Are electric vehicles vaporware or the ultimate realization of a properly-formed, innovative auto industry? (Gavin Potenza, AOL Autos).

    by: Rex Roy | AOL Autos

    The reality is — day in and day out, time and time again, from people whom you'd like to believe — you're being lied to about electric vehicles.

    When U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recently visited the Detroit Auto Show, she pontificated about Michigan's green manufacturing future, where solar- and wind-powered factories will soon produce pure, clean electric-powered vehicles. Representatives from the environmental community take every opportunity to slam the transportation industry for not already being fully electric, giddily pointing to cottage-industry manufacturers of electric vehicles that are doing "the right thing." Media talking heads (cable and broadcast) routinely castigate auto makers -- especially the domestics -- for being incapable of producing vehicles Americans want to buy because of a lack of foresight and engineering capabilities.

    This is all vapid blather.

    Regardless, after years of hearing the above, many Americans believe some or all of the following:

    • Electric cars represent "new" technology.
    • Gasoline-powered engines are obsolete.
    • The world is soon going to run out of fossil fuels.
    • Major manufacturers are holding back readily available technology that would quickly transform the U.S. automotive fleet to electric vehicles.
    • Small-volume manufacturers of electric-vehicles possess and offer more advanced technology than major manufacturers.
    • Americans will want to drive the new electric vehicles, whatever they are.
    • The electric cars coming to market in the next 12 months will greatly impact the world.
    • We'll all be driving electric vehicles in five years.

    So what's the truth?

    Some of you aren't going to like this. My editor, Reilly Brennan, is prepared to receive requests for my head to be delivered on a silver platter to the nearest Sierra Club meeting.

    In fact, he doesn't agree with me on many of these points. Where appropriate, Reilly's provided his counterpoint to my 7 "lies." I'd love to hear which side of the argument you weigh in on.

    Lie #1: Electric cars are "new."


    Electric cars first trundled around the streets of major U.S. cities in the 1890s. Dozens of manufacturers produced electric cars back then, including Miller, Columbia, and Detroit Electric.

    Their ease of use compared to gasoline-powered cars was highly valued. Henry Ford's wife Clara (yes, that Henry Ford, who founded the company that bears his name) even drove an electric car.

    While unthinkable to modern drivers, operating early gasoline-powered cars was a dangerous idea. Hundreds of people lost their lives crank starting their primitive cars. A simple backfire would whip the starting crank from the person's hand and fatally clonk them in the head.

    Despite their popularity through the 1920s, early electric cars suffered the same issues plaguing today's electric vehicle; range and charging times. An owner could only drive 30-40 miles before an overnight charge was required. This was as inconvenient then as it is today.

    Electric vehicles fell from favor because gasoline-powered vehicles became easier and safer to operate. Gasoline-powered cars could run further between fuel stops, which, unlike an electron recharge, could be accomplished in minutes as opposed to hours. The Detroit Electric Car Company was among the last manufactures of pure electric cars, ending volume production in 1929.

    Electric cars vanished because drivers didn't want them. Gasoline-powered cars beat them out in the marketplace, fair and square.

    To a great extent, not much has changed. At least, not yet.

    Sure, while the overall technology is not new, it's new enough for virtually every driver on the road today. And, because in pure form it doesn't burn gasoline (cast aside the issues of how the powerplant gets its fuel, normally from coal in most parts of the U.S.), it's pretty attractive. Fire wasn't new (to anyone, ever), but the first caveman to keep a spark alive after a lightning storm drew quite a crowd.

    Lie #2: Gasoline-powered engines are obsolete.

    Gasoline-powered vehicles are the least expensive and most efficient manner to propel cars and light-duty trucks in the U.S. today. Incremental steps in technology have dramatically increased the efficiency of the internal combustion engine (ICE).

    Consider 1970. Most cars from that year used mechanical ignition systems, inhaled through carburetors, and had fixed valve timing. The catalytic converter, invented by General Motors, was still under development.

    But today, modern engines utilize computer-controlled ignition spark timing, employ sophisticated fuel-injection hardware, feature variable valvetrain timing, and effective pollution controls. With these and other technologies, modern ICEs are 99-percent cleaner running, and use roughly half the fuel to produce roughly twice as much power as their forbearers from 40 years ago. Also remember that today's engines do this while powering much heavier vehicles, what with today's required checklist for safety must-haves and customer features.

    I recently interviewed Gerhard Schmidt, Ford VP of Research & Advanced Engineering and the company's Chief Technology Officer. Few people on the planet can speak as intelligently about the future of transportation. We spoke about the future of the traditional internal combustion engine.

    "We believe that using technology that we're aware of today, the efficiency of the ICE can be further improved yet another 25-percent," Schmidt said.

    Plain old "gas engines" are far from obsolete.

    Schmidt also pointed out another key piece of information that points to the continued use of ICEs: in terms of energy storage, gasoline is currently twice as energy-dense as the most advanced batteries available today (diesel is even more energy dense). While there will be geometric gains in battery storage technology in the coming years, gasoline remains the most efficient form of transportation fuel.

    This reality of efficient ICEs running on an energy-dense fuel sets a high bar for new powertrain technologies to jump over.

    I agree with you that ICEs are not obsolete (and technologically have become quite advanced), but their dominance hinges on their built-in infrastructure (lots of gas stations, not electric stations). Any technology used by a large number of people isn't so much a technology as it is a system. And real-world systems take a long time to switch, as opposed to digital systems which have little to no switching pains or cost (think of how easy it is to switch from Google.com to Bing.com as your internet search engine of choice -- it's just one click away).

    Lie #3: The world is soon going to run out of fossil fuels.

    Predictions about oil shortages were first made just years after the discovery of crude in Pennsylvania in 1859. Leading up to 1950, there were seven oil shortages, each one followed by dire warnings. Things got downright hysterical after the back-to-back Arab Oil Embargos of the 1970s. Oil doomsayers hijacked the collective consciousness and convinced generations of school children (many of whom grew up to be Congressmen) that the world would soon run out of oil.

    With whom would you agree?

    Soon was supposed to have arrived already. While oil isn't Earth's version of the brew in Denny's bottomless coffee cup, it's not dry, either.

    Determining how much oil we've got is an evolving science. Our best bet is to measure how much we're using against the current data of what we've been able to locate.

    The U.S. Department of Energy predicts enough oil and other forms of fuel out to 2035, the farthest anyone is willing predict. Much of that oil will come from domestic sources such as the Bakken Shale Oil Field, which covers sections of Montana, North Dakota, and Saskatchewan, that contains an estimated 3.65 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Drilling has already begun.

    That's not all, but it might require some creative poking and prodding of the earth in order to access it. Under the Rocky Mountains lies another two trillion barrels of oil. It's the largest known oil reserve in the world. For environmental reasons, the field hasn't been tapped, but that situation may eventually change.

    No one knows when mankind will consume the world's reserves of fossil fuels, but given advances in exploration and extraction techniques, it's not likely to be within the lifetime of anyone alive today.

    You're not going to like me after this one, but I think you're being selfish. So what if oil lasts through our lifetime? As I discussed before, fuel systems take decades to swap out. Do you want your kids or grandkids dealing with oil shortages with no real alternative already in place? I want future generations to be the beneficiaries of my foresight, not my laziness.

    Also, call me a liberal, but: I'm not sure I'm in favor of harvesting the Rockies because there's oil down there. At some point we have to make trade-offs and choose what's more important. Just because there's an extra piece of cake on the platter doesn't mean you should eat it.

    Lie #4: Major manufacturers are holding back readily available technology that would quickly transform the U.S. automotive fleet to electric vehicles.

    Conspiracy theorists are fond of stating that Detroit auto manufacturers conspired with "big oil" to kill electric vehicles in order to keep fuel-swilling vehicles in American garages.

    Pure folly.

    Anyone who knows the history of The Detroit Three knows that General Motors came into existence as a way to make money and provide an ROI for investors. The fact that the company deals with cars is, on some level, almost incidental. Driven by cold capitalism, it's improbable to believe that if GM possessed technology to revolutionize electric cars at any point in the company's history, they would have done so.

    But GM couldn't because the technology didn't exist then. Or now.

    Similarly, ask yourself this: would the pre-bankruptcy leadership at GM have let Toyota become the world's largest auto manufacturer if GM had game-changing electric vehicle technology? Of course not.

    GM's fault in letting Toyota take charge of hybrid-electric vehicles is perhaps more embarrassing than simply not having the goods: they didn't see the value in investing in a money-losing technology in order to achieve hybrid leadership. Toyota did (it lost money on every Prius sold up until recently) and in turn established itself as the go-to player in that segment.

    I have no real counterpoint to this one. While big car companies get a deserved amount of grief for their missteps, they are also the ones creating most of the heavyweight technologies found throughout the market.

    This is why free markets are beautiful: at some point, competitive companies are incentivized to make better things. The stronger and faster each car company develops technology for use by consumers, the faster and cheaper we'll be able to use it.

    Lie #5: Small-volume manufacturers of electric-vehicles possess and offer more advanced technology than major manufacturers.

    The generalized thought is, "These new companies offer electric vehicles now, so they must have technology that the major manufacturers don't."

    This is superficially understandable, but wrong.

    The only reason major manufactures don't have showrooms full of electric cars is that the technology doesn't offer drivers the practicality and value they demand.

    Advanced technology or a lack of smart engineers is not what is keeping EVs off the road. Here's proof…

    Who remembers the General Motors EV-1? GM produced the EV-1 as a way to test new technologies and push the boundaries of electric vehicle development. They succeeded and failed.

    GM's team succeeded in building the most sophisticated electric vehicle the world had ever seen. The findings from the EV1 project have influenced nearly every major electric car program since, including the 2011 Chevrolet Volt.

    However, GM failed to communicate what the giant learned about electric vehicles. GM's sometimes-inept marketing and PR departments totally botched the PR presentation of program results, and the subsequent termination of the effort and the scrapping of most EV1 units. While GM did "kill" their EV1, all that was learned during the project lives on.

    The EV1 and the upcoming Chevrolet Volt represent only a fraction of the electric car research conducted by major automakers in the last 50 years. Other makers have examples too, but focusing on GM reveals the company's 1965 Electrovair II, a highway-capable pure-electric Chevrolet Corvair. In 1966, GM produced the world's first hydrogen fuel-cell powered electric vehicle, the Electrovan.

    In terms of accumulated institutional knowledge on EVs, General Motors has likely misfiled more data and findings than new EV makers such as Tesla and Fisker Automotive have heretofore created.

    For those who don't know, the $110,950 Tesla rides a chassis derived from a 15-year old Lotus. The lithium-ion battery pack used to power the Roadster is filled with 6,831 individual cells the company didn't even develop on its own.

    Regarding Fisker, the most complex system in the upcoming Fisker Karma sedan — expected to cost at least $87,000 — is the engine used to power the electric car's on-board generator. Who makes the engine? General Motors.

    I agree with most of this, but I think that most manufacturers can't go full bore on electric vehicle creation because they have to worry about creating the other dozen or so non-electrics in their lineup. As you rightfully point out elsewhere, they are in business to serve the consumer and their shareholders. Tesla's advantage might be its singularity of focus: with nothing but electrics to worry about they can appear to be much faster. (And, with their Government money in hand, they don't even need to worry about profits for a few years.) It's only a matter of time until major manufacturers create specific hybrid or electric lineups that have the same focus. Such technology will likely be shared across all brands, but the marketing impact of all-electric could be more powerful in the long run. That means creating a new brand or division to achieve it.

    Lie #6: Americans will want to drive the new electric vehicles, whatever they are.

    It is childishly optimistic to believe that Americans will altruistically drive vehicles that fall into the undefined category of "good for the planet."

    Real Americans drive what they want. When they can't do that, they drive what they can afford.

    This is shifting. A CNW report last year noted that in 2009, electric vehicle consideration in the U.S. was at an all-time high. Among general new car intenders, 26.7% said they were "extremely" interested in electric vehicles, 37.6% "somewhat" and 35.7% "not at all." Those numbers support electric acceptance. It's just the infrastructure that needs to catch up.

    Lie #7: The electric cars coming to market in the next 12 months will impact the U.S. in a measurable manner.

    While the number of hybrid vehicles is increasing, the Tesla Roadster is currently the only pure electric, DOT-certified pure electric vehicle for sale in the United States as of January 2010. Through December 2009, the company produced and sold 900 cars.

    In its worst year since 1982, new vehicle sales in the U.S. were 10.4 million units. Tesla therefore accounted for less than 0.00009-percent of sales.

    Other pure-electric vehicles are expected to follow the Tesla in calendar year 2010 including the Chevrolet Volt, Nissan Leaf, and Fisker Karma. Estimates of vehicles produced by each manufacturer range from hundreds to thousands.

    The Chinese giant BYD plans on bringing their e6 electric car to the US late in 2010, but only expects to sell 300 vehicles in limited markets. Other bit players include the WheeGo Whip. The company hopes to introduce a high-speed version of their already-on-sale neighborhood electric vehicle by the end of the year.

    These are not numbers that can impact the environment or national energy security.

    Electric vehicles must be sold by the tens of thousands to have a measurable impact. Electric vehicle sales may follow a similar path as hybrids. With about a decade of sales, hybrids still only account for a single-digit percentage of the market.

    It will be a long time before electric vehicles make any genuine, measurable impact on the American fleet that contains approximately 240 million vehicles and requires some 18 years to "turn over."

    You've got to start somewhere. I do think they will have a big impact, though, as they'll actually get us thinking about infrastructure needs. The total sales will be small, though.

    Alright, naysayer, what does the future really hold for electric vehicles?

    Despite the aforementioned lies, the future of personal transportation is electric, but that future is decades away.

    Most importantly, battery and fuel-cell technology must mature so that it can become more effective and less costly.

    Ford Motor Company sees the gradual growth of alternative powered vehicles accounting for about a quarter of all vehicle production by 2035. Their estimate counts hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and battery electric vehicles. This leaves three-quarters of all U.S. vehicles motivated by ever-more-efficient versions of the trusty old internal combustion engine.

    Sorry to burst your bubble.

    However, the progress will continue to come. As scientists introduce newer generations of batteries, their capacity will go up as their weight, size and cost come down. While this is happening, technologies supporting renewable energy will improve, bolstering the country's ability to charge the tens of thousands of electric vehicles that will one day account for 1 in 4 vehicles. 

    Your author has driven the Tesla Roadster. If mainstream electric cars are only half as much fun to drive this amped-up Lotus derivative, the future of cars will be even more enjoyable than it is today.

    And that's no lie.

    Quick Shopping Tools:

    Research New Cars

    Cars for Sale in Your Area

    Get Repair Estimates

    1 - 20 of 261 Comments
    brnaclbil Mar 22, 2010 11:00 PM
    Rex Roy apparently doesn't know what percent means. It means "per hundred" 900 / 10,400,000 is .009 % not .00009%. You are off by a factor of 100.
    Report This
    rddonnellymd Mar 22, 2010 9:11 PM
    Oftentimes I am most annoyed by these car point/counterpoint exchanges because they have as their starting point an underlying assumption that cars are inherently fun,as opposed to functional.Oddly enough,usually there are not such exchanges regarding one's choice as far as toilets.(Although perhaps there are web sites regarding water consumption and need to flush once or twice).The current price of gasoline in Norway is roughly $8 per gallon,and their current income per capita is much more than the US.I suspect that the US true cost of gasoline,given the cost of the Iraq war,plus the subsidies to the oil and gas industries,is probably $10 per gallon.Thus I think it would behoove all of us to lobby for the price of carbon to reflect the true cost,perhaps in the form of a Great Green Tax Shift,a la Paul Krugman,and then we could have an intelligent calculation regarding what type of car and society makes the most sense.
    Report This
    bajohn3 Mar 15, 2010 9:37 AM
    terrylkauffman7, You should check vehicle weights from the 70s and 80s compared to todays, they are heavier now. Regardless, those heavy steel frames you love so much did not absorb crash energy and transfered that energy to the occupants, causing more injuries. Cars are much safer today than they were in the past because they are designed with crumple zones that absorb the force of an impact, as well as airbags. It's basic physics.
    Report This
    bajohn3 Mar 15, 2010 9:33 AM
    camdenpainting Ever hear of renting a car? Just because you can't make some pointless long distance trip once a year doesn't mean EV's can't work.
    Report This
    camdenpainting Mar 14, 2010 7:15 PM
    Ok Nancy your so giddy over electric cars. We are a family of four who drives to Florida for spring break. what pure electic car can I buy today to make this drive? the answer is none and there will not be one in my life time This is a woman who has five children! Tell me how that works in your house these electric cars seat 2 to 4 people and go about a 100 mile before needing to be recharged over a 8 to 12 hour span. The woman has a screw loose she is not living in the real world
    Report This
    terrylkauffman7 Mar 14, 2010 4:03 PM
    Under Lie #2 you stated that "Also remember that today's engines do this while powering much heavier vehicles, what with today's required checklist for safety must-haves and customer features." This is an interesting comment given that the auto makers have significantly decreased the thickness of the metal of the car body and eliminated the auto frame used to make auto's. This significantly increased the risk of injury and death during an accident. Do you really think that an airbag mechanism that may or may not work during an accident is heavier than a steel frame and thicker metal for the car body? You will have to prove this one. The apparent primary purpose for these required safety features is that auto makers were making cars so unsafe that it was killing and injuring so many more people. They had to do something to reduce the number of lawsuits and maintain their bottom line profits. Do a test crash comparison of any standard auto built in the 40's and 50's with a car built today without the safety features installed and you will see which is the safer vehicle. I would like to see cars go back to the quality of the 40's and 50's with the added safety features of today. The results will be an enormous reduction in injuries and deaths. This is a good and responsible thing to do for our society. If the intent is to leave people at high risk every time they get into their auto, (accident waiting for a place to happen ) as they are today, then do nothing and continue to make the auto makers, auto body shops, insurance companies, lawyers, doctors, court systems and others happy. I know its a silly notion to expect that saving lives will make people happy and save money. But then again most people don't have choices. Only the people that drive business have choices. Isn't it time to buy another congressman or have they all sold out?
    Report This
    jdeacon220 Mar 14, 2010 3:17 PM
    Whether the planet is warming is irrelevant to the need to get off fossil fuels. The economic, geopolitical and environmental benefits will kick in even without a CO2 benefit. Less pollution, less military deployments, energy dollars stay at home -- saw a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
    Report This
    terrylkauffman7 Mar 14, 2010 3:01 PM
    During an interview on WGN radio in Chicago, Obama stated publicly that we have the technology to get greater than 200 miles per gallon on existing gasoline operated vehicles. Why hasn't he and others pursued this avenue with the auto industry? I believe it was in the late 1970's that congress passed legislation mandating that auto makers progressively increase the standard MPG for all cars up to a range of 45 - 55 MPG. As I recall the timeframe was progressive over a 5 year period. I remember that a friend of my bought a Nissan Datsun that was actually giving him approximately 50 MPG. Why isn't this law being enforced? More greed by auto makers and kickbacks to congress? Why do we still see auto commercials advertising MPG ratings in the teen's and low twenty's? We know the technology is out there to get much better gas mileage. To intentionally set MPG limits this low is ludicrous and a blatant slap in the face to consumers. It time for our congress to start representing our best interests instead of supporting big business and corruption. Enforce this legislation.
    Report This
    gbe7 Mar 14, 2010 2:29 PM
    Report This
    fred5223 Mar 14, 2010 11:15 AM
    About 30 years ago, the Ford representative advised our sales group during the gas shortage, that Ford was not going to cut their own throat. They owned 40 % of Shell Oil Company. Led me to believe that the gas shortage was contrived as I expected to raise the price of fuel. I don't see a shortage anymore. What happened? I believe that the shortage was definitely contrived and controlled.
    Report This
    bajohn3 Mar 14, 2010 10:44 AM
    Rare earth metals are not needed in AC induction motors, and lithium is non toxic, and abundant, regardless of what some would like you to believe. There are lithium mines in the US that are not active at the moment because the price of lithium is TOO LOW to make it profitable. This article is full of misstatements. EV's are so much more efficient than ICE vehicles that even if they were charged from coal plants they would still pollute less. The reality is that less than half of the grid is powered from coal. Also, very few people speak to the fact that electricity is used to refine gasoline, between 3-7kwh per gallon. An EV can travel about 30 miles in that energy alone. The new batteries are safe, capable of fast charging and long life, and can take a car over 200 miles on a charge. EV's are the future, but they are ready now.
    Report This
    wiseowl812 Mar 13, 2010 3:01 PM
    I cannot speak with 100% certainity but I understand that the "rare Earth" metals required to build electric motors and batteries have just as much of an impact on the environment as oil exploration and production does. So the argument about whether or not we should continue to explore for oil seems hypocritical on some level. Anyone with more knowledge/information concerning the impact of mining rare Earth metals?
    Report This
    djmeuninck Mar 13, 2010 10:26 AM
    The energy density of gasoline and diesel is far more important than most people understand. Unless your electric is generated from nuclear or hydoelectric plants, the pounds of polution entering the atmosphere from coal fired plants recharging electric vehicles will be greater than what you would get from the exhaust of the same number of cars with internal combustion engines. For ICE's to finally become obsolete, there needs to be advances on two fronts. First are improvements in battery efficiency and second is a radical shift in how electricity is generated.
    Report This
    gelinrefira Mar 13, 2010 9:42 AM
    It is true that coal is a main source of electricity generation which in turn will probably charge EV batteries. But the problem with coal is the same as in ICE cars, do you want to change for the better by being more environmentally responsible? Saying that electric cars will cause brownouts and blackouts is simplistic. If more people are ******* in power, companies will find a way to deliver. It is also true that fossil fuels reserved are found all the time, but that does not mean you should keep using them because you can. Just because you can use asbestos doesn't mean you should. Sure fossil fuel probably won't kill you directly like asbestos does, but burning it means you have to breath in all those pollutants anyway which is probably harmful in the long run. Will you smoke gasoline and say it healthy like those people who keep saying cigarettes are good for you?
    Report This
    gelinrefira Mar 13, 2010 9:12 AM
    Amusing that people said that electric motors are underwhelming. I do not think you can fault a diesel-electric locomotive for being underpowered by pulling thousands of tons of freight uphill. The electric motor generally is a much simpler device than ICE. It is lighter, simpler mechanically than ICE and provide almost instantaneous power. It is also extremely efficient at converting electric energy to rotating kinetic energy The problem with EV of any sort is still the energy source. The locomotive use diesel ICE to power electric motors. Sound redundant (an engine powering another engine)? Not necessarily. Locomotive gets extremely good mileage because the ICE can be customized for max efficiency at running a certain rpm while powering the electric motors. It is basically a hybrid car on an scaled up and used for many years. Will you like to crash your awesome monster truck with a locomotive? I think not. Raving about liberals or tree huggers proves you are no better than raving liberals and tree huggers, you are simply wallowing in extremism. To babble about your ICE truck crushing electric cars shows you don't really know physics. The real problem is battery - from making it to using it to trashing it - has to addressed in a environmentally responsible way. If we can put a man on the moon in less than 10 years time, we can definitely make a 400 miles range truck that can tow 20k pounds of stuff that runs on electricity which comes from renewable, non polluting source. The only impedance is whether we have the will to make it happen. Do you?
    Report This
    forjack842 Mar 13, 2010 12:45 AM
    I love all you dreamers. Take any electric car today, look at the specs. Find or compute horse power then factor in that that extension cord you plug in. Compute this, 800 watts per horse power at 100 percent efficenty, times the car's horse power. An old VW bug at about 50 horse power. Roughly thats about 50 kilowatts. Thats over 2 times the typical home power service from the utility company. Ok 30 nights of charging and ya got 1.5 megawatts just to charge the car. Oh baby you haven't turned on the tv yet! You want to talk high cost electric rates, add in the wife's car, yup that sound you hear is your paycheck being sucked dry by your green electric car! Oh and those batteries are good for ahhhh a couple of years! Whoops, theres another 4-5 thousand plus recycling costs. Go ahead and get the electric, just leaves more gas for the rest of us! And maybe if I pass your dead battery car, I'll stop and give you a ride.
    Report This
    maples01 Mar 12, 2010 7:52 PM
    Fire up the coal furnace to create "clean" energy, BTW as the poor people in east Tennessee about the storage of ash produced by that clean coal, the spill contaminated the lake tributaries and forced evacuations of homes. Also, batteries are hazardous, the production and disposal of them, there goes the cleaner than combustion window. Hydrogen, well it does come from water, so it cones back down, but again, it takes energy to create it, be it solar or wind, those clean production items create hazardous effects in their production, solar panels are the worst, after all, chemicals are required to produce them, the by product is toxic. FYI, everyone has scrambled to put those screw tail phosphorous bulbs in their homes to save energy, to get decrease the use of foreign oil in production of electricity, now they're discussing plugging a car in to recharge, thus using far more than the conventional bulbs. BTW those new "green" bulbs have mercury in them, a hazardous substance requiring special disposal, after all, business have to throw theirs in a bio-hazard bag, where do home owners toss theirs? Seems we accept one trade off for another with very little suggestion, yet the studies have been documented that the path we are directed to was abandoned due to being hazardous, yet we have forgotten, and those who are in charge are oblivious to it.
    Report This
    toolndgn Mar 12, 2010 5:49 PM
    Where will all the fuel come from to RE CHARGE all the Electric Cars that will replace our present ones? After all it does take fuel to make electricity. And what will be done with the millions of Battery's when they are no good any more? I own 2 Hybrid ford escapes and love them but they do require fuel to go, and the battery is a huge pollution problem. Let's all face reality and look past our nose. A new source of energy is needed even Hydrogen uses water will we run out of water and it takes a form of metal to create electrolysis to make Hydrogen will we run out of those metals and disposing of the useless metal is a huge pollution. WE can go on and on but for now it needs to be Drill Baby drill until the right source is found.
    Report This
    hopsbeerseattle Mar 12, 2010 5:33 PM
    "Despite the aforementioned lies, the future of personal transportation is electric, but that future is decades away." No it is not. The Nissan Leaf (which got a 1 second mention in this entire article) is going to be cranking out MANY, MANY thousands of these cars annually. But why? Because it fits into the mold of the typical suburbanite family as their second vehicle: A 5 passenger, 100 mile range electric. I am part of one of these families. We have two vehicles. One of them is larger and we use that for long trips and back and forth to work. The other is a smaller passenger car and is used as an around town back/forth to work vehicle. It simply does not need range. This SECOND vehicle can be substituted with an electric vehicle in a heartbeat. But only if the price is right. Yes the battery is expensive. But what the author fails to mention is that the feds are giving away a $7500 tax credit for these EV's. (whoops!..big omission!) So if the Nissan Leaf comes out at $32,500. The real price to the consumer is $25,000. I did the math and in 5 years I'd save $5000 in the difference between gasoline/electricity alone. And how much would I save in almost no maintenance? No oil changes, coolant, transmission fluid, spark plugs, tuneups, mufflers, and the list goes on. Also I just eliminated my weekly stops at the gas station. 50 useless time wasting trips GONE. No more out in the elements pumping gas. No gasoline on my wife's hands. What's that worth? Also, I can start up the heat or a/c inside the Leaf from the internet or my iphone from the mall, office, beach, etc...what's that worth? All the sudden, with all these savings of time and money, I have an EV for under $20,000. My question is who is NOT going to buy one as their second vehicle? I dear say....only a fool.
    Report This
    chicagojmc Mar 12, 2010 5:14 PM
    Report This
    1 - 20 of 261 Comments
    Leave A Comment?
    Please keep your comments relevant to the Point/Counterpoint: The 7 High-Voltage Lies About Electric Vehicles article.
    The reality is — day in and day out, time and time again, from people whom you'd like to believe — you're being lied to about electric vehicles.


    Your Comment:
    Send Report Cancel