No matter how you count it EV or Hybrid just does not make it on cost effectiveness, when you add a battery replacement cost then the premium is as high as driving "luxury" vehicle even when you just compare the bare minimum EV that costs about twice as much as equivalent ICE. Battery pack alone cost OEM about $12,000 in EV (and only $2,000 to $4,500 in Hybrid)
Then you are hauling 450 to 900 extra lbs at all times, at least FULL GAS TANK, gets lighter as you are using up the FUEL, but electrons are so light that FULL and EMPTY battery weigh in just the same !!!
Just go to EPA webs www.fueleconomy.gov and see how much "fuel" you waste for every extra 100 lbs you haul about at all times !!!
When COST PER MILE - does not matter, yu can get GREAT MPGe !!!
What you calaim is YOUR opinion based on unrealistic dream and totally closed eyes to reality around you !
What I quote is REAL DATA from R L Polk, NHTSA, DOT, CARB, EPA, DoE.
Average car that is taken out of service has between 120,000 to 128,000 miles that has been almost constant for last 11 years, and due to use of Trucks and SUV as "cars" the average service life of trucks has dropped from previous 136,000 miles to just under 89,000 in just last 3 years.
Have you noticed that only 12 million NEW vehicles were are sold last year, and that 40 millon trade hands ? Previous average for previous 10 years was 16 million annual sales - Fleet growth in 20 years less than 4% annually - IN 2009 MORE vehciles (2.5 million more to be exact) were taken OUT OF SERVICE than there were NEW vehicle sales !
Average ownership of NEW car is 70 months, average ownership of "used" car is about 52 months.
The people that actually own vehicles "forever" was statistically ALWAYS under 2% for last 26 years of data.
Just about as many as buy Hybrids !!! (2.2%) - and while OEM CATER to Hybrid Buyers and go out of their way to do so at loss.
NOT a SINGLE OEM caters to "keep it forever" buyers - and the Franchised Dealers do not EITHER - that is why independent mechanics can stil survive, but not much longer ! (They no longer exist in places like Japan, and are disappearing in Western Europe).
New Car Dealers have shortage of as of last count 180,000 job openings for trained Mechanics, and need 24,000 specialists to handly Hybrids, that are nowhere to be found !
Planned obsolescence is what makes MODERN LIFE possible - or how come you are on the Internet ?
Typewriter and US Mail wuld do just fine !!!
Are you also still using the 1980 Computer ??? Prbably NOT.
Just real life facts that you have probably not noticed - is your cell phone 10 years old ? Or your LAP TOP 20 years old ?
If there are 186 milion licensed drivers in USA driving 235 million vehicles and buy 12 to 16 million NEW vehicles annually for last 20 years, then just simple math proves that you claim of 50% of people keeping car any longer that what is the Industry average is NOT POSSILBE or else there would be over 400 milion cars in USA at this time - and that is NOT SO !!!
Just check your rear-view mirrors and how many 1990's vehicles do you see ?
FrankWye : Of course Palestine is region, but one that was promised independence in exchange for fighting the Ottoman Empire. Jordan and Syria are the artifical constucts, not Palestine. Palestine goes back 7 thousand years.
And you are totally ignorant of the massacres of Arabs like Dier Yassin. Over 95% of the land in Israel was owned by Arabs. But over 5 million Arabs were beaten, killed, and forced from their homes at gun point. The greatest crime since the Holocaust. The concentration camps the Arabs are forced to live in are horrific. Gaza has the highest population density in the world, and they are help capitve behind barbed wire. And considering these violations of the 1948 UN treaty by Israel, why should Israel not be wiped off the map? Clearly they have shown an inability to coduct themselves according to the basic principles of law.
"international law made acqusition of land by conquest illegal, even before WWII." Which law would that be? Would that be after Brittain controlled the Middle East? Tell that to USSR vs Afganistan- nobody did anything about that except us. And then what about Russia vs Georgia? What about the Eastern Block?
Now the trick is to send "advisors" in to a country to help a side that is closer to your own philosophy.
Jordan part of Palestine?! You are nuts. WWII was about coal and oil. No one defended Palestine because its not a country. Its a region. The only time arabs were disposessed of their homes was when they were involved in terrorism or firing rockets, at least allegedly.
FrankWye : No, Jordan should probably be part of Palestine, not Palestine part of Jordan. And international law made acqusition of land by conquest illegal, even before WWII. That is what WWII was all about. The Palestinian problem is not an internal Israeli problem, but that Israel is the problem, and in violation of international law. We are not talking about a cultural "occupation", but a military one of force, to violently dispossess the Arabs from their homes. No where else in the world has anyone violently dispossessed the indigenous population in the last 100 years. The 1948 UN partition did create Palestine. We have just failed to defend it from Israeli takeover.
It is easy to say that now but Europeans, as well as any conquering country (Ottoman, etc.), went all over the world and created countries. Once that is done, we always deal with the leaders of that country. That means that the leaders of the country are responsible for dealing with their problems. The Palestinian problem is largely because Jordanians did not want them.
And, as our country is inundated by foreigners moving here and changing our cultrure are we being "occupied"?
Creating the border between Pakistan and Afganistan also created a lot of problems because it divided the Pashtuns. The difference is that a lot of people of different nationalities want Isreal/Palestine and the Arab countries use the situation to divert attention from their authoritarian rule. In hindsight it may have been better to create Pashtunistan, Kurdistan, Palestine, etc.
While the overall efficiency of conventional silicon solar cells has continued to improve in recent years, the technology faces a natural theoretical limit at around 33%. This is because the laws of physics prevent the cells from absorbing photons below a certain energy level, meaning that this low-energy light cannot be converted into electricity and is simply lost. Now researchers have found a way join two energy-poor red photons to form a single energy-rich yellow photon, allowing the harvesting of this part of the spectrum currently unused by single p-n junction crystalline silicon solar cells, and potentially enabling a record-breaking efficiency of 40%.
The technique, called "photochemical upconversion," relies on two different types of molecules that are placed behind the solar cell in a solution to combine two low-energy photons into a single high-energy photon. The first type of molecule absorbs the energy-poor red photons, preventing them from escaping and storing them in a persistent state. This persistent state lasts long enough so that the energy can be transferred to a second, organic molecule when they encounter each other in the solution.
When two of these excited organic molecules then encounter each other, one returns to its base state and the other assumes a higher energy state. This higher-energy state is extremely short-lived, as the molecule then sends off a single yellow photon that is if a high enough energy to be absorbed by the solar cell. ...
Exactly correct on the MPGe distortion from the EPA!
The rub is that while this is indeed the total chemical energy of a gallon of gasoline, about 2.5X - 3X this amount of fossil fuel energy (COAL or NG) is burned at the power plant to create this amount of electric power.
This is the #1 distortion that the "government" is using to try to promote EV's before their time.
The 99 MPG Nissan Leaf ACTUALLY gets about 99/2.5 = 40 MPGe if the distortion is eliminated. Doesn't this make sense ? The leaf is a small econobox with no special aerodynamics and not especially low weight - so you would expect an "average" amount of energy to push it down the road. 40 MPG is about the same as "peer" cars.
The problem with EV's is NOT the electric motor efficiency (which can be very high)....it is the LOW efficiency of the fossil fuel power plants (about 33% on-average today...rising towards 40%+ average in the next decade and ultimately may acheive 50%-60% eventually). Include also the ~7% power distribution losses and the ~20% charge / discharge round-trip efficiency of the battery and power electronics - and an EV running on today's grid is not more efficient than the efficiency of today's efficient cars (Prius's atkinson-cycle engine = ~38% efficiency), and it just burns a different kind of fossil fuel.
EV's may make energy sense SOME DAY...but not until a large fraction of the power grid sources are from renewable energy (today, this is a rather low figure in most locations). EV zealots - call me back in ~20-40 years and we'll see how they are doing upgrading the power grid.
If you happen to live in the Pacific Northwest and have ~90% hydro power, you are lucky and my comments do not apply. However, you may still find that EV's aren't the greatest solution in the winter there...
Anyway - I'm not really anti-EV, I am just saying that they are not ready for prime time and don't really help with our current energy crisis. I don't understand why the government is so intent on using distortions to promote EV's, except for these things: a) they think it will create jobs b) they think it may artificially jump-start EV development and (more likely): c) Influence of Coal and power company lobbiests.
This is also why I think that a better solution is to create a solar (and wind) based "green fuel" (such as synthesized ammonia or perhaps other liquid fuel), and then use this to run our planes, trains and automobiles. This could leverage most of the existing infastructure (gas stations, tanker trucks, cars with fuel tanks and internal combustion engines) and not over-tax the existing power grid, yet get us 100% off of fossil fuels.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.