Washington State Legalizes NEVs on Public Roads 400
ptorrone writes "Washington State just passed NEV legislation, legalizing them for in-road use. NEVs are neighborhood electric vehicles. This is a big deal with more and more consumers having the choice of a variety of non-car solutions, we'll see charging stations and more people in general considering alternative transportation means. It'll also be fun to geek out some NEVs." From zero to twenty in 9.8 seconds!
I want one (Score:4, Informative)
Here is the one I wanted. (Score:3, Interesting)
That'll be only 78 gallons a year for my daily commute. I burn that now every month.
Re:Here is the one I wanted. (Score:2)
Okay, but I bet you aren't commuting on a MOTORCYCLE now are you? Of course they get better gas mileage, but it's going to take an effecient small car to make much imapact. You aren't going to see soccer-moms on Suzukis.
Re:I want one (Score:5, Informative)
My wife used it to commute to work and deliver product to our downtown loacations from vendors. She was thrilled that it is far easier to park than a regular car or truck.
Other employees regularly drove it around the Central Eastside Industrial District, which is where our offices are located. Driving it by OMSI (Oregon Museum of Science and INdustry) always turns the heads of the large crowds that are omnipresent.
It has a low-torque mode, called Turf Mode, which you can use if you want to take it on a golf course.
It has more pick-up than you might think. In the rain, the vehicle does a pretty good job of keeping water off you. There are doors available, similar to what you would see on a Jeep CJ, as an aftermarket accessory.
Here are answers to some of the common questions:
Q. What is it?
A. A GEM electric car, manufactured by Global Electric Motors, a division of DaimlerChrysler Corporation. The specific model is the GEM E825 Utility Vehicle (Short Box).
Q. Is it street legal?
In Portland, it is on streets with a speed limit of 35mph or below.
Q. How fast does it go?
A. 25 mph.
Q. How far can you drive it?
It varies based on the terrain you are driving it on and the ambient temperatures, but I have driven it over 15 miles on a charge. The stated range is 35 miles.
Q. How do you charge it?
It charges on household current.
Q. Stats?
A. From the GEM website Curb Weight: 1160 lb. with batteries GVW: 1850 lb. (Gross Vehicle Weight) Width: 55 inches Wheelbase: 71.1 inches Length: 116 inches Height: 69.5 inches Turning Radius: 13 feet 7 inches
Q. Is it fun?
A. You betcha.
Michael
TCO and utility (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:TCO and utility (Score:2)
More transportation choices = good! (Score:2)
Some sort of standard needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with this is that there aren't really any road-capable NEV's or whatever you want to refer to them as.
The segway hits a top speed of what....11MPH? Do you really want to get stuck behind some yuppie and his $5000 segway inching along the street when you are in a rush to get to the office?
We already have enough traffic problems with vehicles that CAN do the speed limit, lets not worry about alternative transportation until it can at least keep up with normal means of travel.
Re:Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing that annoys me, well, all over the US, is bikes on the street, right next to a good bike path, and people in the street right next to a good sidewalk.
Re:Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
When I first came to this country from Japan, one of the first things I marvelled at (less than 1 hour in the country) was the expansive freeway system and how quickly it moved.
And then I noticed all the drivers weaving between lanes without signaling, and generally not moving over to the right after passing.
It seems like we like doing things as we damn well please!
Re:Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing that annoys me, well, all over the US, is bikes on the street, right next to a good bike path, and people in the street right next to a good sidewalk.
If people they're intended for aren't using them, how "good" can they be? We have a number of paths around Minneapolis that are "multi-use" paths, not bike paths. They get traffic from people strolling, jogging, blading, and biking. If you were a cyclist, you would understand just how fucking dangerous it is to be on such a path going at 15m
Re:Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:2)
Too bad I have a kind heart and a sharp eye or he would have been the latest edition t
Re:Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:2)
The worst bike accident (in terms of amount of damage caused) I've had WASN'T when I was racing road bikes. It was on the GW Parkway trail in Alexandria, when another cyclist started passing me on the left then cut back over to the right. It destroyed my rear wheel, which meant I had to walk about 3 miles in cleats back to my car. And she didn't offer to pay a dime.
I'd rather deal with t
Re:It's the existing infrastructure that's poor. (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:3)
The real problem is that alternative fuel vehicles of every sort, woefully underperform even the most humble gas powered vehicle.
When there is an electric car that can outrun a souped up honda on a 1/4 mile, everybody will want one. They will no longer be "alternative", they will be the obligatory shiny thing that one Must Have.
That's what it's going to take. Higher performance than you c
Re:Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is that alternative fuel vehicles of every sort, woefully underperform even the most humble gas powered vehicle
This is a common misconception spread by people too lazy to think. If you read up, you'll find most alternative fuel (AF) vehicles outperform gasoline. GM's EV1 battery electric was 0-60mph in about 4.9sec, faster than a 5.0L mustang, and a heck of a lot more fun to drive. Check out Nedra.com [nedra.com] for a selection of battery electric drag racers.(Electric drivetrains produce instantanous torque, over a wide range, much more power than gasoline)
Its true that most prototype AF vehicles have been slugs, alternative fuel vehicles are often designed for efficency, not performance, and the two tend to be mutually exclusive.
As for NEV's, they have a nitch, but I really don't see a huge market beyond the city center or retirement/closed communities. American's mostly buy cars based on perceived need :
"I commute to work alone in this monsterous gas guzzling SUV becuase I might buy a boat and need to tow it, or haul the soccer team to Dallas, even though I don't have kids or climb a giant mountain that might spring up in the middle of Nebraska" Advertising encourages this irrational line of thinking.
"I don't want to drive a clean, fast electric car, becuase I might want to road trip 500 miles to Tijuana on impulse once a year." Ignoring the idea that a rental car works nicely for long trips and is considerable cheaper than owing unused capacity)
The other problem is that none of the major auto manufactuers are doing anything but dabble in the AF market Its impossible for a new car company to emerge today, safety regs require you crash test quite a few cars before selling, and selling a car for 10-20k$ is nearly impossible unless you sell 100,000 of them. So the automotive newcomers/innovators are tackling the NEV market, which require less units to be profitable, safety requirements are lighter, and margins are larger.
Re:the power of volts. . (Score:2)
The point about efficiency rather than performance is the crux of the situation. The truth is, although many alternative fuel vehicles may be cleaner while you drive them, their energy efficiency tends to be about the same if you make them as fast as a nor
Re:Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:2)
Acceleration is fine, but I have yet to see an electric vehicle that could drive on the 70MPH freeways around here... And 70 is more the minimum speed to tell you the truth. When the 18 wheelers are going 75MPH (speed limit for trucks is 55MPH), you can bet the cars are going much faster.
Re:Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
dont like it? take a bus.
Re:Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
dont like it? take a bus.
And then the bus gets stuck behind one?
Re:Sounds like a poor idea. (Score:2)
surely you mean some hippy, as if you are in a rush to get to the office, you are clearly a yuppie yourself!
Perfect (Score:3, Funny)
Cooler stuff happening on this side of the pond (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Cooler stuff happening on this side of the pond (Score:2)
Re:Cooler stuff happening on this side of the pond (Score:2)
Awesome (Score:2)
slashdot anti-car? (Score:4, Funny)
Story 1 [slashdot.org]
Story 2 [slashdot.org]
Stroy 3 [slashdot.org]
I hope it doesn't screw up the paint on my Dually when I start running these things over
Re:slashdot anti-car? (Score:2)
Having articles on personal transportation, other than articles about SUVs, are not anti-car.
Re:slashdot anti-car? (Score:2)
But I gotta say, what is it with the attitude of people that drive large trucks? Now I'm not saying that all people with full size trucks are like this, but notice how this guy has to state how large his truck is. Notice how he thinks that a new product is a threat to what he has and how he has to crush this new small product. I think that he sees it as a threat to the one thing that he has, that is bigger and better (and longer?) than what other people
Re:slashdot anti-car? (Score:2)
Because big trucks are cool. Stop being a weiner.
RUF (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it was featured on Slashdot something like a year ago.
Myrtle Beach may be a leader in NEVs... (Score:4, Interesting)
But ironically, there are more "NEVs" being used here than anywhere else I've been -- people use golf carts to get around their neighborhoods. These are not golf course developments either (those tend to be a little out of town) -- they're the regular, neighborhood grid streets, which branch out from the main highway strip.
Comparison (Score:3, Funny)
for all the people saying bikes and nevs are slow (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.humantransport.org/universalaccess/pag
1. Universal Access to Destinations
All destinations served by the public road system shall be accessible by pedestrians and by drivers of all vehicles (including bicycles), except that vehicle operation may be restricted for reasons of excessive weight, noise or size, or extraordinary potential for damage to the property or person of others.
2. Equal Rights of Use
People's right to use that portion of a street designed for travel is not diminished by less weight, less size, or less average speed associated with their travel mode. The adequate accommodation of heavier, larger, faster travel modes by a road's design must not imply its inadequacy for or unintended use by smaller, lighter, or slower modes. Demand-actuated traffic signals must detect and serve a diversity of users including bicycle operators in the roadway and pedestrians using crosswalks.
3. Integration of Modes
Travel by different modes shall not be segregated by law or facility design without compelling, objective, scientifically valid evidence of operational advantages of segregation that outweigh the disadvantages. Segregation of pedestrian from vehicle traffic may be warranted on busy roads due to the different maneuverability and nighttime visibility characteristics of pedestrians and vehicles. Segregation of different vehicle types is undesirable, as this segregation almost always creates increased conflicts at junctions, forces users of some vehicle types to use inferior facilities, or stigmatizes users who violate the segregation policy for safety reasons.
4. Uniformity and Simplicity
Transportation systems should be simple and intuitive. Designs and regulations should be uniform across facilities. Similar traffic situations should be treated in a similar manner, enabling more rapid and reliable user behavior. Vehicle-type-specific exceptions to the Rules of the Road are undesirable because such exceptions make traffic movements less predictable and traffic negotiation less reliable.
5. Accessible Surfaces
To the extent practicable, travel surfaces should accommodate travel on foot with minimal trip hazards and via common assistive devices such as wheelchairs. Roadway surfaces should be as clear as possible of hazards for narrow tires such as bicycle wheels.
6. Crossable Roadways
Crossing distances at non-signalized access locations must not exceed the distance that can be covered at walking speed before traffic may arrive from beyond sight distance, or during reasonable gaps in roadway traffic. Refuges provided to reduce crossing distances should be large enough to store assistive devices such as wheelchairs and strollers. Traffic signal timing should provide adequate clearance intervals for safe crossing by pedestrians and slow vehicles.
7. Appropriate Space for Use
Adequate space for maneuvering and recovery should be incorporated for all vehicle operators and for pedestrians including wheelchair users. If it is desirable to accommodate faster speeds for some modes while slower modes are present on the same road, the road may be designed to facilitate easier overtaking between modes. Overtaking activities should take place at distances appropriate for the difference in speed, maneuverability of modes, and vulnerability of users.
Re:for all the people saying bikes and nevs are sl (Score:2)
Re:for all the people saying bikes and nevs are sl (Score:2)
In driver's ed you were taught that the road is for bikes as well as cars. By getting a license, you agreed that that standard was okay. If you don't like it, find a different way to get from place to place.
(note: said because people who act like bikes shouldn't be on the road don't seem to realize that there's no other way for those of us who can't afford cars to get around, either
Re:for all the people saying bikes and nevs are sl (Score:2)
There are bicycles on the road who deserve to be there (I biked to work last summer and occasionally ran into others who obeyed traffic laws, like signaling for turns, concept!) but most shouldn't. Those are the ones who create th
Electric Cars Suck (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead, I've seen other solutions that provide similar capabilities as electric cars, but without the recharge headache. The one that I find most promising is the air car [theaircar.com].
It's about the size of a Geo Metro, and goes ~200 miles on $2 worth of electricity, and you can refuel in under 1 minute! It also has a small built-in compressor which takes a few hours, which means that at its worst, it's no worse than an electric vehicle.
The best part - they are apparently already being manufactured in France and South Africa. If I had the money I'd definitely want to get one.
No pollution, dirt cheap to operate, and the engine should be more reliable than a gas engine because there's no combustion.
Re:Electric Cars Suck (Score:2)
Re:Electric Cars Suck (Score:2)
Personaly I'm for natural gas conversions. For about a $2000 investment you get tanks, an on the fly switchable between traditional petrol / natural gas, and you don't have to worry about pesky issues like achiving free way speeds of 60mph (about 100Km/H)
But even so, many of my daily rounds can be accomplished "easily" with a vehicel that goes only 25mph. I can fetch my morning latte, a gal of m
Re:Electric Cars Suck (Score:4, Interesting)
suburbs suck (Score:4, Insightful)
Aye, there's one big source of our dependance on the auto. The U.S. has an *enormous* installed base of poorly-designed neighborhoods. Winding streets with no sidewalks, strict segregation of residential and commercial activities, and sprawling development (single-story houses on 3/4 acre lots. gag!) make it almost a requirement to drive to get any sort of outside input! NEVs are a stopgap solution, what we need in the long term is better urban planning. We need more mixed-use development, more compact residential areas, etc. The guiding principle should be to have everything needed on a daily basis within easy walking (or bicycle) distance from every home.
Re:Electric Cars Suck (Score:2)
Re:Electric Cars Suck (Score:2)
I saw mention of heating air and cooling air and other "Sterling like" things..
I'll read it in full detail over coffee later but it looks really neat. Good link...
Read EV World! (Score:3, Informative)
Ways To Make NEVs Go Faster (Score:3, Funny)
1. uncouple the regenerator/motor on downhills. My bicycle can go 40+ mph on a downhill. I don't see why a NEV can't, as long as you beef up the brakes for safety.
2. Lower it and re-do the roof. Most of the NEVs I've seen are built for comfort, not speed. They have high roofs and look like expensive golf carts, which is really what they are. Close those windows too. Plenty of room to reduce wind resistance on these babies.
3. DIY pulsejets. 'nuff said.
4. I'm already sick of Monster Garage, but as long as that show's on the air, they might was well stick one of their chromed bike motors in a NEV.
Of course, these last two suggestions take the E out of NEV, but what they heck.
design (Score:2)
What I don't understand, is why most [cityofseattle.net] of them are designed with radiator grills (functional or faux).
Ah yes, but...... (Score:2)
If they are charged by solar panels then that it fantastic and I'm totally, 1000% for it.
But it they are burning oil and even worse, foreign oil, to charge them up, then it seems to defeat the purpose.
Electricity doesn't grow on tree, unless you burn them for it.
And it doesn't rain down from the sky either. Oh, wait a minute, it sure does! You just have to use the right collector to catch all that free energy
Solar No, Wind Yes (Score:2)
Solar Panels are not viable yet, they run at less than 10% efficiency, they require more energy to make them than they can generate in their lifetime, also there are toxic byproducts from the manufacturing process. Wind would be fine if people didn't hate windmills
Re:Solar No, Wind Yes (Score:2)
Well that's just a shame. I'm a strong proponent of tax dollars being spent in the most entertaining ways possible.
The problem was, early wind prop designs weren't built with birds in mind. The props were too light and too fast for the birds to see. Therefore, they tended to get plastered.
Modern designs are built for slower, more powerful strokes, so the birds have a better chance of avoiding them.
Kind of a shame,
Re:Ah yes, but...... (Score:2)
Yes. American's hypergrowth happened, in part, because this country is resource-abundant.
There are two issues here.
1) We need more efficient and clean ways to generate energy.
2) We need more efficient ways of using that energy.
Ideally, we can do both simultaneously. But making improvements in either category is better than the status quo.
Re:Ah yes, but...... (Score:2)
Not entirely. First, these NEVs are much smaller and lighter than traditional, gasoline-powered vehicles. So they use less energy, regardless of the source. Plus they have the advantage of using zero energy when idling.
Also, if we were able to convert the entire nation's electrical grid over to solar/wind/geothermal/small-children-on-treadmills this instant, it wouldn't change the amo
Cool carbon human &or electric assist vehicle (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a distributor in Cali from what I hear.
-Peter
Buy a scooter instead (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it has an internal combustion engine... but have you considered the enviromental costs of producing all those batteries or solar cells in your electric vehicles? What are their expected life spans? These scooters will still be put-putting along when the apes take over, and they are made from almost all recycled steel and aluminum. The environmental costs over their expected life spans will put almost any electric vehicle to shame.
I just bought one for my wife New Scooter [denovich.org] and it's an amazing little vehicle.
The best solution is rarely the highest technology one.
--Mark
Re:Buy a scooter instead (Score:2)
You always see in the movies a zillion scooters all over the place with fine ass Italian babes on the back.. Hmmm, I wonder if that would work for me?
Scooter = chick magnet??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Golf Carts - transportation of the future? (Score:3, Informative)
It was the only place I know of where KMart sold golf carts and there were used golf-cart lots on the side of the road.
0 to 20 in 9.8 seconds? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
special lanes? (Score:2)
Super conducting NEV's ??? (Score:2)
to work with NEV's, would make them super efficient
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/4/5
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
I'll buy one when... (Score:2)
Unfortunatly, electric cars will probably not lower our dependance on fossil fuels anytime soon. If anything they may increase them. The important step is the adoption of alternative energy sources
Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
Absolutely. Bikes on roads cause accidents, and even their riders are pretty darn likely to be killed.
Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Bikes can travel near the shoulder and do not obstruct the flow of faster moving traffic. Indeed in stop and go traffic bikes can 'white-line' and are faster than cars.
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, bikes can travel faster than NEVs can (NEV's, by DEFINITION have a top speed of 25mph - and are speed governed to ensure that speed...) A more useful speed would have been 40mph - that way an NEV could keep up with most traffic in the slowest lane. Unfortunately, I doubt many people want to chance 40mph in a souped up golf cart without doors (yes, I know you can buy doors as an option), and very little in the way of crash-collision engineering.
Ever test drive one of these things? It's incredibly irritating to floor the accelerator and feel like you're on a Disneyland Autotopia car - only slower (although there is noticable absence of motor noise and gasoline exhaust fumes.) The price isn't too shabby if you need a utility cart - $5k. But no, they clearly are not designed to blend in with normal traffic - something that many cyclists (assuming they're obeying traffic laws) can do easily on most city streets.
Re:not here (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh yea right. I guess all that COx and NOx compounds spewing out of millions are cars are in no way causing an enviromental impact.
For those not familar with the State of Washingon, most of our power comes from hydroelectric plants. We tried for nuclear power once in western washington, known as I believe " Washington Public Power Supply System" aka or WoPPSS. While it can be argued about the enviromental impact of hydro power, it indeed is a fuck of alot cleaner then internal combustion engines. Additional supplimental power plants are being constructed that burn natural gas, which again tends to be a fuck of alot cleaner then petrol.
I see a major application of electric vehicels for in town commuting, on roads where the posted limits are between 25-35 mph. Many of these vehicels can achieve 25mph, while considered slow... perfectly within acceptable limits esp on days with heavy trafic conjestion. While the posted limit may indeed be greater then 25mph, 10mph is often times more typical in downtown areas.
While you have a point, a city's road system can be accomidated to actually support the use of these sub 30mph cars reasonably. Most major cities here are setup in a convienent grid like patern, dedicate a road parelell to the 35mph zones to things that can travel that fast, and slower residental streets to the sub 30mph crowd.
Given that the eco-friendly road alterntive is manual powered bike, I see there being less of an issue with conjection actually.
Infact, I don't see them being a major issue on our interstates between Seattle and Tacoma during rushour, as the average speed tends to be sub 25mph, unfortunatly.
There are those of us who would actually use cheeper more eco-friendly forms of transportation if it was available. People like my self would invest the the expence of using natural gas if it wasn't for the lack of filling stations. But I personaly can't refuel on it unless I drive roughly 40miles away, making it none too practical. Electric is a viable alternative for us who need more cargo room then a motorcycle, but less cargo room then a typical car.
Natural gas convenience... (Score:2)
You *can* have convenience with natural gas -- by installing a refueling compressor in your garage. They *are* available for home users. I'm not sure how much they cost -- pr
Re:Natural gas convenience... (Score:2)
You *might* beable to, however *I* can not. I don't have a gas line where I live.
Biodiesel! (Score:5, Informative)
- This car does not contribute to global warming as the CO2 it emits was fixed from our current atmoshpere, not a Jurassic atmosphere like petro fuels
- It has 50% the CO emissions of a regular diesel engine
- It has 10% the total hydrocarbon emissions
- It has a 100% reduction in sulphides compared to standard diesel fuel
- There are 4 pumps in the Puget sound area
- If I can't get a hold of biodiesel, I can just put regular diesel in the pump, with no problems
- The car gets 27 MPG
- I don't rely on foreign oil [cafeshops.com] to get around town
- I don't support Exxon/Mobil/Texaco
- I support the American economy by using fuels grown in America [worldenergy.net]
Biodiesel is here today, is inexpensive to get into, has no switching costs, has great political and economic ramifications, and I look suhweet rolling in my Benzo.
Re:Biodiesel! (Score:2)
Plus the fact that I don't own a diesel engine.
TurboDiesel is actually showing some promise. I remember a ford article claiming it had lower emmitions then CNG, but I don't have any links off the top of my head, and I suspect the tests were peformed with an uncatalized CNG auto vs catalized turbo diesel engine.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
>Oh yea right. I guess all that COx and NOx compounds spewing out of millions are cars are in no way causing an enviromental impact.
The thing to notice is the qualifier "modern, working". I'd have to look up the exact figures but the older cars and the out-of-tune ones swamp the emissions from newer cars in good order. Of course CO2 is a glaring exception.
Electric cars give you a several wins on pollution control. They let y
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Funny)
Modern, working cars don't pollute enough to make a difference either.
Until you have your car modified so that the exhaust feeds into the cabin, you're a fucking liar and you know it.
Funny! Mod the parent up! (Score:2)
Dammit, I never have points when I need them, only when they're inconvenient.
They have their place. (Score:5, Informative)
They do not cause traffic congestion, since the areas they tend to be used the most in areas with stop every block or two. While military bases make for an ideal location to use these I have seen the same types GEMS on the streets in Los Vegas. You can rent one for a night on the town. They've all been done up with extra neon lighting so you can't miss them. Even loaded down with four large and usually very drunk males, they kept up with traffic just fine on the main strip.
The only bad thing is if you live in areas such as Calfornia, you are going to get raped on the cost of electricity.
Quote form Unregistered: "Modern, working cars don't pollute enough to make a difference either."
Modern cars do pollute enough to make a difference, especially when you are talking about a couple of million of them opperating in the same area. Come out here to LA and drive down the 405 and try saying that again with a straight face.
Like I said NEV have their place, and hopefully cities being more friendly towards these vehicles will help stir up interest in EV's and maybe the end of the excuses that the technology is not ready coming form the auto manufactures.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
How about efficiency then? That BFO power station can convert fuel to power a damn sight more efficiently than your petrol engine, even after transmission and the motor take their cut. It also allows you to use whichever fuel source (gas, oil, nuclear) that happens to be cheapest that week.
The only thing stopping them building a 400 bhp electric car is the fact that power storage densities are too
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
I'd say this is a good idea for communities with a large population of seniors who don't necessarily need the expense of running a car that can do 0-60 in 10 seconds. Instead, they just want to get their groceries and visit their friends in the locality.
Re:Who let in the troll? (Score:2)
Visit L.A. take a deep breath
Feel the soot on your car after just one day there. Lovely isn't it.
Leave L.A. compair and contrast the ease of breathing in L.A. and just 20 miles north.
Los Angles California is a pretty toxic enviroment. While I don't have any ACTUAL studies in front of me, I can reasonably assume that the vast majority of their air polution comes from cars. It kinda makes it a good testing ground for new clean air regulations, it being a basin fille
Re:Who let in the troll? (Score:2, Informative)
The exact cause of asthma is unknown, but, there is a relationship with alergies. Often though an asthmatic may not be alergic to anything at all. For some it's stress. For others food allergies may be the cause. For many asthmatics there is li
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
Probably; I'm a big fan of the hybrid concept for this. Like a "normal" car in every respect - same fuel, handling, driving etc - but far less pollution, far better fuel consumption. IMHO, they're a far better short/medium-term bet than electric cars (no infrastructure changes at all, much lower barrier to acceptance) - possibly even more efficient (power stations are more efficient, but that's offset by tr
Re:Oh, real nifty... (Score:2)
Re:NEVs? (Score:4, Insightful)
So yeah, Segways, those fancy golf carts, the expensive little motorized scooters, and maybe even some metermaid mobiles all fall into this category.
But I have a question for anyone else:
Why are electric vehicles considered zero emission?
You burn fossil fuels to make electricity, then transfer that power into chemical energy in the batteries, then turn that energy back into electricity later to turn an electric motor to drive to the store... how is this not causing emmissions? Oh, and don't forget that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you've lost energy at every step in that process, so you are probably not as efficient as a good gasoline engine (by good, I mean efficient - not a V-12 Dodge monster).
I have always been sceptical of calling electric vehicles "zero-emission." All you're doing is removing yourself a few steps from the emissions. It's like having a really long exhaust pipe, and then claiming that since the exhaust fumes are nowhere near your car, you aren't the one causing them.
If someone's say, charging their electric vehicle via solar panels, that would be completely different.
Woah, that went a little offtopic, didn't it?
Ahh well, as long as I've started, I might as well keep going: Linux is SOOO much better that Windows! Go opensource!
Re:NEVs? (Score:2, Insightful)
They're called that because they are zero-emission. What a silly question. You could always replace the dirty burning coal and oil power plants with much more efficient nuclear power. Or in the cases where the i
Re:NEVs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why are electric vehicles considered zero emission?
Even apart from the fact that the electricity might come from a 'clean' source there is still a reason why zero emission can be considered important: smog. Cities like Athens or New Mexico have become nearly unlivable because of it and smog is a valid consideration for almost any big city (except when you have a windy day in the midwest, then it is dust
Re:NEVs? (Score:5, Informative)
Assume a power plant is 80% efficient [pacificpow...utions.com]. Assume electricity distribution is 95% efficient. Assume lead-acid columetric efficiency [powerstream.com] is 70%. Assume larger electric motors are 90% efficient [electroauto.com].
Your total efficiency still exceeds the brake efficiency of most car engines by several percentage points. Also, car engines lose energy at the clutch and transmission, must waste energy while idling, and cannot recoup energy from braking.
The assumptions above are from quick google searches - if you have better/conflicting info, let me know.
Re:NEVs? (Score:5, Informative)
Probably because the vehicles don't have any emissions (duh).
You burn fossil fuels to make electricity, then transfer that power into chemical energy in the batteries, then turn that energy back into electricity later to turn an electric motor to drive to the store... how is this not causing emmissions? Oh, and don't forget that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you've lost energy at every step in that process, so you are probably not as efficient as a good gasoline engine (by good, I mean efficient - not a V-12 Dodge monster).
The point of zero emission is not to conserve energy or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is to improve air quality in crowded cities.
However, electric vehicles may, as a side-benefit, with both. Regenerative braking and other features mean that EVs can operate more efficiently in city traffic. Furthermore, centralizing power generation makes it easier to clean emissions and to choose among a wide variety of renewable fuels.
With gas-powered vehicles, every vehicle needs to contain emission control equipment, and changing from one fuel to another is next to impossible because so many private owners have to replace their vehicles.
Re:NEVs? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not good for single geeks (Score:2)
Re:Not good for single geeks (Score:2)
Why is fournicating in cars so popular in the US?
Have you not houses with kitchens and bedrooms?
Re:Not good for single geeks (Score:2)
Have you not houses with kitchens and bedrooms?
Yes, we do, but the wife/husband might get upset.
Re:Not good for single geeks (Score:2)
Besides, what's wrong with the back seat of a car? Get any decent sedan and it's just like having a twin sized bed in the back of your vehicle.
Aside from that, the "we could be caught" factor makes the ordeal a little more hot and sweaty, which is what most people aim for when it comes to fornication
Re:Great! (not really) (Score:5, Informative)
This is uninformed FUD. Utility-scale power plants are more efficient at producing energy and pollute less, per unit of energy produced, than the internal combustion engine in your car.
Do traditional power plants (coal, natural gas, even nuclear) producing energy for a million electric cars still generate pollution? You bet - but less pollution than a million cars burning fossil fuel. In my book, less pollution seems like a good idea.
Plus, there is at least the theoretical option of recharging your electric car with power from a renewable source - solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.
Efficiency (Score:4, Informative)
Total efficiency?
Lets see, move gas to car. Burn gas(moderately efficient)
vs
Move gas to power plant, run turbine (efficient), generate electricity (low efficiency), transmit to car (ok), recharge battery (generally ok), turn electric motor (a little more efficient then a gas engine, depending on duty cycle).
I think that it might be a slight improvement, but mostly it is a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).
I also again question the longevity of the car, more waste comes from the production of the vehicle then its tailpipe emissions anyway.
Take a quick look at efficiencies, the generation of electricity is quite inefficient, and hurts the overall efficiency of the system.
Re:Great! (not really) (Score:2)
1. Centrally generated power, even in small cells, can more efficiently control pollution and achieve economies of scale. This isn't always the case, but it's often so. Point-source pollution is more readily captured and remediated.
2. Improvements in generation and reduction in pollution from generation can happen relatively rapidly, over years or a decade, where cars can stay on the road for several decade. I saw figures