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.
You are 100% wrong. There is far less in an electric car. They are simpler. Batteries are 100% recycled.
Every car I have ever bought never met the mpg the makers stated. What's new?
You have a point and this has been suggested. One was a subframe that holds the batteries that is dropped and taken out from the rear by a dedicated fork lift truck and replaced in minutes.
Correct I worked in a wsrehouse and all we had were electric lift trucks. We had spare batteries and chargers when battery was low just swap out battery and keep going. Until then electric cars are just for the few that want them.
Renault did a study comparing the total environmental impact of electric, gas, and diesel versions of the same model car. While the impact is greater for manufacturing an electric vehicle, this is more than made up for during the operational life of the vehicle.
Wrong. If you think about it Conservative stems from conserve. Some of us love technology and its development. Electric cars have advantages such as quiet operation, instant torque and no concentrated burning of fuel in an urban environment...instead energy is generated from coal, hydro, sun, wind, etc in rural areas primarily. Of course electric cars still have significant technical challenges but I still think they could be a huge factor in the future especially if they develop a long range battery system.
To me that is a disadvantage not hearing the vehicle on the road. I'm sure that alone will cause more accidents. Sure we drive with our eyes but hearing plays a role in driving too.
Maybe, but for those of us in the Midwest or East Coast, there often is too little sunlight for at least half the year for solar to be reliable.
The best solution is multi-faceted - better use of solar as well as NUCLEAR power.
That is not true. Solar power generation is based just as much on the area of the solar panels. It is completely possible to power a house and more by covering the entire roof with solar panels. You get more bank for your buck in Arizona, but solar is indeed viable in cities such as Seattle and Chicago (it has already been tested in both).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attrill
It's not just Oklahoma, it's a national push by ALEC that is being made nationwide.
Electric cars will not save people money or help the environment. With all the extra parts and more batteries needed in electric cars it increases manufacturing pollution. And when the batteries go bad on electric cars they are very expensive to replace.
You don't have to worry about gas but you also pay twice as much or more upfront to buy the car vs a gas powered one. Then you have limited charging stations across the country and add the cost to have a dedicated circuit installed at your home and increased electric bills.
I don't see one benefit of buying an electric car.
False, false, false !!!
The MPGe is significantly higher using EVs, and this assumes your house doesn't generate any power. The Tesla Driver I know is a business owner that installed a supercharger at his business. Not only does the government give a HUGE tax credit for doing so (along with free press for being in the newspaper / local TV), he now has 6 employees that have since purchased EVs because they can charge it at work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lchoro
Electrics waste a lot of energy and contribute more to the greenhouse effect than gasoline since the electricity is generated using coal or natural gas. The EPA data just measures the impact at the pump, not all the way from the source of the energy in the ground or sea. A lot of energy is lost just going from the power station to the charging station. Coal and natural gas contribute more to the greenhouse effect because of the higher level of CO2 and CH4 emissions, respectively. Electricity generated using natural gas may be the worst of all because of the high amount of leakage of gas at the wells. Even after the wells are capped, they keep leaking methane into the air and the groundwater for decades.
Poor argument, poor logic.
Let's all just use oil forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fargobound
Nothing we ever do is sustainable on this planet.
We do have about 5 billion years of sun left, if I recall.
Try useing a EV in the north that just dumped a foot of snow, see how far you will get. Never seen a EV 4x4 have you.mEV are for the west were you yuppies live. EV will never make it in colder states. I ould rather spend $30,000 on a 4x4 truck in case I have to tow a Telsa car. Give me a V8 gas power horse any day.
LOL yea ok.
The battery life is shorter up north for sure, but so is your gas mileage (and more expensive winter gas). Tesla has proven to be highly reliable up here in New York. It is quite popular in Ontario, Canada as well.
Your $30,000 4X4 truck costs and arm and a leg. Not everyone wants to spend that much in gas, sir.
To me that is a disadvantage not hearing the vehicle on the road. I'm sure that alone will cause more accidents. Sure we drive with our eyes but hearing plays a role in driving too.
So we should all drive V8 or V10 so that you can relax your eyes a bit
That is not true. Solar power generation is based just as much on the area of the solar panels. It is completely possible to power a house and more by covering the entire roof with solar panels. You get more bank for your buck in Arizona, but solar is indeed viable in cities such as Seattle and Chicago (it has already been tested in both).
True, thanks for pointing that out!!!
What about Alaska how will solar power work there.
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.