Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Audi to offer electric cars in 5-10 years
reuters.com — Audi, the luxury unit of Volkswagen (VOWG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), sees great opportunities in electric cars and will offer automobiles with no exhaust emissions within ten years, its top executive told a German weekly. Rupert Stadler told Welt am Sonntag in an interview published on Sunday that he expects diesel and battery technology to dom
SirPopper- 477 diggs
- digg it
- xdjlao, on 05/05/2008, -3/+17I don't understand why some of these automakers are QUESTIONING whether or not they should build an electric vehicle. Electric vehicles ARE the future... and if the company is in any way aiming at long term sustainability, they should invest in the research and development of electric cars. The only reason why a company wouldn't do anything about it is if they are waiting for a startup to create something successful and then acquiring them. Hmm... I wonder how Tesla motors is doing.
- SirPopper, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2You are so right with "...are QUESTIONING whether or not they should build an electric vehicle."
Damn I digg you up! - schoate09, on 05/05/2008, -8/+2I'd have to disagree with stating that they ARE they future. The technology behind said cars is kind of shaky, and some type of battery or cell that they run off of may be hazardous to dispose of in mass quantities. I really think that hydrogen fuel cells are the future, pleniful supply, and completely clean running cars, with no hazardous disposal to worry about.
- brufleth, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2"plentiful supply"
Where do you mine for hydrogen in large quantities?- Smoozle, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3How about the *****' oceans? Is that plentiful enough source for you?
- EtherGnat, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3There's plenty of water in the ocean. It takes massive amounts of electricity--in fact signficantly more than it would to power an electric car because Hydrogen fuel cells are very inefficient--to separate the hydrogen. Hydrogen is basically another battery technology.
- apeweek, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Exactly. Hydrogen is not free. It must be created. It carries the energy you put into extracting it.
- Smoozle, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3How about the *****' oceans? Is that plentiful enough source for you?
- apeweek, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2It's easy to diss technology when you don't understand it. Li-ion batteries are environmentally benign, and recyclable to boot.
Fuel cell cars ARE electric cars - including batteries (the FC can't do the high-current spikes needed for acceleration without them.) So take an EV, and add a big fuel cell and H2 tank on top. Such a car will ALWAYS be more expensive than a plain old EV.
But hydrogen is nothing more than a battery anyway - it takes electricity plus water to make hydrogen - then the FC gives back electricity and water. That's a reversible chemical process, A BATTERY. Except that the H2 FC process is much less efficient than existing battery tech.
The only thing H2 could give you over a battery would be fast fueling. However, even this has been conquered with new 10-minute recharge batteries (google Altairnano).
FCVs are a fraud, designed to keep the oil industry involved in the infrastructure when we are all driving EVs.
- brufleth, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2"plentiful supply"
- rolf, on 05/05/2008, -3/+4Because batteries are a damned bad technology right now - not enough capacity, will lose capacity and die in a few years, and dirty (parts of Canada gets strip mined for Nickel for Prius' batteries).
The fact is, while the Toyota Prius is a nice feel good car, small diesel cars are still better. 20-50% better mileage than gas counterparts. It's emissions are better than gas (lower in everything but sulfur and even now that's being solved) but our shortsight EPA made it difficult to import foreign diesels. Yay them! But Honda will bring them in soon, after having about 2 decades of experience with diesels in Europe/Japan.
Unless we get some super new battery technology or some type of capacitor breakthrough (read a few, if it comes to market is to be seen) - Electric cars are not a good general option for the consumer or the environment yet.- AnotherBrian, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Electric cars are the PERFECT option for the general consumer. The general consumer drives less than 40 miles each day. This range can totally be covered by electric cars that recharge overnight. Even with old lead-acid batteries (which are 100% recyclable BTW).
http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_ ... - cha5e, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Rolf: Don't forget Volkswagen. They took a little hiatus from offering diesels in the US (I think to catch up w/ legislation?) but they'll be back this fall. My '99 Jetta gets about 43-44mpg*, and I'm not what you would call a "conservative" driver.
But I think that to get to where we want to be with electric cars in the future, we have to support the not-quite-perfect ones that are available now. Which is why my next car will likely be a Prius. If the Jetta will ever die...but not looking like that's going to happen anytime soon.
*Probably 95% of my driving is on the highway - EtherGnat, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3You have to be cautious of three things when comparing diesel with gas for mileage.
1. It takes about 25% more oil to make a gallon of diesel than it does a gallon of gas.
2. Diesel is currently significantly more expensive than gas. (currently $4.29 vs. $3.62)
3. MPG are sometimes reported in imperial gallons, which is 20% larger than a US gallon.
Diesel technology is still worth considering, but make sure you're comparing apples-to-apples. It's possible that a European diesel that's reported to get 50mpg could cost just as much at the pump as a 35mpg gasoline vehicle.- cha5e, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2All good points. I find it very easy to forget #1.
#2) True...but if many consumers were to actually consider diesel, I think they'd find that they are actually concerned with mpd (miles per dollar) and diesel still beats non-hybrid gas cars in this category. For instance, my car gets 44 miles per $4.29 gallon of diesel, so about 10.26 miles per dollar. A 2009 Camry, at 31mpg, would get only 9.39 miles per dollar. And, while diesel is currently more than gas, sometimes it's the other way around. Up until about 6 months ago, I'd say the general rule was that diesel prices simply lagged about 2 weeks behind gas prices. But that's just my observation, in my area of the US.
#3) For the record, in my post above and in the previous paragraph of this post, I was referring to US gallons. But I agree that car manufacturers may not necessarily be.
- cha5e, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2All good points. I find it very easy to forget #1.
- apeweek, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3I love how some posters pretend battery tech hasn't changed in 100 years. No, that environmental damage around the nickel plant in Canada wasn't caused by making Prius batteries. That damage was there for decades before the NIMH battery was even invented. Lots more nickel goes into conventional car parts than goes into batteries. This also has nothing whatsoever to do with the current Li-Ion bateries being made for EVs, which are environmentally benign.
We are also talking about EVs (or serial hybrids), not present day hybrids (present generation hybrids are parallel hybrids.) Nothing powered by gas holds a candle to the mileage of a true EV. Electricity for EVs only costs 1 to 2 cents per mile. Gasoline costs 10 to 20 times as much. If people really understood how much gas money they could be saving by plugging in, the crowd would be beating down the doors of the automakers.
The 'super new battery tech' is already here. Altairnano batteries, for example: http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView ...
These batteries are used in this EV: http://phoenixmotorcars.com
Altairnanos can charge in 10 minutes and have very long lifetimes (at least 12 years.)
The Firefly battery also goes on the market this summer. It's an improved lead-acid battery that is much lighter, faster charging, longer lived, and more powerful, while remaining inexpensive.
NIMH batteries also have a future, especially after the patent expires in a few years (the NIMH patents were sold by GM to an oil company, which has kept them out of EVs for the last few years.) NIMHs can be made much less expensively, and in larger formats for EVs, but this won't happen until the patents expire.
- AnotherBrian, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Electric cars are the PERFECT option for the general consumer. The general consumer drives less than 40 miles each day. This range can totally be covered by electric cars that recharge overnight. Even with old lead-acid batteries (which are 100% recyclable BTW).
- SirPopper, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2You are so right with "...are QUESTIONING whether or not they should build an electric vehicle."
- carguy25, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Sounds promising. We'll see if Chevy beats 'em to it.
- Tenlow, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Technically Robert Anderson beat them all. In the 1830's. Electric cars were popular before gas was plentiful. They'll be popular after it's gone too.
Once they get the recharging thing to a manageable time, say 1 - 2 hours, it will become the mainstream. I doubt we're going to get the 2 minute recharge right away, but 2 hours seems possible in the short term. Just think, the truck stop/rest area is going to change to the highway recharging station. Spaced evenly across the interstate system with a captive audience of people who MUST be there for at least an hour to get to the next one. You could watch a movie or get a meal, all provided by the service station owner at a very reasonable rate. In fact, I should probably start one of them myself.- jefuchs, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Nice vision of the future. And any business can get in on it. Everybody has electricity! They may even start selling home recharging stations in which you can stop in front of a private home, plug in, deposit payment, and go for a stroll. Parking lots, marinas, nurseries, grocery stores and casinos will all be sources of automobile power. A metered electrical outlet would be a pretty cheap addition anywhere.
- Tenlow, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Technically Robert Anderson beat them all. In the 1830's. Electric cars were popular before gas was plentiful. They'll be popular after it's gone too.
- poidh, on 05/05/2008, -6/+4Although there will be no exhaust emissions, the electricity which powers these cars has to be produced somewhere and some of that power will come from coal or natural gas so it's not really a net zero emissions situation.
- innocentsinner, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6True, but it's much easier to take power from a wind/solar/nuclear plant to power an electric car than to build a strictly wind/solar/nuclear-powered car. The idea, I suppose, is to make the cars cleaner first and then continue researching alternative methods for generating electricity.
- poidh, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Correct. I'm just pointing out that electic cars do still currently polute and will do so for a long time to come. You know what people are like: they hear about "zero emission" vehicles and think that's the end of it.
- apeweek, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2There is no true zero-emissions solution, but the EV comes closest. Solar tech is getting cheaper every year - I could put an EV-sized solar panel on my garage for about $1000-2000, and charge my car for free. This is pretty close to zero emissions.
But even charging from the grid makes far fewer emissions than gas cars do, due to the improved efficiency of electric cars. More miles on less energy means less pollution per mile, regardless of what gets burned. And the grid will get cleaner and cleaner with passing time.
- innocentsinner, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6True, but it's much easier to take power from a wind/solar/nuclear plant to power an electric car than to build a strictly wind/solar/nuclear-powered car. The idea, I suppose, is to make the cars cleaner first and then continue researching alternative methods for generating electricity.
- paker, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Lots of people that built, or converted their cars to EV's use solar or wind to recharge their cars without relying on the local electric company.
- Diderotten, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1Sweet! Another fuel efficient car I wont be able to afford.
- eihwaz, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3You know what, when I hear someone saying "in 10 years we'll do this and that"... well, I just start thinking that in 10 years they'll probably have moved to another job (or get retired) so they don't really care if what they say is true or not. 10 years is not close enough to be dangerous if they're wrong, but still believable enough to get a good marketing push in the news.
- webman77, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Electric vehicles will be the future because it is the easiest way to protect our environment. And:
nuclear energy will be increasingly offered. But then the next problem: radwaste!- EtherGnat, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Public perception is a bigger problem than the waste itself. People tend to panic with they hear the words nuclear and radiation, regardless of how safe it might be. My employer was involved with the certification and oversight of the WIPP low-level nuclear waste storage facility. It was amazing how much fear and ignorance had to be overcome to get the plant open.
- crashlock, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Is it really that hard to see if a pic is relevant to the story when submitting.
- MacEnvy, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I thought the horse was an electric Audi ...
- cvindustries, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1Hooray for the long tailpipe.
- SteelChicken, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5How is this news? X car company says in 5-10 years (a very long time in the auto world) that they will do something other companies are already doing now.
this is not news. Lame. - WillardZ, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1Have you seen my electricity bill lately? What in hell do you think it will look like after charging the monster batteries of an electric car? Are they mad?
- EtherGnat, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Electric vehicles are typically significantly cheaper to run that gas powered vehicles, so you would pay less for electricity than you're currently paying for gas + electricity.
- apeweek, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Electricity is far cheaper than gasoline. In fact, check with your utility - many offer off-peak rates you can use to charge overnight. Here in Detroit, I can charge an EV overnight for just 3 cents/KWH. As an example, GM's now-defunct EV1 electric car got 6 miles to the KWH. At my off-peak rate, that's just ONE-HALF-CENT per mile.
A 20-mpg car, with gas at $4/gallon, costs 20 cents/mile. That's 40 TIMES more expensive.
The madness is continuing to buy gasoline!
- tellahoohooo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3well if they would put half the money to research newwer methods, not just hydrogen fuel cells, that they put into the Iraq war...i'm pretty sure they could come up with something better...In a more acceptable time frame
- jefuchs, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1I think electric car manufacturers need to change their marketing strategy. They seem to appeal only to liberals. Let's face it -- conservatives aren't going to pay a lot of money to solve problems that they don't believe exist in the first place.
The green appeal is half of the coin. The other half says that you're supporting terrorism by buying gasoline. Get revenge for 9/11 with an electric car!
Both arguments are valid.- apeweek, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Driving on plug-in electricity only costs about a penny per mile - that's about 20 times cheaper than gasoline. Past EVs have been expensive only because the economies of mass production haven't had a chance to kick in.
I thought Republicans liked saving money? So you guys like $4/gallon gasoline?
Even if you never drive an EV, having an alternative to gas on the market will compel oil companies to cut into their profits and give the rest of you cheaper gas prices.
I thought Republicans liked free-market economics? - jefuchs, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1You make the mistake of believing what Republicans say, rather than observing their behavior.
Besides, Electric cars don't save that much money. A Republican friend of mine (an engineer) broke it down fro me, based on his average driving habits, and the cost of replacing batteries ($$$) at the end of their lifespan. He convinced me that there's not really any savings to be had, so it comes down to eliminating fossil fuels, not saving money. Liberals have one reason for eliminating fossil fuels, conservatives have another. But the green folks don't play up the political advantage of electric cars -- only the environmental ones.
- apeweek, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Driving on plug-in electricity only costs about a penny per mile - that's about 20 times cheaper than gasoline. Past EVs have been expensive only because the economies of mass production haven't had a chance to kick in.
- discoe2monster, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Why not now?
- PerfectTommy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I do believe I have heard this before, circa 1970's during OPEC... That in 10 years we will have all of this technology available to make the gas burning car obsolete... Well the 1980's came and went, nothing... Then we got into the 1990's still nothing. How many years do we have to wait for it?
And by the way, where's my damn Jetson's flying car? - 4abtrlife, on 05/13/2008, -1/+0Ok this has been a burning question for me for sometime, but I thought it was stupid and never brought the issue up. Where does the energy for producing electricity come from? Fossil fuels? If that is true, are we really achieving anything by electric cars? I know I must be wrong, otherwise so many smarter people would have brought this out, but somebody please tell me where I am wrong. Thanx.
But as for hydrogen technology, you electrolyze water in a home made electrolyzer and you're ready to go, no question of burning another fuel to generate energy for another. It all comes from the static field of energy just like in MageneGas and magnecules, according to this website http://www.water4gas-scam.com - sangita21, on 06/04/2008, -0/+0LOOK ,,,,,, HOW THE BAI WORKS………………………….
CLICK BELOW TO KNOW………………,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai9YuZjjLgE
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by