digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at blog.wired.com

Electric Cars Are Inevitable ...and Essential

blog.wired.com — The electrification of the automobile is not only inevitable, advocates and experts say, it is essential because plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles offer our best chance to address global warming, achieve energy security and move us beyond oil.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Yookji, on 07/23/2008, -5/+14EVs + Nuclear power = win
    • greensky, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4I'll agrue EVs + a diverse range of renewable energies including nuclear... I still think Algae based bio-fuels might do well.
      • KhanneaNL, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Again *sigh* algae are an ENERGY CARRIER not an ENERGY SOURCE.

        Google the difference.

        Growing algae requires lots of energy, in installing ponderous infrastructure, cleaning the machines, pumping the algae, warming them in winters, etc. That requires energy. Energy which we do not have.
    • michaelpinto, on 07/23/2008, -9/+5Cool! Then you won't mind this little nuclear power plant that I'd like to put in your backyard? Also we can't find a storage facility for the waste so is it alright if you just sort of hang onto that stuff until we find a good hiding place for it?
      • aywwts4, on 07/23/2008, -1/+15They don't put them in people's backyards, unlike coal nuclear sites are usually surrounded by acres of empty land for security reasons.

        Also unlike coal they don't give off emissions, soot, fly-ash, and other things which harm your lungs, turn your drapes black, and eats the paint off your cars. Nuclear emissions are 1. An isolated region of warm water, and 2, a square mile of cement/water casks of nuclear waste. While coal spreads its waste all over just blowing it in the air and calling it a day. Those giant piles of coal that get refilled all the time don't just disappear when you burn them, they are constantly being pumped into the air, while we as a society have no problem with ruining tons of land for use as a landfill, if you use even a tiny fraction of that for nuclear storage its an outrage.

        A coal plant was literally in my backyard, right downtown, it just doubled in size. I hate all those people who opposes clean non carbon burning energies like renewable resources and nuclear. If you fight against them the alternative is and it always is, coal, the worst, cheapest, energy source of all.
      • inyearstocome, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Actually, we have a storage facility for waste that will last a very long time-- longer than we should need Nuclear Fission plants.
      • lettruthout, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2@aywwts4aywwts4
        "They don't put them in people's backyards"

        WRONG!! They put Seabrook Station in my damn back yard...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabrook_Station_Nucl ...

        The ugly polluting thing will be there for centuries.
        Stop supporting this failed technology.
      • lettruthout, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2@inyearstocomeinyearstocome

        "we have a storage facility for waste that will last a very long time"

        Really? Long enough to survive earthquakes, floods, major shifts in the earth's plates? The signs are good enough to also survive and be able to warn others away even if they don't speak English?

        Please... We have no way to store anything, much less deadly waste, in a way that's guaranteed not to cause problems a few centuries from now.

        Stop supporting this failed technology.
    • lionelmandrake, on 07/24/2008, -2/+0>>>EVs + Nuclear power = win

      No question, this is the ONLY formula for long-term success. Let's put food back in people's mouths. Not in our tanks.

      LM
      Peace is our Profession
    • KhanneaNL, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Did you ever hear of peak-uranium? Known uranium reserves are, at full consumption rate, depleted in decades.

      There is only one endless source of cheap energy fuel - He3 on the moon (google it) or massive *massive* building photovoltaics. Like - paving over several % of the world's deserts with solar arrays and THEN sustaining a 5% growth in solar arrays per annum.

      The latter is unsustainable. It would be like being at war for every year the coming 50 years, non stop.
      • Yookji, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Ever heard of breeder reactors?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

        And collecting resources from the moon? Are you serious? Do some physics and calculate how much energy it would require to collect those resources. And the fact that you labeled it as "cheap" blows my mind...
  • speakafreaka, on 07/23/2008, -5/+13EVs + Current coal fired generators + a grid that can't handle the additional load from everyone plugging their cars in = Massive, massive fail.

    I hope im wrong though.. we dont have any new nuclear stations planned in aus, not even half our energy is produced by the less polluting closed circuit gas turbines. It seems like its just a solution thats thrown around without proper implementation thought.
    • greensky, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5It's not like there will be 300 million new electric cars on the road tomorrow. It's something that will happen gradually and as it does, electric companies will have to increase generating capacity. Utilities are already thinking about the problem.

      http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/gm-electri ...
    • aywwts4, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8If I had an electric car I would just take advantage of my electric companies off peak billing pricing, and set my cars to a cheap 3 dollar timer to only let them charge between 10pm and 6am.

      If we all purposely charged our vehicles off peak there would be very little strain on the electrical grid.
    • apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2There's lots of off-peak electricity available, and will be for quite some time.

      Plus, loads of electricity are used right now to refine gasoline. Put that electricity into EVs instead.
    • lettruthout, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4@aywwts4

      Exactly! Normal power plants can't be shut down overnight. So lots of energy is currently wasted. Look at what the conditions are in California now...

      http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

      Nighttime is when we could be charging our vehicles until more of us have their own sources (solar, wind, etc).
    • hobophobe, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2That's why we can build more infrastructure to accommodate the demand.

      Just because change requires... change doesn't mean it's anywhere as impractical as trying to stay the same in the face of all the obvious signs it won't work.
  • ileftfark, on 07/23/2008, -4/+12Cleaner? Yes.
    Solving our (impending) energy crisis? No.
  • OffPiste, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4Chevy Volt FTW!!!!

  • WyldeJ, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7A "Flintstone" style would be quite efficient. It would solve a lot of problems, including the fight against obesity.
    • Brassbud, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Where is all the energy to power these vehicles going to come from? Maybe its time to invest in beans?
    • FlyingSpaghetti, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4YABA DABA DOO!
  • gregdogum, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4Some day I think we all are going to severely miss the internal combustion engine :(

    It'll be a sad day.
    • Dipster, on 07/23/2008, -3/+7I'm sure that's what they said of the steam engine too.
    • inyearstocome, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5I agree-- but conversely... have you ever driven an electric go-kart? Electric has the potential to be SO much fun, with no fumes and emissions, and less heat. K1 speed go-karts FTW.
    • KhanneaNL, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1you are insane. Gas engines brought us nothing bu trouble.
  • PopcornDave, on 07/23/2008, -6/+8And unless they make an electric car large enough so that the soccer mom can transport her kids, the family dogs, a month's worth of groceries and a nuclear reactor it's not going to work.

    All kidding aside, what is the need to make all the electric cars so damn futuristic and ugly? Wouldn't there be a greater market in converting the cars we have now to hybrid? Sort of the ultimate recycling.
    • chrome327, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Here ya go - no nukes, though.

      http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/phoenix-s ...
      • PopcornDave, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Neat, but I want something to haul nukes too. ;)

        That's a really interesting concept, but I wish they'd get the battery life a bit longer. I've got a Touareg that I do use on occasion to make deliveries and that looks like it's a good size, but the 100 mile limit is a killer. Sometimes I'm driving 200-300 miles in a day so that wouldn't cut it for me.

        Around town it would be fantastic though.
  • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/23/2008, -6/+1more likely hydrogen no good batteries yet 300 years and not much improvement over Volta he made one similar to your car battery.
    • septicmadman, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4It is morons like you who think that due to large government subsidies and uncritical episodes of Scientific American Frontier that lead us into a unmanageable energy crisis. Hydrogen is just an intermediate to which energy is stored. Oil on the other hand already posses energy and the energy is released through combustion. The idea with electric cars is that instead of doing the energy conversion on a local level it can be done on a industrial level and in terms of efficiency can benefit from an economy of scale. Electric cars are obviously not the cure all but become significantly more sustainable and an easier link in the infrastructure given a change to more renewable energy sources.
      • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/23/2008, -5/+1I am an electrical engineer who knows what can and cannot be done with electricity. I would love to fly a unicorn to work but alas that to is not possible.
    • FlyingSpaghetti, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5I read your comment twice and it still doesn't make sense.
      • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2hydrogen can be used to store energy in greater quantities that batteries by weight. The battery has not changed at all since Volta invented it in the early 1800s. 2 different metal plates are suspended in an acid solution separated by insulators. the trouble with a battery as any laptop owner knows is they don't hold a large charge and therefore you compromise on power. Because so long has past and so many brilliant minds have tried and failed it just may be that a better battery cannot be made. but if you use electricity to make hydrogen and burn it in your car you are not relying on foreign oil. Best if that electricity comes from a nuke plant. PS do you know how to convert your current engine to run on hydrogen? 1. close off the gas line. 2. insert a hydrogen line. 3. turn the key 4. may have to advance the timing.
    • SilverBlade2k, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Hydrogen is just another child of Big Oil. We'll still be relying on them if we use hydrogen.
    • apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Battery research is progressing quite nicely. Why do people assume this technology has stood still?

      http://phoenixmotorcars.com

      The batteries in this car can charge in 10 minutes, and have a 20-year lifespan.
  • norman619, on 07/23/2008, -3/+8Ummm... The current power grid can not support mass adoption of electric cars. Before we can even think of switching over to electric cars we need to increase the amount of power we are currently generating. We can barely keep up with current demand w/o adding millions of cars which would tax it even more. Until we get serious and build more nuclear power plants and other large scale power generation plants to supplement what we already have the electric car will remain a toy not a viable option. This is a bit like putting the cart before the horse.
    • marx2k, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6Wouldn't most of these cars be charged at night when the draw on the power stations is at the lowest?
    • guyinjapan, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4It's not going to be something that happens overnight. It will be a slow transition, and the power industry will adapt accordingly. It's not like people are going to rush out to buy electric cars. There have to be enough outlets to fuel their transportation lifestyle. Likewise, it's not likely that outlets and charging stations are going to start popping up in parking lots unless a lot of people have electric cars. It'll build up slowly. If this happens at the same time as new energy movements develop, like the new Texas wind initiative, then this could be a comprehensive solution to our energy crisis. Economics, however, will be the (notoriously slow) driver for this sort of change, and all of this also rests on what gas prices do. It will be interesting to watch, but it's going to be observed over decades, not overnight.
      • norman619, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Try to go buy one today. You will have to wait over a year to get one because they are in such demand now. This means these cars are on the fast track to mainstream adoption. Sooner than you may think. Oh, if you go to many of the shopping malls in San Diego you will find charging stations in their parking structures.
    • apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1The power grid will do fine.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/06121 ...

      Mileage From Megawatts: Study Finds Enough Electric Capacity To 'Fill Up' Plug-in Vehicles

      "Science Daily — If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of the country's 220 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics."
    • EtherGnat, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2"A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 70% percent of the U.S. light-duty vehicle (LDV) fleet, if they were plug-in hybrid electrics." http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

      Our power grid does need to be upgraded, but electric vehicles aren't nearly as big a strain as you make it out to be.

      "Try to go buy one today. You will have to wait over a year to get one because they are in such demand now."

      ...and what mass produced electric vehicles would you be talking about? The reason there's a waiting list is because they're basically being hand built. Tesla is making 10 a week of the Roadsters I think, for example. As this article states, *maybe* 50% of the cars on the road will be electric by 2050.

      Electric vehicles can even help meet peak power needs by feeding energy back into the grid during times of high demand. While it adds wear and tear to the battery it could still be profitable for end users by buying power at off peak times and selling it back at peak prices.
  • Brassbud, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4The problem with electricity is storage. Until that problem is solved, energy dense fuels will continue to be the norm.
    • apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Why assume battery technology hasn't advanced in 20 years?

      Nanotech-based batteries can charge in 10 minutes, and can last for 20 years.

      Example: http://phoenixmotorcars.com
  • Vonauda, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5I can understand why there's a need to switch from to oil to electricity, but what I cannot understand is why people think this is going to save them money. Their expenditures are just going to shift from the gas pump to the utility companies in the form of higher electricity bills.
    • apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Gasoline: 14 to 30 cents/mile.
      Electricity: 1 to 2 cents/mile.
    • EtherGnat, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Electric vehicles operate at pennies per mile, much cheaper than gasoline vehicles (not factory in purchase costs).
    • Ultomato, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1solar panels
      cheap electricity generated by nuclear plants
  • judicar, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1big ***** duh? The writer acts like this is some new concept that hasn't already been discussed to death.
  • zbeast, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2If the power is free is good. If I have to pay for the power myself on my
    already very high electric bill. Thats bad. My last months power bill $745.00
    • FlyingSpaghetti, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Al Gore, is that you?
    • marx2k, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Turn the bathroom light off when you're done *****
    • apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Electricity costs 1 to 2 cents/mile for most EVs. Gasoline is more than 10 times as expensive.

      Of course, if you're paying $745/month for electricity, you obviously could care less what anything costs.
      • davecor, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Yep! I'm going to convert a car to EV next year. My entire month's commuting (10 miles a day) will cost me about $20 on my electric bill.
    • EtherGnat, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2It doesn't have to be free, but it should be cheaper than gas. Stop whining.
  • ouzome, on 07/23/2008, -6/+3Where does the majority of electricity come from? That dirty COAL that digg and libs hate so much. oh noes!
    • EtherGnat, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1..and it's still far more efficient than what we have now. STFU and read the article.
  • OuTLaWOwnz, on 07/23/2008, -6/+1Hydrogen Internal Combustion FTW!!! As soon as we can sort out the efficiency issues that is...

    I'll be digging up my own oil before I drive an electric car...
    • Mothrog, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2There's a brilliant idea. Make a fuel that takes massive amounts of energy to produce in the first place, and then use it in the least efficient way possible. Great idea.
  • username7410, on 07/23/2008, -5/+3Right, because the energy that comes from the socket I'll be plugging my electric in to comes from where again? This is ridiculous. What I fear is people would be satisfied with that solution.
    • MikeFallopian, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6If we had a 100% coal-powered grid and every car was instantly converted to run on grid electricity right now, CO2 emissions would still go way down. Of course, even now our grid isn't completely coal-powered, and by the time electric cars are commonplace, it is very likely that most of our electricity will come from clean sources like nuclear and renewables.
      • ouzome, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2If you're so worried about CO2 emissions than get everyone to stop eating meat....oh wait even Al Gore said he won't do that, whoops!
    • wunksta, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0@ouzome
      you mean the co2 equivalent of methane and no2 emissions, livestock doesnt produce carbon emissions
    • apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Coal doesn't matter. Those old coal plants are baseload. They run all the time, EVs or no EVs because they are too hard to regulate or shut down. Peakload plants are not coal.

      EVs + grid is also far more efficient than a gas-guzzler. Grid electricity costs just 1 to 2 cents/mile versus 14-30 cents/mile for gas. Most of this cost difference comes from improved efficiencies. More miles on less energy means less pollution/mile, regardless of what's burned.
    • davecor, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Actually the electric car pollutes a LOT less. We manufacture electricity on a massive industrial scale, gas cars produce energy on a "retail" scale.


      Over 100,000 miles a gas car emits about 3000 tons of CO2.

      The pollution to generate enough electricity to run an electric car 100,000 miles is about 35 tons.


      I ran the numbers before I decided to sink $5000 into converting a car to electric next year.
  • RomeyRome, on 07/23/2008, -3/+3If the oil prices were in control of one person, I would drop it down to where gas is $2.00 a gallon again, let it sit there long enough for all these alternative energy projects to get scrapped, and jack the ***** up again. But I'm a self serving bastard, and there's no reason for me to be any other way.
  • nuno86, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1No *****!
  • SilverBlade2k, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4I'm not buying a single car..not until I can plug it in. If automakers want my money. I want a plug. No plug..no money is exchanged..PERIOD.
  • Br3ach, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Well see things change now, people will stop living 30 miles from work as they could afford to.

    I moved from 22 miles away to 4, an electric car would be great for me about 95% of the time. The rest could be done with a flight instead.
  • stubear, on 07/23/2008, -5/+6Not only is our power grid not ready to handle an increased number of plug-in electric vehicles, plug-in electric vehicles CAN't NOR will they be able to any time soon, if ever, go any meaningful distances and pull a large load. We will still rely heavily on carbon-fuel based vehicles for a large sector of the industrialized world for things like transportation, small business owners (can you honestly imagine a contractor pulling up in a Prius with his ladder roped to the top of the car and all his tools, etc. in the trunk? Me neither), and moving companies as three such examples. Repeat after me, plug-in electric vehicles are NOT inevitable nor are they essential.

    What really chaps my ass about this whole discussion is the very same ***** granolas who are whining abut electric vehicles and trying to foist their lifestyles on the rest of the world are the very same bunch of ass hats who protested the expansion of nuclear power when we (as it turns out) needed it the most. They halted nuclear power plant construction for decades and are just now starting to come around to realizing that those ***** little electric cars they like so ***** much are going to need electricity to recharge them and that power is NOT going to come from wind and solar anytime soon (if ever).

    I just really wish people would look at the ENTIRE ***** problem with regard to vehicle use beyond commuting to work and develop technologies around that premise. Hydrogen powered vehicles could substitute nicely for most, if not all, current carbon-based fuel vehicles on the road. We can create hydrogen through clean energy such as wind, solar, hydro and nuclear power easily and cheaply. Some people can drive their tiny ass tin cans and others can drive around their big monstrosities if they want. It's a win-win for everyone. But this push for electric vehicles is as much about green technology as it is about forcing lifestyles on others. It's as bad as religion. People pushing electric vehicles don't like SUVs and are see their demise at the hands of electricity a big plus. Get over it and start backing technologies that are useful to everyone.
    • SilverBlade2k, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Most people don't drive more then 40 miles per day. Just plug it in at night. It isn't that much of an inconvenience - you plug your phone in each night, and people who live in winter cities are used to plugging their cars in at night otherwise it wouldn't start.

      To get all people on electric cars isn't the 'perfect' solution. Some people will need longer distances..whose who need it for *work* like buses, taxi, or semi truck. But, to get the majority of people on electric cars will decrease the price of oil..and decrease the price of merchandise, which is in fact a 'win-win' for everybody, including YOU.

      So..by your logic..just because electric cars can't fulfill the needs of 100% of the population, means NO one should get it.
      • stubear, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1"But, to get the majority of people on electric cars will decrease the price of oil..."

        Only for a short period. Eventually oil will become a niche, but necessary, market and can get away with charging niche product prices.

        "So..by your logic..just because electric cars can't fulfill the needs of 100% of the population, means NO one should get it."

        My logic says, as does my comment, that electric vehicles are neither inevitable, nor essential, as the article tries to argue. If you want to drive a tiny ass electric vehicle go ahead but don't try to foist technology on the market that is not going to solve the larger problems of our impending energy crisis.
    • ouzome, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Thank you for that rare glimpse of common sense on digg.
    • nogahide, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Hydrogen fuel cells in cars that power the four electric motors one on each wheel.
      Super capacitors to store busts of energy for the "seat of the pants" acceleration.
      Now, all this hydrogen needs to be generated efficiently. Also, hydrogen needs to be stored on-board the vehicle efficiently (not as a compressed gas) but as a hydride.

      Wiki:
      A third approach is to absorb molecular hydrogen into a solid storage material. Unlike in the hydrides mentioned above, the hydrogen does not dissociate/recombine upon charging/discharging the storage system, and hence does not suffer from the kinetic limitations of many hydride storage systems. Hydrogen densities similar to liquefied hydrogen can be achieved with appropriate absorption media. Some suggested absorbers include MOFs, nanostructured carbons (including CNTs) and clathrate hydrate.

      Critics of a hydrogen economy argue that for many planned applications of hydrogen, direct distribution and use of energy in the form of electricity, or alternate means of storage such as chemical batteries, fuel plus fuel cells, or production of liquid synthetic fuels from CO2 (see methanol economy), might accomplish many of the same net goals of a hydrogen economy, while requiring only a small fraction of the investment in new infrastructure.[2] Hydrogen has been called the least efficient and most expensive possible replacement for gasoline (petrol).[3][4] A comprehensive study of hydrogen in transportation applications has found that "there are major hurdles on the path to achieving the vision of the hydrogen economy; the path will not be simple or straightforward".[1]



      wikipedia:
      Distinct from storing molecular hydrogen, hydrogen can be stored as a chemical hydride or in some other hydrogen-containing compound. Hydrogen gas is reacted with some other materials to produce the hydrogen storage material, which can be transported relatively easily. At the point of use the hydrogen storage material can be made to decompose, yielding hydrogen gas. As well as the mass and volume density problems associated with molecular hydrogen storage, current barriers to practical storage schemes stem from the high pressure and temperature conditions needed for hydride formation and hydrogen release. For many potential systems hydriding and dehydriding kinetics and heat management are also issues that need to be overcome.



    • apeweek, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Lots of incorrect assumptions. Most EV aficionados would like to see EVs as a choice in the marketplace - nobody will take away your car. To the contrary, there are established forces trying to keep EVs out of the marketplace.

      And there is enough power for EVs, many studies have shown there is plenty of off-peak electricity for charging in th evening and nighttime.

      Also, dirty electricity does not matter - the more efficient EVs need less power overall, which means less fuel burned, no matter what that fuel is. This means a dramatic reduction in overall pollution. Many studies have shown this also.

      And hydrogen is nothing more than a battery - a way to store energy, which has to come from somewhere else. If Hydrogen is a fuel, then so is Lithium. Except the energy storage system I make from lithium is about twice as efficient as the one you make from hydrogen.
      • stubear, on 07/24/2008, -1/+0"And there is enough power for EVs, many studies have shown there is plenty of off-peak electricity for charging in th evening and nighttime."

        It won't be off-peak anymore when even half of existing vehicles are replaced with electrics.

        "Also, dirty electricity does not matter - the more efficient EVs need less power overall, which means less fuel burned, no matter what that fuel is. This means a dramatic reduction in overall pollution. Many studies have shown this also."

        We can reduce pollution ALOT by replacing coal fired electric plants with nuclear as well. In fact, this will have as big, if not a bigger, overall impact on the environment but the granolas don't want us to go down this path because it means nuclear energy and people get to keep their SUVs (see the point below).

        "And hydrogen is nothing more than a battery - a way to store energy, which has to come from somewhere else. If Hydrogen is a fuel, then so is Lithium. Except the energy storage system I make from lithium is about twice as efficient as the one you make from hydrogen."

        Hydrogen can also be burned in combustion engines. Hydrogen powered combustion engines are being developed and tested at numerous facilities and even a couple auto manufacturers have jumped into the fray. Sure, you COULD use hydrogen for fuel cells and in fact one solution might be to develop hybrids that use H-combustion engines when power is needed and H-fuel cells when electric motors can be engaged; a more advanced hybrid car. But you still run into the biggest problem of hybrids which is carting around dual power sources for a single vehicle. H-combustion engines can provide the same power and torque as existing carbon fuel combustion engines and can be refueled as existing vehicles can making them ideal for long trips and more transportation. This does't just apply to automobiles either. Trucks and even airplanes can be designed to use the same fuel source with little or no difference in their existing power capabilities.

        Full electric vehicles might be OK for driving around town and for people that live in large urban locations but it doesn't solve everyone's problem. Hydrogen is a much better replacement technology that should be developed in lieu of full electric vehicles (leave that to the niche markets with companies such as Tesla Motors).
  • Encablossa, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2Ignoring the global warming bs, it is indeed inevitable.
    • ouzome, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Word, the planet hasn't warmed in 10 years, but try telling that to these diggers. Hell, I have a Camry hybrid but not because of the global warming hoax, but to save money on gas! Bought it almost a year ago and boy did I luck out.
  • txtumbler, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2There is no single solution. But if a majority of city drivers switched to plugin hybrids, it would relieve some of the demand pressure on fossil fuels, which will probably always be needed for rural people, large trucks, and airplanes. The increased load on the grid could be offset if people would put at least SOME solar panels on their roofs to supplement the electricity production, say 30%. (Of course power companies don't want you to make your own, they can't charge you for that).

    Plus all of those car batteries charging on the grid is part of the answer of how to store wind and solar energy, acting like a giant decentralized battery. Fuel burning power plants would go on and offline according to demand. Even if it did require more grid production with coal (or nuclear), better centralizing that pollution where it can be scrubbed and controlled rather than having 30 million cars spewing CO2 into the air unregulated. We need to diversify and not rely on any single source. Each technology has a place, even if it is just a bridge to future technologies like hydrogen fuel cells and even fusion reactors.
  • nogahide, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Clathrate hydrate
  • biogears, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1Not without nuclear power plants, and not before a 'crisis' over power grid capacity.
  • ASSASSYN360, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2I can't wait for electric vehicles however it will take a while for U.S. citizens to adopt them entirely. Saudis will lose big with electric cars. What will they export when the world accepts electric vehicles? Sand maybe?
  • marc123, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1this just in... study finds: bears do in fact ***** in the woods
  • jdago, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3i don,t think it is the whole solution, but it is a move in the right direction. we will also improve our piower grids. the only people against this change is the oil companies. they know there day is coming to and end. so they will fight as long as they can.
  • dacodanelson, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2I must be the only person capable of analyzing this situation. Where does electricity come from? Gasoline mostly. Some solar, some wind, some nuclear, but overwhelmingly gasoline. And amazingly about 80% of that energy formed in producing electricity is wasted through faulty lines, distances, and the generation production itself. So if we all switch to electric right now, the only difference is that you'll be putting out carbon dioxide from a giant energy plant rather than your SUV. So perhaps, rather than scramble at what SEEMS to be a clean transportation source, we can look at other alternatives. Perhaps a better way of producing electricity? Perhaps a new form of transportation. Whatever the case is, we don't NEED electric cars right now, they won't change a thing.
    • KhanneaNL, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1People are in denial. They aren't listening to you. They think a faerie will pop out of thin air and enchant the power lines.

      GOOGLE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENERGY SOURCE AND ENERGY CARRIER PEOPLE.
    • dacodanelson, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Thank you for agreeing with me. It's good to see someone has common sense these days.
  • Shen4891, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Electric vehicles had already been produced and demolished. The documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" is about just that. Dacodanelson from above is quite wrong about where our electricity comes from. This is from industry statistics of where our power came from in 2007:

    "48.6 percent of our nation's electricity was generated from coal. Nuclear energy produced 19.4 percent. Natural gas supplied 21.5 percent. Hydropower provided 5.8 percent of the supply. Fuel oil provided 1.6 percent of the generation mix. Other renewable resources, such as geothermal, solar, and wind, provided 2.5 percent, with other miscellaneous sources providing the balance."

    Studies have shown pretty conclusively that the emissions from coal that would be produced by powering electric vehicles would be dramatically less than emissions from oil driven vehicles. In addition technology in alternative power sources like hydropower, solar, and wind are growing incredibly fast and causing their respective industries are growing with them. (Hint hint, invest.)

    Electric vehicles that have ALREADY been produced would satisfy the daily needs for nearly 90% of the American population. Sure, U-Haul wouldn't be sending out EV trucks, but the fact is most people aren't driving U-Haul trucks for a living, or Hummers, or flat-beds full of tools. Not to say we should demand everyone use EV vehicles, but it is utterly foolish to think that electric vehicles are a dead industry. In fact, quite the opposite. This is a technology that can ONLY get better from what has already been produced in the past. The future of electric vehicles? Inevitable no, but in regards to the technology that makes the most sense and that has the best prospect absolutely essential.
  • KhanneaNL, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Electricity is not an energy source, it's an energy carrier.
    It is like saying "we have to move from potato to delicious crip potato chips, to move beyond our massive potato dependency".
    Until we find or develop an unlimited energy source, we as a global civilization are screwed. We have [largely oil based] civil unresty right now. By 200$ oil the poor in third world countries really start starving, by 300$ oil we have wars *everywhere* and by 500$ oil the poor in the rich countries start starting. We are years away from that, and people just don't wake up.

    Humanity has been living of a glut of cheap, easy energy. We are spoiled rotten. Taking away that energy comes with a die-off of excess humanity (about 75% of humans over several decades - a death rate percentually higher than during WW2), wars, terror, authoritarianism and dirt. Poor societies are dirty, violent, and shortlived.

    And those same poor, traumatized societies will have ABC weapons.
  • jefuchs, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I prefer the air car idea. The car runs on compressed air. No batteries means no toxic disposal problems, and much lighter weight. Range is similar to electric car, and can be tanked up in three minutes.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-A3XHFT5qc&feature ...
  • gkiltz, on 07/24/2008, -2/+0That assumes nuclear power is inevitable. With increased use of hydroelectric. If we continue the current path of generating electricity primarily from coal, and actually reducing the use of hydroelectric power, there will be no advantage to electric cars!!
  • trev0006, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1I for one would like to see electric muscle cars and exotic cars.

    http://www.dpccars.com/ http://www.discountpartcenter.com/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.