Another EV Company Bites the Dust...

$850,000,000.00 USD and a scheme to change out batteries every 100 miles?

The railroads built water stops every 100 miles and they were in a straight line.

I wonder how the costs compare, then to now.

"I can guarantee you that we will finish the need for oil as an energy source for cars before we run out of oil in the ground."

He had that right, although due to the massive reserves still to be tapped the date we will eventually (economically) run out of oil is still quite a ways in the future.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

In Northern Arizona and Northern New Mexico Ridgeway Petroleum has drilled thousands of test wells for oil and natural gas with a sucess rate of greater than 80%.

In New Mexico the wells have been developed and are producing. (Drive North out of Gallup, New Mexico to see this.)

In Arizona the success rate was just as high and the largest oil discovery was mapped under the Painted Desert and Petrified Forest National Park.

Interesting that none of the wells in Arizona are being developed and all have been placed in reserve. (Drive North out of Gallup, New Mexico and notice that the producing oil wells are only on the East side of the roadway on the New Mexico side and none in Arizona despite being in the same valley/basin.)

In addition to the above situation the Southern part of both Arizona and New Mexico have been and still are being test drilled with positive oil and NG discovery results yet none of the wells are being developed for production in either State.

According to the test well and sonic DATA, the deposits under the Painted Desert and Petrified Forest exceeds all recorded sites to date.

"According to the test well and sonic DATA, the deposits under the Painted Desert and Petrified Forest exceeds all recorded sites to date."

That's getting to be a common statement in the oil and gas industry. 10 - 20 years ago they were concerned abit about reaching the reserves limits now today we are finding massive oil and gas reserves everywhere.

The media is way behind on or hiding the real numbers though. I just saw a news report that here in ND we are shipping 500 - 700,000 bbls a day out. Where I worked a few months ago I personally saw around 1 million plus bbls per plus going out on rail alone per day and that was just what BNSF was taking to the east! The real numbers are more like 1.5 - 2 million bbls per day going out counting all rail lines, pipelines and, local refining.

Same with their reserves numbers. They said we had around 10 billion bbls of recoverable oil here. The local numbers directly from the people working here in the mapping and drilling crews are saying 10 to 50 times that is recoverable with todays tech.

Nothing new though. Since day one of the local boom the media numbers have been way low of what the local hands on word is.

But that's just the $4 per gallon plus stuff. The $3.99 and below is all used up.

Hmm. I see how that works.

Now if we were talking about the $4 - $15 a gallon stuff there are likely trillions of bbls still recoverable.

The story quotes that Oz has an installation of recharge stations and vehicle customers here.

Must be on paper because I've not seen or heard anything about it.
It would be just the thing for the current federal regime to be touting..

That's the trouble with Venture Capital Devices, it all looks good on paper till the thing has to make a profit.

There is always a predicted eagerness from the public which doesn't reciprocate accordingly. Obviously selling a car at the cost of a sedan won't give you profits.

A technical question though: What exactly prevents car companies from designing battery EVs whose batteries can be swapped conveniently and then set up battery swapping stations?

I understand that with the present designs of battery EVs, swapping the battery is more difficult/complicated? So what challenges actually exist in making designs where battery swapping is easier?

And you still haven't touched the issue of how a single charging station is going to get the massive amounts of electrical power that it takes to charge all those batteries.

That'll be from Unicorns on treadmills.....

Times 4 for quadricorns.

Yep, the grid is not ready for this (at least during daylight hours). We could charge some of these batteries during off-peak hours (late at night) when a lot of the grid's capacity is wasted. But we would need additional grid capacity before we could handle the full load, assuming that EVs became common.

I just read that Tesla is planning on powering its new charging stations with solar panels that charge up very large batteries at the station. They say that you will be able to drive all the way across the country even if there is a zombie apocalypse and the entire grid is down.

They don't say what happens if the zombies take over the charging stations, or if the zombies have their own Teslas to catch you with, but I'll be there will be a movie out soon that will give us pointers on how to deal with that.

Well gas tanks weren't made "swappable" for the simple reason that we didn't want them to be swapped, because the issue was as simple as filling it back in a matter of minutes. Given that an EV battery takes like 30 minutes to charge, or even more, it makes sense to have them swapped and thus design them in that manner.

In this case are there technical difficulties in making vehicles with batteries that can be swapped? I imagine if it is/can be done, it should be like an F-1 pit stop were people quickly work to replace the battery, you pay, and your back on the road.

I understand there is the issue of many manufacturers having their own batteries, and also the quality of the batteries one would be renting - giving a new one and exchanging it for an old one. One thing I can think of for now is keeping the renting cost as per the age difference between the battery you are giving away and one you are renting. But of course, there should be a method of testing the battery that is being given in the battery swapping station.

I certainly see the problems, but I find it hard to imagine they are quiet difficult to resolve. Thats why I am trying to understand the depth of it, to realize where I fall short of understanding it completely.

Would you want to swap your $60,000 worth of Lithium-Ion batteries for $1000 worth of lead-acid? I don't think so. Or for 3 year old ones with half the capacity? Not me. The only thing that makes sense to me is hybrid vehicles. When the battery is discharged, you use gas to get home to charge it up again.

Yea hybrid vehicles are good. They take care of the efficiency, but they are still dependent on gas.

When I spoke of swapping the batteries, I didn't mean swapping lead-acid with lithium-ion.

You wouldn't swap Li-Ion batteries for lead-acid batteries - you'd lose too much range, or you wouldn't be able to carry enough lead-acid batteries. But you would risk receiving a pack that was inferior to the pack you traded in. Three year old Li-Ion batteries aren't was used-up as three year old lead-acid batteries, but you are correct to be concerned about the packs you'd get.

Better Place wanted to eliminate the battery pack from the motorist's concerns by selling them a car (minus battery pack) and then leasing the batteries (along with the swapping service). But that's a large leap of faith since the batteries are so expensive, and the car is useless without them.

I agree that hybrids make more sense today. EVs aren't really ready for "prime time" yet. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, please.

If you consider that there are many brands of ordinary AA, AAA, D, and C batteries, many of them rechargeable, including innumerable "house brands" of batteries, I don't see why you think interchangeability is incomprehensible.

We find the same interchangeability for car tires, light bulbs, windshield wipers, oil, gasoline, and CD players.

In case you missed this part, these cars can be charged at home. It is only for longer drives that you would have to swap batteries.

The concept of interchangeability between brands is incomprehensible and unworkable.

When it comes to removable batteries the problem comes about due to industry standardisation (especially for the automotive industry).

Imagine every battery powered car manufacturer (and there will be many competing against each other) using a different battery! A disaster for car owners and totally un-viable as a solution in the end.

For removable batteries the battery must be standardised so car manufacturer x and car manufacture y vehicles can use the same battery replacement and charging stations.

Standardisation is extremely difficult in the automotive industry and you can bet that every manufacturer will want their product to be the standard. Remember the Betamax / VCR or Bluray / (whatever the other one was) wars?

I agree that it will be difficult, if it is ever to succeed. I can easily imagine every car model using a different battery, since that happens with cell phones. But as for the technical details of standardization, it won't be as bad as VCR vs Betamax. There is no fundamental patent involved, since the only thing to be decided is the shape, connections, mounting, voltage, amperage, the location on the car, etc. Nothing that a particular company stands to win or lose on. Like having the same arrangements of wheel studs on different cars. The capacity need not be standardized, and the chemistry can vary as long as it does not change the voltage and amperage and charging procedure.

On the other hand, I don't really believe that this will ever be needed. I have seen several news items regarding prototype batteries or supercapacitors that can be charged as fast as you can pour the electricity into them. That seems like a better and nearer solution. Here's just one:

http://www.zagg.com/community/blog/future-tech-will-allow-you-to-fully-charge-your-phone-in-under-a-minute/

The problem with supercapacitors is that they discharge about as fast as they charge. For vehicle use you need a long slow discharge.

I know that supercapacitors CAN discharge as fast as they charge, which can make them dangerous, but I don't think that is required. If you hook a battery and a supercapacitor with the same capacity and voltage up to identical loads, I think they're going to drain at the same rate, assuming the resistance is within the specs of the battery. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

My apologies. I left out the part about zillions of electronic products that are built to use interchangeable "flashlight" batteries. (Probably starting with flashlights.) I was not referring to cars using this kind of battery, just to the concept of interchangeability of batteries being "incomprehensible." I have no trouble comprehending it, so I wonder what lyn meant by it.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Inigo Montoya

Apologize for nothing. This is just another case of the sharp engineers at Lyn-Door Ind. seizing the opportunity to provide another service for mankind.

it's a problem of scale - both very large weights and sizes

You wrote, "There is always a predicted eagerness from the public which doesn't reciprocate accordingly..."

I don't think in this case there has ever been anything but a public yawn over EVs.

There have been a lot of very loud pundits out there, but the public never embraced EVs. And that has been the disconnect all along.

how come the public can embrace something that is not fully developed? It would be like putting a cow in meal dish,isn´t it?

What exactly are you saying the public is embracing?

I know that they can´t embrace a cow in a meal dish! but a finished project they may...

ps: EV is a author idea;

"how come the public can embrace something that is not fully developed?"

The public seems to embrace new sort-of-finished Microsoft software, with every release.

They may buy it, but that is because they really have no other viable options.

That hardly qualifies as embracing.

Semantics!

yyyyyeeeees! But we got to admit that they are friendly user!

@ Anonymous Hero

"I don't think in this case there has ever been anything but a public yawn over EVs.

There have been a lot of very loud pundits out there, but the public never embraced EVs. And that has been the disconnect all along."

That is true. The "predicted eagerness from the public" I mentioned was the assumptions of the company Better Place. I was giving reason as to why the company failed, and I find it surprising they didn't see these challenges through.

The public also has a lot of misconceptions about EVs too.

You wrote, "The public also has a lot of misconceptions about EVs too."

That may well be true, but the bottom line is bang for the buck and EVs can not match conventional cars when it comes to cost of ownership, range, and convenience.

For some people the bottom line is CO2 emissions rather than bang for the buck. I can refer you to what I call the "Prius Effect", in which a rather large number of people pay a premium to reduce their carbon footprint, losing money on the deal but gaining some peace of mind. The Prius was the top selling car in California last year.

Interestingly, a friend just bought a new Leaf, saying that the cost of the payments are less than he used to pay for gas, and the electricity to run it is really cheap. It's like getting an electric car for free. For long trips, he just rents a nice, clean, Prius with a 500 mile range.

The Prius at least represents some economy. At about $22K it is reasonably affordable.

I suspect most people buy the car rationalizing that it will be better on gas than other options they have in that price range.

However, the Prius did not even make the list of the Top Ten Selling Cars of 2012.

The top spot went to, of all things, the Ford F-150.

Herein lies the problem. Many people are left with the impression that the Green Movement has firmly rooted itself in the psyche of the American people, but the actual data points otherwise.

Only a small segment of the market is actually driven by their carbon footprint and an even smaller percentage (0.3%) of all vehicles sold were EVs. Yet, there are pundits out there that would make you thing that the revolution is at hand. Again, the numbers tell us that they are living in a state of wishful non-reality. Seems like a case of too much Prozac.

I agree with part of your post. Only a small segment of the market, not sure exactly how small, is driven by carbon footprint. But there are also people who think the price of gasoline will go up significantly, and they will also be interested in hybrids and EVs. Also, perhaps some people don't want to support oil exporting countries.

For whatever reason, the hybrid car market as a whole grew in the US by 41% in 2012 to roughly 3% of the total car market. Over 2.5 million hybrids of all makes have been sold in the US since they were introduced. Sounds to me like they have a future, regardless of Prozac. And apparently a LOT of people need trucks, so things may change faster when Toyota comes out with a hybrid truck.

By the way, the first hybrids were diesel-electric locomotives, back in the 1920's, and all diesel locomotives today are actually diesel-electric. The technology is not just a Green fad.

I keep hearing this argument over and over, but I think the truth is a far different story.

First, there are 255 million registered cars in the US. Of that, according to your figures, 1% are hybrids. The fact that sales grew 41% in one year is still trivial because the staggering number of non-hybrid cars still outweighs hybrids by two orders of magnitude. Over time that 1% will grow, but we really need to put that number into perspective.

Second, if economy is ones real concern, nothing beats the economy of a used car. For $2,500 you can get basic transportation when compared to the Prius, which is about $20,000 more.

$20,000 buys a lot of gas, too, so you can't say buying a new Prius is an act of economy. It isn't. Even a new Kia with a 10-year warranty is half the price of a Prius and still gets 35 mpg highway.

Last, people buy cars based on emotion and use facts to back up their decision. While there are some people that place "Green" high on their emotional list, the real sales numbers plainly show that segment of the market to be a tiny fraction.

With the Ford F-150 being the number one in sales figures that should show you where people's priorities are.

Again, most of the trucks on the road today are purchased based on emotion and substantiated with cherry picked facts. Few of those SUVs and trucks ever see anything more than the shoulder of the road. Even though I own my own home and do my own home improvements, the number of times I really need a truck over the course of a year can be counted on one hand.

For me, that simply doesn't justify owning one when the other 360 days of the year our family Saturn SL serves just fine.

Oh, and the Saturn has been paid for a long, long time ago and yearly maintenance is so ridiculously low that we can easily live with the combined highway/city mileage of 29 mpg.

Post Script:

While we are on the subject of economy, nothing beats the power of cash versus financing. Yes, I was foolish, too, in my past and borrowed money for cars, but I will never make that mistake again.

While those low interest rates may sound sweet, cash will always get you a better deal and if they won't budge, I will walk with my money somewhere else.

So, if economy is really your bottom line, buy used (where most of the devaluation has already taken place) and pay cash (where you can negotiate a much better deal and do not owe a lender interest payments).

Buying a new Prius (or any other car) and financing it is the height of delusion when it comes to economy.

I've owned a couple of "F" Trucks in my time and yes as a daily driver they're a waste, but gee I miss not having one in my fleet.

I buy used, but then I can do my own repairs so that makes financial sense to me. You can get a better class of "beater" to use the U.S vernacular, for what the cost of the interest payments on your new Prius would be, but it isn't for everyone.

Owning 4 Euro cars and a Long Term Project HJ45 Landcruiser is an intensive shade tree excersize which is beyond the ability of most people these days.

Though there are good reliable econobox cars about that would be good examples of thirft over vanity which would prove your point.

Still if I could find a good LWB F100 for the right money, I'd add it to the collection of lawn ornaments in a heart beat. That'd be that emotion thing you mentioned

I'm with you. Pickups are good.

I have a '97 Dodge Ram 1500 crew cab AWD that we used to tow my race car a few years ago. "Mr 10mpg" is paid for, insurance is a pittance, and I put maybe 1,000 miles a year on it. But it's great to have a pickup truck when you need it.

The weird part is, I paid $3,000 for it six years ago, and it's worth more than that now. I've seen them on Autotrader and EBay for $5000 and even more. Maybe everybody buying new $40,000 F150s has driven up the price of used pickups.

Another weird part--Mr 10mpg is more reliable than my BMW M3 and 740 and as reliable as our new Chrysler 300C.

EVs have a long, long way to go before they replace good ol' reliable pickup trucks.

"…the staggering number of non-hybrid cars still outweighs hybrids by two orders of magnitude." True, but let's be fair and admit that hybrids have only been widely available for about ten years vs. over one hundred years for gasoline cars. EVs are still not widely available.

"…nothing beats the economy of a used car." How about a used hybrid?

"$20,000 buys a lot of gas, too, so you can't say buying a new Prius is an act of economy." The Prius starts at $24,200.00 (MSRP) so this argument is outdated. Used ones cost less.

"…people buy cars based on emotion and use facts to back up their decision." Environmentalists are usually quite emotional. Here's a way one justified her decision to me, "I look at the hybrid as an option - just like a fancy stereo or air conditioning, etc. I spent my extra money to get great gas mileage and skipped the big stereo and Bluetooth and leather seats."

Overall I agree with your arguments, but I feel that some are over-generalized or are comparing apples to oranges. You admit that the highest selling vehicle (Ford F-150) seems illogical based upon your own needs. So it's hard to claim that hybrids are unviable because people aren't buying enough of them.

Hybrids and EVs cannot compete with gasoline or diesel vehicles in every category. But no single gasoline or diesel vehicle is right for every situation either, and that's why there are so many different designs out there. Hybrids and EVs have their niche, and if that niche doesn't work for you today doesn't mean that they can never be viable. The biggest selling point for hybrids and EVs is fuel efficiency, but the public is mainly interested in that only when it impacts their pocketbooks. When petroleum is relatively affordable then the premium you'd pay for a hybrid or EV doesn't make sense. When petroleum gets too expensive, and the hybrid or EV premium comes down, sales will increase. The urban cowboys will still buy their pickup trucks and complain about gasoline prices. But we're not forcing anybody to buy what they don't want.

The experience in Oz, is that there's nothing sadder than a used Prius.

You will see them languish on used car forecourts for months, which equates to a net loss for the dealer as they make their money on fast turnover of cars.

They start on the front row, and work their way to the back of the yard eventually out onto the truck to the auctions . Depending on how old they are the nearer "Battery Expired Date" they are, the less people are incline to buy them for real money.

Once the battery dies that's it straight to the crusher they go.

I can buy a used luxury car/ diesel SUV and run it for a year for the price of a replacement Prius Battery, so why would I buy a used Prius with that cost hanging over me? Once the battery dies the Prius is bricked and becomes an unattractive lawn ornament.

As much as I'd love to run a EV car as my daily driver, the net costs don't add up. Until the Battery technology gets better at packing the charge into a suitable form factor, then I'll stick to what I got

You're right, once a Prius gets close to the end of its battery warranty then it's too big a risk. But it's also a good bargining chip if you'd like to try one before it dies, or want to reverse-engineer it. Not sure that the Prius "bricks" if the battery dies - the gasoline part should still work. Don't be surprised if a substitute aftermarket battery pack appears...

Also agree with your assessment about pure EVs. They only fit a small niche until battery technology gets MUCH better. Good for people who can afford to own a short distance commuter as a second car, and are willing to pay the price as an early adopter.

I work in the downtown of the third largest city in Arizona.

Among other things, I manage the 10,000 public parking spaces in the downtown square mile of the city.

About 6 months ago we installed 20 EV charging stations in 5 various parking lots downtown.

So far, I've never seen any of them in use, although I'm sure some of them have been used.

Welcome to the forum. Your insight is very timely.

I'm not sure what you mean by "too big a risk" because with any used car you might have to replace the transmission, or the engine, or the computer the day after you buy it. Used car dealers are the standard of trustworhtiness by which most people judge how much they trust Congress.

Secondly, there is already an aftermarket battery market for Prius batteries. You can get a rebuilt one for under $1500. How much does a rebuilt transmission cost?

Third, remember that the "battery warranty" is only the date that the manufacturer guarantees it, not the day that it actually stops working. In California the Prius has a guarantee of 150,000 miles, and it usually keeps going a lot farther than that. There is a story just yesterday about a Prius that went 530,000 miles on the original battery, and then they were in an accident so they won't ever find out how far it would really have gone. Prius owners on PriusChat say they often get very high mileage on their batteries, 200K, 300K. (But of course the ones who don't may not be on there bragging about it.) By the way, they save in other ways. They seldom have to replace brake pads, because of the regenerative braking. I saw cost-of-ownership reports that put hybrids ahead of conventional cars because they're more reliable.

Fourth, sounds to me like if a used car dealer with a Prius on his hands thinks the battery will stop working when the battery warranty expires, then there is a great opportunity for somebody who knows better to take it off his hands for cheap. Especially if the dealer is in one of those states where the warranty only has to be 100,000 miles, while Toyota conforms to California's limit of 150,000. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that Toyota makes worse batteries for the states with a shorter warranty.

I agree with your ascessment 100%. Buying used is the best way to save money, but there are those who just want the newest with the new car smell that goes with it. One factor that I see that determines buying new vs used is cash at hand. a person with little money can easily walk into a car showroom and drive out in a brand new car in less than half an hour. That same person wanting to buy a used car, would have to come up with a hefty down payment, usually 1/4 to 1/3 of the price. That puts a restriction on buyers with little cash on hand. Seeing people drive to their welfare office in the latest new car attests to new vs used purchases. I see it all the time; people paying for their groceries with food stamps and loading them into a brand new car. The last time I bought a new car was in 1992. Every other car or truck since has been used. The bottom line will always be "how much will it cost me?" If I don't have the money and I need transportation, environmental concerns will be last on my list of concerns.

It is always better to pay cash for your purchases rather than pay interest and finance.

First, you get a better deal as cash is always king when you negotiate.

Second, interest rates (even low ones) add a lot of extra cost when financing. The "pay me later" approach always costs more in the end.

Third, a new car devaluation curve is always steeper at the point it leaves the dealer's lot. Example: my last car was purchased used with 5,500 miles on it plus a 3-year manufacture warranty. The resale price I paid was 75% of new. I now have added over 75,000 miles to the car and the current "Blue Book" value is about 75% of what I paid for it. Still a loss, but much less so than what the first guy paid.

The first owner has taken the majority of the devaluation, just for the privilege of garaging, insuring, and lightly exercising my car.

Buying on credit is a false economy. That is why I discourage buying cars on credit. By never paying things on credit you avoid huge amounts of interest. Paying as you go eliminates this, teaches good financial responsibility, and after a few years of living that way if you really want a new car you can always buy it with 100% cash and that is really being in the driver's seat.

"First, there are 255 million registered cars in the US. Of that, according to your figures, 1% are hybrids. The fact that sales grew 41% in one year is still trivial because the staggering number of non-hybrid cars still outweighs hybrids by two orders of magnitude. Over time that 1% will grow, but we really need to put that number into perspective"

The actual numbers of cars existing right now is impressive, but exponential growth rate is a pretty powerful force over time. By that standard, a 41% growth rate is actually very impressive to me, both for better and for worse. The most important feature of any long term investment, or debt, is its interest rate. Every redwood tree, and every cancer, started with a single cell.

Hybrids made up about 3% of the new car market in 2012. If it grows by 41% every year it will be almost 100% of new car sales in 10 years. That sounds impressive to me.

If.

There is no way to really say that hybrid growth rate will continue unabated nor likely that it will actually get to 100%. I can't see that and here is why:

First, there needs to be another breakthrough in hybrid technology for the cost versus benefit to pan out. Let's compare some popular compacts' prices to the Prius and chart the number of years that it takes to break even cost wise...

Right now the cost of ownership for hybrid technology really doesn't earn its keep. A Prius might outperform a rival car by 20 mpg, but at 12K miles a year and $4.00 a gallon gas, that only a $600 savings. 13 years later you break even ad recover the $10,000 premium to own a Prius.

Unless the prices drastically drop, the love affair will soon die when people realize they are paying a premium to join what essentially is a snob club (no offense meant).

I can lay waste to those numbers if I just buy a used car (or better yet, just keep my existing family sedan that is paid for). Again, if you need a car and want to spend the least amount of money for cost of ownership (including gas and oil) a used car wins every time. You can even splurge for an extended warranty if you so desire. So, again, I claim a hybrid is a false sense of economy and I think people will begin to see that in increasing numbers as time goes by and the fad wears off.

On the other hand, when they start making hybrids that cost as much as equivalent models that are non-hybrid, then the technology would spread very rapidly. That is a very hard hill to conquer.

I have a number of issues with the Prius, but the main one is that it uses a petrol motor. Had it used a Diesel motor capable of Bio Diesel/WVO use then it would begin to make ecological and economical sense to own one from new.

Reality is that the Prius (and its Honda equivalent) and Hybrid Camry, and Lexus are purely Marketing exercises for gullible wealthy greentards, no more.

In my fleet of 5 vehicles, the Pug 205 Si was the dearest at A$2.5K. We've owned it for 3 years now it owes us nothing does 6l/100km and She Who Must Be Obeyed loves it to bits. It has let her down 3 times 2 failed 2nd hand fuel pumps and an alternator. Total cost of repairs A$250.

My 740 Wagon and 760 sedan were $!K pound puppies that I rescued from the wreckers, I drive the wheels off them they owe me nada, aside from regular maintenance. The latest addition is a Pug 405 Estate SRDT(Diesel), another $1k pound puppy I've rescued. The LTP HJ45 Landcruiser is just that, a big meccano set but a bloke has to have some toys.

How do I justify my cars, I don't it's my choice but if I had to it comes down to redundancy. When you own older "classic" cars then you need to make allowances for when the wheels fall off. My average yearly mileage is around 50,000km when you split that between a couple of cars its not so harsh. Note the average Oz driver does around 15,000km per annum. We live in a coastal/rural environment on the fringe of both metropolis (Sydney & Newcastle) with poor to non existent public transport so individual transport is very important.

Yes I could probably buy a new car, drive the wheels off that and at the end of 5 years trade up to something newer, except the costs of ownership are magnitudes higher and as AH alluded depreciation bites real hard (a car with more than 200,000km has poor resale value). Where as classics retain a degree of value (for the right car).

At the moment my fleet absorbs around 15% of my income including running costs (the addition of the 405 SRDT will maintain that average despite increases in fuel costs) I know from previous experience that a new car can absorb more than 30% of my annual income, when you factor in depreciation that number would be higher. I got more interesting things to plow my money into than last years model car..

The other issue I have with the Prius is that aside from the initial geewizz factor, they're dead boring to drive. But then it's probably appropriate dynamics for those who buy them...

Three of my four cars are old.

My 97 Dodge Ram pickup truck is pushing 200,000 miles, yet costs me almost nothing except maintenance.

My 2001 BMW 740i is my daily driver. When it breaks it's dang expensive to fix, but when compared to the cost of financing a newer one, I druther fix it. Besides, it looks so much better than the newer ones. And it doesn't have 30 onboard computers and 372 sensors, like newer cars. It's actually fixable.

My 96 BMW 332ti is a track car (see photo to the left), and my major expenses are buying things to make it go faster. EVERYBODY needs a toy car. Someday, I'll replace it with an older 308, 328 or 348 Ferrari. Life is short--always drive a cool car.

Finally, we have a new Chrysler 300C AWD. It's my wife's car, and her daily driver. It's our second 300C, and we bought it because we could get it with a LIFETIME FACTORY WARRANTY from Chrysler!

These days, when buying any car, you must be aware of repair costs, especially when they go out of warranty. Transmissions in some BMWs, for example, cost $20,000 to repair because with all their computers they can't be fixed--they have to be replaced. The rule is: Never buy a BMW, Mercedes or Audi without a warranty.

Unless, of course, you buy a used car that CAN be fixed--like an older car that doesn't have 30 computers and 372 sensors. Click and Clack once advised a woman who was looking for a reliable used car to buy a restored 1980s-vintage Chevrolet because it would probably run forever and could be fixed by any garage.

I agree that there is no way to say that the hybrid growth rate will continue unabated. Or not continue unabated.

I agree that there needs to be another breakthrough in hybrid technology, but breakthroughs are not exactly unheard of. The batteries/supercapacitors I mentioned in this thread may someday make EVs so practical that hybrids may become obsolete along with all internal combustion cars. There's no future predicting what will NOT be invented.

Your suggestion to buy a used car goes both ways. Buying a used Prius would give you all the gas savings and a far smaller extra cost. Let the green-minded buy them new for whatever reasons they want, such as being allowed into the carpool lanes, and then take them off their hands when they pop for the next green thing. As I've said here, the batteries last a lot longer than the warranty, and only cost $1500 (and coming down).

Making hybrids as cheap as conventional cars is not realistic and not necessary. Any reduction in cost helps make the break even point come sooner. So does improving the gas mileage. Currently they also get other perks such as using carpool lanes. Being able to go 600 miles on one tank of gas helps. Reduced maintenance on things like brakes and transmission helps.

This argument becomes more dated every day. You can find manufacturers with offerings that have less than $10k price differences between their regular gasoline and hybrid versions. For example, the price difference (MSRP) of a Ford Fusion SE and a Ford Fusion Hybrid SE is $3370. So you're not going to wait 13 years to "break even" based on the cost of gasoline.

At least the hybrid "option" has a chance of paying for itself. Most other options don't, and can't until you sell the car.

"What exactly prevents car companies from designing battery EVs whose batteries can be swapped conveniently and then set up battery swapping stations?"

1. Liability. Exposure danger to technicians and the public.

2. Warranty. Can't guarrantee a battery that did not originally come with the car. Many people are adverse to purchasing or leasing a car that does not warrant such a major and expensive component.

3. Standards. Nothing is standardized about the electrical portions of an EV (yet) except for charging connections - and there are several competing standards for those.

"So what challenges actually exist in making designs where battery swapping is easier?"

1. Battery size and number required vs. space available. Coupled with different car designs with different purposes, makes it hard to build standardized module sizes and place them in standard locations.

2. Different battery chemistries require different monitoring and charging electronics. Battery development is evolving rapidly enough that it is risky to settle upon a manageable number of chemistries to support, and supporting them all is complicated.

3. High battery currents make even slight connector wear or damage troublesome. They also pose significant risk for technicians trying to make a quick swap.

4. Better EV designs include environmental conditioning for battery packs that would also require standardized connections and locations.

These reasonss are just what came to mind... there are probably others.

Market! I really think there is not the market that most proponents claim. The proof is in the numbers.

Well, we get a lot of interest. Not that that automatically translates into market (people don't always put their money where their mouths are). But I believe that there would be a stronger EV market if EVs were more cost competitive with high mpg gasoline cars, and if the public's range anxiety (real or imagined) could be calmed. We've learned this from doing our own demonstrations and answering questions.

As far as "the proof is in the numbers", we are too early in this venture to claim confident analysis. First, people keep mixing EVs with hybrids, skewing the numbers. Second, manufacturers are limiting the availability of their EVs and are not advertising them heavily. Nissan has probably done the most with their offering (the Leaf), but bad PR from the first generation's battery pack failures have hurt not only their own cause, but probably tarnished the reputation of the whole industry somewhat. But the main thing is exposure. I live in an area with about 750,000 people and dozens of car dealerships, but can find only two dealerships that have EVs on their lots. Neither advertises beyond their web pages. Manufacturers cannot cry "not enough market" when they don't bring their product to market.

It sounds like you are part of an upstart EV company. I wish you luck.

Personally, I do not think the weak link in EV sales is going to be advertising. You need to break the cost of ownership (includes purchase price, maintenance, and fuel) barrier compared to conventional cars and you do need to address the mobility barrier, which allows unfettered access to long trips.

I would not mind owning an EV, but it also mandates a conventional car for our vacation trips or visiting relatives and friends. That does not make economic sense for us or the average person.

However, my friend bought a Tesla Sports Car as a "toy" car, but he has the disposable income as well as other cars, whereas most of us do not.

So, there is where the market is, with the high heeled, not the average consumer.

"I would not mind owning an EV, but it also mandates a conventional car for our vacation trips or visiting relatives and friends. That does not make economic sense for us or the average person."

Actually, it makes great economic sense to have a car specialized for commuting every day, EV or not, and then renting a car, van, pickup, four-wheel-drive etc., for those long trips. That way you don't have to compromise on having the perfect car for whatever destination you have in mind. If every month you spend nothing for gas instead of $200+, the savings add up fast for people who care about money.

"So, there is where the market is, with the high heeled, not the average consumer." Funny, I thought the average consumer was high heeled, or at least half of them. Perhaps you mean well-heeled.

I don't find renting a vehicle efficient.

It's more efficient to have one vehicle that does everything.

Seems like that depends on what you mean by "everything." You can't have a car that gets 40 mpg for commuting and also pulls your horse trailer up a mountain.

Also depends on what you mean by ''efficient." If you need to commute 200 miles a day and also go visit grandma once a year with the whole family, you could do that with one vehicle, by having an SUV that seats 7, gets 10 mpg, and it would handle both jobs. A very expensive commute but it would be more efficient because it would save the time it takes to call a rental company once a year to have a minivan delivered to your door.

So efficiency in this case does not take account of the cost of gas, the time it takes to fill up every couple of days, or the time that cousin Brucie wants to ride with you to grandma's house, so you have to rent a minivan anyway so everyone can fit.

(OK, cousin Brucie could sit in a dog carrier on the roof: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/living/2013/05/29/pkg-girl-spotted-in-dog-cage.kdka.html )

For me, I just need a car that holds a reasonable amount of cargo or passengers.

We are a simple two-car family. We have a Saturn SL that has folding rear seats, so it easily swallows cargo when needed and gets 29 mpg.

I drive a two-seat sports car, but it has plenty of space behind the seats for things. We used to carry a full sized cello and acoustic guitar in their cases back there when we were taking lessons. We use the sports car to travel on long trips with enough clothing for 3 to 4 days plus camera gear (large knapsack) without a problem. It only gets about 28 mpg highway, but it is fun to drive and like the Saturn, it is paid for!

Bottom line, we have two cars that work for us and they are both paid for. I can't see shelling out $29,000 for a new Prius even if it gets 20 mpg more than the Saturn.

At 12K miles per year the Saturn consumes $1,655 in gas (at $4.00 per gallon). The Prius would only use 203 gallons, which saves me $842 every year.

At that rate of savings I can pay off the Prius in only 34 years, which is pretty stupid.

My oh my, is it that famous already?

Just don't understand why it is biting the dust... the world hasn´t end yet!

Fisker also bit the dust. It's bankrupt, too. Fisker was a sensational car--beautiful and built well. According to Road & Track (http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/first-looks/destino-bob-lutz-corvette-powered-fisker-karma) Bob Lutz is putting 638-hp Corvette motors and drivetrains into them. If you have a spare $200K, you could buy one. At least the Corvette motor won't turn into a $40,000 brick if you let the battery discharge.

In this business model, you are not just buying an electric car that you charge in your garage. You are subscribing to a service and you will be depending on that service for as long as you have that car. If a potential customer is confident that the service will always be there and always be affordable, then the business model may succeed. If potential customers think the company is unreliable, in financial trouble, or may raise its prices too much, then they won't join the crowd. But this business model requires that a large crowd of consumers trust the company enough to jump on the bandwagon in order to gain momentum.

What would inspire confidence would be to have multiple companies all launch similar vehicles with compatible batteries, all competing with each other for quality and battery capacity, and to have swapping stations all over the place. Maybe every gas station, or every car dealership, would be able to swap batteries.

The cost of the battery is not relevant. Customers will be paying for the electricity in a swapped battery, and not for the battery it comes in. That means that it won't matter if one battery is $60,000 and another is $1000. You just pay for the electricity it holds. Obviously there would be more demand to swap for a battery that has 200 miles worth of energy, than for a battery with 100 miles worth, the same way there is more demand for a battery that is fully charged than for one that is half charged.

http://www.haaretz.com/business/business-opinion/the-fall-of-israel-s-better-place-when-vision-isn-t-enough.premium-1.526072

This one has another opinion:

"The firm's collapse may be sad, but it's no surprise. It never did have a compelling business model. Put otherwise, its business model was complex and complicated and in the end, couldn't support its own weight."

New! Now available for EVs, and ALL vehicles. Lyn-Door Industries presents DIY replacement batteries for your vehicles. Got a golf cart? No problem. Got a Tesla? No problem. How about that 1940 Buick with that odd battery that is no longer available? NO PROBLEM!

Now Lyn-Door Industries will sell you an adaptor harness to convert to the universal interchangeable battery. The AA.

Everyone knows where they can find AAs. Wall-mart, Walgreen's, Dollar store, hell you have AAs under the couch cushion.

Now you can just get rid of the heavy, clumsy battery or batteries that came with your vehicle, and substitute AAs. Light convenient, and so easy, a child can do it.

Act now, and Lyn-Door will also send you the first 100 AAs for FREE! Thats right. The first 100 batteries are FREE.

Act Now This Offer Can't Last!

I approve this message.

Funny, I gotta admit. I laughed out loud.

But you're on the trailing edge of technological standardization. The new economy isn't based on flashlight batteries, but laptop batteries:

"Tesla Motors refers to the Roadster's battery pack as the Energy Storage System or ESS. The ESS contains 6,831 lithium ion cells arranged into 11 "sheets" connected in series; each sheet contains 9 "bricks" connected in series; each "brick" contains 69 cells connected in parallel (11S 9S 69P). The cells are of the 18650 form-factor commonly found in laptop batteries." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Battery_system

I even have a rechargeable flashlight that uses 18650 batteries. I get them by disassembling old laptop battery packs. I recycle the bad cells and reuse the good ones. Hey! It works for me. Why pay money for something you were going to recycle when you can just reuse it?

Of course, I have to ignore the dire warnings on the battery packs I crack open and gut.

You have a flashlight that uses eighteen thousand six hundred fifty batteries? Must be pretty big.

Lights up the dark side of the Moon.

It occurs to me that maybe the EV companies should work on something smaller to get the public's attention--like lawn mowers. I've got a Cub Cadet 42-inch lawn tractor that could be converted to an electric motor, if somebody offered a kit. Imagine if they could offer a kit for, say, $500. I could mow my acre without having to use two gallons of $5/gal gas. Over the course of a season, I'd save $10 x 4 mows per month x 6 months = $240, and pay for the conversion in two years--not to mention eliminating the cost of oil changes and stuff.

Something like that could almost be a "standard" one-size-fits-all conversion kit that could spread like wildfire through suburban neighborhoods, and let consumers see how the benefits would extrapolate to EVs. Besides, it would give the EV companies time to come up with a decent battery.

Not to mention al the annual maintenance from ethanol in the gas!

Electric riding mowers are available....

They have riderless mowers too, in fact they have robo mowers...

Thanks for the info, but I don't want to BUY a new one--just convert an old Cub Cadet.

I agree, that lawn equipment would be a great place to start. I've been using a Neuton Mower (http://www.neutonpower.com/) for the last 3 years and it works great. I can mow my lawn (takes me about 45 minutes) on a single charge of the battery. The battery is removable which makes the mower easy to clean.

I know how to solve the problem of replaceable EV batteries: Let Formula 1 handle it.

All they gotta do is change the rules so that an EV can compete in F1. No restrictions on weight, motor output, battery size or "refueling"--that is, they can change the batteries as much as they like during a race.

Here's why it would work:

1. EVs can generate hundreds of horsepower--more than enough to be competitive.

2. F1 already has electric power, The KERS (Kinetic energy recovery system) in F1 cars has been in use since 2009, and adds about 80 hp to the gas-powered engine. So F1 is already hip to electric motors in a race car.

3. F1 has plenty of money. They could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on developing the technology. All F1 has to do is write EV rules that make it possible.

4. The key would be a fast pit stop to change batteries. Today, a fast F1 pit stop is about 3 seconds to change four tires. F1 would figure out a way to swap batteries in about that time. They would also figure out how to make battery power last as long as possible, thus reducing the number of pit stops.

The only bad part is that we would no longer hear the shriek of F1 engines turning 18,000 rpm--and sound is a huge part of motor racing. Bernie would figure out a way around that, too.

Once F1 solves the problem, it could transfer easily to EVs.