Who killed the electric car?
 

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

Disclaimer: Mods, if you feel this belongs in media centre, then by all means, move it. However, due to the nature of the content, I believe that this thread will get quite political anyway.

Found a link to this movie on another site. I haven't seen it yet, but the trailer and the info on the website certainly are intriguing. With the rising cost of oil, why hasn't there been more incentive to find more fuel-efficient methods of driving a car?

What do you think about this issue? I remember largely being told (and reading) that electric cars simply weren't efficient enough, but this is shining some new light on this situation. Certainly stuff that oil companies wouldn't want to tell you, and it also tells you why they're slowly looking into hydrogen fuel cells, which will still take a few decades before we see them (after which, they will still benefit from it, cause you can get hydrogen from oil).

We've all joked about the oil companies buying up every little secret that would make oil less valuable (like a steam powered car, or one that runs on peanut butter. Heck, I remember a clip on the Simpsons where they were at Disney World, and the electric car ride, funded by oil companies no less lol, said it couldn't go far and that you were gay if you rode one), but do you think something like this movie will have some ounce of truth to it?

Do you think that if electric cars were as good as this movie claims, and was as readily available to the average joe (with the required infrastructure to support it), it would be a good or bad thing? Why or why not?

http://www.firepile.com/images/stonecutters.jpg

Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?

WE DO! WE DO!

LOL, I actually had that stone cutter's song going through my head while typing this post up (they make a reference to keeping the electric car down in case you don't get it).

They do? Wow, that's a hell of a coincidence, seeing as I just posted a Stonecutter's image and all. Funny how that worked out for all of us.

If there's any fossil fuel we're going to be taking hydrogen from in order to power fuel-cell based cars it's going to be natural gas, not oil. I mean, why would you ever replace the internal combustion engine with a less efficient alternative when you're going to be using the same fuel?

We haven't seen research into these alternatives because there's been no reason to do it. Oil is just so darned convenient and cheap that nobody sees a reason to sink billions of dollars into an alternative until that alternative is in really high demand.

The tragedy of such a question...beware the truth, hey? It's a DOCO. You should be wondering about possible OUTRIGHT PORKERS.

Chicken and the egg. How do we create really high demand?

Are hydrogen fuel cells like the most efficient thing in the world, though?

I think the problem comes in plating the electrodes (needed in every engine) with platinum. That's right, a part of every hydrogen fuel cell engine has to be coated with platinum.

That's not cheap.

I really don't think the oil companies could get any dumber. Whichever one of them develops some new type of fuel that becomes the standard first stands to make a hell of a lot of money, and it's not like they have to make that much in the way of adjustments at the gas stations... I mean, obviously the fuel is still going to have to be in liquid form and gee where do you suppose they have pumps for pumping liquid fuel into cars?

Although elecrtic cars still wouldn't work that great overall. They're really nice for stop and go traffic but freeway driving is hell on the battery as the car has to keep up high speeds for long distances. That's why hybrids get lower gas mileage on freeways, because combustion engines are much more efficient for that kind of driving and thus the car lets the engine do most of the work as opposed to city driving where the battery gets it's giggles.

It's actually quite the opposite for me. I drive a 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid, and provided the freeway isn't going up a mountain my mileage is worlds better than what a combustion engine gets. The trick is just learning to drive so that you spend a good amount of the time coasting whenever you can. Most time on the freeway is spent with my battery charging rather than draining.

On the other hand, all the stop and go traffic with city driving requires the battery to have to kick in without much opportunity to charge back up. Even then my gas mileage is 2-3 times better than it was with an Oldsmobile.

Not really. There's a number of intrinsic inefficiencies to fuel cells. People just think they're tons more efficient because they're not going to be pumping out tons of hot exhaust that can be seen as obvious waste.

Every hard drive has a thin film of platinum on it. Pt-Co alloys have some great magnetic properties.

Make movies that make people want to drive alternative fueled cars, apparently.

The point was that hybrids get worse mileage on the freeway than they do in town. Not a comparison between the hybrid and a more standard car.

The electric car was killed by the hybrid. The hybrid was just more practical at the moment.

About hybrid mileage, they beat all four-wheel combustion engines easily, and the only reason they don't beat motorcycles is because motorcycles have far less load to carry. Also, it would have been nicer, upon discussing how hybrids get better mileage in town, to give the comparitive numbers. Hybrids do get better mileage in town, but not that much better. I beleive it was 55 on the highway and 60 in town. That crushes the competition.

Given gas prices, I honestly don't understand why more people don't buy them. Actually, I do. Only one American company (correct me if I'm wrong) has a hybrid at the moment, and a lot of people are really big on being patriotic by buying American goods. Poor reasoning, I'd say. Others actually have this misconception that hybrids are expensive, when they really aren't; a new one runs about $20K, just like most normal cars.

Hybrids FTW!

Hybrids are good, and are only slightly more expensive than a comparable normal car. But they are more expensive to repair, and there is more things that can break down on them. This is another chicken-egg issue though, as if they were more popular parts would be cheaper.

Alot of people just dont have the money to suddenly drop thier current car and buy a hybrid. Even if they sold the old one. Others cant even use hybrids because they cant do the work as well as a regular car can.

My father has to use a stronger truck to accomplish the work he does. (The Army has had him building stuff down on the border for years) A hybrid just would not have the power or stamina to accomplish the same amount of work his current truck goes through.

Do they even have hybrid SUVs yet? If my siblings and I were still young I doubt he could fit us all into a dinky little car. The same probably applies to other families. I really doubt you'd be able to fit many children and two adults into a hybrid car.

Also.. what would be the point of electric cars? Okay, so you're not putting gas in the tank. Instead you're using more fossil fuels to power it up all the time. >.>

The amount of car you get for a hybrid is considerably less than that of a traditional one for the money, isn't it? Also, isn't there still a pretty large waiting line for getting hybrids right now? I know none of the dealers near me never have any of them sitting on the lot, as they pretty much sell as soon as they come in.

For people with a hybrid, I've actually been curious. How's the pickup on it compared to other small cars? I used to have an Escort and I really didn't like how it had a problem with accelerating from 30-60 MPH as it made merging onto highways pretty difficult.

Such things do exist, amazingly enough.

Don't you get like ridiculous tax breaks for having a hybrid?

Here's a rather recent article that seems to address a few questions pretty well. I'll just take out a few quotes I think are worth everyone's time.

what i don't get is why people havn't hurried up with the water-powered cars yet. somebody made one but not much else is happening with it. think about it; water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. separate the two with electricity and you have an extremely flamable gas with the only exhaust being water. it's the perfect solution, there's water everywhere!

Problem is, wouldn't that require a nuclear reactor for an engine, or at least some kind of fission reactor? Unless there's another way to split molecules into individual atoms. Science isn't my bag, really, but that sounds like what we were taught in chemistry.

Haha, no shit. All you need is an electrical charge. Problem is where do you get that electrical charge? Oh right, it's traced back to fossil fuels. You have to put more energy into it then you get out.

Not to mention riding in a car full of hydrogen isn't the smartest idea around.

Kinda like how riding in a car filled with extremely volatile gasoline isn't the smartest idea around? :tpg:

Hybrids are also more of a hassle to manage more than anything. You're not going to find many certified mechanics willing to work on a hybrid. For that you'll need a specialist, meaning extra money you're putting into a car that's already charging you more for "saving" you money.

I wouldn't purchase a hybrid to be honest, not until they're more popular and have more mechanics certified to work on them. Right now just isn't a good time.

Also: why the fuck would they make a hybrid SUV? That's ridiculous.

Apparently a shocking amount of idiot soccer moms want to save the world. =/

I for one would not buy a hybrid either. I mean, atleast not yet. Like you said, they're much trickier to find a good mechanic to work on (and damn near impossible to work on yourself). Also, I have yet to see an actual hybrid that doesn't scream "pretentious". They may as well sell the damn things at Starbucks.

What's pretentious about them? I don't see hybrids as a say to save the environment, I see them as a way to save money. The more expensive gas gets, the more money you save. Of course it depends on your driving habits. The people who save the most money by buying a hybrid are people who do mostly in-town driving, as that's where it shines the most. Plenty of economy cars can get decent to good mileage on the highway (as noted earlier in the threat), but only the hybrid can get you the beyond awesome mileage when talking about in-town driving.

As for not buying them yet because of mechanics and such, yeah, that is a big problem in the United States. I wish the government would divert some of the war funding to give incentives to mechanics to learn how to do maintenance on hybrids. Maybe in 2008 . . .

You don't think that a hybrid SUV is a bit pretentious?

Well, then I'm not sure why the government is putting its support behind E85 fuel, because it requires a new vehicle as well. It's going to take more than a few taxpayer dollars to create the infrastructure to allow for a new way of getting gasoline. At least with electric we've already got a convenient and relatively stable delivery system.

Not at all. People who drive SUVs are arguably the ones who save the most money, as they're getting the biggest boost in mileage, assuming of course that the hybrids SUVs are just as good (or at least close).

Now if those soccer moms claim to have gotten the hybrids SUVs "in order to protect the environment", that would indeed be pretentious. Heck, I would call that an outright lie. Hybrids are about saving money. You aren't saving the environment, we already have plenty of vehicles with low enough emissions that the environment isn't in any real danger from emissions from cars. People who would make such claims, those are the pretentious ones.

Me, I'm gonna be honest. I only want a hybrid to save money on gas. Lower emissions, that's just a very very small bonus.

The minute I clocked on this topic, I thought of the "Helloooo, I'm an electric car, I can't go very far, or very fast, and f you ride in me people will think you are gay" thing from the simpsons. ._.

They would save the most money by not fucking driving an SUV altogether.

Also: They're not really saving ANY money. You forgot to factor in the cost difference between a standard SUV, and a hybrid one.

Think you and everyone else. I don't think many people claim to have bought a hybrid car for the environment. They may have used it as a bonus, but not many (and by not many, I mean none) people claim to use that as their first and foremost reason.

There's not many legitimate reasons for owning an SUV. As a matter of fact, I can think of none.

What about large families with say... 4 or 5 children? There aren't many sedans that can accomodate a large family. Then of course you could argue that they should drive minivans instead. Consider, however, families who live in rural areas that have dirt roads that turn to mud in the rain, or perhaps they live in an area where they could easily be snowed in? 4wd on a SUV could definitely come in handy.

I don't understand exactly why SUVs are demonized as much as they are. Sports cars with large engines and big trucks are just as bad on fuel economy. Most SUVs are nothing more than trucks with extra seats instead of a pickup bed.

Does anybody know about the self sustaining fusion reactor that they're supposedly constructing in France. I remember reading something about it recently. (I just hope that Doc Ock isn't on the project. ;)) It might be possible to use such a reactor to generate enough electricity to increase the efficiency of water electrolysis. (This of course is much easier said than done.) Through this process we could, in turn, extract pure hydrogen from ocean water. The current process for producing pure hydrogen results in more pollution and is more costly than the burning of fossil fuels. Hydrogen powered internal combustion engines aren't anything new... the first one was developed in 1807. A great benefit to an internal combustion engine that runs on hydrogen is that the direct by-product is pure water. In addition to this, hydrogen combustion is much more energetic than traditional gasoline. Problems with hydrogen powered internal combustion cars arise in the storage of the hydrogen in the fuel tank. If the hydrogen is in the form of a gas, filling the volume of a normal sized fuel tank wouldn't take the vehicle very far. The fuel must be in a liquid form, and therefore must be extremely cold. However, scientists and engineers have been working on finding a way to make hydrogen powered vehicles a reality despite the overwhelming complexities.

Yeah, that's true. I figured there would have to be a reason for it, it's just that I couldn't think of one off the top of my head. For some reason, however, I don't think this is the case with most SUV owners.


Because they're unnecessary. If they're just trucks with extra seats, then why not drive a mini-van? I mean, besides the reason stated above... let's think city wise.

I'm not saying that there aren't other forms of gas guzzling going on that should be put to a stop, but the SUV in particular is just ridiculous, especially with how popular those things are.

I think most SUV owners purchase them cause... well, many times a person's choice of vehicle is a reflection of their personality as much as a meeting of their transportation needs. American auto owners are members of a very specific culture. Many people worship their cars, hell, Pixar just made an entire movie about Cars and American car culture.

Also, a few years ago when the SUV craze started to take off, gas was cheap. I remember in about 1998, getting regular unleaded for about .88/gal. When gas was that cheap, people didn't care if their vehicles were fuel efficient. They purchased them for style purposes only. Also at the time... with gas being so inexpensive, what was the point of developing an alternative?

Are they unnecessary? Sure, in most cases. But so is every sports car. In fact, we don't need cars to be of different colors or stylings at all. People rarely only purchase what they need... they purchase what they want.

So where exactly do we get electricity from?

It's a deferred cost. It's not oil directly, but the energy has to be generated through some means, which undoubtedly is probably as bad as burning gasoline on sight. This is an "out of sight, out of mind" argument.

Aren't there lots of methods of getting eletricity that could be used far more than they are being used now?

We get electricity a number of ways: from dams, windmills, burning of fossil fuels, coal, and natural gas, nuclear reactors. We've pretty much derived a way to convert almost any source of potential energy into electricity.

The next big step would be a self sustaining fusion reactor that would generate an insane amount of heat that could be used by a steam engine to generate electricity; then the electricity used for electrolysis of water, then bam, hydrogen for everybody! Much easier said than done though.

Actually it just has to be held under a shitload of pressure. And you need somewhat special materials to contain hydrogen because it has this bad property of making lots of materials brittle over time as well as diffusing much much faster through materials than any other gas (that's why you need those special silvery helium balloons over the latex ones you can blow up).

Tal, what you said is true, but one thing is that power plants are much more efficient users of the fuel than your car is. They can take advantage of scale and get more energy per volume out of the fuel as well as release less polution into the atmosphere by using better carbon dioxide scrubbers and such. Still not that huge of an improvement, though.

I agree there, definitely. Many people do see their car as a reflection of themselves (or perhaps what they would like to be, but I'll leave the psychoanalysis to someone more knowledgable), however in times like these, it's a bit... silly. If they can afford the gas, then by all means, blow the money. It's not hurting my bank account. It'll fuck me over in the future, once oil's peaked, but meh. What can you do?

Purchasing a car just because you're attracted to it is a bit silly, though. Then again, I'd imagine that the Automerican culture is a bit silly altogether (i.e. the hummer, wtf?)

Yet, the funny part is, dealerships were offering thousands over kelly blue book as a trade in, then turned around and sold them for even more. Even after the craze was over, those people that lagged and didn't quite make it the first time are guzzling gas WHILE paying an outrageous car note.

I agree, most sports cars are, however most sport cars (depending on which brand, make, year, ect.) don't cost as much as the average SUV, are more fuel efficient, and generally last longer. Now I'm not saying that we should make all cars uniform; rigged for fuel efficiency, but I do feel that those that purchase SUV's are either ill informed, or just don't care. That's why I feel a hybrid SUV is pretentious.

I've been interested in the development progress of hybrids. Every day I have to drive through downtown Orlando and it's a hell of a trip and a major abuse on a vehicle. I've seen some people mentioned maintenance costs in regards to hybrids but I haven't found any facts to back up anything that might imply additional costs. From what I've researched, all hybrid specific components in current models are backed by manufacturers for 8 years/100k miles depending on what state you live in. Now, the "what state you live in" part might factor in a lot, but I'm curious to hear what others have heard that might condradict this claim. I'd also like to hear some other variables that could make a hybrid vehicle costly, because right now at a glance it looks like a hybrid would be more suitable for my commute. Some of them get very good city mileage and the regenerative breaking system would be beneficial for that constant annoying stop-and-go traffic.

I've read that one of main problems is that making hydrogen produces as much (or more?) waste as traditional cars produce.

Did you actually take 1/4 of a second to actually read this thread or any of the posts in it?