Can electric cars win over the mass market?

I would love it if electric cars replace gas cars. However, its not going to happen anytime soon. Jokingly, what we need to do is everytime a politician make a predictions that doesnt come true, they go to jail.
Also, who is the idiot who wrote this article. they said ...President Obama WILL help cut... Unless they know something we don't it should state, ...SHOULD help...

how long does it take to charge up these cars....6hrs??

For someone like myself, the leaf is pretty much perfect.

It is the perpetual failure of non-thinkers to believe that there must be a singular solution to every problem.

Electric vehicles are one type of solution to the problem of CO2 production in the transportation sector,

If electric cars win over the mass market, we are all doomed.

The energy to charge the battery comes from Coal. The nissan leaf is essentially a coal powered car.

If we get the electricity from renewable sources, then were stuck with the fact that batteries have extremely low energy density. This is fundamental to the battery design, as it carries its fuel and its waist products with it all time.

Fuel cells and hydrogen are the only real solution. Investments should be made in that direction. This is why every major car company has a hydrogen fuel cell program. Electric cars are just a stopgap, way to get a foothold in the "green" market, while the bugs are worked out in the FCVs. Which, btw, are doing well and should be on the market soon.

It seems most "green" products are selling a "peace at mind" idea for the consumer. Green = an environmental problem swept under the rug with a big administrative sign that indicates, "There's nothing to see here, folks, move along and enjoy your Starbucks".

I would love to drive one but how will it cope with the -40ºC Canadian winters?

"Fuel cells and hydrogen are the only real solution."

Sorry, but no. Hydrogen production remains grossly inefficient and even in theory can't work. You can't distribute hydrogen in the existing pipelines, so either an entirely new infrastructure has to be built or you truck it around. The hydrogen vehicle has been a great way for the automobile industry to avoid improving other technologies. Even the grandson of the inventor of fuel cells has abandoned them in favor of battery power.

The best place to charge these cars will of course be at home.

If our various national administrations in concert with the banking industry would include viable technologies for home generation, conversion and storage of electric energy into home mortgages and sweeten the deal with lower interest rates it would do several things: 1) Reduce the strain on the national and local power infrastructure, 2) Stimulate the home building market, and 3) Infuse capital into the off-grid energy generation, energy conversion and storage markets.

Of course, I'm being a bit self serving here... I plan to retire to some land I bought some years ago in NW Nevada. As I'll need to generate, convert and store my own power I'd like to see the energy production, conversion and storage methods mature some, and for the prices to come down. The only way the prices will come down significantly is if there is a mature and active market.

Baby steps, it seems, is the only way anything gets done in America anymore. What ever happened to doing things quickly, like when we developed the Atomic Bomb, or went to the Moon?

The energy to charge the battery comes from Coal. The nissan leaf is essentially a coal powered car. Fuel cells and hydrogen are the only real solution

Where does the energy to produce hydrogen come from, pixie dust?

The fastest growing market for automobiles in the world is China, who bought *ONE* single Chevy Volt last year. Do the math...

The energy to charge the battery comes from Coal. The nissan leaf is essentially a coal powered car.

The energy to charge the battery come from the grid. That means that, as more environmentally friendly technologies are added to the grid and replace the more polluting ones, the technology to charge and power the cars locally can/will remain the same.

Saves a lot of expensive infrastructure changes in the future (except of course for the initial infrastructure change of providing quick charge stations/etc when/if that tech becomes available).

Baby steps, it seems, is the only way anything gets done in America anymore. What ever happened to doing things quickly, like when we developed the Atomic Bomb, or went to the Moon?

Yes, indeed..... The two most profitable ventures in our nation's glorious history!

Baby steps, it seems, is the only way anything gets done in America anymore. What ever happened to doing things quickly, like when we developed the Atomic Bomb, or went to the Moon?

Its called inertia. You can much more easily send a few dozen people to the moon a dozen or so times than move millions of people around, safely, reliably, and do it year after year. Look at the transition from using horses as the primary mode of transport to using cars. In that case there was a HUGE environmental driver, much more so than moving from gas to electric cars.

And it still took at least 25 years.

The safe storage and transport of hydrogen is still a significant issue. It's not the answer yet.

The charging of electric cars will also be a safety issue. Looking at the top picture you can see the guy wearing arc flash protecting gloves, but not the NFPA 70E required helmet and face sheild. He's also wearing clothing with reflective material, which is not allowed in arc flash protective clothing. Until I see the numbers indicating the voltage and amperage I won't be able to tell what NFPA 70E risk/hazard catagory is involved and subsequently the required personal protective equipment. Charging electric cars at a public location will either have to be hands-free or will have to be performed by a trained operator with the proper equipment. There is simply too much energy involved in a rapid charge process to let the driver do it.

The energy to charge the battery come from the grid. That means that, as more environmentally friendly technologies are added to the grid and replace the more polluting ones, the technology to charge and power the cars locally can/will remain the same.

Yes, and how long do you think it will take before that shift happens?

Here's a tip: it's going to take longer than the lifetime of an electric car bough in the next 5-10 years.

There will be at least two generations of electric cars that will be powered predominantly on coal if we start buying them in the near future.

If electric cars win over the mass market, we are all doomed.

The energy to charge the battery comes from Coal. The nissan leaf is essentially a coal powered car.

Come on, don't forget CO2-free nuclear energy. Doesn't it sout better 'nuclear-powered car'?

If we get the electricity from renewable sources, then were stuck with the fact that batteries have extremely low energy density.

Fuel cells and hydrogen are the only real solution.

Open your mind. Currently used batteries are extremely primitive as well as fuel cells. But recently discovered graphene-lithium solution sounds very interesting. Nano-tube supercapacitors might be a good solution too. Both cabon based capacitors and batteries can work together with fuel cells giving great power some day.

Remember taht hydrogen doesn't exist in pure form on earth. We can easily produce it from water, but with use of energy. So, hydrogen cars would be coal-powered too :)

Come on, don't forget CO2-free nuclear energy. Doesn't it sout better 'nuclear-powered car'?

It basically takes a decade to build a nuclear powerplant these days because of all the red tape, and with no plans to build new plants, we'll soon run out of nuclear power - unless you want to risk running the old ones till they eventually blow up.

You can thank the hippies for that.

"Can electric cars win over the mass market?"

Sure.

Not right away. Batteries need to improve. But we've seen a number of articles right here at PhysOrg that suggest that better batteries are coming. Much better.

Want to make a bet? I think that by the year 2050, you'll be able to drive an electric car from Washington, D.C. to LA on a single charge - and charge it up in a few hours. Energy densities like that for batteries aren't prohibited by any of the laws of physics. Electrons are light; it's just figuring out how to store them that needs work.

Once batteries achieve energy densities approaching that of gasoline, the reduced maintenance costs and cheaper fuel for electric cars will be irresistible. Meantime, there will be early adopters to motivate manufacturers to work out the bugs.

For someone like myself, the leaf is pretty much perfect.

Did you buy one yet or are you waiting for more govt subsidies?

Electrons are light; it's just figuring out how to store them that needs work.

Except that you aren't storing electrons.

Electrons are like the chain of a bicycle while the battery is like a big spiral spring with a sprocket. Electron move the metal ions inside the battery to "wind" them up to a higher energy potential by chemically combining them to the electrode materials.

You aren't putting anything in a battery, just moving the parts inside, and it's those parts that weigh a lot.

Cost too much, range too short, and charge time too long. Address these issues and sure the electric car can generate a wide spectrum of interest in the market. Duh!

Until the grid is largely powered by clean energy I think the effects of these cars on the environment will be negligible. And we all have seen how easy it is to build clean power plants: http://www.physor...lif.html

From a mechanical and engineering stand points there is a lot to like about electric vehicles. I think they are pretty cool; as long as they dont look like golf carts.

But I do have a question. What is the effect of cold weather on the range?

Say it was -10°F

Im not up on the new battery tech and not sure how susceptible they are to the cold.

Cost too much, range too short, and charge time too long. Address these issues and sure the electric car can generate a wide spectrum of interest in the market. Duh!

Until the grid is largely powered by clean energy I think the effects of these cars on the environment will be negligible. And we all have seen how easy it is to build clean power plants: http://www.physor...lif.html

From a mechanical and engineering stand points there is a lot to like about electric vehicles. I think they are pretty cool; as long as they dont look like golf carts.

But I do have a question. What is the effect of cold weather on the range?

Say it was -10 F

Im not up on the new battery tech and not sure how susceptible they are to the cold.

Cost too much, range too short, and charge time too long. Address these issues and sure the electric car can generate a wide spectrum of interest in the market. Duh!

Until the grid is largely powered by clean energy I think the effects of these cars on the environment will be negligible. And we all have seen how easy it is to build clean power plants: remember the article about the solar farm some three weeks ago. Some environmentalist sued to stop it and the case was going before the judge?

From a mechanical and engineering stand points there is a lot to like about electric vehicles. I think they are pretty cool; as long as they dont look like golf carts.

But I do have a question. What is the effect of cold weather on the range?

Say it was -10 F

Im not up on the new battery tech and not sure how susceptible they are to the cold.

If your average commute is less than 20 miles per day, there is no reason not to use and electric car.

Not as if they're taking away your gas car. Keep that around for longer trips.

Now, when will the industry (forget Detroit) come out with an electric commuter car like the Leaf for $8 thousand dollars?

If your average commute is less than 20 miles per day, there is no reason not to use and electric car.

Not as if they're taking away your gas car. Keep that around for longer trips.

Now, when will the industry (forget Detroit) come out with an electric commuter car like the Leaf for $8 thousand dollars?

Obviously another SOCAL voice.

I would love to drive one but how will it cope with the -40ºC Canadian winters?

Probably would cost 1/3 of it's range.Maybe Nissan will offer a battery heater for northern climates,similar to a block heater.

If your average commute is less than 20 miles per day, there is no reason not to use and electric car.

Not as if they're taking away your gas car. Keep that around for longer trips.

Now, when will the industry (forget Detroit) come out with an electric commuter car like the Leaf for $8 thousand dollars?

I am not paying insurance premiums and upkeep on two cars.The better alternative for now is a series hybrid car like the Volt.It's 40 mile electric range covers most commuting needs,and the range extending gas engine only kicks in on extended drives.
The problem with the current crop of electric cars is the cost of the li-ion battery.Industry and Detroit are both eager to see a cheaper battery system developed along with greater energy density and faster charging time.

super capacitor/batteries with either graphene or engineered nano-geometry matrials will save the day.

the batteries need to be better .....and eventually they will, and there won't be any more 'discussion' . once you build the perfect battery, the charging infrastructure will virtually build itself.

think about this. petroleum was amazingly powerful when it was first discovered, and it took decades of various cracking and catalytic conversion research to create the high tech fuels we burn today. gasoline and diesel are extremely energy dense and easy to burn in a modern ICE.

batteries are pretty much the sticking point with the change to electric vehicles. when they are perfected and finally prove they are capable of delivering the power density and quick chargeablity that is required of them, ...everyone will be clamoring for electric vehicles.

also, the existing electric vehicles out there....golfcarts, electric trollies, and other battery powered machinery will piggy back.

Sure, it is true that we generate electricity mostly from coal, and driving electric cars will actually hurt the environment more that driving gas cars. I get that. But, I also feel that further developments in solar panel technology, wind power, and other renewable energy sources will fix that issue. It will take many years before the auto industry can 'get it right' with electric cars before they become mainstream so why not start the process now.

I see a day where everyone (except truck drivers) drives electric cars that get about 300 miles range and we make most of our electricity from renewable sources. The oil companies will fight this to the nail, but good will prevail.

Electric cars charged by coal burning generators is still better than millions of ICE cars on the road.The coal plant can be fitted with scrubbers to prevent CO2 from being released.Batteries will remain the major stumbling block for electric cars-limited power density,long charge times,and expensive.I haven't read of any battery/super-capacitor technology that is going to change that fact anytime soon.
Butanol is probably the best bet for fuelling long range vehicles like semis,as it can be grown by genetically modified bacteria:http://www.redorb...actories ,and requires no engine modifications,and has almost the energy density of gasoline.

When you can charge a car back up in minutes, that is when it will replace gas. Until then it will remain a niche product for urban hipsters. Think they are a great idea, but I am unwilling to risk being stranded or confined to a 40 mile radius.

but I am unwilling to risk being stranded or confined to a 40 mile radius.

If you are referring to the Volt,do you know how it works? Up to 40 miles,the car runs on batteries.After 40 miles,an on-board engine kicks in automatically to recharge the batteries.The car therefore has the same range as an ICE auto.

Five year cost of ownership for a Volt: ~$40k.
Prius: $24K
Versa: $21K
http://www.automo...e10.html

Five year cost of ownership for a Volt: ~$40k.
Prius: $24K
Versa: $21K
http://www.automo...e10.html

Does the $40k figure take into account the govt rebate? Anyway,my point was that,environmentally speaking, a series hybrid car like the Volt is currently the best of both worlds.It doesn't burn an ounce of gas if your daily driving is under 40 miles.
Parallel hybrid cars like Prius and Insight,on the other hand, employ an ICE assisting the electric motor for propulsion.Even the 2012 Prius plug-in hybrid has an all-electric range of only 13 miles.

doesn't burn an ounce of gas

How much coal does it burn?

If it is such a good deal, are you one of the few who have purchased one?

When it is 100 in the shade (Gulf Coast), how far will the electric car go before the air conditioning sucks the batteries dry? I have read many articles on electric cars, but have yet to see one that discusses the drain from AC/electronics. I can just imagine being stranded 40 miles from home.

If it is such a good deal, are you one of the few who have purchased one?

I would have considered buying it,but having lost my Saturn in a head-on,and needing a car,got a Civic instead.Besides,the Volt won't be available where I live till next year.
I don't think the Volt would burn much coal-most people would charge them in off-peak hours.

When it is 100 in the shade (Gulf Coast), how far will the electric car go before the air conditioning sucks the batteries dry?

Yes,or how long could it heat the interior at -40 in Alaska? Yet another reason pure electrics won't be replacing ICE vehicles anytime soon.

When we can equip our cars with Rossi E-Cat, all this discussion will be over. And this might happen within 5 years.

When we can equip our cars with Rossi E-Cat, all this discussion will be over. And this might happen within 5 years.

Rossi is a long running con,similar to Black Light Power Inc. I would stay well away from both.

Rossi is a long running con,similar to Black Light Power Inc. I would stay well away from both.

Before Rossi there was this:
http://www.lenr-c...xces.pdf
It just has taken some time to find out what does work reliably.

Rossi is a long running con,similar to Black Light Power Inc. I would stay well away from both.

Before Rossi there was this:
http://www.lenr-c...xces.pdf
It just has taken some time to find out what does work reliably.

"Fuel cells and hydrogen are the only real solution."

Sorry, but no. Hydrogen production remains grossly inefficient and even in theory can't work. You can't distribute hydrogen in the existing pipelines, so either an entirely new infrastructure has to be built or you truck it around. The hydrogen vehicle has been a great way for the automobile industry to avoid improving other technologies. Even the grandson of the inventor of fuel cells has abandoned them in favor of battery power.

Back in the early days of the car I wonder if the same argument was made about petrol?
The early cars were electric prior to the advent of the ICE, I'm willing to bet that there was the same 'there's no infrastructure and it'll go bang' arguments that we currently see for hydrogen.

Technology will get there eventually, one step at a time. There will never be an instant leap to an EV that can perform in the same way as an ICE vehicle.

Robert Zubrin sums it up:
http://www.thenew...gen-hoax

Hydrogen is NOT an energy source. It is only an energy CARRIER. And a rather poor one..

If electric cars win over the mass market, we are all doomed.

The energy to charge the battery comes from Coal. The nissan leaf is essentially a coal powered car.

If we get the electricity from renewable sources, then were stuck with the fact that batteries have extremely low energy density. This is fundamental to the battery design, as it carries its fuel and its waist products with it all time.

Fuel cells and hydrogen are the only real solution. Investments should be made in that direction. This is why every major car company has a hydrogen fuel cell program. Electric cars are just a stopgap, way to get a foothold in the "green" market, while the bugs are worked out in the FCVs. Which, btw, are doing well and should be on the market soon.

Please, do some serious research on what you said. It is well-known that electric, even as it exists today, is significantly more efficient than gasoline. I won't bother to refute the rest of these fallacies; it is not worth it.

Electric cars charged by coal burning generators is still better than millions of ICE cars on the road.The coal plant can be fitted with scrubbers to prevent CO2 from being released.Batteries will remain the major stumbling block for electric cars-limited power density,long charge times,and expensive.I haven't read of any battery/super-capacitor technology that is going to change that fact anytime soon.
...

There was a story on Physorg not too long ago that detailed the reduction of carbon nanoparticles to less than 1nm. This significantly increases surface area and charge storage to the range of Li batteries, and is supposed to be simple to make. Now all that is needed is for the technology to be commercialized. From past experience, I'm not expecting that anytime soon; however, one can hope.

Rossi is a long running con,similar to Black Light Power Inc. I would stay well away from both.

Before Rossi there was this:
http://www.lenr-c...xces.pdf
It just has taken some time to find out what does work reliably.

The problem with these claims is that they are never replicated by independent labs.If they were,it would be the biggest scientific story of the last 100 years.Rossi in particular is one slippery customer.Read: http://www.popsci...kthrough

"Please dont blame me for this splash of cold water. Blame the greens, whose grasp of basic consumer behaviour, energy economics and political realities are shockingly inadequate. The facts Prof. Smil sets out exist independently of global warming, which, he believes, is a well-established reality. But just because the facts are unwelcome doesnt make them untrue. Time and time again, the greens have harmed their cause with their uninformed fervour and simplistic thinking."
http://www.theglo...2149465/

Also, time and time again those without a concern for the environment or their employees have harmed their cause. I am old enough to remember the day when tanker trucks would drive down dirt roads with the drain valve part-way open to unload their mysterious cargo, or when auto repair shops would pour their oil out on the gound behind the shop. I remember the days when we were told by the boss to park a lift under a light which was 20 feet in the air and climb up the mast to repair the light or replace the lamp.

The only reason organizations like OSHA, NFPA, EPA and a slew of others exist is because people died or were injured or poisoned more often before they were created. In the vast majority of cases the failure was that profit was more important than safety or health.

The EPA will not consider any economic impact upon their decisions.
That will lead to an economy that does not have the resources to dispose of wastes safely.
This is why all the communists countries have significant toxic waste issues.

The EPA will not consider any economic impact upon their decisions.
That will lead to an economy that does not have the resources to dispose of wastes safely.
This is why all the communists countries have significant toxic waste issues.

That doesn't make sense. By your logic, the illegal dumping would continue to go on unknown without the EPA (or similar agency involvement) since the illegal dumping is cheaper and more economically viable without regulation.

The countries would still have toxic waste issues, they just wouldn't know about them.

"President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration's controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders.

Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient. The decision rests in part on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy."
http://news.yahoo...156.html
Finally, some sense from the regime.