All-electric car coming to the U.S. next year 17

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Solar John Posted 2:14 am
   22 Apr 2008

   Sign me up for oneAt 110 miles on a single charge, and a top speed of 65mph, this will meet my needs. With my 64 mile daily commute I'll save over $200 per month in gasoline at today's prices, and even more as gas prices continue to climb.  This car almost pays for itself in gas savings alone!  If I'm going to shell out big bucks for a vehicle anyway, it might as well be a practical one like this.  Oh, and by the way, I'll be charging it (as much as possible) with my solar PV system.  I may want to trade it in for a Chevy Volt when they become available in 2011, but it's good to know that I can have practical electric transportation as early as next year. Ford made a BIG mistake by selling off the Think.

   Permalink

2. 

   ethaninspace Posted 2:17 am
   22 Apr 2008

   More Rolling Blackouts?I'm all for losing the combustion engine, but doesn't California have enough problems keeping the lights on as it is?  Seems like they'd need more power grid infrastructure to maintain an electric car revolution.

   Permalink

3. 

   Solar John Posted 3:36 am
   22 Apr 2008

   Grid strainMost of these cars would be charged at night.  Demands on the grid are lowest at night.

   Permalink

4. 

   Wolverine Posted 6:17 am
   22 Apr 2008

   No Solution To AnythingUnless your home is powered by solar panels or a wind generator and you charge your car from there, the electricity needed to charge the car will still be created by burning fossil fuels, though not as much as internal combustion engines burn to go the same distance.
   The problem, as unintentionally identified by Solar John, is that people should not be commuting 64 miles/day or any distance of that sort.  If we want to solve the ecological problems that humans have caused over the past 10,000 years, we need to simplify our lives, beginning with living near work, shopping, and school.  After all, electric cars or any other kind of cars still cause all of the problems caused by roads, one of which was pointed out in a Grist item yesterday.

   Permalink

5. 

   theBike45 Posted 6:48 am
   22 Apr 2008

   Sorry, not emission freeSorry, but California doesn't supply any emission free electricity, so the Think obviously can't be either. (No wonder california gets away with caling electric cars emission free vehicles - the citizens don't know the difference).

   Permalink

6. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 6:52 am
   22 Apr 2008

   Camper Von Solar PanelUnless your home is powered by solar panels or a wind generator and you charge your car from there, the electricity needed to charge the car will still be created by burning fossil fuels, though not as much as internal combustion engines burn to go the same distance.
   I don't see why you couldn't hav a foldable "roof panel" with solar cells on it that would extend to the foot print of the car and let you charge while it sits in the parking lot.
   I live in a 3rd floor apartment, so running extension cords is not a good option.
   Or,
   http://www.gizmag.com/researchers-developing-solar-techno ...
   
   
   January 4, 2008 Idaho National Laboratory (INL) reports that research conducted in conjunction with partners at Microcontinuum Inc. (Cambridge, MA) and Patrick Pinhero of the University of Missouri is promising a method for developing cheap solar energy technology that could be imprinted on flexible materials and still draw energy after the sun has set. The technology uses a special manufacturing process to stamp tiny square spirals, or "nanoantennas", of conduction metal onto a sheet of plastic and the team estimates individual nanoantennas can absorb close to 80 percent of the available energy in comparison to current commercial solar panels which usually transform less that 20 percent of the usable energy that strikes them into electricity - this is even more impressive than the 30% conversion rate offered by the recently discussed development of nano flakes.
   
   

   Permalink

7. 

   Solar John Posted 7:29 am
   22 Apr 2008

   Working close to home is not a good option for meIt would be great if most people worked within two miles of their residence, and if puplic transportation were available for the rest, but that's not the way things are today. Ask anyone who works in the Washington DC area how far they commute, and you'll be shocked.  I live in the Mid-West, and opted for a job with a long commute (in part) because it pays 50% more than I was making previously. I drive a car that gets 38mpg, but even that is getting expensive these days.  Opting for a transportation option like the Think is a better financial choice than working closer to home for me, and it's better for the environment.      

   Permalink

8. 

   amarct Posted 7:54 am
   22 Apr 2008

   Electric car: Energy coming from thin air?This is unfathomable that nobody in the main press (other than in this column) talks about the source of electricity production. In the West, (especially the Northwest) where a large part of electricity is produced by electric dams the question has a lesser impact but anywhere else in the country where the majority of electricity is produced by coal and diesel this is unconscionable to promote electric car as a solution to reducing carbon dioxide.  
   
   The Indian car maker Tata has just bought a French car prototype that runs on compressed air and they promise to have it in production is a couple of years... We'll see...  
   
   

   Permalink

9. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 8:39 am
   22 Apr 2008

   re: Amarctanywhere else in the country where the majority of electricity is produced by coal and diesel this is unconscionable to promote electric car as a solution to reducing carbon dioxide.
   
   Even if an electric car is powered by coal, it's still considerably greener than driving a conventional car.
   And I challenge you to find an actual study that says otherwise.
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3.png
   
   http://pluginamerica.org/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf
   
   http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/20/111715/427
   
   http://greencarcongress.com/2007/12/argonne-assesse.html
   
   http://aceee.org/pubs/t061.htm
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO65mCdPN5I
   Especially in California, which has a grid average comparable to Natural gas.
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
   -
   And with that fact in mind, we got more than enough existing electricity capacity to power electric cars, far into the forseeable future.
   
   http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

   Permalink

10. 

    Wolverine Posted 11:42 am
    22 Apr 2008

    Choosing Money Over EnvironmentWell, if you took a job far away merely because it pays better, your priority is clearly not the environment.  Modern humans in developed countries, and especially in the U.S., have acquired the attitude that they're entitled to whatever they want, regardless of how much environmental or harm to others it causes.
    This is not to say that a major reordering of our environmentally destructive society is not in order.  Certainly, developers should not be able to destroy another inch of open space, and all communities should be required to have jobs, schools, and shopping within a short enough distance that people don't need to drive, and with good public transit and dedicated bicycle lanes.
    But we all also must take some personal responsibility and make some "sacrifices" if we're ever going to have any chance of fixing this mess that humans have created.  And let's face it, Americans are rich compared to everyone else, so giving up a little of that wealth is not really much of a sacrifice.

    Permalink

11. 

    Pathos Posted 7:13 pm
    22 Apr 2008

    re: WolverineYou make a good point about society in general. As a passing thought, though, making personal attacks might not make the targets of those attacks feel as inclined to listen to you as you might think.
    Money is as good or as evil as what you do with it.
    I can't obviously can't speak for what Solar John does with his money; he sounds like he probably makes rather more than I do, so I hope he spends it more wisely than I generally do. That said, if the extra money he's making allows him to donate, say, $50 a month to environmental causes--be they "carbon offsets" if that's his thing, or political action funds, or even supporting some funny environmental Internet rag--the good he could do would far outweigh the harm of the longer commute.
    What do you think, John? Is the good you could do with a little piece of that extra money worth the environmental impact of earning it?

    Permalink

12. 

    Solar John Posted 11:49 pm
    22 Apr 2008

    I'm not choosing money over the environmentI spend my money in ways that tend to be good for the environment.  This includes supplementing my electricity with solar PV, supplementing my heating with bio-fuel, and minimizing my use of gasoline by driving an electric car (in the future).  I also conserve and recycle.  I try to inspire others to do similar things via my blog:  http://solarjohn.blogspot.com
    
    I'm trying not just to reduce my use of fossil fuels, I'm trying to eliminate it altogether.
    
    If I take a job closer to home for less pay, I will not be able to do these things to the extent that I do now.  When you (Wolverine) think of other ways that I could be spending my money and time, I think you would have to agree that the environment is one of my top priorities.  Another priority is to get my kids through college, which also requires a lot of $$$.  I'm preparing them to be good stewarts of the earth and sky long after I'm gone.
    
    Thanks (Pathos) for your kind words, but I'm not trying to offset the environmental impact of a long commute, I'm trying to eliminate it.  

    Permalink

13. 

    Wolverine Posted 5:14 am
    23 Apr 2008

    Environmental Destruction Cannot Be Outweighed ...by good deeds.  The most important and effective way to be good to the Earth is to not cause harm to begin with.  All else is minor in comparison and is just picking up the pieces.  It's far more difficult to destroy something than to create it, and when it comes to nature it's often impossible to replace what's been destroyed, not to mention the value of an individual life of any species has its own intrinsic value that cannot be replaced.
    Driving is one of the worst things modern humans do to the Earth as individuals.  If Solar John's priorities are things like putting kids through college, which BTW can be done with student loans as I did for myself a short while ago, then his priorities are clearly not the environment, because he's chosen to participate in major environmental destruction in order to put his kids through college.  That's what "priorities" mean; when you have to make a hard choice, which do you choose?
    This whole assuaging of environmental guilt by contributing money and "offsets" is nothing but individual greenwashing. Offsets are just another type of B.S. concocted by big business to allow business as usual.  The only thing that will significantly help the environment is for people to reduce human population and consumption, including consumption of all types of fuel and roads. Let's look at John's specific claims:
    He supplements his electricity with solar PV.  It's good that he has solar panels on his roof (I hope that's what he means), but it only supplements his use of electricity?  Either he has a very small number of solar panels or he uses too much electricity.  In Berkeley, CA, rooftop solar panels provide enough electricity to power a home, and Berkeley gets almost as much fog as San Francisco, so we're not talking about a very sunny place.  John should either add more solar panels, reduce his electrical use, or both.
    He supplements his heating with bio-fuel.  As has been discussed on Grist ad nauseum, biofuels are worse for the environment than petroleum, unless their source is waste material.  For example, tropical rainforests in Brazil, Indonesia, and Malaysia are being cut down to grow crops for biofuels.  So there's not only no environmental benefit here, there's a serious detriment.
    He might minimize his use of gasoline by driving an electric car in the future.  Nice, but first this is speculative, he's not doing it yet.  Second, this doesn't do that much.  It slightly reduces use of fossil fuels, from which electricity is made -- along with hydropower made by destruction of rivers and nukes -- and does nothing to reduce or eliminate the harms caused by roads and high speed vehicular traffic.
    He also conserves and recycles.  This can easily be done regardless of one's income or lack thereof, so it it is completely irrelevant.
    I did not post this as a personal attack.  But it's baloney that individuals should not be held responsible for their actions.  The only thing one MUST do once born is die; the rest are all choices, albeit some very difficult ones.  While John might be better than the average American in his overall ecological footprint, the fact that he commutes a long distance daily negates the vast majority of good things he tries to do.

    Permalink

14. 

    Solar John Posted 7:02 am
    23 Apr 2008

    Difficult Choices? That's BS!I suppose I could be really proud of myself if I gave up driving, stopped using electricity and natural gas, cut off my city-supplied water and sewer service, cancelled my phone and cable service, etc.  My kids don't need to go to school.  Sadly, I'll still be expelling carbon dioxide, but I'm doing the best I can to hold my breath.  Thanks Wolverine for your wonderful insight!  I hope you practice what you preach.
    
    

    Permalink

15. 

    Wolverine Posted 2:08 am
    24 Apr 2008

    Not PersonalAs I've already said, this was not a personal attack on John, but instead was meant to show that unless humans, specifically rich ones like Americans, are willing to change their ecocidal lifestyles, no significant ecological problems will be solved.  John's heart seems like it's in the right place to a large extent, and he seems much farther along regarding environmental consciousness than the average modern human.  But there are two major problems with his posts.
    
    
    Unfortunately, Americans have an attitude of entitlement; in this case, my kids have the right to go to the best school so they can be rich, regardless of the environmental and ecological damage I will cause by realizing that goal.
    Americans have been brainwashed to believe greenwashing.  In other words, they think that they can cause whatever environmental and ecological harm they want, so long as they contribute money or take other actions like recycling.  Sorry, but those actions don't begin to make up for the harms caused.  As I meant to say in my previous post, it's much harder to create something than to destroy it, etc.
    
    
    John, I did not advocate that you give up all modern conveniences.  Very few if any people who live outside the tropics do so without heat, and very few if any modern humans live without using any electricity.  But only 8% of all humans own and drive cars.  Even here in San Francisco, fully one-third of the population doesn't own a car, and in New York city that percentage is even higher.  And there's no reason you can't live on the electricity provide by the solar panels on your roof.  Using more than that is a conscious choice to cause environmental destruction for things that are not necessary and are basically just toys.
    While I don't like to discuss my own lifestyle, in answer to John's last sentence, I have no car, kids, cell phone, etc.  The only thing I buy regularly is food.  And I have a fuller, more exciting life than the vast majority of people.  As the movie "Fight Club" stated, you are not your possessions.

    Permalink

16. 

    athada Posted 8:56 pm
    30 Apr 2008

    How about some eco-grace?Wolverine -
    
    You may be more environmentally hardcore than others. You may see the need as absolutely urgent. That is great. Please keep it up. You may even want to prod more moderate Grist readers ... a bit.
    But how about a little eco-grace? Environmentalism will never go mainstream, will not go beyond greenwashing, until it is accessible to the masses (the global poor, the American middle & working classes). If not, it will remain a righteous fringe movement. And a depressing one at that, because all it can do is bring other people down instead of bringing them on board. And we need everyone, and we need them heading in the right direction. For those who have just turned the right way, they need a little grace to make the journey. Harsh words may send them packing.
    I've seen the same thing in other movements, be they spiritual or social justice related. A few very dedicated, courageous people get so absorbed in it that they turn inward and point outward, instead of being welcoming.
    We need strength for the long hall. We need a sustainable sustainability.
    Solar John is already doing much more than most. Even if you think it's not enough, have a little grace. Or your words may have the opposite effect.

    Permalink

17. 

    MAD MAC Posted 3:14 am
    05 Jun 2008

    Look at this nonsense"The most important and effective way to be good to the Earth is to not cause harm to begin with."
    Well then, why don't we all just go out and shoot ourselves? Oh, I forgot, guns were outlawed before we could take that action. Guess we should hang ourselves, but only with natural fiber rope.......
    There is no way humans can live on the earth and no cause any harm. So, let's start with being REALISTIC, a notion most here are having trouble with.

    Permalink