By definition, that is a hybrid vehicle. There is more than one variety of hybrid. The Prius is a bit more of a gas car than the Ampera, but the basic operation is the same.
Well, not exactly. In some, you have an electric and a thermic engine, both able to move the car (by itself, or in tandem). In others, you have in one hand an electric engine who alone can move the car, and a thermic that can do nothing else than suplying power to the electric one.
@Andrew, yellowdingo and others : thejeff got it. NO need to fight over gas stations when you have one at home. And at your friends' home. And at your relatives'. And at your workplace...
@Krensky : understood. I believed you were listing EVs.
.
A strong reason for releasing all your patent's is because they are worthless.
.
@Andrew, yellowdingo and others : thejeff got it. NO need to fight over gas stations when you have one at home. And at your friends' home. And at your relatives'. And at your workplace...
Which falls apart the moment you try to travel from one community to another.
@Andrew, yellowdingo and others : thejeff got it. NO need to fight over gas stations when you have one at home. And at your friends' home. And at your relatives'. And at your workplace...Which falls apart the moment you try to travel from one community to another.
?
I don't understand your point... How far have you got to travel to have no outlet at all to plug into ?
@Andrew, yellowdingo and others : thejeff got it. NO need to fight over gas stations when you have one at home. And at your friends' home. And at your relatives'. And at your workplace...Which falls apart the moment you try to travel from one community to another.?
I don't understand your point... How far have you got to travel to have no outlet at all to plug into ?
Personally, I travel a greater range than the Tesla has about once a month. Most people I know wouldn't consider NY to Boston a far trip.
If this took off, within no time most employers would send memos saying, "To reduce costs, we will no longer provide charging stations for employee viehicles."
Managers would still get them, though.
Or they'd be pushing them as perks, so they could get better employees. Depends how much it costs to install them and on the electric bill.If this took off, within no time most employers would send memos saying, "To reduce costs, we will no longer provide charging stations for employee viehicles."
Managers would still get them, though.
And on how much benefit they can draw from advertising being green friendly.
Yes, but most traffic isn't doing that, so the fighting over chargers isn't going to be common.@Andrew, yellowdingo and others : thejeff got it. NO need to fight over gas stations when you have one at home. And at your friends' home. And at your relatives'. And at your workplace...Which falls apart the moment you try to travel from one community to another.
It also means a breakdown of immigration and general overland travel, which means that communities will become more isolated from each other. Enough traffic does flow that distance often enough that a significant percentage of modern society, including the modern economy, depends on it. Removing that capacity is going to negatively impact just about every community in the United States, completely isolate quite a few, and cause massive economic damage across the entire nation. Not to mention the potential negative impacts it will have on business and the job market as employers find themselves constrained in where their employees can live.
"GersenCorp is dedicated to protecting the environment. By abolishing charging stations at our facilities, we reduce the demand for electricity, thus reducing all our dependence on polluting coal-powered power plants."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also means a breakdown of immigration and general overland travel, which means that communities will become more isolated from each other.
Given the lack of a beltway; narrow, poorly-maintaned roads; and chokepoint tunnels in Pittsburgh -- it would be hard to make this city any more isolated than it already is!
"GersenCorp is dedicated to protecting the environment. By abolishing charging stations at our facilities, we reduce the demand for electricity, thus reducing all our dependence on polluting coal-powered power plants."
Honestly, this is one of those things that I do feel needs to be addressed that usually isn't.
The energy from electric cars still needs to be produced, and that is usually produced from existing infrastructure, which is mostly fossil fuels. By the time you take transmission losses into account, I wonder how much more efficient electric cars are to typical combustion engines or hybrids.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also means a breakdown of immigration and general overland travel, which means that communities will become more isolated from each other. Enough traffic does flow that distance often enough that a significant percentage of modern society, including the modern economy, depends on it. Removing that capacity is going to negatively impact just about every community in the United States, completely isolate quite a few, and cause massive economic damage across the entire nation. Not to mention the potential negative impacts it will have on business and the job market as employers find themselves constrained in where their employees can live.
Blatant strawman alert ! As if electric cars would replace all the thermic ones...
The point is using the most efficient means of travel for your transportation needs. That is, EV for commuting and local travel, thermic ones for cargo hauling, long range travels and so.
Nobody will remove your gas-guzzling car's driving wheel from your dead cold hands ! <wink, wink>
@Caineach : the energy mix is a real factor. Here, the fossil fuel represent only something like 10 % of electricity production, but I realize it can be much more elsewhere. Depends also on the quality of your power grid. Studies have been made, and tend to show a positive result though.
No surprise here : locally produced EV cars running on locally produced electricity can't do much worse than thermic ones running on imported gas.
And banning gas vehicles is a major item the environmental lobby has been campaigning for. That's the major reason they lobbied for electric cars in the first place. In fact, Scotland has talked about banning them from cities and Norway about eliminating them entirely. And there's a party in the UK out to ban them by 2040 (note it is the Daily Mail, so grab your salt shakers before reading).
Plus, as a default method of inner-city travel, it would often mean we would either double the amount of cars owned by the average American to account for the capability of long-distance travel (a number of Americans travel regularly), or we would eliminate the long-distance travel. Likely, we would also see cities banning gasoline-powered cars (because that's the kind of stupid stuff cities do). It would create a sort of societal separation between those who can travel and those who are stuck in one location, with a technological wall of sorts between them.
So, that is why it is easier to assume mass replacement rather than technological mixture. Which means that, to solve the long-distance issue for electric cars, they need more access to infrastructure outside of the cities.
"GersenCorp is dedicated to protecting the environment. By abolishing charging stations at our facilities, we reduce the demand for electricity, thus reducing all our dependence on polluting coal-powered power plants."Honestly, this is one of those things that I do feel needs to be addressed that usually isn't.
The energy from electric cars still needs to be produced, and that is usually produced from existing infrastructure, which is mostly fossil fuels. By the time you take transmission losses into account, I wonder how much more efficient electric cars are to typical combustion engines or hybrids.
Nah, the "greener" companies would just install Solar Freakin' Parkinglots and solar panels or smaller wind-turbines on buildings. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also means a breakdown of immigration and general overland travel, which means that communities will become more isolated from each other. Enough traffic does flow that distance often enough that a significant percentage of modern society, including the modern economy, depends on it. Removing that capacity is going to negatively impact just about every community in the United States, completely isolate quite a few, and cause massive economic damage across the entire nation. Not to mention the potential negative impacts it will have on business and the job market as employers find themselves constrained in where their employees can live.Yes, but most traffic isn't doing that, so the fighting over chargers isn't going to be common.@Andrew, yellowdingo and others : thejeff got it. NO need to fight over gas stations when you have one at home. And at your friends' home. And at your relatives'. And at your workplace...Which falls apart the moment you try to travel from one community to another.
Clearly the solution to this is maglev trains with car transportation freight wagons. :-D
Clearly the solution to this is maglev trains with car transportation freight wagons. :-DIt also means a breakdown of immigration and general overland travel, which means that communities will become more isolated from each other. Enough traffic does flow that distance often enough that a significant percentage of modern society, including the modern economy, depends on it. Removing that capacity is going to negatively impact just about every community in the United States, completely isolate quite a few, and cause massive economic damage across the entire nation. Not to mention the potential negative impacts it will have on business and the job market as employers find themselves constrained in where their employees can live.Yes, but most traffic isn't doing that, so the fighting over chargers isn't going to be common.@Andrew, yellowdingo and others : thejeff got it. NO need to fight over gas stations when you have one at home. And at your friends' home. And at your relatives'. And at your workplace...Which falls apart the moment you try to travel from one community to another.
I totally forgot about those. And they do solve the problem nicely AND clean up the issue with overland shipping pollution!
|
Personally, I travel a greater range than the Tesla has about once a month. Most people I know wouldn't consider NY to Boston a far trip.Still works well as one car for a two car family. One can commute with the electric and then you can take the hybrid on longer trips.
That is where i think the real niche is for the all electric, the second car for local driving with a standard combustion engine for anything farther.
And banning gas vehicles is a major item the environmental lobby has been campaigning for. That's the major reason they lobbied for electric cars in the first place. In fact, Scotland has talked about banning them from cities and Norway about eliminating them entirely. And there's a party in the UK out to ban them by 2040 (note it is the Daily Mail, so grab your salt shakers before reading).
Plus, as a default method of inner-city travel, it would often mean we would either double the amount of cars owned by the average American to account for the capability of long-distance travel (a number of Americans travel regularly), or we would eliminate the long-distance travel. Likely, we would also see cities banning gasoline-powered cars (because that's the kind of stupid stuff cities do). It would create a sort of societal separation between those who can travel and those who are stuck in one location, with a technological wall of sorts between them.
So, that is why it is easier to assume mass replacement rather than technological mixture. Which means that, to solve the long-distance issue for electric cars, they need more access to infrastructure outside of the cities.
It's weird that you are thinking of EV only as an imposed constraint.
It can also be a reasoned choice, you know. I got mine not because of some hypothetical legal obligation, but because it was the same buying price as a IC car, much less costly to maintain and operate, and did nicely answer to my transportation needs.
I do realize that this last item depends on where you live, and on the local price of gas (which historically is cheaper in the USA than in Europe).
We are just (here in Europe) reaching the tipping economical point where EV cost <= IC cost. It's not a ideological choice, it's an economical trend : in France, 2013 EV sales has been twice the 2012 ones, which had been twice the 2011 ones... We are still taking about small volumes though (hundreds or thousands of cars) : the EV take-off is as slow as the hybrids's one had been.
Plus, EVs are fun to drive (no noise, no vibrations, no rpm limitations on torque, etc.)
@Andrew R : a onboard or trailed generator is a quite common idea for long range trips. The i3 got it as a very costly option, the Zoé will get it as a rented add-on next year (you rent a smallish trailer for the duration of your vacation, and zoom out).
And banning gas vehicles is a major item the environmental lobby has been campaigning for. That's the major reason they lobbied for electric cars in the first place. In fact, Scotland has talked about banning them from cities and Norway about eliminating them entirely. And there's a party in the UK out to ban them by 2040 (note it is the Daily Mail, so grab your salt shakers before reading).
Plus, as a default method of inner-city travel, it would often mean we would either double the amount of cars owned by the average American to account for the capability of long-distance travel (a number of Americans travel regularly), or we would eliminate the long-distance travel. Likely, we would also see cities banning gasoline-powered cars (because that's the kind of stupid stuff cities do). It would create a sort of societal separation between those who can travel and those who are stuck in one location, with a technological wall of sorts between them.
So, that is why it is easier to assume mass replacement rather than technological mixture. Which means that, to solve the long-distance issue for electric cars, they need more access to infrastructure outside of the cities.
In 20 years, that may be viable. Not to mention, in the UK and Scotland, and maybe Norway, you can drive cross country on a single charge.
It's weird that you are thinking of EV only as an imposed constraint.
It can also be a reasoned choice, you know. I got mine not because of some hypothetical legal obligation, but because it was the same buying price as a IC car, much less costly to maintain and operate, and did nicely answer to my transportation needs.
I do realize that this last item depends on where you live, and on the local price of gas (which historically is cheaper in the USA than in Europe).
We are just...
Discussing it in relation to the United States. What makes you think it would be allowed to be a reasoned choice? Key thing to keep in mind with U.S. politics at the moment is that "reasoned choice" is not a popular position.
In 20 years, that may be viable. Not to mention, in the UK and Scotland, and maybe Norway, you can drive cross country on a single charge.
True. But the people pushing it for now simply don't care.
Well, I confess that I am not aware of what you are refering to. Could you explain, keeping in mind that I a foreigner?
Of all countries in the world, the US didn't strike me as the sort where the government choose your car for you...
No. Not "the Green and climate change lobbies". Which specific groups? I'm sure there are some people who would support that. Is it a mainstream Green position? Are environmental groups spending money and talking to lawmakers about it? Is it even in the long range goal of any Green or climate change organization with any actual influence? Do they have a plan to mitigate the consequences you talked about?
Has Tesla actually lobbied to ban gas powered vehicles?
Essentially, is there any actual attempt to do what you're worried about or are there just a few radicals who think it would be nice?
Stop interrupting my talking points with your logic!
The Green and climate change lobbies (note that those are not the same lobby, despite a lot of crossover), as well as the "back to nature" and electric car lobbies. Tesla has also been on this side a lot. Their terms are that all gasoline vehicles are to be phased out for being bad for the environment.In the US? Which environmental lobby? And under what terms? Given that we're having fights over modest increases in fuel efficiency, do you think there's a chance in hell of gas cars being banned here at any point in the near future?
Who's pushing this? How much influence do they have?
No. Not "the Green and climate change lobbies". Which specific groups? I'm sure there are some people who would support that. Is it a mainstream Green position? Are environmental groups spending money and talking to lawmakers about it? Is it even in the long range goal of any Green or climate change organization with any actual influence? Do they have a plan to mitigate the consequences you talked about?
Has Tesla actually lobbied to ban gas powered vehicles?
Essentially, is there any actual attempt to do what you're worried about or are there just a few radicals who think it would be nice?
One of the groups doing what I'm talking about is the International Panel on Climate Change (read their Fifth Assessment). So, yes, it is pretty mainstream.
And Tesla has lobbied for it, but so has every other electric car company before them. That's SOP.
But, then again, the challenges I noted earlier can be solved via maglev trains. So, there's absolutely no reason not to do it. Proper use of maglevs combined with electric cars can result in a massive reduction of CO2 output. Luckily, it won't all happen at once, so the reduction will be gradual enough to avoid accidental triggering of any additional climatic problems. So, there's no problems with going all the way and too much to gain from doing so.
The Green and climate change lobbies (note that those are not the same lobby, despite a lot of crossover), as well as the "back to nature" and electric car lobbies. Tesla has also been on this side a lot. Their terms are that all gasoline vehicles are to be phased out for being bad for the environment.In the US? Which environmental lobby? And under what terms? Given that we're having fights over modest increases in fuel efficiency, do you think there's a chance in hell of gas cars being banned here at any point in the near future?
Who's pushing this? How much influence do they have?
No. Not "the Green and climate change lobbies". Which specific groups? I'm sure there are some people who would support that. Is it a mainstream Green position? Are environmental groups spending money and talking to lawmakers about it? Is it even in the long range goal of any Green or climate change organization with any actual influence? Do they have a plan to mitigate the consequences you talked about?
Has Tesla actually lobbied to ban gas powered vehicles?
Essentially, is there any actual attempt to do what you're worried about or are there just a few radicals who think it would be nice?
One of the groups doing what I'm talking about is the International Panel on Climate Change (read their Fifth Assessment). So, yes, it is pretty mainstream.
And Tesla has lobbied for it, but so has every other electric car company before them. That's SOP.
But, then again, the challenges I noted earlier can be solved via maglev trains. So, there's absolutely no reason not to do it. Proper use of maglevs combined with electric cars can result in a massive reduction of CO2 output. Luckily, it won't all happen at once, so the reduction will be gradual enough to avoid accidental triggering of any additional climatic problems. So, there's no problems with going all the way and too much to gain from doing so.
Reading through their "Summary for Policy Makers" of 2013 and 2014, I can't find any indication that they are recommending moving to all electric vehicles.
The 5th Assessment is kind of large.:) Could you point me to where they're even recommending banning gas vehicles?
The Transport chapter in the Mitigation report seems to be more focused on reporting on what's being done and possibilities than on trying to convince the US, or any other government to take specific steps.
I'm still doubtful about Tesla. Lobbying for stricter emissions and fuel economy standards and other measures that will help electric vehicles, I'm sure they do that. Banning gas cars is so far off the radar, any effort they'd make would just be throwing money away.Though I'm glad you've backed off your opposition to something that isn't going to happen at any point in the near future.
Why do people automatically assume that pointing out problems with items related to the environment automatically means that you oppose it?
We're on the verge of extinction. ^$#%-ups cannot be tolerated. That's why I am as hard on problems as I am. Because there won't be a next time.
As for the Fifth Assessment: Read this one and be prepared for a doozy. You'll note they pretty much recommend anything except gasoline-powered vehicles for transportation of the public.
The 5th Assessment is kind of large.:) Could you point me to where they're even recommending banning gas vehicles?
The Transport chapter in the Mitigation report seems to be more focused on reporting on what's being done and possibilities than on trying to convince the US, or any other government to take specific steps.
I'm still doubtful about Tesla. Lobbying for stricter emissions and fuel economy standards and other measures that will help electric vehicles, I'm sure they do that. Banning gas cars is so far off the radar, any effort they'd make would just be throwing money away.Though I'm glad you've backed off your opposition to something that isn't going to happen at any point in the near future.
Why do people automatically assume that pointing out problems with items related to the environment automatically means that you oppose it?
We're on the verge of extinction. ^$#%-ups cannot be tolerated. That's why I am as hard on problems as I am. Because there won't be a next time.
As for the Fifth Assessment: Read this one and be prepared for a doozy. You'll note they pretty much recommend anything except gasoline-powered vehicles for transportation of the public.
There is a big difference between saying what is can be done to cut CO2 emmisions while detailing the effects vs recommending specific policy changes. The whole point of this document is to talk about ideas that can be done so that intelligent policies can be designed in the future.
But the cars aren't banned. Just the method of sale.
If Tesla sells their cars through dealerships, they'd be perfectly available in Texas. It has nothing to do with suppressing the car or the technology within it, but rather protecting the business model that allows middle-men to secure their cut.
If Ford comes and opens a gallery where it tries to sell F-150's, it hits the exact same law prohibiting direct-to-customer sales.
And yet, according to Tesla themselves (check the link I provided where they talk about Missouri), they refuse to do so; so, from a practical standpoint, banning that is banning their cars.