Plug in cars won’t pay off for consumers for 15 years

posted at 3:45 pm on January 12, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The Obama administration wants to push plug-in electric cars as a means of saving energy, even while it contemplates burdening electricity producers with heavy penalties for using coal and other fossil fuels.  That would increase the cost of driving, but even without that kind of price pressure on energy, plug-in cars would be a bad bet for consumers.  The extra costs of the batteries alone will take 15 years to pay off from any savings on gasoline, according to the Detroit News:

As automakers aggressively pursue electric vehicles, a study released today shows the cost targets behind the plans are unlikely to be achieved, making it hard for consumers to recoup the extra cost of buying electric.

The study by Boston Consulting Group, released at an Automotive Press Association event in Detroit today, concludes the cost of electric vehicles is unlikely to drop to the $250 per kilowatt/hour threshold that is cited by many carmakers for these vehicles to be competitive in price. That benchmark is not possible without a major breakthrough in battery technology, and no such breakthrough is on the horizon, said Xavier Mosquet, the Detroit-based leader of BCG’s automotive group.

As a result, the payback time for an all-electric vehicle in the U.S. is about 15 years, and for an extended-range vehicle such as the Chevrolet Volt it would be 19 years, the study finds.

This is something to bear in mind while Obama launches his “green jobs” initiative.  We will spend $2.3 billion to fund 17,000 temp jobs in order to unlock the key to making this technology more efficient.  However, as Daily Tech noted last week, those breakthroughs aren’t even on the horizon, and notes that most people don’t have kind words for the long-term feasibility of plug-ins:

And it’s not just BCG that is predicting doom and gloom for the electric vehicle industry. DailyTech reported in late December that the National Research Council (which is funded by the U.S. Energy Department) also didn’t have too many kind words to say about the feasibility of electric vehicles. In addition, the relatively small $2.4 billion that the Obama administration has already funneled into the electric vehicle market would have to be expanded to hundreds of billions of dollars for the vehicles to proliferate in the marketplace.

With both of these studies coming to the forefront within weeks of each other, it’s hard not to look back at comments Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen made in September 2009. He commented on the Volt’s high asking price, stating, “No one is going to pay a $15,000 premium for a car that competes with a (Toyota) Corolla. So there are not enough idiots who will buy it.”

With regards to pure electrics, he added that they are “for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are.” More recently, de Nysschen commented that “paying customers to drive your cars is not sustainable,” in reference to the aforementioned $7,500 tax credit.

What will it take to make plug-ins more economically feasible?  Unfortunately, the only way to “bend the cost curve” in a manner that makes plug-ins more palatable for consumers is to have government intervene to make all of the other options so costly as to push people into the plug-ins, as the Detroit News reports:

For consumers to break even on their electric car purchase, one of the following things must happen:

• There is a chemistry breakthrough that keeps material costs the same while creating a battery that can store twice as much energy, reducing the cost from $400 per kW/hr to $215.

• A new $7,700 government incentive is offered.

• Owners triple the number of miles they drive annually so the extra cost pays for itself.

• Oil prices increase from $100 a barrel to $375 a barrel.

• A 210 percent incremental gasoline tax is implemented.

In other words, the only way this works is either a miracle breakthrough on something we’re not even approaching yet, or government taxes the hell out of all the other consumer options.  Don’t be surprised to see the gas taxes approach proposed by Congress or the White House in the coming months — while they still can pass it themselves.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Plug in cars won’t pay off for consumers for 15 years

But they’ll pay off for somebody.

mankai on January 12, 2010 at 3:48 PM

What will it take to make plug-ins more economically feasible?

using people’s bodies like cordwood.

upinak on January 12, 2010 at 3:48 PM

I hear the cars are real cheap, but those 100 mile extension cords are really expensive.

Jerome Horwitz on January 12, 2010 at 3:50 PM

We just need to import more oil, burn more coal, or build more nuclear plants…all of those heavily supported, right?

right2bright on January 12, 2010 at 3:50 PM

So – where’s the energy to CHARGE these cars come from? Obama’s skinny butt?

Let the liberals buy, sell and drive their cute little death traps golf carts.

I’ll take my internal combustion engine that isn’t destroying the Earth, thanks.

In other words, the only way this works is either a miracle breakthrough on something we’re not even approaching yet, or government taxes the hell out of all the other consumer options. Don’t be surprised to see the gas taxes approach proposed by Congress or the White House in the coming months — while they still can pass it themselves.

Given their current polling trends with the American public, are the Democrats really, honestly, heroically stupid enough to try this?

They haven’t disappointed us yet, so hold onto your wallets, America.

Good Lt on January 12, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen, “So there are not enough idiots who will buy [the Chevy Volt].”

Glad to have an Audi.

WashJeff on January 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM

The batteries don’t even last that long, from what I’ve read. 7 or 8 years, tops.

UltimateBob on January 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Man, you guys are on fire today, you’re posting on everything! That’s what makes a great blog, taking the time to research a post and write something meaningful with substance rather than one or two lines of snarky little comments like some “bloggers” do. We appreciate your hard work!

scalleywag on January 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM

With regards to pure electrics, he added that they are “for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are.” More recently, de Nysschen commented that “paying customers to drive your cars is not sustainable,” in reference to the aforementioned $7,500 tax credit.

There is a heavy smug alert today.

Ferris on January 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM

In other words, the only way this works is either a miracle breakthrough on something we’re not even approaching yet, or government taxes the hell out of all the other consumer options.

The National Socialist Democrats don’t do that well in the miracle dept – but they’ve never met a Tax they didn’t like.

Any bets on which way they will fall?

Chip on January 12, 2010 at 3:52 PM

I heard Clark Howard refuting this the other night based on the “fact” that hybrids are retaining their value. Could they have that much value to begin with?

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 3:53 PM

I’m happy with my little Yaris…it gets around 40mpg. I don’t think I’d survive a head on with a Mack truck though.

scalleywag on January 12, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Yes, this is another example of misguided, or deliberate, attempts to ‘help’ the environment without evaluating the all of the financial, energy, and pollution costs. Nickel and nickel mining devastates the environment, nickel is poisonous, and many hybrid batteries contain nickel alloys. Also, there are the additional costs and pollution associated with building these cars, verses simply keeping one’s gasoline vehicle and driving it economically (which is what I am doing).

Simple lithium battery electric-only vehicles with reasonable cost are what we need most.

greenLibertarian on January 12, 2010 at 3:56 PM

There is another option: allow more nuclear power plants to be built, which will drive down the cost of electricity.

pedestrian on January 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM

What hasn’t been mentioned is the effect of plugging millions of electric cars into the grid overnight; the transformers of many electricity providers are not equipped to provide that sort of power 24/7.

There as an article linked by Instapundit on this fact just the other day.

Bishop on January 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM

In other words, the only way this works is either a miracle breakthrough on something we’re not even approaching yet, or government taxes the hell out of all the other consumer options. Don’t be surprised to see the gas taxes approach proposed by Congress or the White House in the coming months — while they still can pass it themselves.

The conservative approach is the former. Let the free market decide. When/if electric cars are an affordable alternative to the internal combustion engine, consumers will demand it and the manufacturers will produce it.

The liberal approach is to force it on the public with massive taxation, regulation, and subsidies. Which will destroy the US auto industry(beyond even its current frail state).

It’s almost as if the recession is a blessing in disguise. It’s kept the Dems from enacting a whole host of items on their agenda which could’ve irreparably harmed our economy. Now we just have to cross our fingers and pray they don’t get anything else passed in the next 10 months.

Doughboy on January 12, 2010 at 3:58 PM

another winner of a deal!/s

ted c on January 12, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Another question on these cars that I have never seen addressed.

a) How far can you drive them before then need to be recharged?

b) How long does it take to recharge?

I mean, I can drive my current car about 300 miles before refueling, and it takes less than 5 minutes to refuel. thus, I can travel for as long as I can stay awake.

My guess is that the same is not true with these vehicles. (i.e., I’m betting that they take hours to recharge)

So, does anyone factor in the extra cost of not being able to drive long distances into the costs?

Monkeytoe on January 12, 2010 at 3:58 PM

scalleywag on January 12, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Or getting t-boned by a dump truck. I downsized from a Ford Edge to a Toyota Corolla, so we are in the same boat…death trap.

milwife88 on January 12, 2010 at 3:58 PM

I still love my 08 f350 turbo diesel :D

MadDogF on January 12, 2010 at 3:59 PM

The cool thing is if they make these high mileage rip-offs I think it allowes them to still make real cars with high horsepower performance engines under CAFE standard rules. Everybody is happy.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 3:59 PM

But, but they will help stop Global Warming, Climate Change, Cooling!!!

Hening on January 12, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Hey, maybe instead of trying to pull off a miracle in battery technology, they use just plain old chemical energy sources that have a higher energy density.

Juno77 on January 12, 2010 at 4:00 PM

NUCLEAR POWER!

golfballs03 on January 12, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Golf carts are the only successful commercial electric vehicles. Well maybe the R/C toys.

You want a golf cart, get one. You want to take a golf cart on the road, live in a retirement community.

You want an electric car? Go back to what, 1910?

There is a reason why Democrats can never let go of a failed idea. It has to do with their hands in your pocket.

Caststeel on January 12, 2010 at 4:01 PM

In other words, the only way this works is either a miracle breakthrough on something we’re not even approaching yet, or government taxes the hell out of all the other consumer options. Don’t be surprised to see the gas taxes approach proposed by Congress or the White House in the coming months — while they still can pass it themselves.

That won’t work because the consumer won’t have any money left (assuming they even have a job) to buy the tin can on wheels after all the price increases on food, goods and services that will be passed on to cover the increase in production costs due to the gas tax hike.

Beaglemom on January 12, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Am I really expected to believe those batteries will last 15 years?

Freddy on January 12, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Can anyone explain WHY we are trying to go down this road again…?

Seven Percent Solution on January 12, 2010 at 4:02 PM

I’m happy with my little Yaris…it gets around 40mpg. I don’t think I’d survive a head on with a Mack truck though.
scalleywag on January 12, 2010 at 3:54 PM

I don’t think you would survive in that thing colliding with a raccoon crossing the road.

Bishop on January 12, 2010 at 4:02 PM

What hasn’t been mentioned is the effect of plugging millions of electric cars into the grid overnight; the transformers of many electricity providers are not equipped to provide that sort of power 24/7.

There as an article linked by Instapundit on this fact just the other day.

Bishop on January 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM

We are not going to plug-in these cars, think bumper cars and how they get their power.

WashJeff on January 12, 2010 at 4:03 PM

I’m still waiting for a jet pack I can take to work!

scalleywag on January 12, 2010 at 4:04 PM

The batteries don’t even last that long, from what I’ve read. 7 or 8 years, tops.

UltimateBob on January 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM

And something the greenies and leftards don’t’ recognize; Internal Combustion Engines, when properly maintained, will run practically indefinitely.

liquidflorian on January 12, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Good Lt on January 12, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Math is fun….

If you take the amount of energy in a barrel of oil, and change that to Kilowatt hours…

Then figure the amount of oil used for transportation in America for a year.

It comes out to 130% of the TOTAL Electricity generated per year in America… or, you would have to more than DOUBLE the Capacity of electricity generation… and that does not even include the Line Loses inherent in Electricity transmission.

Compressed Natural Gas is the better alternative… and the technology already exists.

Romeo13 on January 12, 2010 at 4:04 PM

In other words, the only way this works is either a miracle breakthrough on something we’re not even approaching yet, or government taxes the hell out of all the other consumer options. Don’t be surprised to see the gas taxes approach proposed by Congress or the White House in the coming months — while they still can pass it themselves.

I say….all of the above. Our options will be…pay, walk, or get a bike. I can’t wait to bring ice cream home, on a hot Texas day, in 100 degree heat, on a bike, 5 miles from the nearest grocery store.

capejasmine on January 12, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Just think about it a minute. The energy must come from somewhere. It’s not talked about, but GM killed the first real all electric modern car, EV-1, just before California suffered the ‘Grey’-outs. Putting a spike of useage on electric producers right now means more coal is burned. Period. And, building the batteries required would cause much more ecological damage than building a Hummer. Nickle mining is extremely ‘dirty’.

These guys are a joke and a half.

Phil-351 on January 12, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Of course the batteries on that beast won’t last anywhere close to 15 years.

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Don’t forget…

Politicians will exempt themselves from this nonsense, too.

Seven Percent Solution on January 12, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Democrats say we can’t drill for oil cuz we won’t see a return for 10 years. (Which is a myth)

But we can invest gobs and gobs of tax dollars on something which won’t be returned for 15 years.

Makes sense, I suppose.

lorien1973 on January 12, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Hey, maybe instead of trying to pull off a miracle in battery technology, they use just plain old chemical energy sources that have a higher energy density.

Juno77 on January 12, 2010 at 4:00 PM

While your point is correct in and of itself, the problem is not with the energy density of the fuel, but rather turning potential energy into kinetic energy in an efficient manner. Internal combustion engines are able to turn less a little more than a third of the chemical energy in the gasoline/diesel fuel to useful mechanical and electric energy.

Then of course there’s the issue of where to get the fuel. Drilling here and now will solve a lot of problems, but not that one. We can make electricity from all manner of methods – but the supply of crude oil is finite. And with ever-more nations wanting ever-bigger shares of a limited supply, the sand in the hourglass is running a lot faster.

Dark-Star on January 12, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Seven Percent Solution on January 12, 2010 at 4:02 PM

It’s like Socialism, they know it’s failed every time it’s been tried but only because they weren’t running it.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 4:09 PM

a) How far can you drive them before then need to be recharged?

b) How long does it take to recharge?

I mean, I can drive my current car about 300 miles before refueling, and it takes less than 5 minutes to refuel. thus, I can travel for as long as I can stay awake.

Monkeytoe on January 12, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Bye bye Roadtrips. Good-bye Self employed people who drive daily work trucks like carpenters and landscapers and plumbers and electricians.

What do you do if you are ever stuck in a “plug-in” car outside during a snowstorm? Where does the heat/AC come from?

Mord on January 12, 2010 at 4:09 PM

NUCLEAR POWER!

golfballs03 on January 12, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Rikshaws! That would make merging easier, anyway.

BobMbx on January 12, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Is an electric vehicle’s range affected by travel speed? That is, if you’re a speed demon, and like diving 75-85-90 in 55-70 zones, wouldn’t you be draining the batteries quicker due to inefficiency and shortening their energy output, or does it matter? Like these idiots in hybrids with Greenpeace bumper stickers who blow your doors off at 80 mph in a 60 thinking they are “saving the planet” because they’re driving a Prius.

If so, this would lead to even more frequent re-charging, and thus heavier strain on already stressed power grids.

Left Coast Right Mind on January 12, 2010 at 4:10 PM

We just need to import more oil, burn more coal, or build more nuclear plants…all of those heavily supported, right?

right2bright on January 12, 2010 at 3:50 PM

How about we drill for our own oil, instead of importing?

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:10 PM

What do you do if you are ever stuck in a “plug-in” car outside during a snowstorm? Where does the heat/AC come from?

Mord on January 12, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Thats a trick question. With global warming, there won’t be snow storms. And, I’m not sure what the concern is to begin with. After all, you’ll have health insurance. So if you get hurt or something, you’re covered.

BobMbx on January 12, 2010 at 4:12 PM

I heard Clark Howard refuting this the other night based on the “fact” that hybrids are retaining their value. Could they have that much value to begin with?

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Are there any hybrids that are more than a few years old?
How well will hybrids hold their value after people start to learn what lemons they are?

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Frankly, even hybrids don’t thrill me. The battery dies? And that’s the major cost?

Meanwhile, Car and Road did tests that proved that there are some really fuel-efficient cars that are NOT hybrids.

That works for me.

AnninCA on January 12, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Compressed Natural Gas is the better alternative… and the technology already exists.

Romeo13 on January 12, 2010 at 4:04 PM

CNG has been around since before WWII. Has the same energy density problem that many other fuels do: not as many BTU/per pound. (Think HP/pound for concept) Major exception: diesel fuel. CNG can work well in some situations but not that many.

Thanks for the intellect on the electricity conversion. Pretty work.

Caststeel on January 12, 2010 at 4:14 PM

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:12 PM

I know, it’s a terribly weak argument made by someone who owns several. He should just be honest about it instead of spinning tall tales. I like him but this one was a bit much.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 4:15 PM

After all, you’ll have health insurance. So if you get hurt or something, you’re covered.

BobMbx on January 12, 2010 at 4:12 PM

haha whew! I hadn’t thought of that, thank you.

Mord on January 12, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Just think about it a minute. The energy must come from somewhere. It’s not talked about, but GM killed the first real all electric modern car, EV-1, just before California suffered the ‘Grey’-outs. Putting a spike of useage on electric producers right now means more coal is burned. Period. And, building the batteries required would cause much more ecological damage than building a Hummer. Nickle mining is extremely ‘dirty’.

These guys are a joke and a half.

Phil-351 on January 12, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Exactly. The environmentalist wackos always conveniently leave out where all this energy for the electric cars is supposed to come from. It’s infuriating to see these cars referred to as “zero emission vehicles”. Yeah, except for all that coal we burn to produce the electricity.

Doughboy on January 12, 2010 at 4:15 PM

What hasn’t been mentioned is the effect of plugging millions of electric cars into the grid overnight; the transformers of many electricity providers are not equipped to provide that sort of power 24/7.

There as an article linked by Instapundit on this fact just the other day.

Bishop on January 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Not to mention that your average house has only a 200 amp drop. If you want to charge your car, and run anything in your house, you are going to have to pay to double that. However, before the electric company can do that, they are going to have to give each house it’s own transformer, instead of sharing them between multiple houses as they do now. Then they will have to double the number of lines that are currently run, which won’t be easy or cheap in those areas with buried utilities.

The advocates of electric cars have not thought this through.

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:16 PM

My child is off to college in engineering. She is doing environmental work. It is 3 hours (6round trip) to visit her by car. With a new electric, there are no chargin centers between here and her school. If there were, charging for 3 hours after driving for 1 hour, the trip would increase to 20 hours on the road. I am not retarded enough to take a chance on running out of electric. I can run out of gas, but carry a gas can in my trunk.
Electric cars don’t make sense. They are loading subsidies on them which causes them to not strive to become competitive.

seven on January 12, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Makes me long for Spring when I can roll out my SS 396 Chevelle and grin at the Hybrids as I dust em.

faol on January 12, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Is Chad Ochocinco’s truck a plugin.

WashJeff on January 12, 2010 at 4:17 PM

The cool thing is if they make these high mileage rip-offs I think it allowes them to still make real cars with high horsepower performance engines under CAFE standard rules. Everybody is happy.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Or they could get rid of the CAFE standards (which don’t work anyway) and just let everyone buy the car that they want.

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Compressed Natural Gas is the better alternative… and the technology already exists.

Romeo13 on January 12, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Since there is several hundred years of oil left, why not stick with what works?

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Isn’t China about to limit (or already limiting?) the export of neodymium?

Isn’t neodymium used in electric cars?

Won’t this raise make electric cars even more expensive?

Mark Boabaca on January 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM

That works for me.

AnninCA on January 12, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Did for me, once, too.

The car: ’56 VW Beetle all 36 HP of its little iron soul. Drive it like you are mad at it and it was reasonable transport for a poor GI. 40 MPG. But it was a lousy car needing way too much scheduled maintenance.

Caststeel on January 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Meanwhile, Car and Road did tests that proved that there are some really fuel-efficient cars that are NOT hybrids.

That works for me.

AnninCA on January 12, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Ann, if you’re going to try to be a gun and bible clinger, this is something you need to keep straight.

When talking sports, guns, or cars, get it right.

There is a magazine known as “Car and Driver”, and another known as “Road and Track”. I am unaware of “Car and Road”.

I’ll help you become a conservative, but let’s take the small steps first, like breathing through your mouth, before we step it up to car talk.

BobMbx on January 12, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Nukes and Fuel Cells.

Maquis on January 12, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Every American has a fundamental right to affordable electric cars!

/libtard

cntrlfrk on January 12, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Isn’t China about to limit (or already limiting?) the export of neodymium?

Mark Boabaca on January 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM

I don’t know about neodymium, but they did stop exporting coldhardcashium a few months ago.

BobMbx on January 12, 2010 at 4:21 PM

I’ll consider getting one of these little pop-dick cars in the next life… after they pry my F-250 diesel guzzling, fully tricked out King Ranch pickup from my cold, dead hands.

TXUS on January 12, 2010 at 4:21 PM

The advocates of electric cars have not thought this through.
MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Sure they have: We will create the world of Pandora if only electric cars were made mandatory.

Bishop on January 12, 2010 at 4:21 PM

C’mon, give it up for Mother Earf. You won’t pay extra to save Gaya’s ass?

leftnomore on January 12, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Cars that run on Unobtainium would be awesome!

WashJeff on January 12, 2010 at 4:22 PM

While your point is correct in and of itself, the problem is not with the energy density of the fuel, but rather turning potential energy into kinetic energy in an efficient manner. Internal combustion engines are able to turn less a little more than a third of the chemical energy in the gasoline/diesel fuel to useful mechanical and electric energy.

Power plants aren’t able to get much more than 50% of the energy out. When you add in the transmission losses, the transformer losses, and the charge and discharge losses, electric powered engines end up using more energy than internal combustion.

Then of course there’s the issue of where to get the fuel. Drilling here and now will solve a lot of problems, but not that one. We can make electricity from all manner of methods – but the supply of crude oil is finite. And with ever-more nations wanting ever-bigger shares of a limited supply, the sand in the hourglass is running a lot faster.

Dark-Star on January 12, 2010 at 4:09 PM

We have several hundred years supply of oil, probably much more. After that we can convert coal to gas.

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:22 PM

What do you do if you are ever stuck in a “plug-in” car outside during a snowstorm? Where does the heat/AC come from?

Mord on January 12, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Don’t forget that the amount of energy the battery is able to produce drops as the temperature drops.

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Rikshaws! That would make merging easier, anyway.

BobMbx on January 12, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Is that what Obama means by “green jobs”?

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:24 PM

This video always makes the greens mad.

Top Gear is a BBC show dedicated to supercars. The host despises hybrids. They decided to prove that the cars suck because the british gov. criticized a review he did of the prius.

Mord on January 12, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Or they could get rid of the CAFE standards (which don’t work anyway) and just let everyone buy the car that they want.

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Now you know that’s just crazy talk.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Next thing you know they will be make crank up cars. You will have to get out at every stop light and crank it to keep it running. They will call it a win-win, it saves the environment and keeps you fit.

milwife88 on January 12, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Sad as it makes me to say it, plug-in cars will pay off far sooner than the headline above reads. To be exact, instantly.

The instant a greenie drives up his driveway in his new glorified golf cart, he will feel that it was worth every penny. Every conversation with his loafers-wearing neighbors will up that ante. Every head the pivots as he drives by the Starbucks will add to his sense of worthfulness.

I’m serious: wealth isn’t a finite quality. It’s abstract and in our heads and any cost-benefits that fails to include this factor is just plain wrong.

MaxMBJ on January 12, 2010 at 4:25 PM

My last car was a 1992 Saturn sedan, manual 5-speed transmission, and I routinely got 40mpg in it.

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:26 PM

So what? No price is too high to replace poisonous carbon dioxide with all that ecology-friendly substances.

…Like lead, sulfuric acid, ammonium chloride and lithium perchlorate.

logis on January 12, 2010 at 4:26 PM

So there is a massive anti-government protest. Government decides to cut the power to the town. You can’t go over to your buddy’s house and get a 5 gallon can of electricity.

Or on a storm, you lose power. No power, no car, no evacuation.

Will they have charging stations on evacuation routes from major cities in case of hurricanes or other emergencies?

Electric cars sound so emotionally appealing on many levels, but I will still want to have at least one “oil fired” car around. Just in case.

crosspatch on January 12, 2010 at 4:26 PM

BobMbx on January 12, 2010 at 4:21 PM

neodymium is a rare earth element used in high performance magnets. Think hard disks.

Caststeel on January 12, 2010 at 4:26 PM

We have several hundred years supply of oil, probably much more. After that we can convert coal to gas.

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Then, we’ll ferment all the brown people into methane.

I say lets develop transporters of the Star Trek variety. No need for transportation fuels. You don’t even need to go to the grocery store. Just hop on the internet, pick your items on-line, and bbbzzzzzzt!, it appears right there on the pad.

BobMbx on January 12, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Buy a $350 carborator attachment that allows you to burn mulitple fuels, including Compressed Natural Gas.

Add a Small CNG tank in your trunk and you can run on State and Federal tax free Natural Gas supplied from your service at your house.

You will get the 60 miles per day on the CNG and can still use normal gasoline after that. Most drivers do not go more than 50 miles per day.

barnone on January 12, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Electrify the major roads instead. This solves several problems. We need new electrical distribution facilities — done through the roads themselves. Now there is no need for large battery packs; extended journeys are now possible and costs per vehicle are substantially less. It would be doable to integrate vehicle control with this, allowing hands free ‘driving’ and lessening accidents .

Let the EU try it first, cuz the bitching in the US would be deafening. BTW, we would need to build a few hundred nuke plants too, but we need to do that anyways.

GnuBreed on January 12, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Now you know that’s just crazy talk.

Cindy Munford on January 12, 2010 at 4:25 PM

No, this is crazy talk.

Avbabadkfadfghoangfasljasdg arlt.

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Check these car of the future predictions from this cartoon classic.

WashJeff on January 12, 2010 at 4:29 PM

No, this is crazy talk.

Avbabadkfadfghoangfasljasdg arlt.

MarkTheGreat on January 12, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Thanks Mark…I needed a new keyboard anyway.

BobMbx on January 12, 2010 at 4:30 PM

I say lets develop transporters of the Star Trek variety. No need for transportation fuels

But it would suck to materialize at home with a jar of grape jelly as your head.

faol on January 12, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Juno77 on January 12, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Don’t be so politically correct. Just say it. Gasoline.

chemman on January 12, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Electric cars sound so emotionally appealing on many levels, but I will still want to have at least one “oil fired” car around. Just in case.

crosspatch on January 12, 2010 at 4:26 PM

I can’t think of a single emergency scenario where I would be grateful that I had an electric car.

Mord on January 12, 2010 at 4:31 PM

I say lets develop transporters of the Star Trek variety. No need for transportation fuels

But it would suck to materialize at home with a jar of grape jelly as your head.

faol on January 12, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Think of the fun you could have. Get a bunch of frat bro’s eating burritos and cheap beer. Have a “mass flatulence release” on the pad, and then transport it right to someone else’s pad.

No more doo doo in a burning bag. Always good, though.

BobMbx on January 12, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Where does the power for the plug-ins come from? Magical clean power land? No, evil utility companies, generally from coal-fired power plants. Can’t build new ones b/c of environmental regs, can’t build nuke plants for the same, can’t drill our own oil, etc. All emotion, no thought…that’s the left.

brak on January 12, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Left Coast Right Mind on January 12, 2010 at 4:10 PM

The energy expended is proportional to the square of the velocity, neglecting friction.

The kinetic energy of a car traveling at 80 MPH is higher by a factor of (80/55)^2, or at least twice as much as the same car at 55 MPH. For various reasons, your fuel mileage won’t halve, but it will very probably be less.

mr.blacksheep on January 12, 2010 at 4:37 PM

And solar PV cells never pay for themselves, what’s new?

jukin on January 12, 2010 at 4:40 PM

In other news, the Obama administration plans to repeal the laws of thermodynamics, so we can run electric cars on unicorn farts.

Obama can do that, can’t he?

————–

I like electric cars. I also like muscle cars. That doesn’t mean they are practical, efficient, or economical.

ZenDraken on January 12, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Juno77 on January 12, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Don’t be so politically correct. Just say it. Gasoline.
chemman on January 12, 2010 at 4:31 PM

LOL, I was trying to be more – shall we say- inclusive in my terminology.

BTW, thank you, MarkTheGreat – I had a written up a response but saw that yours was better, so I just trashed mine.

Juno77 on January 12, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Simple dilithium battery electric-only crystal vehicles with reasonable cost are what we need most.

greenLibertarian on January 12, 2010 at 3:56 PM

The only way it’s going to happen.

Badger40 on January 12, 2010 at 4:44 PM

barnone on January 12, 2010 at 4:27 PM

How do you compress the gas? I think NG compressors are pretty expensive at about $3500.

Bugler on January 12, 2010 at 4:44 PM

capejasmine on January 12, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Assuming of course you won’t pass out on a 5 mile ride in 100 degree weather then the following will work.
Bicycle Cart + igloo + dry ice will take care of that problem. Oops cancel that idea since dry ice is CO2.
I guess you are so screwed.

chemman on January 12, 2010 at 4:45 PM

What do you do if you are ever stuck in a “plug-in” car outside during a snowstorm? Where does the heat/AC come from?

Mord on January 12, 2010 at 4:09 PM

The peasants will die in droves.
Meanwhile, only the country folks will survive.
I guess I’m OK with that.

Badger40 on January 12, 2010 at 4:48 PM

How do you compress the gas?
Bugler on January 12, 2010 at 4:44 PM

I’m sure that Al Gore has a solution.
It only involves you sending in $19.95 + shipping & handling.

Badger40 on January 12, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Assuming of course you won’t pass out on a 5 mile ride in 100 degree weather then the following will work.
chemman on January 12, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Living in San Antonio in the early 90′s we had a 105+ heat wave over 2 weeks.
I rode my bike to work at 2pm about 8 miles.
I swear I almost died.
My boss would shake his head & ask if I needed to go to the hospital.
But think of it-obesity would not be a problem.

Badger40 on January 12, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2