I remember reading an article on the upcoming new electric cars, and I was surprised that there were so many negative comments about it. However, now that gas is back to $4+ a gallon, and people are predicting it will likely increase to $5 or more soon, I wonder if people will finally develop a little bit of brain and realize that yes, electric cars are indeed the way to go! For those of you who live outside the US, perhaps you already see electric cars in large usage? Anyway, I'm honestly not so upset that gas prices are so high. It's true, it does trickle down and affect everyone (food prices increase, etc), however I think it's about time people began to realize that our resources are not limitless, and petroleum is really not a healthy catalyst. Thoughts?

Non-gasoline fueled cars are SLOWLY coming into the picture. It's not going to be an overnight thing. Companies like Tesla haven't exactly set a stellar example and the whole US auto industry is slowly being nursed back to health. Give it time.

What I've heard is gas will probably max out around 3.80-4.00 on average in the US and the only thing that will push it higher is chaos in another oil-rich country.

I think this is a bullshit run-up in prices myself. Libya is supposedly the 12th largest oil supplier and their output has only been cut by about 1/4 (last I heard). Oil drops in price per barrel anytime there's a rumor the President there (dunno his name) is leaving, then goes right back up again. It's a giant game, unfortunately.

People also complain about "Energy Saving" (Fluroscent) light bulbs; my parents are stockpiling the old incandescent light bulbs as we speak...

Automobile fuel considered, I've been waiting for fuel cells, myself...

Here, around Michigan, gas is hovering between $3.50 and $3.60 per gallon.

Problem with electric cars, is that they need better batteries that store more charge, and for a longer period of time; don't want to have to plug them into the wall every 30 minutes, or whatever!

And, that's another problem: You have to plug them into the wall; the car itself might not use gasoline anymore, but guess what, we still have power plants that use coal, gas, and oil; stuff's still getting used up, somewhere; it's going to end up putting more of a strain on the power grid, more than there already is.

People blast their heat in the Winter, and the AC in the Summer; black outs have occurred in my area because of it; I'd say we have one about every 3-4 years, and lasts for as much as 2-3 days, to an entire 7 days.

We really need to be much wiser and conservative with our use of electricity, and diversify our energy sources.

Solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal, yes, but those are expensive, and they're not as efficient about generating electricity as other sources; research would be necessary to make them more efficient, and that's more money we ain't got. I've always wanted to know what everyone's problem with nuclear is?

That said, I wouldn't mind turning my roof into a bed of solar panels, or taking a wind turbine to the side of my house either, or putting a small hydroelectric dam in the creek outback. I suppose at one point, I'll also get equipment for capturing and purifying rain water!

If I had my way, every house, residence, business, building, would be completely self-sufficient in its own power supply.

P.S. I unplug every single electronic device from the wall outlets before going to sleep at night; they say that, even if a device is switched off, it's still consuming electricity, so long as it's plugged into the wall.

.

The biggest problems facing electrics are still range and charge time. I'm not giving up my six liter V8 for a car that can only be driven 200 miles a day, and I doubt there are many Americans who would. Electrics make more sense for a small, tightly-packed nation like Japan.

why would u need to drive 200 miles a day

Hey man, some of us are allowed to have vacations.

i've got one next month,, i got my preapproval and am going to AZ again to finally pick out a house. no more running pullipstyle out of a frickin' condo and a U-Store-It unit.

at the top of my list are:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1273- … 8812_zpid/
and
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/687-E … 5972_zpid/

And herein likes the problem. Many Americans don't want to spend money on gas ("it's such a rip-off!") but don't want to do anything about it either ("I love my 2-billion horse-power car which I can't really afford anyway since I just got a new SUV"). Well too bad. The free-ride is over. Frankly, I think most Americans will definitely give up their gas-powered polluters once gas prices reach $6-8 a gallon, which they almost certainly will in the far nearer future than most Americans are willing to admit. Most Americans drive roughly 12,000 miles per year, which translates to a whopping 33 miles per day. A 200-mile charge will give you enough power to run the car for 6 days without having to recharge. The distances of batteries will also certainly increase over time. This is only the first generation of electric batteries. If things take off, you can expect batteries to easily go 400+ miles in the next few years. As for electricity, it is true that coal plants are dirty (although far less environmentally destructive than petroleum, as we have seen time and time again), but there are plenty of ways to generate clean electricity. Also, small electric vehicles get far better millage than the larger ones currently being tested in the US market. And building an infrastructure to support electric vehicles is not difficult. Have a look at London:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/f-r-a-n-k/359123912/

edit: the photo is from 2007, much stride has been made since then, and hopefully soon electric vehicles will be seen across the US...

Congrats, Mike!

I can only speak for myself on this one - I've only got 400ish BHP, but it does demand high octane fuel so I'm used to paying up. Please shoot me if you ever catch me driving an SUV, because my life would already be over anyway

This is a common problem with all new technologies. Early adopters pay out the nose for ineffective tech. When the technology is mature enough for car manufacturers to create electrics that are as cheap and as fun to drive as what I drive now, then there'd be little reason not to go electric aside from sentiment (and I do love my car).

There is only one clean energy source that is currently capable of filling our needs, but everyone is still too terrified to build any more nuclear plants.

Gas is treating me fine.  I bought a Prius.  Yeah, it's an old geezer mobile.  I can't tell you how many people my age make fun of me.  But I am laughing all the way to the bank.  I spend $40 a month on gas, compared to $140 I spent with my Malibu.  Going 0 to 60 in 5 seconds is highly overrated, unless you are mid-lifing I guess.

I don't think I am ready for an all electric vehicle though.  It's too limiting.  I need to be able to drive as long as I want and when I want.  If I have driven 100 miles during the day and an emergency occurs, I am screwed until the vehicle gets some juice.  I'll be going to a plug-in Prius when it is out.

The Chevy Volt is electric + gas, and I believe the electric Nissan as well. As soon as you're out of electric power it automatically switches to gas. So, no need to worry about emergencies!

Chevy Volt has a MSRP of $40,000
Toyota Prius has MSRP of $23~28,000

That's a MASSIVE sticker price difference, why blow an extra 12~17 Thousand right off the bat??
That's a lifetime of gas dollars that you would have saved right there!

I've still got a little 4 cylinder NEON that has 213,000 miles on it.

The government will give you (at least) $7500 rebate. That brings it down to $32500. If you live in CA (possibly other states too), you also get at least a $5000 rebate, which brings it down to $27,500. Basically the same price as a Prius (slightly higher end). That's also just the initial cost, it will go down once more are produced.

Also, it appears people simply can't look past the basic dollar value, which is being very nearsighted.  IF people purchased electric cars, the US dependence on foreign oil would decrease so much, that our economy would drastically improve. Not to mention the fact that per mile electric vehicles beat gas powered vehicles hands-down, so that too would add to a better economy (since the cost of transportation of goods would decrease). Thirdly, do people really care so little about the environment that they don't believe it matters if they pollute? Do many Americans still have their heads up their arse and believe that "this whole greenhouse business is just a scam!"??

I would like to think that most Americans are not so dumb, but I don't know. People are definitely resistant to change, even if it's for the better, and they especially seem to be resistant if there's no immediate gratification in their lives (ie "how is this going to benefit ME?" mentality). Now I do admit these cars are not cheap, but if I was on the market for a car, that is definitely the car I would shop for (I would LOVE never to have to pay for gas ever again...

I think you answered yourself here, rebates aside. I almost guarantee if there were a more affordable way to put more electric vehicles on the road, more people would be taking advantage of it.

I think your beef right now should be with the makers for not speeding this along earlier, not the public for being slow to embrace the new technology. I mean, why buy a buggy, overpriced game console at launch, when you can snag one down the road that works better (usually) at a lower cost. No difference here. Not factoring in monthly bills, my iPhone is great for the $99 I paid for it, but not so great for the jacked up prices it sold for when it was put out.

And you're also forgetting that used car sales are a giant factor in the market. Most people I know buy used cars, simple as that. Realistically, there aren't many used electric vehicles available now (I'm too lazy to look this up on Vehix or Carmax, but if you find something to prove me wrong, please post).

It's not a matter of being dumb or resistance to change, it's about playing it smart.  I bought the Prius to save money.  If I happen to save the planet and reduce my dependence on foreign oil in the process, then great.  However, the only reason on my list to buy it was to save money. 

It's not that I don't care what happens to the environment, but you have to realize, we are all in survival mode, and much more so in these tough economical times.  I don't want to come off as being selfish, but no one is looking out for me but me, and I don't expect anyone else to look out for me either.

I don't see how spending $25k~40k on ANY type of vehicle is totally viewed as a *NORMAL* price, but that's what many people go ahead and spend. Gas price becomes pretty irrelevant compared to a wasteful initial purchase price.

If they bought a used vehicle for even $10k, that's HUGE CASH saved which could be used to pay for so many other things instead....  That would kill off even a substantial credit card load of $20k.

Gimme cheap transport, I sure don't need heated-seats and rear-view cameras. 
People have allowed themselves to be convinced that their car needs to be as luxurious as their home (which they also paid too much for and can't afford to pay for it either).

im all for the 10k slightly used car method.
i mean,, if you buy a new one everyone expects you to wash it and clean out the inside every year

That is one unduly condescending attitude you've got there.  Most people can't afford to factor long-term effects on the national economy into their purchasing decisions, and it would be ridiculous to expect them to.

Perhaps before you look down your nose at others for not being as upstanding as you, you should consider that many of them are struggling just to stay afloat and haven't the luxury of considering the ripple effects of their everyday behavior.  "Luxury" is the key word here.  The sense of self-satisfaction that comes from being a globally responsible citizen is just something that you buy with the time and means that others aren't as fortunate to have.

Actually as a grad student I get paid slightly above the poverty level, nevertheless I manage with what I have. I really don't have "time" nor "means" as you put it that many other people do, but I do my best and try to be responsible. I don't do it because I get self-satisfaction, but because I feel it's a responsibility everyone should take (at least in some ways), and frankly it ends up being cheaper in the long run (yes, it ends up costing less time and money). I actually do think most people should try to factor in long-term cost when purchasing something such as a car (or any other large ticket item really). This attitude that being responsible is "only for the rich" is completely unfounded and ridiculous. For example, still on the topic of gas and cars, what's the best selling car in the US for 2010? Any idea... well, it's the Ford F-150 with starting price of over $22,000 and average price of over $36,000! That's far more expensive than a new Prius, or even a new Volt! I remember talking to a car dealer, and she couldn't understand why so many people purchase $40,000 vehicles when she said most people have absolutely no need for them! This is a problem Americans have had for years. Cars too big, homes too big, stomachs too big... and of course when there's no money to pay for it all many blame Obama, or whomever they can. Look, I agree that there are people who are in hard times and it's not their fault (for that I blame the banks mostly), and they certainly can not afford a $20,000+ car. In fact, if you're really in bad shape, why would you buy a new car in the first place? However, most Americans are in the middle (hence middle class). Not poor, but far from wealthy. Still, they purchase cars that are near $40,000 and then complain that gas prices are too high. If I seem condescending, well frankly I would expect people to think things through instead of saying "that green car is too damn expensive" and then they go out and purchase a more expensive truck!

People are chiefly concerned with their own personal lives. The environment is not more important than the personal life of a human being, within the eyes of the individual. Plus, most people do not believe that global warming is real and that there is a finite amount of oil. For the lifespan of a human, the amount of oil might as well be infinite.

Most people do believe in astrology, end-of-the-world claims, The Bible, ghosts, God, etc. And those same people use cell phones, the internet, and various other technological achievements of human intellect, yet do not believe in something as obviously true as global warming. People completely trust the devices invented by scientists, yet completely distrust their observations of reality. People are not consistent. If people do not believe in global warming, then they should not use anything that has been invented by a scientist. But that would conflict with their personal lives, which is their chief concern.

Even though I am aware of global warming (Michael Faraday pointed it out back in the 1860s), I will not buy an electric vehicle, due to the fact that it would conflict with my personal life. My car is paid off. I need to use it for as long as possible, since having a paid off car means I do not have a monthly car payment. That is very important, far more important than the environment. This is because my existence (like that of all humans) is the number one priority.

I know I keep asking this, but I don't get an answer: WHY are people so scared of nuclear power?

There are times when I need to drive 900 miles in a day to, say, get to a job interview.

Still easier and cheaper than flying.

I'm all for environmentally safe power sources and transportation, but 200-400 miles a day just isn't going to cut it, and electric cars don't charge quickly, either; not as quick as it takes to fill a gas tank with fuel.

A 200-mile a day car is a commuter car, not a road trip vehicle; and when a person only has the $$$ for one car, what do you think they're going to choose: One that'll only allow them to make commutes, or one that'll also allow them to take long road trips?

I think we need to focus more on making public transportation feasible, especially since it would be easier for public transportation to be more environmentally friendly, if trains run on electric tracks.

Japan's got bullet trains; how come we can't get those in the 'States?

If you want to convince people of something, you need to be the one to take the first step, and show it how it's done. Lead by example.

If the government actually believes in global warming, or environmental initiatives, they need to be the ones to start cutting down on their own waste first. For people to follow, they need to be lead in the first place.

For the past 10-20 years, everyone's been leaving beyond their means, and consuming much more than they need; not just your every day citizen, but the government's been damn frivolous with our tax dollars, and now that their treasuries are empty, they can't do what needs to be done, and what they should've been doing all along.

People never believed that they had a choice, that their votes actually mattered. They never took it upon themselves to take the reins of our wild horse of a government, and now, it's too late.

Chernobyl? Sellafield? Three Mile Island? Take your pick of these or several others. If you accept "Murphy's Law" as granted, this sort of catastrophe will happen again.

http://jalopnik.com/#!5780215/nissan-el … ing-owners

"Now that electric-powered Nissan Leafs have been driven by the first owners for several weeks, Nissan's claimed 100-mile range is being tested in reality. The result? Reports of Leafs running out of juice and stranding drivers with little warning.
"It went from 17... to dead in about 5 miles."

Although the details in the complaints on the MyNissanLeaf forum differ, the common thread in each is the Leaf suddenly paring back the estimates of its range in the middle of a trip, ending in a brief "turtle" mode — marked by an orange turtle icon on the Leaf's dash — followed by the car shutting down to prevent battery damage."

"Went from 17 to —- to turtle to dead in about 5 miles. 2.3 miles from dealer. 4.2 miles from home. Part of me is amused that I may go down in history as the first dumbass to drive the car into submission. But I am slightly shaky and upset as I thought there should have been no problem getting home."

"Around downtown the range is down to 8 miles (still plenty to get home, which was by then 5 miles away). At the ship-canal bridge it went into turtle, I barely got off the freeway. 2 Mile from home and after about half the distance it told I would have from the airport, i.e. 13 actual miles driven, it went dead. I actually managed to drive 400 yards in turtle mode. 10:30 pm, wife and screaming kids in the car (which was blocking the right lane of a busy road), just came back from the east coast, cars zooming by and honking, several near misses."

"Nissan has long maintained that how many miles the Leaf travels on a charge will depend on the driver, but has said the Leaf could go as far as 138 miles on a full charge, with an average driver getting 100 miles in city driving. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's official rating is 73 miles, and many owners on MyNissanLeaf report between 60 and 80 miles of range daily."

"They HAVE people lined up to buy this car — by overselling this, they are risking severe backlash once buyers realize that they have paid 40K for a car that goes 50 miles, instead of 100"

Welcome to the joys of new technology.

That's reasonable, but that's not what you said before.

It's one thing to expect people to think, "how will this decision affect me, my family, my friends, and the members of my community in the long term?"

It's quite another to expect people to consider, "what effect might this decision have on the nation -- nay, the world -- as a whole?  Not the global effect of this decision by itself, of course, which is infinitesimal, but the aggregate effect of this decision when made by me and millions of other people."

how smart is a 'smart car' if it can be totaled by a shopping cart in a parking lot on a windy day?

Smarts aren't electric, they've just got a similarly repulsive design aesthetic to current electric/hybrid cars. As for how apt the name is, how does spinning 450° in the air in a collision sound?

It's not a fair comparison. If you drive any car and get hit by a tractor trailer you're going to be dead (assuming you're on the highway or going some "normal" speed). Smaller cars are "smart" for city driving since typically in cities driving is far slower than the highway, and it's much harder to find parking space. Therefore in a city, a smaller car keeps the gas mileage down (therefore you pay less), and also allows for easier parking. Not to mention that smaller cars typically cost less than larger cars. According to the US Census, over 82% of Americans live in metropolitan areas. Therefore smaller cars are definitely a good choice for most people. Furthermore, electric cars are even a better choice.

As for the Nissan Leaf's problems of "only" going an average of 70+ miles per charge, that is still more than ample for most people who travel no more than 40 miles per day. I do agree the technology is not perfect, everyone knows that, but it will improve over time. These fully electric vehicles are meant to run on electricity for distances that are comparable to the average American commute (again around 30 miles per day). Keep in mind you can take your fully electric Chevy Volt across the US since it also runs on gas once the electric power is used up. Such cars will also become much more popular as gas prices continue to rise. Once US prices are $8+ per gallon, they will be in record demand no doubt. Also, $8+ gallon will hit you sooner than you expect, mark my words! I find it interesting that gas and oil companies claim they don't understand these wild price increases themselves, yet every year they make record profits of billions of dollars. They are in fact one huge reason why electric vehicles have not yet become readily available.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/eight- … rejoice-we

http://theundergroundconservative.files … as-bmp.jpg

Murphy's Law isn't a real law of course, and in fact you can show it to be false using basic physics, but point is things to unexpectedly go wrong. Just look at what's happening with Japan's nuclear power plant. Now the good news is that most of these plants are built to be able to stand serious damage, and there are numerous safeguards. If protocol is followed, chances are there will be no issues. So why are there not more nuclear power plants? I would say the main reason is fear.

I disagree. If a Smart driver is involved in a collision, what's more likely - hitting an SUV or midsize car, or that they chance to run into another Smart driver?

There was just such an accident here a few months ago. The women in the passenger car were unharmed, while the driver of the oil tanker perished in a ball of flame that required the interstate to be closed for repaving.

How many of those people live in the suburbs? Inner city folks can get by with public transport, and their cost of living is prohibitive to owning a vehicle anyway. But "most people" commute from suburbia.

Don't try to sell me on an electric vehicle till you can eliminate this caveat from your pitch. The technology is not satisfactorily mature, and it's unfair for early adopters to support the development of products that will make their investment obsolete. This might be expected when purchasing a $1000 computer, but it's unacceptable when spending $20000 on a vehicle.

It depresses me that most of your arguments center around this idea that commuting is all a vehicle is ever needed for. If that were the case, why own personal transportation at all? What about recreational uses? What happened to just "going cruising" when you have nothing else in particular to do?

That's fine - when and if EV adoption becomes widespread, lower demand for petroleum will lower prices for us enthusiasts

That's not what's being debated here - what is is the reason for that fear.

1)It depends on how many cars are on the road, doesn't it? In cities, you generally find smaller cars, therefore in a city you are more likely to hit a smaller car than a trailer.

2)There are exceptions to nearly everything. So a woman near you was in a passenger car and unharmed, so she got lucky. There are thousands of incidents where cars hit trailers and in nearly every case those in the car are killed. Just because there are a few exceptions, that does not change the statistics that your chances of surviving are very slim if you hit a much larger vehicle head-on.

3)The majority of people live within a few miles of the city. Just look at Boston for example. Although there certainly are people who live fairly far away (over 50 miles), these are exceptions rather than the rule. A few million Bostonians could easily use an electric car and never have to worry about gas ever again. Yes, many can use public transportation, but you'll be surprised how many people nevertheless own cars.

4)I see nothing unfair here. As long as you know what you're getting, then there's nothing unfair about it. If you don't want to adopt an electric car, no one is forcing you. You are more than welcome to keep paying at pump as long as you want! As for having "nothing else to do" except go cruising, I read a report recently about how people are no longer just cruising thanks to record oil prices. I actually think this is a good thing. In fact, the roads now are the safest they have been in decades!

5)As I've numerous and numerous times (and you seem to ignore this point), the Chevy Volt works on BOTH electricity and gas. If you want to do a 2000 mile drive with it, you can, because the Volt also works on gas. My point is that for most every day usage (to and from work, groceries, errands, etc) *current* electric cars will be fine for most Americans. If you need to travel further, they switch automatically to gas when the electricity runs out.

6)Will it? I'm not so sure, at least not to levels we currently pay. Oil supplies are already drying up all across the world (actually this has been going on for years). By the way, the reason gas is so cheap in the US is because the government covers much of the cost. Otherwise we would be paying the same or higher than in Europe. Eventually there will be no reason to help in gas cost (when electric vehicles take over), at which point you are more than welcome to pay for your $10+ per gallon or however much it will cost!

Most people don't understand how safe nuclear power is. They don't even understand nuclear power at all. Say the word "nuclear" and people either imagine big mushroom clouds or some green-substance glowing in the dark. France generates nearly 80% of its electricity through nuclear power. Do you know off the top of your head of any nuclear disasters France has had? How about any detrimental affects on health? Why is there such fear of nuclear power... here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … cript.html

edit: to sum the link, if you don't want to read it all:
"In this country [US] no one has been injured or killed in a nuclear accident involving radiation exposure. No one. But people aren't really good at assessing risk. And somehow we've decided that nuclear power is very, very risky -is a very risky business."
BERNARD COHEN, Professor of Physics, University of Pittsburgh: The media don't pay any attention to risk analysis. They just say this is radioactivity. They call it "deadly radioactivity." I don't know why they call it "deadly." It's not killing hardly anybody, if anybody. Nobody talks about "deadly electricity," which-- although over 1,000 people a year die from electrocution in the United States. Nobody talks about "deadly natural gas," although I believe it's 5,000 people a year die from asphyxiation from natural gas, things of that sort.

No one is forcing me (at least not yet), but you are trying to persuade me

I deliberately discounted the Volt because I thought others had already made a solid financial argument against it. You might argue that the initial cost is offset by long term fuel savings, but that initial cost will necessarily be spread over a 5-6 year loan which would still be awfully steep for an average middle class individual or family.

I think you're on point on the nuclear power topic. There is a nuclear plant in my backyard (well, it's a couple of miles from here) and I don't worry about it. I still think electric vehicles will be missing half the point till nuclear (or some other clean alternative) is the primary method of generating electric power though.

Nuclear power is safe in the best-case scenario where the people responsible for designing, building, operating, maintaining, and defending the facility all act with a high standard of care.  It would be fair not to have faith in the people involved at every stage in the process, especially as we watch a nuclear plant in crisis because its safeguards failed to withstand a foreseeable natural disaster.  We are fallible, after all.

I don't think that opponents of nuclear power are guilty of a miscalculation of risk.  Yes, nuclear power has high utility and a low likelihood of harm, but the magnitude of possible harm, unlikely though it may be, is enormous.  Reasonable minds could differ in balancing these factors.