your driving. But the convenience is huge!

[Steve K]

That Rav Long Ranger is pretty slick! Very well executed, especially since I'm pretty sure it wasn't purchased at the local Toyota dealership!

I'm guessing that there are ways to make backing up tolerable, even if it's a matter of increasing the length of the tongue. Did the rear view camera do the trick? And was a 20kW generator adequate? Hard to imagine that 20kW is the average power demand. Or does the driver just have to accept slower hill climbing abilities, etc.?

As has been mentioned soooo many times, there's no single solution to transportation. I think I'd like to see a few of these generator trailers down at the rental shop next to the rental ICE cars. I'd be willing to bet that the rental shop would rather keep 10 trailers in stock than 10 ICE cars, at least as far as ROI is concerned.

Changing subjects slightly... I saw Bob Lutz on the Colbert Report yesterday, promoting the Chevy Volt. One thing that surprised me was that the Volt has a 1.4 liter ICE, and Bob described it as tiny. Tiny?? I think my '89 Integra had a 1.6 liter engine in it, and it wasn't tiny (or even nearly tiny). Can I assume that the Volt isn't an especially lightweight or aerodynamic car? i.e. it's not going after the Prius demographic? While I'm glad Bob and the boys are offering the Volt, I'm a bit surprised to see Bob disagree with the majority scientific opinion on global warming (Bob wasn't going to agree that G.W. is due to CO2 or that mankind is contributing to it).

Thanks for sharing the Long Ranger with us!

Steve

[Griff]

everybody needs one of these

[Darell]

Originally Posted by Steve K

That Rav Long Ranger is pretty slick! Very well executed, especially since I'm pretty sure it wasn't purchased at the local Toyota dealership!

There were only a couple made - at great expense. They were contracted by Toyota. AC Propulsion made them.

I'm guessing that there are ways to make backing up tolerable, even if it's a matter of increasing the length of the tongue.[/quote]
actually they have automatic steering if you can believe that. You just back up like nothing is back there. The problem is, you are still longer, and still can't see where the thing is! Everybody who's tried it has managed to jack it into something at some point!

Did the rear view camera do the trick?

Yup. Helped a LOT!

And was a 20kW generator adequate? Hard to imagine that 20kW is the average power demand. Or does the driver just have to accept slower hill climbing abilities, etc.?

20 kW is more than enough for constant freeway cruising. At 65mph and below the generator is managing to increase the charge in the batteries as you go. In general, you can drive 65 mph for as long as there is gasoline in the tank. (the whole system gets about 30mpg when in use at those speeds, much better at lower speeds).

and Bob described it as tiny. Tiny??

Yeah. His perception is a bit off, huh? And he sure has backed off on the performance. Originally, this thing was going to be a rocket ship of a car. And was going to sell for under $30k. Oops.

[qutoe] I'm a bit surprised to see Bob disagree with the majority scientific opinion on global warming [/quote]
Didn't surprise me a bit, actually.

[Brock]

Hey I have my EV, not as nice as Darells, but I have over 600 miles on it so far this summer.



It tops out about 45 mph on fresh batteries but regular runs about 40 mph on flat roads. It has five 12v 30 ah batteries, I charge it via solar as well

[Darell]

You're such a biker stud. You should wear your leathers in your next shot!