The Future for Electric Vehicles

This is only partly true. However, the conversion from stored energy to mechanical energy (i.e., turning the wheels) in the car is far more efficient in an electrical vehicle when you factor cost per mile.

The dirty little secret is that it boils down to cost per mile not cost per unit energy. That is, watt to watt or even horse power to horse power is meaningless between systems.

It is true that gasoline has one of the highest weight to energy factors, but the bottom line is what you pay to move your car one mile.

If the battery issue was solved tomorrow and you could get 400+ miles per charge and long battery life out of an EV, people would flock to the EV because the cost per mile goes way down.

Unfortunately, we have a long way to go with batteries, so the rest of the issues are moot.

Suppose that:

A gasoline-powered car gets 28% efficiency (small scale).
A large oil-fired generating plant achieves 40% efficiency (large scale).
An electric-powered car gets 80% efficiency.

Then the overall efficiency for the electric car is 0.40 x 0.80 = 32%.

(I'm not saying whether these are current realistic estimates; but this gives an idea.)

That's pretty close.

By coincidence, the Prius engine (which is unusually efficient) and the grid (using its mix of fuel sources, well-to-plug) are equally efficient at 38% (although this figure only applies to the Prius at peak). So, if you modified your Prius to make it a plug-in hybrid (as many have done, by adding lots of batteries) it charges at about the same efficiency and carbon footprint via the engine or plugging it in.

When you fine tune this, and consider the well-to-pump efficiency for gasoline (82%), then gasoline looks a little worse, and if you think in terms of average Prius engine efficiency (as actually loaded) of 25%, then things look better for electricity. Further, to be fair, the Prius is an exceptionally complicated and efficient car, so a more typical car's engine efficiency (as loaded) is apt to be more like 18%... making a typical gasoline car look even worse.

An easy and meaningful way to look at this issue is carbon footprint, because CO2 is a pretty good measure of just how much fuel is really being burned (and of course how much CO2 is being created). The EPA has good data on carbon footprint for electric vehicles and gasoline-powered vehicles. The Toyota RAV4 EV (2002) is somewhat more efficient than the Nissan LEAF at 112 MPGe vs 99 MPGe*. (The Chevy Volt is rated 93 MPGe on electricity.) The RAV 4 EV emits 3.8 tons of CO2 per year. A new Prius emits 3.7 tons.

The Prius emits less CO2 than the electric RAV4, which emits less than the LEAF.

That's worth bolding, especially if you are arguing, as I might seem to be, that there is not much difference.

However, we could compare (more fairly) a 2002 RAV4 and a 2002 RAV4 EV

_{The RAV4 EV emits 3.8 tons and the RAV4 (gasoline) emits 7.8 tons, just over twice as much.}

Which tells us that engineering counts. Take a look at this:

The current Prius emits less than half as much CO2 as the electric USPS Ford Explorers, which emit 7.7 tons!

_{The 2002 Ford Explorer V8 emits 12.4 tons.}

Gas guzzlers guzzle gas. Big fat electric cars are electron guzzlers.

However, compared side by side, using the same model vehicles, (and vehicles that are of typical engineering, rather than an outlier like the Prius) THE REAL TRUTH>>> electric cars emit less carbon, even for the current dirty grid mix. <<<THE REAL TRUTH They are also far more adaptable in terms of fuel utilization -- there are a gazillion ways of making electricity flow, some of which have very low environmental impact.

Only indirectly related to the subject: The RAV4 is a small vehicle. It has no more passenger room than a Prius, and the cargo space below the seat back behind the rear seat is small -- maybe even a little smaller than the Prius's trunk. But the Prius gets double the fuel efficiency, and emits half the carbon. The Prius is smother, quieter, and has fun geegaws lacking on the RAV4. This shows that you can have twice the efficiency without giving up anything in the bargain. (Prices are pretty close too, if you equip the RAV4 with stuff like climate control that is standard on the Prius). So... it is very easy to cut your carbon footprint in half, (or by 2/3 if you drive a gas guzzler, instead of something that gets 25 mpg.) Not until gas gets to $4.00 for long periods will huge numbers of people do this... even though it is easy and painless.

* (I won't rant here on the lack of utility and the deceptive nature of these figures.)

OK, so why generate hydrogen from fossil fuels? Why not use wind, sunlight, wave-capture or nuclear? Hydrogen is only an energy storage and carrier medium in this context after all, like electricity.

Oh, and 100W lightbulbs are no longer made in the EEC, BTW. Consider compact fluorescents and LEDs instead.

Hydrogen is only an energy storage and carrier medium in this context after all, like electricity.

Correct. And not a particularly good one. Where the accumulated inefficiencies become absolutely obscene is in a hydrogen powered car in which the hydrogen is burned in an ICE, as in the BMW hydrogen/gasoline car you can rent in Germany.

If you start with methane and burn that directly in the BMW, the fuel to flywheel efficiency is on the order of 30% at the engine's peak efficiency. If instead you start with methane and reform it, and then compress the hydrogen, and then refrigerate it to liquefy it, you cut the efficiency in half. But it gets worse. In the BMW half of the hydrogen boils off in 9 days. The 7-series car BMW chose for the demo gets rotten mileage on petrol, so it is as if they wanted to demonstrate just how wantonly they can throw away resources.

It should also be mentioned that cracking crude into fuels suitable for sale at the pump is by no means an energy neutral process.

If we take the extreme where gasoline is reformed from tar sands (as is happening in Canada) the energy picture looks particularly skewed.

The reason I say this is, when you convert one form of energy (fossil fuel) to another form of energy (electric batteries), the energy used to convert to another form of energy will always be more than if you use the initial energy in the most direct way via internal combustion engines.

That's only partly true. ICE's operate at 0 efficiency while they are idling, and at very low efficiencies when lightly loaded. Electric power plants operate at relatively high efficiencies, and rarely operate with light loads. While it is generally true that fewer energy conversions are better, in practice, the number of conversions can be traded for better efficiency in a process upstream or downstream. This is why hybrid vehicles came into being. Although the Prius does more conversions than the typical car, it is still substantially more efficient.

When compared apples for apples, the CO2 generated by an electric vehicle 1/2 -2/3 that of the same model gas vehicle. My previous post gives some actual CO2 data.

Hi ronseto,

I believe you are talking pragmatically in repect of this transportation issue.

Think life-time costs and reliability issues and other dimensions come into focus. Its bad enough having to replace tyres,brakes and exhaust systems at regular intervals without the prospect of a thundering great battery pack plus no doubt a whole host of new 'modules' which be exquisitely expensive to add to the running costs. First time owners may enjoy certain guarantees but the costs later in life will do nothing to bolster residual values.

We are digging ourselves into a hole! Yes, cars are now quieter,safer and also a whole lot more complicated but where does this place the latest generation of vehicles on a sustainabilty rating?

Premature obsolescence driven by the exorbitant cost of fixing a multitude of 'black boxes' required to keep the beast operating does not gladden my heart when perusing the line-up on a second-hand dealers forecourt. I can still recall seeing the simple layout of 60s engine bays,where any decent mechanic stood a fair chance of getting you on your way no matter what the vehicle.

Returning to the thread I would also raise the issue of energy transfer and the rate needed to practically fulfill realistic journey times. Looking at a 400+mile trip the fill-up at a petrol station may see 10 gallons pumped on board in a couple of minutes. You will have taken some 500kWhr of energy during that brief gulping session.

Now if the more efficient (car side) power plant is charged at the same station and say only needs 225 KWhr to accomplish the same distance (assuming the battery technology has evolved sufficiently), then some simple maths says you will staying overnight to top-up; 10 hours at 22.5kW. If you want a 'quickie say a 100kW 'belter, then a mere 2.25 hours will suffice......Just think of the size of that plug. OK so you swap the whole battery pack for a full one, easy peasy!

Imagine a filling station , no longer are there just some 5000 gallon fuel tanks underground there is either a megawatt sized sub-station and HV transmission connection or in a more remote location a damned big diesel running in the background somewhere.

Moving on to home territory and a residential area with a collection of electric vehicles which arrive home and are plugged up for the night.

If this is a two car family with an authorised 10 hour recharge allocation it could present 20-50KW demand to the local area infrastructure. When multiplied over a community of several thousand homes the impact is enormous.Try to get diversity into this argument.

Roll that out over a nation and the embedded generation planned for the next 5 decades (if there is such a plan) will be totally out of size for even a relatively modest uptake in the EV revolution.

Its all very well getting enthusiastic about one aspect of the travel technology but without a concerted,well planned and executed change to the fundamental infrastructure of our developed communities we will not be able to displace the gasolene engine for many many decades to come.In fact I doubt it ever will go.

Oh yes and what about electric or hybrid trucks, now there's another show stopper.

By that time , say 2050, the world will be in an even more parlous state than it is today!

'May your god go with you '..(Dave Allen)

Massey

You will not go to a filling station to charge a vehicle. You will either do it at home, or at work, or swap the battery assembly, (maybe in less time than it takes to move 20 gallons of petroleum gas).

If you are a filling station, with an inventory of charged battery packs, you should be able to charge them with your chargers on site with a commercial type service of 800 amps, 480V, which will deliver about 380 KW per hour. ( this could be 10 "charges" I believe). The timing of charge is not relevant to demand.

As for the desirability of 5000 gallon subterranean petroleum tanks over an electric substation and a rack of lead acid or lithium ion or other heavy metal concoctions, I agree that both of these need close scrutiny and oversight to avoid environmental damage. ( I think I would choose above ground storage in monitored containment areas.

Finally, Complaining about replacing a battery bank after 100K miles is not unlike replacing an ICE, only simpler and much more recyclable. But it may end up costing more, although I don't automatically concede that point, I just don't know, because the reality is that there are are not comparative data available. I can't imagine that anyone thinks we are going to solve these problems by using solutions and technology that costs less.

How many cars do you know that wear their engines out in 100K miles? This is not the 1970s.

Alright, then let's assume two battery packs per 200k on an ICE replacement. Does that address the issue?

I think your original statement that a battery pack replacement every 100K is fine. I just had an issue with the notion that people are already buying a new motor in their car at the 100K mark.

So the comparison is a little off in that sense.

Current battery costs are about $1,000 per kwh. The crystal ball is a little fuzzy, but that price could drop to $250 per kwh by the time people are actually needing a replacement, which would bring the Volt's replacement cost to about $4,000.

While that cost is a little steep, I suspect few owners will keep these first generation cars that long because they will be pretty obsolete in 2 to 3 years anyway. I expect very poor resale value when they do trade and that translates to a high depreciation rate, but that's the price you pay for being on the tip of the spear.

I think your original statement that a battery pack replacement every 100K is fine.

Although the RAV4 EV battery packs have been going for 150,000 miles.

And definitely, 100,000 is not close to the right figure for engine replacements. That's the first spark plug replacement time for most engines now.

I'm just trying to pin the target of your previous assertion. Is it that you don't believe that it is appropriate to compare EV autos to ICE autos because it is not an apples to apples comparison?

ie, the EV model is not as robust as the ice, per invested dollar, because the powertrain is shorter lived, or needs an inordinate amount of expensive service.

It is generally agreed upon that CO'2 emissions are a viable yardstick (including those used to generate electricity remotely, then transported to EV's, and that those emissions are fewer vs an ICE auto when used by an EV like the Leaf or Volt. Am I mistaken?

Is there an advantage to fuel source diversity, ie an ICE auto needs petroleum product, or alcohol, or an LPG derivative, versus the EV auto which is once removed from fuel specifics, for which there are many, some truly renewable in our short lifetimes.

We have always known that portable power is expensive.

Good debate.

You wrote, "It is generally agreed upon that CO'2 emissions are a viable yardstick..."

I am not so sure. To compare apples to apples, as you said, you need to include the whole production chain for both the vehicle and the fuel supply.

All of those factors are a very dynamic and widely varied set of variables. No doubt that it is doable to calculate, but it isn't something an individual would likely tackle on their own given the depth of research that is required.

This makes it difficult to substantiate claims, and there are many contradictory claims, about the "green-ness" of a product.

Many pundits view this as a comparison/contrast between the size of the environmental footprint of competing technologies, but as I have stated before, the consumer's eye is on the financial bottom line first.

If EVs or any other alternate technology is going to succeed in the driveways it must first offer something at least close to parity to the existing system in convenience and cost.

I'm just trying to pin the target of your previous assertion. Is it that you don't believe that it is appropriate to compare EV autos to ICE autos because it is not an apples to apples comparison?

Actually, I was playing devil's advocate.

If you compare an unusually sophisticated ICE car (the Prius) with a typical EV (the RAV 4 or LEAF), the carbon emissions are about the same. But if you compare a 2002 RAV4 EV and 2002 RAV4 ICE, you get a clearer picture: EV's emit substantially less -- in that case, 1/2 as much.

ie, the EV model is not as robust as the ice, per invested dollar, because the powertrain is shorter lived, or needs an inordinate amount of expensive service.

No not at all. Batteries aside, just the opposite is the expectation.

It is generally agreed upon that CO'2 emissions are a viable yardstick (including those used to generate electricity remotely, then transported to EV's, and that those emissions are fewer vs an ICE auto when used by an EV like the Leaf or Volt. Am I mistaken?

I agree that CO2 emissions are a viable yardstick. I'm not sure that this is "generally agreed", however. There are many EV promoters who seem bent on promoting EVs as being zero emission. And there are EV naysayers who claim that pollution is merely shifted, and that there is not a net reduction from using EVs.

Is there an advantage to fuel source diversity, ie an ICE auto needs petroleum product, or alcohol, or an LPG derivative, versus the EV auto which is once removed from fuel specifics, for which there are many, some truly renewable in our short lifetimes.

Absolutely. EV's are far ahead in this respect. If the EV in question is small, light, and highly-efficient, then it need not be so expensive, because it requires a smaller battery pack. (Making it a PHEV-40 makes the battery pack even smaller.) Then, without a huge outlay of capital, one can buy a small car and a set of solar panels. Sell the electricity to the grid at a good price during the day, and charge at night when rates are low. Cheap, clean, freedom from petroleum, zero GHG.

Your assumption about the feasibility of the additional load on those several thousand homes is erroneous. That load, (relative to average consumption) is modest, and I often find homes in the same neighborhood, of different sizes and occupancy rates, with different HVAC and domestic hot water heating (gas,electric,solar as fuel), that have even more load variability than that imposed by a charging station would demand for an average commuter. (Remember, an average 20 mile commute would only consume about 20KWH.) Bottom line, an extra 30KWH per day is easily accommodated by current infrastructure, especially when you consider the likelihood of programmable demand/delivery/time algorithms that people will use to reduce the cost of that electricity.

You wrote: Bottom line, an extra 30KWH per day is easily accommodated by current infrastructure, especially when you consider the likelihood of programmable demand/delivery/time algorithms that people will use to reduce the cost of that electricity.

I am not convinced here. There are many times through the year where the electrical distribution system is stretch to its limits for days at a time. In warm climates, it is mostly during the day when the sun is up. A solar panel could solve this problem. But in cold areas it is during the nights and some days, when all the heating systems are running full power that the grid is strained. Since the car re-charge represent a large part of the energy used to heat up a typical home, the strain on the distribution network once a good portion of the population plugs in their car will be overwhelming.

While this condition happens only a few days or weeks per year, do you suggest that the programmable delivery system would simply prevent the car battery from being charged overnight? Does this means we wouldn't go to work during the cold weeks?

I am looking forward to have more electric cars around but must admit that there are many difficulties that have to be solved before all electric is mainstream. Meanwhile, hybrids or modern diesel ICE seem to be the best options.

Since the car re-charge represent a large part of the energy used to heat up a typical home, the strain on the distribution network once a good portion of the population plugs in their car will be overwhelming.

I think the adoption will be too slow to strain the system in a way that cannot be handled by ramping up capacity as it has been ramped up historically. My guess is that In the US, there will be 15,000 EVs (PHEV and BEV) sold in 2011, 30,000 in 2012, 60,000 in 2013, 120,000 in 2014 and 250,000 in 2015. That means that in 2015 we will be at 25% of the point that Obama hoped for. (Perhaps a lot of sales will go to the government, so that bureaucrats can drive $40,000 Volts while average income Americans can only afford $20,000 cars.)

Chevy originally planned to produce 10,000 Volts in 2011, but now plans 25,000. Maybe they will be right, and my numbers will be shown to be pessimistic.

It took VW 10 years to reach 1,000,000 in sales in the US at a time when they were effectively the only small car available. The VW required less of a leap of faith that EVs do, because it offered a pretty low price and very low operating costs. On the other hand the Prius has shown that people will pay a premium for an "economy car".

The upcoming Prius plug-in will have a smaller battery pack than the Chevy, and should therefore offer a lower price. People may find the trade-off more attractive: large portions of many commutes on electricity, with the engine starting frequently enough to keep is lubricated, etc.

The next 5 years will be very interesting.

I believe you are talking pragmatically in repect of this transportation issue.

On the contrary, he is talking entirely theoretically. The EPA has real test data on electric cars vs petrol cars, and electric cars create less carbon and cause the consumption of fewer resources in operation.

Seems to me that you have rolled about three issues into one and then answered one of them.

Yes, in simple terms electric or hydrogen vehicles do have their own problems and may be less efficient overall than, say, burning fossil/hydrocarbon fuel in a conventional engine.

However, there are other issues implicit in your question. The first is about the future cost of fossil fuel or its replacement with a synthetic hydrocarbon fuel or something else. The second is the cost to the environment of using hydrocarbon or other fuels and that will depend on how they are sourced. In the end it is overall cost effectiveness that will provide the answer.

So what exactly was the scope of the question?

Yes, in simple terms electric or hydrogen vehicles do have their own problems and may be less efficient overall than, say, burning fossil/hydrocarbon fuel in a conventional engine.

Although, in fact, they are not less efficient, if you compare apples to apples. The 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV causes emissions of about half the CO2 (because it causes the burning of about half the fossil fuels) of the 2002 RAV4. The 2002 Ford USPS Explorer causes emissions of about 2/3 the carbon of the gasoline engined Explorer of the same year.

leave about battery powered vehicles. Do you mean to say electric trains are polluting machines?Electricity based adaptations will take care of the planet in the future. Of course the main bottle neck is Clean, Green, Cheapest, renewable and augmentable Electricity Generation systems and nothing more than that. Energy Efficiency comes in the next priority.

how many times will oil company supporters post this thread/ solar and wind recharge of electric batteries from home just like all of us who have batteries for other uses like our houses and caravans.

so too hydrogen produced from green energy.

Give it up oil man, those with more than two brain cells are sick of youre rubbish.

I wish I could follow your point of your first two sentences.

It depends on what powers the grid.

And, as you have limited this to fossil power, I'd have to agree with your prognosis.

Even with 100% efficient batteries, a 'plug-in' car is still running on fossil, converted at 15 - 27% efficiency. ('cleaner' meaning lesser figures)

It is of course a totally different picture if the grid is running on alternate energy.

However there is nothing wrong with developing the electric technology, so long as one realises, grid change is essential to any meaningful 'environmental or energy efficiency benefit'.

I.e. having a discussion on "Watts on the electricity bill verses $ at the pump", or "service life" and "recycling", without asking about the efficiency of providing the 'fuel', or the impact of 'processes' of making/sustaining the vehicle, is about just about todays' wallet, not, best use of finite resources ≈ "solving the energy problem".

However there is another side to all this.

Transport produces around 14% of CO2 - so say uses 11% of total fossil, But the 'oil' form is running out much faster than coal.

So shifting transport across to coal is a 'better' option, if the goal is to deplete all resources by the same 'end date' ^_<irony and have uniform wallet damage ^_<sarcasm

Forget hydrogen for now. Far too lossy an energy storage medium with any current technology.

Electric vehicles alone won't solve the problem, but we should support continued development because they provide positive benefits now and they will be a significant part of the solution later. The other part of the solution is the development of "renewable" sources that can reliably become the major contributors to the electric grid. A large scale movement to EV's is still several years away. The main reason for slow sales now is cost and utility (inadequate battery capacity/life).

I'll add a purely personal/economic POV to this discussion because I think many potential EV customers want to help the environment IF they can practically afford to do so. Conditions will vary so I urge everyone to perform their own calculations. Those living in sunny warm regions should fare better because vehicles usually last longer AND there is 2x-3x my average insolation for home based photovoltaics to reduce the charging cost.

My cost for gasoline averages about 9 cents per mile. Using local numbers, cost would be 3 cents per mile for a full EV. This might seem like an easy choice, but there are OTHER factors. The breakdown for "my" usage is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------
internal combustion vehicle
$15,000 initial cost
12 year service life*
'
200000 total miles
35 miles per gallon
5714.3 lifetime gallons
$18,571 lifetime fuel cost (@ $3.25/gallon)
$0.09 fuel cost per mile
$0.17 total cost per mile
----------------------------------------------------
electric vehicle
$25,000 initial cost (includes rebates/incentives)
12 year service life*
$2,500 battery replacement (1 time)
200000 total miles
'
'
$6,000 lifetime electric cost (@ $0.10/kW-hr)
$0.03 electric cost per mile
$0.17 total cost per mile
----------------------------------------------------
I try to be "green" whenever possible. Walking instead of driving a half mile distance for groceries and post office feels good. Local travel on public transportation is fairly easy and surprisingly cost effective. For any other travel there is no significant cost incentive (yet) for me to buy an EV.

I really need only 1 vehicle and it must have a single trip range of at least 100 miles. On the few occasions I need more range I can justify renting an internal combustion vehicle. The Nissan Leaf "looks" like it might be a viable EV for my needs. IF it can meet some of its published specs in the lovely cold & snowy winters here, it will be near the top of the list when my current IC vehicle heads to the recycle yard.

*Note: Every car I've owned reached at least 200000 miles and was scrapped while the IC engine was still running well. The salt used on the roads here in winter eats through most major body structures within 8-12 years. The metal fuel, brake, A/C, and transmission lines also start to fail in the same time frame. When the floor pans and suspension mounts look like swiss cheese or disappear completely, it is no longer a cost effective option to keep a vehicle (safely) on the road. I expect both types of vehicles to have similar mechanical limitations.

Here are my numbers:

Used car $3,000

Service life: 8 years / 100 K miles @ 12K miles/yr

Mileage 25 mpg (avg)

Gas (@ $3.25 / gal) = $12,480

Annual Maintenance $500

Total out of pocket expenses = $19,480

New Kia Rio

MSRP: $11,695

10 year/100K warranty

Service life 8 years @ 12K miles/yr

EPA 32 mpg / 35 mpg

Total Gas @ $3.25/gal @ 32 mpg = $9,750

Total out of pocket expenses = $21,445

My point, EVs can't even begin to compete with a gas car unless the tax payers subsidize 33% of the vehicle costs and give you free electric for the life of the car.

EVs are a toy for the rich and those that are well heeled, at least for now.

To try to couch this debate on a comparison between the cost per mile of a used car vs. the "future for electric vehicles" subject of this thread is puzzling to me. What do you really want to express?

That because it costs less to drive a vehicle that consumes more natural resources, emits more pollutants and increases demand for a fuel that almost certainly originates outside of our country, it does not make sense to invest and develop an alternative? If you cannot afford to do that, like most of us, I understand. If you think that it is faulty technology, poor logic, let's debate it.

Incentives, tax breaks, tax subsidies. I think most people would prefer that the field is level, but it is not. Jobs, shareholders, voters, investors; the list of stakeholders is nauseatingly long, and they all have vested interests. EV is one answer that may work to help us.

Technology is wonderful.

My point, which I thought was clear, is that in the end consumers will buy what is least expensive. Most will not even cross examine the data to see what is cheaper in the long run or simply lack the credit or funds to buy a new car.

Others, who do have money, would rather have a new BMW rather than an EV.

It's fine that you want to buy an EV and feel compelled to do something altruistic. However, most people do not have your mindset and will choose what they must if they are not financially well off or what they want if they are and they have a perfect right to do that.

The main reason for slow sales now is cost and utility (inadequate battery capacity/life).

True. If we consider the 2002 Toyota RAV 4 EV, with Panasonic NiMH batteries, the capacity and life issues were effectively solved, for the needs of many drivers. However, the cost was not. Owners would be happy, I think, to replace a $3000 battery pack at 150,000 miles. A $15,000 battery pack is not so palatable. The battery pack in the LEAF is pretty good in terms of capacity and life, but poor in terms of cost. Although Nissan won't quote a figure, it is likely to be $12,000 or so, more if volume does no ramp up.

I have bet the farm on plug-in hybrids, and especially small efficient ones, becoming more quickly accepted for this reason. If you can use a battery pack that supports only the average commute, then that pack can be about 1/4 the size that many people consider a reasonable minimum (40 miles vs 160 miles range) or a tenth the size that is required for people to consider an EV as a real replacement for a family sedan (400 miles).

I would have liked to see the Volt priced at exactly the same price as the LEAF (and would like there to be no government rebates), so that the market can decide, with a level playing field. With my own proof-of-concept prototype,

it is just plain cheaper to make it a plug-in hybrid than to make it a pure EV with reasonable range, because of the high cost of batteries: the engine/generator is much cheaper than the additional batteries for even 100 mile range (instead of 30-40). Aside from the lower price, the advantage of being able to drive across the country, and to be able to get into work without delay if you forget to plug in, are overwhelming advantages of plug-in hybrids ("extended range electric vehicles" in GM speak).

I think your analysis is pretty good. However, the $2500 battery pack replacement cost is far too low. Even the Volt is expected to have a $12,000 battery pack replacement cost, and its pack is only 16 kWh. The pack in the Nissan (26kWh, if I recall) would be much higher. The current retail cost of the pack in my Zing! (pictured above) is about $2000, without installation costs. Right now, there are not huge discounts for volume: even at 10,000 cells, the price as close to the same.

IF it can meet some of its published specs in the lovely cold & snowy winters here,

It can't. The EPA's 73 mile range spec is probably good as an average, but in heavy, cold traffic, Nissan's simulation say 46 miles. (However, this is under very heavy traffic, averaging only 6 mpg -- which happens often in Atlanta, but not for the 8 hours or so that would result in 46 mile range! 60 - 70 miles in cold weather is probably about right for the LEAF.

I would bring up another point regarding the replacement cost of batteries. Although some have quoted $2500 to $4000, others have countered with $15000 to $20000. Either way, the majority of the public will not (cannot) shell out $15000 much less $2500 in one lump sum. This means charging it, and I don't mean battery charging. The credit industry would love this. In some countries, I have heard, credit is hard to obtain, so if someone has to replace an expensive battery pack, the acceptance of EV's will not be great. They will just be too expensive for most people.

This will drive (no pun intended) people to trade their vehicles in just before the point where what little recharge those failing batteries will hold becomes intolerable.

Also, there is no reason to believe that battery technology (and EVs in general) will remain steady state as far as technology goes. By the time that battery pack is too weak to satisfy, there will be plenty of advancements that will easily tempt people into a new ride.

there will be plenty of advancements that will easily tempt people into a new ride.

... or advancements that will lead to lower battery prices.

The differences in replacement price quotes come from differences in pack size and differences in guesses at what the market will do. Regardless of what the market does, a smaller pack costs less. Making the car a PHEV permits a much smaller pack than would otherwise be required. So I am betting that people will come to appreciate not only freedom from range anxiety, but also will appreciate the lower battery pack price for a PHEV.

This has been one of the more productive threads I've seen in a while, great discussion. Most have already touched on everything I can think of so far, other than disposal or recycling of the newer battery systems out there. So where is that now? What kind of impending long term (or short) problem could that create and what is the cost of recycling vs transfer of re-use or such. I haven't done much research on that yet and a quickie Google didn't show much in specifics either. Kinda concerning seeing as were looking at using LiFePo4's in one of our projects.

Lithium batteries are being recycled. The product of the recycling (aside from the plastics an non-lithium metals) is lithium carbonate, which is a pretty good source for lithium metal (much better than the common lithium ores). Toxicity is low, but lithium is very reactive, so must be handle with care.

GM has plans to rejuvenate cells. Will it work? Dunno.

I'm generally an optomistic person when it comes to technology and what the mind can come up with, but pessimistic when it comes to batteries. Call it a gut feeling if you like; I just feel battery development has hit a brick wall and any improvements in the future will be minimal at best. I don't feel there is a big break through coming.

A big technology breakthrough is unlikely, but we can hope.

Baby steps can make a difference. Over the next 5-10 years I'm betting we will make some improvements in battery capacity and longevity. I also predict that someone will figure out how to lower manufacturing cost by a factor of 4. At that point we really will have $2000 battery banks able to consistently go 100-150 miles per charge and last 5-10 years. Given these conditions, more people will seriously consider an EV as a primary vehicle. Once the sales volume starts to build, additional developments and further manufacturing cost reduction will occur. We just haven't reached that "critical mass" point yet.

Secretary Chu is thinking that in five years there will be a 400 mile range battery for cheap. (He's thinking 6-fold improvement in energy density.) (This would have to be something other than lithium-ion.) But even if not, prices will continue to come down, and specific capacity may edge upward.

I agree: car batteries must be refilled with electrical energy, they do not generate energy. And as mobile accumulators, are questionable.

Liquid fossil fuels should be reserved for IC engined cars and trucks, and not to be burned to generate electrical power, which can be produced in nuclear plants, and in renewable and clean electrical power plants.

The EV will replace IC engined cars and trucks when the liquid fossil or manufactured high energy density liquid fuels would be not available, unless a new suitable car electrical battery would be discovered, what I think very unlikely to occur.

There are technological limits, based on the physical laws. I think electrical batteries are in this venture. Other ways should be explored.

Arturo Pérez Rodríguez

Dr. Industrial Engineer

Liquid fossil fuels should be reserved for IC engined cars and trucks, and not to be burned to generate electrical power,

In the US, most power is generated by burning coal. A smaller amount is generated with natural gas (and the two account for about 75% of the generation.) So electric cars can permit the burning of coal and natural gas for transportation purposes, which is generally considered a good thing.

We have good data on the relative CO2 emissions of comparable electric cars and ICE cars. That the 2002 RAV 4 EV causes the emission of 1/2 the CO2 of a 2002 RAV 4 (gas) is also a good thing -- a very good thing, for those who believe that we need to do all we reasonably can do to limit CO2 emissions. (For many people, the idea of sequestration seems unreasonable on the scale required. And, of course, for others who do not understand the issues, it seems simple -- "just" gather the CO2 and store it somewhere.)

The EV will replace IC engined cars and trucks when the liquid fossil or manufactured high energy density liquid fuels would be not available, unless a new suitable car electrical battery would be discovered, what I think very unlikely to occur.

You may be right, (re no adoption until fossil fuels run out) but I hope not. If that is the case, we will have done too little too late to abate the increases in GHG levels. I think that pure EV's are not the best approach (because they do not meet the needs of most people) but think that shifting to PHEV's is a good approach. Such cars have the advantage that during most of their operation they emit about half the CO2 of a conventional car (and consume about half the carbon-based fuel). If the PHEV is additionally made small and efficient (in terms of wh/mile), then battery replacement costs are less of an issue, because the battery pack does not need to be large (and a PHEV inately has a relatively small pack).

Gasoline is expected to go to $4.00 per gallon in the US this year. We think of $2.50 as being about right, $3.00 as being uncomfortably expensive, and $4.00 the point where we actually consider serious changes in our habits and preferences. Eventually, things in the US could be more like they are in Japan, where very small cars are valued.

We can hope that the climatologists are wrong, but it increasingly appears that they are right. But aside from climate issues, it just makes sense to use less energy -- and EV's can do that, even with present tech batteries.

You wrote, "We can hope that the climatologists are wrong, but it increasingly appears that they are right."

Well, lottery players get it right once in a while, too.

You are comparing the ratio of opinions of scientists confirming problematic global warming to denying existence of the problem to the odds of winning the lottery.

You seem to make really good observations, but I'm having a hard time with this one.

You wrote, "You seem to make really good observations, but I'm having a hard time with this one."

You are not alone, my friend! First the climatologists said we were going to boil away. Then, a few years later, they said we were heading for an ice age. Then it was global warming, again. Now, we are heading for a deep freeze. "Oh, I give up!" cried the climatologists. Then, with all hands on their hearts they just settled on just calling it climate change and breathed a seasonal sigh of relief.

I don't know what is happening, and my observations tell me that neither does anyone else.

We ARE going to boil away, eventually. Before we do, we WILL deep freeze several hundred more times, if history has provided good info. (It usually does)

The question is, is our activity, specifically increasing CO'2 levels, accelerating that process, thereby changing the dynamic nature of the environment so that life has less time to adapt to extremes.

Don't worry about it, you'll make it just fine.

The evidence is incontrovertible. Every prediction made by the experts has been wrong in some significant way. My point is, no one can predict what is happening and there is a historical record to that effect.

You wrote, "The question is, is our activity, specifically increasing CO'2 levels..."

No. My initial claim is not linked to whether we are contributing to climate change. That is another matter and is not the question in my initial argument. My point simply was that we have been unable to predict what is happening with any degree of accuracy at all.

If you can't predict the behavior of a system, then you can't claim to understand it.

Let me re express that;

Every prediction made by the celebrity scientists has been wrong in some significant way.

Every prediction made by the experts has been ignored, because the above re-authored wrong in some significant way.

"no one can predict what is happening and there is a historical record to that effect"

If this applies to the above, then there are several case of 'luminaries' derailing progress by ill-informed prognostication.

If it applies to;

"If you can't predict the behavior of a system, then you can't claim to understand it"

then I'd ask: How do you tell if a system, you didn't build, is going, or could, go critical?

Or are you suggesting this is 'unknowable'?

No, not unknowable, just not well understood at all.

However, it seems that some do claim they know it all.

My claim is simple. You don't have to read more into it than it is. We don't understand climate well enough to reliably predict its behavior.

I am impressed. Now I see how these people are so effective. Deny that a problem exists, induce doubt by accusing the group (of the vast majority of climate scientists supporting the the theory of accelerated change due to increased CO'2 levels) of celebrity status and quackery. I've never met a single supporter of climate change doctrine who claims to "know it all". They are frustrated at how complex the problem is. It appears that the advancement of civilization is tied to increasing CO'2 production, and that is quite the sticky problem. Consumption of fuel has generally resulted in CO'2 production.

"That breach is insubstantial, I've got enough gas to make it, This hike is only for 1 day, we don't need much water, my 16 year old needs a car to get around" These are statements made by people who did not or could not grasp the complex nature of events, or knowingly accepted the risks.

You will do neither, although most of us believe that you are just to cowardly to say, "Look, dramatic climate change is just something we are going to have to live with."

With all due respect - that is not the way to convince a 'skeptic', who is largely so because of 'celebrity scientists'.

Take Tim Flannery - a biologist who famously predicted 'climate would return to the Jurassic model. This defies all logic of the time spiral as do the 'ice age' crowd deny planetary stabilization.

Tim - in his next 'best seller' published 'random math' on mixed bases, acquired from actually 'knowledgeable sources' and concluded/announced that hydro had no future in a 'drying climate'. The Australian Government immediately spent millions "securing water".

Fact is the data was screaming 'climate energy' = massive correction.

A total wild goose chase which might have been spent on something productive.

As is 'carbon trading'.

As is 'clean coal'.

As is 'go veg'.

As is CO2 an indicator - not "the cause", as Al would have it.

but where I differ from many people is that I do not feel that we should be in a panic about the situation, force everyone to have a carbon footprint quota, stop eating meat, wear burlap, ditch our A/C, live in caves, string beads for a living, junk their cars, and ride tandem bicycles (providing you sell enough beads to afford one).

If you did some research I think you would find that there are not "many" ("many" here meaning not simply "more than one," but "a significant percentage of the population") people who feel the way you described. Yes, there are some insane people, if that's what you are trying to say, and yes, you are different than an insane person (I think). A very large number of sane, reasonable people are working on ways to limit CO2 emissions. There are also extremes on either side of issue.

My observations have convinced me that "Climate Change" has been sadly politically hijacked

True. The conservative talk show hosts have turned the issue into an entertainment issue rather than a science issue. The commercial media in general cannot help but sensationalize the issue -- what bleeds leads, and invented controversy brings in viewers and increases profits.

My experience has shown me that it is proving what is real and pretense that has been the most difficult.

Proving what is real* is easy. Just wait 100 years.

*real in the colloquial sense. In the quantum physics/philosophical sense of the word, it is not so easy.

I agree with you A.H. We should look at the potential threat, do some work to avoid it but don't panic as it may be a false alarm.

In the 70's acid rain was one of the biggest problem. The buildings were going to dissolve away, the forests and the lakes to die, the farmer's fields to be leached out of nutrients.

While this is not the hot topic anymore, we are still suffering from it but it is under the radar. Some lakes and forests are damaged but recovery techniques are on their way. We also have developed a technology to reduce NOx emissions to almost zero in those large plants smoke stacks and our vehicles. Some plants are investing in the clean up but most are not doing much because the focus is now on CO2.

If CO2 is not the bad guy that it is claimed to be for climate change, it is the bad guy that stole the show and basically stopped the investment in reduction of NOx.

We may find that acid rain will come back as the main threat in a few years once everybody is tired of hearing about CO2 and climate change.

Meanwhile, we will have developed some CO2 removal technology that will be barely used as the focus of the political class will have changed once again...

We don't understand climate well enough to reliably predict its behavior.

That is certainly true, because we are not climatologists.

However, climatologists and virtually all the scientists I run into (or whose papers I've read), have me convinced that we can say (without sounding like idiots) that the increasing levels of GHG are caused by man and that global warming has occurred, and will continue to occur as a result of these increased levels. Climatologists can make those predictions with greater certainty than meteorologists can predict weather.

The reliability of climatologists' most basic predictions is sufficient that it appears prudent to reduce our CO2 output, because the potential consequences of doing nothing could be dire, and the benefits of conservation are high in many other ways.

So where do all of us who drive big vehicles because our work requires it fit in?

I don't like little runty cars because little runty cars cant haul big loads or pull big trailers.

All the people who push for the small vehicles tend to forget about all of us who make a living hauling all of their stuff because they cant haul it themselves. That is us construction workers, contractors, service industry, mechanics, utility workers, and the whole lot of us big delivery van driving mystery people who make this life of ours possible.

All the people who push for the small vehicles tend to forget about all of us who make a living hauling all of their stuff because they cant haul it themselves. That is us construction workers, contractors, service industry, mechanics, utility workers, and the whole lot of us big delivery van driving mystery people who make this life of ours possible.

I am pushing for runty little cars for those who can use them. That's to make up for the people who need the big ones. Like the people delivering all the parts to me and shipping the runty little cars. A lot of those big vehicles are pretty efficient: A school bus is a bunch better than 50 individual Priuses, each with one kid and his/her driver.

Let's see... a car carrier hauling 10 Priuses gets 5 mpg, using the same amount of fuel as the ten Priuses wouls on their own wheels.

MB

Most commercial over the road car carriers can fit more than 10 Prius on them plus they may only get 5 MPG but they are also carrying their own weight on top of the weight of the Prius's.

A loaded 80,000 pound car carrier gets 5 MPG yet a 3042 pound Prius, http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/specs.html , if driven conservatively gets at best 10 times that.

Some how my logic says that 80,000/3042 = 26.3 so how does a car that 26.3 times lighter and smaller than a commercial truck only manage to get at best 10 times the fuel mileage?

When you need to haul stuff, just by the numbers alone, little and runty does not cut it.

Actually, I was rambling on in favor of your point, not against it.

Most commercial over the road car carriers can fit more than 10 Prius on them plus they may only get 5 MPG but they are also carrying their own weight on top of the weight of the Prius's.

Commercial carriers actually fit 9 Priuses. This truck shows the standard loading of Volts, which are the same size as the Prius.

Some how my logic says that 80,000/3042 = 26.3 so how does a car that 26.3 times lighter and smaller than a commercial truck only manage to get at best 10 times the fuel mileage?

1. Because the frontal area of a car carrier is only 3 times the frontal area of a car, but it carries 9 cars.

2. Because the truck's engine is more heavily loaded, and operates at its peak efficiency when cruising with a full load. (Although the Prius engine is heavily-loaded for a car engine, it is lightly loaded in comparison to a truck.) Peak efficiencies of modern truck engines and the Prius engine are very close, at 35%- 40%.*)

When you need to haul stuff, just by the numbers alone, little and runty does not cut it.

Of course. But if you are delivering pizzas, around town, then a Prius is 5 times as efficient as an Expedition (per EPA tests which square with customer experience in both cases). A 747, fully loaded, is very efficient on a seat-mile basis, but gets about .16 mile per gallon. If the three crew are the only ones on board, seat-mile efficiency is astoundingly low, obviously.

The rest of this post is a mainly verbal diarrhea, but may be of interest to those with lots of time on their hands.

* At a constant 60 mph a Prius does not benefit significantly from hybridizing (other than in the commercial sense: if it were not a hybrid, few people would buy it because the engine would seem too small for current buyers [even though it is twice the HP of the original Beetle]). The Prius only needs 15 hp or so to maintain 60mph, so its engine is far from its efficiency peak at that speed. However, a 4 cylinder Accord is not too far away in streamlining from a Prius (.31 vs .25) and not much heavier, but gets about half the distance on a gallon, because its engine (at double the hp of the Prius engine) has about half the relative load. The Honda engine efficiency peaks at about 32%, but operates at about 12% or so during a 60 mph cruise. The Prius peaks at 38%, and operates at about 18% during a 60 mph cruise.

If you take the 55 mpg that a Prius gets in a constant 60 mph cruise (which requires less energy that the EPA highway test sequence) and adjust that down for the 10% aero difference alone, the accord would get 49.5. Then adjust that for the efficiencies (.12/.18) and you get 33mpg, about right for the Accord.

In motorcycles, the relative loading issues (combined with no streamlining) become almost comical. Motorcycles have relatively lax emission controls too, so have not benefited from the optimized mixture control that has come with closed loop control in cars. Put these factors together, and you end up with an HD Sportster, at only 650 lbs loaded with one rider, that gets worse mileage (about 40 mpg) than the Prius of 5 times the weight.

Disclaimer: I've raced motorcycles, flown aerobatics, and driven loads of cars and trucks that get "pretty good" to "awful" fuel efficiency. I drove a 4WD pickup for a while as my main means of personal a transportation. It was occasionally loaded to the point of overload, but usually (95% of the time) was 5000 lb of vehicle moving one tall buy scrawny runt.

I'm only a CR4 forum reader, but... may be the alcohol motor plus induction motor plus inverter / chargers plus Na-S batteries the solution?

Good analogy about the 100W light bulb. My problem with it is that an automoble is dependent on a ~22% efficient engine. A 100 watt light bulb is effectively 100% inefficient ( at least 99.9% of the energy goes up in heat). So, in my mind we cannot make the compareson between electric automobles and light bulbs. They are used for different reasons, and a light does no real work.

When we compare energy conversions, we also neglect the economics of energy production. We think that the cost to produce watts is the same regardless of the method. Politics and economic stability are the rulers in energy production, not efficiency. In fact efficiency has little to do with it.

I believe the only reason oil prices are volitile is that we simply can not move around much more than 80million barrels a day of oil, regardless of the supply or the price. Oil is meeting it's ceiling as far as transporting watts. To say another way, we want too much energy to get if by transporting and burning oil. A wire is the most cost efficient method of transporting energy that we can readily use. This is the key to electric transportation, not real work efficiencies or battery econmics.

( at least 99.9% of the energy goes up in heat).

It's actually only 98% or so... but your point is basically correct.

This is the key to electric transportation, not real work efficiencies or battery econmics.

Work efficiencies need to enter into the equation, I think. The effect of inefficient coal plants is a high rate of CO2 creation and a high rate of coal consumption.

Do you know the PERCENT of CO2 that is in the atmosphere? What is the rate of CO2 disolving into water? Trick questions yes. They tell me water is slightly acidic due to this phenomena.

Heat from coal is not necessarily inefficient. Electricity from photovoltaic is not necessarily inefficient. If massive amounts of source are readily available, and the product from using this source is valuable, then the process generally is worth implementing. Unless it is in somebodies best interest not to permit it.

Do you know the PERCENT of CO2 that is in the atmosphere?

Yes.

What is the rate of CO2 disolving into water?

It varies with water temperature. As the water warms, less CO2 is dissolved.

There are many other factors affecting the balance, but CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 30% in the last 150 years, in part because the water cannot absorb enough CO2 to keep up with the rate at which we are creating it, and because the feedback is positive.

Those are not trick questions, but a couple of the key elements of climate models for decades.

If massive amounts of source are readily available, and the product from using this source is valuable, then the process generally is worth implementing. Unless it is in somebodies best interest not to permit it.

I've bolded some of the modifiers that make it impossible to respond in a any specific sense. Best, for instance: Best in the long term? Best in the short term? Best for environmental reasons? Best for profit reasons?

In the US, we tend to think that what is "good" for corporations is good for all of us. (As GM goes, so goes the country.) But corporations are without conscience, and our largest ones have proven themselves to be short-sighted. That short-sightedness is reinforced by the stock market and investors. In my experience, a corporation (the collection of people) does not know what its best interest is, and the CEO knows only what is good for short term profits and keeping the stock price high. (Of course, there are exceptions.)

I wonder if the equilibrium of CO2 dissolving in water has been reached. I believe the higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the greater amount will be dissolved. Just chemistry, I could be wrong.

I am also amazed at the way we claim to measure CO2 in the atmosphere, especially the way we measure it 130 years ago. I am also amazed at the lack of impact on the chemical equation on photosynthesis(more CO2 should drive equilibrium toward making more O2). I am amazed at the lack of discussion and comparison between volcanos and man made pollution, especially the breathing part (we breath and emit CO2).

But I slightly digress. To make my point about electric transportation, one needs to do a little homework. Such as the impact Goodyear, I beleive and GM, I believe and possibly Coachman had on the electric rail industry 90 years ago. They got away with it almost entirely. Nothing was put back like it was.

The one I find most amazing is the electric RAV4. Where were all the tree huggers? This was in the news and a matter of public record. Yet, people still believe that battery technology for electric automobiles is not feasible. GM offers the VOLT. It is good for 40miles! This years after the electric RAV4 has proven 100 miles between charges for 100,000 miles. They have no shame.

My point is that politics and economics are strangling electric transportation (econimics of who has the gold). Technology and economical operaation are available and applicable. I believe we are in aggrement from two different view points. The CEO's have done every thing they possibly can to stop electric transportation. I believe "they" are using carbon footprint to try to stop it. I also believe that the carbon footprint of an electrically driven automobile is a fraction the equivalent gasoline automobile. Regardless, the gasoline and automobile companies have the economic gold. He who has the gold, makes the rules. It is like living in the twilight zone!

BY the way, %CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.038%. That's right, less than 1/10th of a percent. Way less. Just for those that may not know. I find that those who believe in CO2 pollution tend to be more aware of the actual amount in the atmosphere more than those who do not. The overwhelming majority of people do not know. Most would guess at around 20%. Wonder why?

The one I find most amazing is the electric RAV4. Where were all the tree huggers? This was in the news and a matter of public record. Yet, people still believe that battery technology for electric automobiles is not feasible. GM offers the VOLT. It is good for 40miles! This years after the electric RAV4 has proven 100 miles between charges for 100,000 miles. They have no shame.

As you may know, Toyota, Matsushita, and PEVE were sued over their use of NiMH batteries in the RAV4... and lost, amazingly. They could be licensed for use in hybrids but not EVs. What a world.

The Nissan LEAF compares better with the RAV4 EV. Similar range, similar battery life, etc, but the LEAF sells for a lower price than the RAV4 did. (The RAV4 is coming out again, strangely enough being built (in part?) by Tesla. I find nothing remarkable about the Tesla battery pack, and find the idea of thousands of connections off-putting. Given that Toyota has already built the praiseworthy 2002 RAV4 it seems like a strange pairing.)

The Volt is not as sophisticated as the EV1 was, and consumes more energy per mile, but has the advantage of not having any range anxiety. In my prototype vehicle, the trade-offs are a little clearer than they are in the Volt. In it, the weight and cost of the engine-generator is less than the cost of additional batteries to make the range acceptable. The lower weight makes for higher efficiency: fewer watt-hours per mile. (I think I am starting to repeat my post #27.) Because mine is primarily a commuting vehicle, I decided to forgo the added complexity and weight of permitting a direct drive mode, which would improve highway efficiency with the batteries depleted.

You are right that EV's cause the emission of a fraction of the CO2 that a typical car does. (That fraction is typically 1/2.) Until this week, these figures (for the RAV4 and Ford Explorer EVs) were on the EPA website, and they had some pretty good data behind them. Now they are gone, mysteriously. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

The remarkable thing about the Tesla battery pack will be in the way they get sued out of production. When you solder a bunch of laptop batteries in parallel, how will they get stopped? Total supposition on my part. I have no personal knowledge of Tesla's battery, from what little I have read I assume it is similar to laptop batteries soldered together.

The deal breaker should be $4 per gallon gasoline and the expiration of the patent on the NIMH battery in 2014. If those two things come to fruition, some one may have the nerve to market an electric.

I think it will be a boondoggle for the electric utilities. The ability to sell mega megawatthours during off peak demand. But I fear it will be precluded by those who have the gold. It will mean a major shift in our economy, from petroleum to electical utility? Significant upheavals in the way money circulates. Significant in the politics and economy that I spoke of earlier.

I believe it will be a phenomena similar to the electrification by utilities during the 20's 30's and 40's. But quicker. No REA's, all private companies, unless government motors (GM) intervenes.

I really believe the time is at hand. It will have to be if India and China are to start driving cars. I stick by my prediction that we can not transport much more than 80million barrels per day.

Nice corresponding, it has been a slow day. I may not have another like this one for a while.

The RAV4 is coming out again, strangely enough being built (in part?) by Tesla.

This is apparently not the case. Toyota is using the Tesla's battery/motor/controller system for convenience in their proof of concept vehicle. They have not decided to use anything by Tesla in the production version.