Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To substitute one half of the 240 million vehicles on the road with EV's, at $39,995 a pop - to go 38 miles per charge - would cost: 4.8 trillion dollar bills.
Not to mention that without consuming gasoline and thus not paying taxes used to repair the roads and bridges, the government will have to tax something else to pay for all that infrastructure.
In contrast, rebuilding electric traction rail mass transit to double that of 1920s (88,000 miles) at $2 M mile, would only cost: 176 billion.
Substituting train cars to carry the people no longer in 120 million automobiles ( 180 million) at 2 trips per day (360 million) with average daily capacity of 1000 passengers / car, comes to roughly 360 thousand train cars.
At $8 million each, 360k cars cost out at 2.8 trillion. However, the average lifespan of a train car is 20 to 50 years, versus 10 for an automobile (ignoring the cost to replace the battery pack of an EV).
Steel wheel on steel rail has a 20:1 advantage in rolling resistance.
Cost per passenger is several orders of magnitude cheaper in a train than in an EV.
What's the point?
EV's are ridiculously expensive as a means of passenger transportation. Their only real advantage is convenience - IF the trip length is within its range. Subsidizing them with taxpayer funds is INSANE.
Actually,the first automobiles weren`t all that practical either.They had to be hand cranked to start and they would often break the bones of the person doing the cranking. Should they have discontinued making cars and stick with the horse and buggy?
It appears the new Chevy Volt will get 38 miles on a full 10.5 hour charge in the new model instead of the outdated 35 miles per charge before. Whew that sets my mind at ease. Global warming should be a problem no more.
That 250K subsidy per car is well spent after all it appears.
This is indeed good news. At this rate of improvement (9% per year) they will go over 100 miles by 2024. That might be enough for a trip to grandma's house.
Please explain why O's GM would recall and make fire prevention fixes to the Volt if:
Yes, two Volts caught fire during testing. No unit in the wild has ever caught fire--and there have been accidents in them. The investigation never yielded anything significant, this is just GM playing nice to ease the minds of children.
In Europe and other places you can buy a JEEP wrangler with a little diesel but not in the USA. I have been seaching for one on the black market for months with no luck. OH well .I can still make a pack of filtered smokes for about .50 cents a pack. God bless gov regulations telling me what I can and cant do. and long live the new black market.
if you want a jeep with a diesel engine, then build your own. you can hit the truck salvage yards and pick up a four or six cylinder perkins diesel engine that ran the refrigeration units on a trailer, and swap that into a jeep.
it appears the new chevy volt will get 38 miles on a full 10.5 hour charge in the new model instead of the outdated 35 miles per charge before. Whew that sets my mind at ease. Global warming should be a problem no more.
That 250k subsidy per car is well spent after all it appears.
The loss of sanity begins when one huge lie is accepted as the truth .. which then breeds all sorts of other lies and actions based on such false information.
If facts played any measurable role, more rational decisions might be possible:
1) Carbon emissions are not destroying the planet. It's a complete farce. Therefore, efforts intended to reduce those emissions will be equally farcical.
2) Overall air pollution (per mile traveled) is worse in an electric vehicle compared to a gasoline car, when all data is considered, including the environmental impact of the manufacturing of the batteries ... and the creation of the electricity to charge and run them.
3) Fuel economy in American cars are dramatically worse than they could be. In fact, VW has a car in Europe getting 80 miles per gallon. It's not allowed here because of EPA regulations which set emissions by the gallon of fuel, rather than by the number of miles traveled ... which is itself INANELY IGNORANT. If the 80 mpg car produces only 20% more emissions than a 40 mpg vehicle, the 40 mpg car is way more polluting. The EPA needs to hire more people with a grasp of 9th grade math skills ... well, actually not .... there is a reason for this apparent lack of mathematical prowess .... reason is that the moment you double fuel economy, you will reduce by half the amount of tax revenues generated by the fuel taxes. When it comes to taxes, the government is very good at math, and that's the guarantee that available technology won't be utilized to deliver optimal fuel economy potential.
Car manufacturers could produce gasoline vehicles right this minute that would have full size trucks and SUVs getting better fuel economy than a honda civic hybrid .. and the economy car mileage could be doubled, if not tripled with existing technology.
The loss of sanity begins when one huge lie is accepted as the truth .. which then breeds all sorts of other lies and actions based on such false information.
If facts played any measurable role, more rational decisions might be possible:
1) Carbon emissions are not destroying the planet. It's a complete farce. Therefore, efforts intended to reduce those emissions will be equally farcical.
2) Overall air pollution (per mile traveled) is worse in an electric vehicle compared to a gasoline car, when all data is considered, including the environmental impact of the manufacturing of the batteries ... and the creation of the electricity to charge and run them.
3) Fuel economy in American cars are dramatically worse than they could be. In fact, VW has a car in Europe getting 80 miles per gallon. It's not allowed here because of EPA regulations which set emissions by the gallon of fuel, rather than by the number of miles traveled ... which is itself INANELY IGNORANT. If the 80 mpg car produces only 20% more emissions than a 40 mpg vehicle, the 40 mpg car is way more polluting. The EPA needs to hire more people with a grasp of 9th grade math skills ... well, actually not .... there is a reason for this apparent lack of mathematical prowess .... reason is that the moment you double fuel economy, you will reduce by half the amount of tax revenues generated by the fuel taxes. When it comes to taxes, the government is very good at math, and that's the guarantee that available technology won't be utilized to deliver optimal fuel economy potential.
Car manufacturers could produce gasoline vehicles right this minute that would have full size trucks and SUVs getting better fuel economy than a honda civic hybrid .. and the economy car mileage could be doubled, if not tripled with existing technology.
We`ll be switching to paying for the roads by miles driven not gasoline purchased so there`s one silly theory out the window. The reason we`re so far behind in fuel efficiency is because Reagan gutted and rolled back Carter`s energy program and those electric cars can be powered with wind,solar or hydro if we have the will. 3 strikes means you`re out
We`ll be switching to paying for the roads by miles driven not gasoline purchased so there`s one silly theory out the window. The reason we`re so far behind in fuel efficiency is because Reagan gutted and rolled back Carter`s energy program and those electric cars can be powered with wind,solar or hydro if we have the will. 3 strikes means you`re out
So if all the electricity is going to power the cars what will power the lights? Or do we go back to whaling? Or is the government gonna subsidize a 2 million dollar windmill to hoist up in all our backyards too?
There is nothg wrong with the Volt idea. Its problem is GM planning .They brig a 40K vehilce to the market .Toyota brings the Prius C ;out sales the volt in two months and has 165K backorders. Which do you see the market saying is the right decison for the market and times. Just seems another bad decison that basically has continued to make the big 3 truck and SUV makers to make profits. Not a decison that will return them to makig profit from becomeig a car builder agin, Ford seems to have bee the only oe who haqs started a turn around. Perhaps its because they went outside the normal Detroit thnikers for a CEO. All one needs to do is do a search on Lithum batteries to see the safety needed in charging them compared to NI-Cad or NIMH batterties or even convestional lead acid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
