Musk, Others Want Volkswagen To Go Electric Instead of Fixing Diesels (washingtonpost.com) 313
An anonymous reader writes: Volkswagen has put itself in a tough spot. After cheating emissions standards, the company faces billions in fines and repair costs to bring those vehicles into spec and make peace with regulators. But a group of business owners, investors, and environmentalists has a different suggestion. The group, headlined by Elon Musk, sent an open letter to the California Air Resources Board outlining their solution. They want Volkswagen to be released from its obligation to fix cars already on the road, and instead require that the company substantially accelerate its rollout of zero-emission vehicles.
They want Volkswagen's money to go into manufacturing plants and R&D for zero-emission technology rather than to government-mandated fines. (Note that these investments would give Musk, in particular, another direct competitor.) The letter says, "In contrast to the punishments and recalls being considered, this proposal would be a real win for California emissions, a big win for California jobs, and a historic action to help derail climate change. The bottleneck to the greater availability of zero emissions vehicles is the availability of batteries. There is an urgent need to build more battery factories to increase battery supply, and this proposal would ensure that large battery plant and related investments, with their ensuing local jobs, would be made in the U.S. by VW."
They want Volkswagen's money to go into manufacturing plants and R&D for zero-emission technology rather than to government-mandated fines. (Note that these investments would give Musk, in particular, another direct competitor.) The letter says, "In contrast to the punishments and recalls being considered, this proposal would be a real win for California emissions, a big win for California jobs, and a historic action to help derail climate change. The bottleneck to the greater availability of zero emissions vehicles is the availability of batteries. There is an urgent need to build more battery factories to increase battery supply, and this proposal would ensure that large battery plant and related investments, with their ensuing local jobs, would be made in the U.S. by VW."
Musk be a good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Musk be a good idea (Score:5, Funny)
At least they won't waste any on that there highfalutin' edumacation.
Re: (Score:2)
Comma?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Joke
Your head
Where do batteries come from? (Score:3)
The article notes that VW would become a new competitor to Musk. It also notes that the bottleneck for electric vehicles is availability of batteries. But Musk is currently building the largest battery factory in the world, in Nevada. So VW would also be a customer of the Musk batteries. So now we know why Musk is so excited about VW entering the electric market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I get the impression that Musk isn't the typical sociopath business leader.
He wants to change the world in positive ways. Money is a means to that end.
Currently, I trust him more than many. I hope that trust isn't disappointed.
Re: (Score:2)
Let them keep the money, then our government.
I don't understand, are you saying that VW should keep our government? Or do you mean 'the government should keep their money'.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a time when slashdot had more useful posts than posts from pedants. People make mistakes in an informal forum such as this. Some of them aren't even native English speakers.
Being pedantic doesn't prove anyone's intelligence. It just proves that they nitpick informal communications and make assumptions as to the OP's language skills.
Re: (Score:2)
People make mistakes in an informal forum such as this. Some of them aren't even native English speakers.
I was giving the poster the benefit of the doubt because I couldn't work out if it was sarcasm, making a point, a joke, subtle or, stupid. Perhaps they were tired or, as you say, not native English speakers.
Being pedantic doesn't prove anyone's intelligence. It just proves that they nitpick informal communications and make assumptions as to the OP's language skills.
Jumping to conclusions and being overly sensitive about someone asking a question doesn't help build understanding either.
I reject your accusation that imposes your value system onto me. Asking a question is not being pedantic, it's giving someone an opportunity to clarify their point because the onus
Zero emissions??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of US electricity is produced from coal and gas, zero emissions my ass. 67% coal/gas/petroleum. 19% is nuclear, technically zero emissions apart from the waste.
I think they first need to get the generation of electricity cleaned up before pretending the electric cars are zero emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Electric cars technically are zero emission vehicles, and are a not-insignificant half of the pollution equation. They're not pretending anything - you're assigning the attributes to cars incorrectly.
It's shortsighted to suggest that there's no point to making electric cars because electricity is currently dirty; fossil fuel cars will continue to emit carbon even after you change the source of electricity to renewables. Get the fleets replaced with ZEVs, then as renewable producers replace carbon based ge
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound like 'suitable for base load' is a good thing. Base load is the part of the power generation capacity that never needs to be throttled. Nuclear is good for that because nuclear (and coal as well) are very slow to respond to changes in demand.
What is really needed is something that can adapt rapidly to changes in demand or compensate for intermittent PV and wind production. At present, those are gas turbines and hydro. Other approaches are (battery) storage and letting the demand follow the
Re: (Score:3)
If it's a smart meter (like he said) you'd be able to set your parameter for cheap higher than, say, a pensioner who wouldn't mind delaying his shopping another day if it saves him a few dollars.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why you take the precaution of wearing a parachute when fallout off a cliff.
Too bad the anti-cliff crowd has made it a point to outlaw parachutes so they can scream louder about how impossibly deadly it is with no hope whatsoever of being made safer.
Re: (Score:2)
And, much more significantly, the catastrophes. Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Re: (Score:3)
Completely clean and safe, except for the radioactive waste. That's like saying falling off a cliff is perfectly harmless, except for the landing.
It's not emissions free either. Carbon inputs from concrete during construction, oil/coal are the main energetic inputs during mining uranium. Coal is/was burnt to power the enrichment process to get the fuel. So there is also a large carbon input to Nuclear Power.
CFC114 used during enrichment is also a potent greenhouse gas so Nuclear power isn't zero emission in many respects.
Re: (Score:2)
Never said shit about safe, just zero emissions. I'm assuming they mean 'greenhouse gasses' in particular.
CFC114 used in the enrichment process is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. The EPA listed Nuclear refinement facilities as the top emitters of these gasses for many years. You can find the reports on their website.
Re: (Score:2)
"Soup is Good Food" campaign by Campbells. (Score:5, Interesting)
Greater acceptance and availability of electric vehicles and the growth of electric vehicle market segment would benefit Musk, and it also adds to hi good guy image. It is quite possible Musk appears to be a good guy is because he *is* actually a good guy.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a new market, with lots and lots of growth potential, it may easily grow 100 times the size it's now (not knowing the exact numbers I'd guess electric vehicles are less than 1% of the world car market currently).
A big problem that I see for electric vehicles is still the recharging, especially recharging while on the go. It may be technically possible in the lab, but not implemented much if at all in the real world, More electric vehicles means more electric infrastructure and that's good for Musk.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Volkswagen would not buy batteries they would make them. About the only thing on the offing would be a buyout of Tesla by Volkswagen to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles and the ban of the infernal combustion engine. A sound and logical move for Volkswagen. They have stuck themselves in a really deep shit pit and the only way out is to make a big move, a really big move and going all electric for future car development, for a car manufacturer would be the biggest move they could make. First in w
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that - Musk is after VW's business. He wants them to be forced to produce massive numbers of cars that need massive numbers of batteries. That, as the CEO of a large battery company with a car marketing devision, is *hugely* advantageous to him.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about a guy who made his fortune with PayPal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. And then, because they will not have time to develop their own, being pressed for time under the "accelerated schedule", they will have to license his technology.
Bravo, Mr. Musk, very well played! Is not Crony Capitalism nice?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is 100% good.
Re: (Score:2)
Using their proprietary system. In France they were forced to install standard CCS chargers along side superchargers so that non Tesla vehicles could use them.
Again, Nissan installed combined chargers that will supply either of the two major standards (CHAdeMO and CCS), even though they only use one type themselves.
Infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
Musk is smart. The more competition he has in electric car manufacturers, the less is his share in the infrastructure of recharging stations, battery building, and the research and tech behind it all. The more companies that jump on the electric car path, the easier it is for him to sell cars (though he seems a little more high minded than that which is why I like him).
Re: Infrastructure (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
This and most car companies use a lot of common parts between them. More electric car makers means cheaper parts for tesla
Can't think of many off the top of my head unless they're rebranded from Europe to NA, Asia to NA, Asia to Europe and so on. And they're part of a co-manufacturing pact(see GM and Suzuki). You could pull a Opal intake manifold off a car and slap it onto a Saturn, you could pull a disk or drum brake off a Saturn and slap it on a SAAB. But you're not going to be pulling a intake manifold off a Cadillac or BMW and slapping it on a Charger or Audi. Nor many other parts these days, they simply don't have a co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
k. But talking regular cars, how often do you see cross-platform parts? Not very often, it's stupidly rare. Which is what the parent poster was alluding to. I don't do much in terms of working on cars anymore(I am a licensed mechanic in the Province of Ontario), but I keep enough to know what's going on in the industry and two of my friends are mechanics, one of which owns his own garage, the other works at a major GM dealership here in Ontario.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Musk is smart. The more competition he has in electric car manufacturers, the less is his share in the infrastructure of recharging stations, battery building, and the research and tech behind it all. The more companies that jump on the electric car path, the easier it is for him to sell cars (though he seems a little more high minded than that which is why I like him).
Musk is smart, but not for the reasons you mention. No, Musk is smart and has invested heavily in components required for EV. Every EV that Volkswagen would sell would be profit to him.
Re: (Score:2)
He also sells batteries. If EV batteries wind up standardized, he can make a good chunk of change selling parts for other maker's EVs, as well as having his own vehicles.
Realistically, energy density by volume is a big limiting factor for many, many technologies. If Musk or someone else can get a stable battery that is 1/10 the energy density (by volume) of gasoline or diesel, this would be a major game changer. Already, IC engines are relatively inefficient... At best, 35% energy goes into twisting the
Re: (Score:2)
I feel dumb by asking, but I have looked at a few fuel cells. The VeGA from Truma looked promising, but was killed early. However, having the ability to get 10-20 ampere-hours a day from the propane system on a RV would be quite useful (just so the absorption fridge can be tossed.)
The current fuel cell I see fairly often is EFOY's. It isn't cheap, around $4-7k depending on how many watts per day you want, but it uses a container of methanol for its work.
Is it a limitation of fuel cell technology to have
The eGolf is quite the effort... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not an unproven model (leaf)
Renault-Nissan bangs out new hatchbacks all the time, and they're always adequate, unlike Toyota which brings out new cars which suck fucking ass. Echo was a shitpile. Yaris, likewise. On what basis? Compare them to an equally-priced Nissan. Don't just do it on paper, actually go and drive them. You will be throwing rocks at Toyotas in no time. Don't get me wrong, the Golf is a great car, but there's nothing wrong with the Leaf. It's a car.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, this is not about your need to find someone to dump on.
(Reading comprehension. You ought to try it sometime.)
VW have fundamental engineering issues (Score:2)
My wife has a 2011 VW Jetta (Mexican made) It had its water pump replaced after six months and the replacement pump has just failed now. The car has gone 62000 km. This is crap. Water pumps were a solved problem 200 years ago. Any Japanese engine will go 300000km before serious problems set in.
Maybe musk should just buy VW shells and put his drive lines inside.
Re:VW have fundamental engineering issues (Score:4, Interesting)
Most German cars are frequently in the shop. The German manufacturers have cultivated this myth about their engineering but in reality the cars they make are actually on the very low end of the reliability ratings. I inherited a Golf, it was a fun car to drive, very nice interior, but the power steering went out at 50k miles and it was a $1200 repair. This along with a long line of mechanical problems.
I won't ever buy a VW because of that experience. They are overpriced junk that even Chevy beats in reliability.
Re: (Score:3)
My dad's BMW fuel pump died... when he was about to get on a bridge.
Then it died again in his vacation, 700km from home.
Then the oxygen sensor died.
Now an air conditioner gas (!) hose broke and coolant leaked.
The alarm, for some reason, beeps every time he opens the door (he has to leave it unlocked).
Now some ABS light is turning on, though that may be related to driving on a flooded street.
The car is a 1998 model, yes. But it's been a lot of trouble really. Nothing major, but still annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he should think about an electric car. They don't use fuel pumps or oxygen sensors.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to Consumer Reports, you are lying through your teeth.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CA/20151020/OEM01/151029991/V2/0/V2-151029991.jpg&MaxW=700&cci_ts=20151021060832
But we shouldn't let facts get in the way of your opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
What facts? The fact that VW and Toyota used to be number 1 and now while Toyota is still number 1 VW is the epitaph of mediocrity in reliability terms?
Considering how much more a VW costs than the comparable Chevy, other than his rosy view on Chevy's reliability he's still right on the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the basic story that they trade performance for reliability?
Re: (Score:2)
The German manufacturers have cultivated this myth about their engineering but in reality the cars they make are actually on the very low end of the reliability ratings.
They didn't cultivate a myth. They had an actual solid and well earned reputation and then they sat on their laurels while other car companies overtook them in reliability and cost. Then they had to reduce cost in a hurry and lo-and-behold: we have shit.
German cars were the bomb. Ask me 20 years ago what I would have bought and the answer would only have been a Toyota Corolla or a Series 2 Golf. Fast forward 20 years and I only just sold a 15 year old Toyota Corolla with 380000k on the clock, my grandpa's S
Re: (Score:2)
My Audi has been wonderful, but I have heard horror stories from other Audi owners.
The story I heard was that you definitely don't want to buy a Volkswagen or an Audi which was made on a Friday. I remember there used to be a website which, given the VIN, would tell you what day it was made.
Research is good money (Score:2)
As others have noted, what he is suggesting is a little self-serving, but anything that helps progress the technology and reduce the cost is a good thing IMHO. The making available the patents of the super-chargers, for example, is a benefit to him, since it helps increase needed infrastructure, which Tesla can benefit from, but also benefits everyone else, since they have one less argument against the electric car.
The next two places that the research money needs to be spent, IMHO, is simplifying the elect
excess strain on CA grid (Score:3, Informative)
Can California's electric grid hold up if VW really did replace all those vehicles with electric cars? Electric cars aren't actually zero emissions - they just don't emit anything at the point of use. There's still plenty of emissions (or other environmental concerns) from the site where the power for them is generated, which is why CA has tried very hard to push most of their generating capacity out of state. Even hydro capacity has decreased, as more dams are broken than built because they apparently bother the fishies. So a massive surge in electrical demand from plug-in vehicles may genuinely hammer the local grid, a grid that is already prone to widespread brownouts. It's great to suggest that everyone go electric with their vehicles, but someone somewhere must actually generate the electricity first. It's like pushing the benefits of dairy products while banning anyone in the state from raising stinky cows.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:excess strain on CA grid (Score:5, Informative)
Utilities are all about reducing demand use so they don't have to build and operate as many power plants. We get a break on our summer electric bill because we allow the local utility to cycle our A/C compressor on and off during peak load times. In the 10 years or so since we did that, we've never noticed a difference. So if car charges were a real problem, utilities could offer the same price break and just cycle the chargers on and off.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can set most cars to charge late at night when power is cheapest (due to low demand). There is no capacity issue. At all.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the cars would mostly be charged when power is cheap (= plentiful, with little chance of brownouts). With a proper smart grid, that should actually improve the situation. If a demand peak comes along that would cause a brownout, just pull a small amount of power from a few thousand electric cars in the area.
Re: (Score:2)
Can California's electric grid hold up if VW really did replace all those vehicles with electric cars?
You generally charge them at night, not during peak usage hours. Of course, Californians could also install a solar panel, SolarCity is offering them at no money down [slate.com].
Even hydro capacity has decreased, as more dams are broken than built because they apparently bother the fishies.
As someone who lives in the west I would love to see windmills on farmland and solar power installed on rooftops replace dams. Free flowing rivers are an incredible asset, it's not just about fish.
Re: (Score:2)
leave these 40 times over limits cars on the road? (Score:2)
Musk must be nuts. Many of these VW diesels can be fixed just by software update, or minor hardware changes. Now we should leave these smog & cancer machines on the road just because Musk wants to create market for his battery factory? Oh, yes, it is all "for greater good", so it must be ok. He would better invent a quick way to fix electric grid from reliance on dispatchable power sources like natural gas from fracking and coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of these VW diesels can be fixed just by software update, or minor hardware changes. Now we should leave these smog & cancer machines
Calm down there, Wilbur. The diesel emissions regs are so tight now that it's questionable whether anyone is actually going to be harmed by these VWs running over the allowable limits.
Now we should leave these smog & cancer machines on the road just because Musk wants to create market for his battery factory?
Compared to the average full-sized SUV, they're still clean and green. If you're going to be all upset about them, be upset about something much more harmful first.
Re: (Score:2)
What a crap a you talking about, "so tight". Do you have a slightest idea how diesel engine works? SUV or not SUV just increase engine size by 30-50% or so, compression is still low and all that cancerous stuff from high compression diesel engines is emitted only by diesels that skip on these limits. No, limits are not tight, they are too loose and too loosely enforced. Especially on older diesels, and all cars inevitably get older with time.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have a slightest idea how diesel engine works?
Obviously better than you.
SUV or not SUV just increase engine size by 30-50% or so
And vehicle mass by 100% or so
compression is still low and all that cancerous stuff from high compression diesel engines is emitted only by diesels that skip on these limits
"All that cancerous stuff" that you are talking about is NOx, which is not cancerous. It is the primary component in acid rain, and it can lead to the formation of nitric acid which will damage lung tissue, but no part of it is cancerous. Gasoline vehicles produce more PM2.5 soot than do diesels, and they also emit more unburned hydrocarbons (until the catalyst heats up, they just spew fuel out the tailpipe) so they are actually more cancerous than are
Re: (Score:3)
Average SUV doesn't consume 100% more fuel than typical sedan. Though you of course can do some extreme comparison between subcompact and largest SUV. You can always make such excuse, "my car pollutes less than Boeing 747, so who cares". It doesn't fly.
World Health Organization (WHO) has classified diesel engine exhaust as a carcinogen – a substance that causes cancer. It is scientific fact and you may as well argue that Earth is flat. It isn't just NOx but whole complex of substances.
Paris and London
Re: leave these 40 times over limits cars on the r (Score:2)
Uh, no. The affected VW's wouldn't have passed 1984 emissions standards, in fact they would have been over by about 50%. By completely turning off emissions equipment during non-testing mode VW went from barely above regulations to untuned Mercedes 300 levels (obviously not in soot production but almost every other metric).
Re: (Score:2)
He would better invent a quick way to fix electric grid from reliance on dispatchable power sources like natural gas from fracking and coal
Isn't that his powerwall system? Energy storage close to the consumer actually makes it easier to rely on wind and solar power.
Clever strategy (Score:2)
They want Volkswagen's money to go into manufacturing plants and R&D for zero-emission technology rather than to government-mandated fines. (Note that these investments would give Musk, in particular, another direct competitor.)
Would it really give him a competitor? How about first it reduces the competition against existing electric vehicles, and when Volkswagen finally is ready to market, Musk can lease them some patents and sell them some batteries from his gigafactory.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk knows he can't dominate the world car market by selling complete vehicles but he could do it by selling power trains, technology and maintenance.
whatever Elon wants (Score:2)
Making whole (Score:2)
They want Volkswagen to be released from its obligation to fix cars already on the road, and instead require that the company substantially accelerate its rollout of zero-emission vehicles.
And how do they propose to make whole the people that VW defrauded? You can't simply leave those people hanging. Moving to electric vehicles is fine and all but VW has two debts from their lies. One to society (indirect victims) and the other to their customers (direct victims). This proposal only deals with the first one. Any proposal that does not compensate customers of these vehicles is a non-starter. Could be as simple as a cash payment but it can't be a promise to develop new technology someday.
Re:Making whole (Score:4, Interesting)
Make whole? I've got an '06 TDI (so well before this whole thing), but have friends who have the affected models. None of them are upset with VW over this, and all are enjoying their good mileage, decent performance, and decent build quality. Neither of my two friends are interested in the recall should it seriously affect performance and/or mileage. The NOx issues are because the engine burns too efficiently (ie hot flame front); in order to reduce the NOx, you have to deliberately de-tune the engine.
I predict that after this, the #1 modification will be to re-tune the engine.
Re: (Score:2)
VW defrauded the people who breathe the emissions from their vehicles. I am sure their customers are fine with that.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope they force people to get the fix. 5% better performance is not an excuse to damage other people's health. Demand that VW pays for the extra fuel and devaluation of the car, or buys it back. Don't hurt others to save a few bucks.
In Other News... (Score:3)
Re:Passing the buck (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone talks about how dishonest VW was. But strictly speaking, they followed the letter of the law as it was written.
Well, no. They violated the letter of the law as it was written by introducing a "defeat device", which is a device which alters the behavior specifically for the purpose of defeating the test, or software which fulfills the same purpose. This is expressly prohibited.
Re: (Score:2)
That is absolutely incorrect, and I have no idea why you would say such a thing. They merely couldn't be prosecuted for violating the law, due to a loophole provided by said second law. They still violated the first law. Nobody denies the (but you apparently.)
Re:Passing the buck (Score:5, Insightful)
Already VW and other companies are planning to go way into electric vehicles. And why wouldn't they want to? It's an easier and cheaper way of passing the EPA buck onto someone else. Instead of having to try to meet every stringent reg they can let someone else entirely (power companies) deal with that issue. And will they be able to deal with the issue either? Doubtful.
That would be a management issue, rather than a technical issue.
For decades now there are off-the-shelf gas scrubbers and other technologies that can very thoroughly clean up the exhaust of a power plant, including coal fired ones. It's not cheap or so of course, but there is nothing technical in the way. Add to a small number of sites, all of which are permanent managed, this is the best scenario possible for limiting pollution. Even CO2 can be dealt with this way, but that's getting a lot harder of course.
For cars it's much harder to manage. Many, many small units, often poorly maintained (yearly checkups or less). The sheer number of units makes it impossible to install scrubbers, and catalytic converters go only that far. It's technically very hard to get car exhaust as clean as power plant exhaust, and cars are often spilling their pollution right inside densely populated areas.
For your argument about trucks: well, sure, for now they won't be able to go electric. But that's not an argument to stop electric in vehicles, and even should be an argument to improve electric cars as improving technology there may just make electric trucks a reality, possibly via the hybrid diesel/electric stage where pollution can be kept out of the cities (running electric in the stop-and-go traffic of cities where diesel has a hard time, diesel on the motorways where it can shine). There are already electric and hybrid buses out there, so trucks don't seem to be too far off, either.
Re: (Score:2)
And electric doesn't actually help much because almost all diesel pollution is from heavy trucks which at present aren't really going to be made electric.
Pure electric big rigs won't be widespread anytime soon, but hybrid-electric trucks [latimes.com] are a real thing.
This is not precisely what happened. (Score:3)
For years the EPA and other interested parties have deluded the public into thinking we can have our cake and eat it too. We can drive cars as much as we want. And it's clean! In fact cars always will be about trade-offs. Risk and benefits. And nevermind net CO2, which isn't even part of this.
This is not precisely what happened.
The emissions requirements on vehicles are strongly tied to what we are and are not able to easily and economically test. If it's hard to test something, it doesn't get tested, it gets ignored. What happened is that we became better able to test diesel emissions to a high granularity, and so we tested them to that granularity.
This same thing happens in reactive software testing. You build a product iteratively, and as you discover bugs, you write tests for those bugs,
Re: (Score:2)
"passenger vehicles utilizing diesel fuel make less diesel fuel available for trains and trucks."
You talk like a given amount of crude oil will produce diesel and gasoline in a fixed ratio. Nope; oil refineries do not just separate, but also convert hydrocarbons from crude oil. If anything, it's the other way around: gasoline needs to have a specific boiling point and knock resistance, while diesel is essentially any combustible liquid that has roughly the right viscosity for the nozzles and pumps. You can
Re: (Score:2)
Why use the battery at all? Diesel locomotives have been around for a very long time. The diesel engine turns an alternator (or generator) which powers electric traction motors. In a car, you wouldn't need a diesel. A small gas engine, optimized for it's most efficient rpm turning a generator to power the electric motor would do fine. Problem is, since it isn't zero emissions, the environmentalists won't go for it. On the other hand, neither is the power plant that generates electricity to recharge all o
Re:eGolf is agreat car (Score:4, Insightful)
Lifecycle analysis [ucsusa.org] shows that electric cars produce 25% less emission than plug-in hybrids that use a drive train similar to the kind you are advocating for.
Environmentalists have always been for more efficient cars but pure gasoline powered cars just aren't necessary. And there are a TON of engineering benefits to an electric car: the center of mass is super low, you double the storage capacity, you get rid of the vast majority of the maintenance cost, and the performance is really phenomenal.
Re: eGolf is agreat car (Score:2)
2nd generation Chevy Volt (Vauxhall Ampera) does 87km per charge so if your commute is 120km round trip you could do all electric, otherwise it wold be ~40km at 5.6 L/100 km.
Re: (Score:2)
What if I want to drive from New York, NY to Beverly Hills, CA on a single charge? Hey even a smartphone that would last 4 of use hours with cellular off on a 10 hour flight would be nice.
Re: (Score:2)
If the infrastructure for EV were there (what the article is encouraging) you would recharge at night so why on earth would you need to drive there on a single charge? Diesel cars can't do this either.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I'm sure I could cram a large enough diesel tank into a truck assuming you could manage 30mpg (its pretty much all highway it could plausibly be done) you would only need about a 100 gallon tank they sell those that fit in the back of your truck were a toolbox would normally go so still plenty of space left over.
Afaik if you were to attempt the same with electric you wouldn't have anywhere to sit and you still wouldn't have enough battery power to make the trip.
I've yet to see a motel with a ev charging
Re: eGolf is agreat car (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The average commute is less than 20 miles round trip. An electric car may not be right for you, but it would work just fine for a whole lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could you be more specific? What emissions do you allege that an electric vehicle produces?
Re: (Score:2)
When they use energy produced by coal power plants the emissions are roughly equivalent to driving a regular gas powered car. In most places, they range somewhere between an efficient gasoline powered car and a hybrid. There are also emissions involved with the manufacturing and recycling of the car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I said in the op it should be made transparent and people should not be lied to. Some people are actually buying elec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When they use energy produced by coal power plants the emissions are roughly equivalent to driving a regular gas powered car. In most places, they range somewhere between an efficient gasoline powered car and a hybrid. There are also emissions involved with the manufacturing and recycling of the car.
Actually when powered solely by coal, they are the same as, or in extreme cases worse than, a regular car. Places like India and China have terrible emissions per kWh and this translates to bad environmental impacts for electric cars. The USA has a decent mix of power and also emission standard but a large portion comes from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. It really depends on your regional power grid, there isn't a one size fits all explanation.
In general the recycling isn't too much worse at
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Electric vehicles are zero emissions... Electricity in an area may get produced by waste-causing means, but the vehicles themselves do not produce any emissions. The term is entirely accurate. It is only misleading to say that consuming electricity in general does not cause greenhouse gasses, but the operation of the devices themselves do not pollute at all.
Further, electricity does not necessarily have to be produced by burning products that pollute the environment, and this is certainly the case in m
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The term is entirely misleading. Zero tailpipe emissions would be accurate.
No, you can't produce clean electricity in practical way that can be used to charge cars (typically after sunset). Hydro is limited by geography and doesn't work so well in dry years. Solar is reaching its peak and daytime demand is going closer to zero in California due to too many solar installations. Demand peak starts at sunset. Google "duck" and "California grid". Solar/wind relies on new gas plants that can be turned on/off on
Re: (Score:2)
These car manufacturers need to sell people big batteries so they can charge up when power is abundant and have enough to cover their night time driving. They could even integrate them into the cars somehow.