The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Car Guy

Electric Cars and Economics 101

By on 1.6.09 @ 6:07AM

The big problem with electric cars isn’t technological. It’s economic. And one’s just as defeating as the other, if the object is to come up with an electric vehicle that’s more than just a cute plaything for a handful of over-rich Hollywood celebs.

Consider GM’s EV-1 of the 1990s.

Remember?

It was a snarky looking two-seater straight out of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. Worked pretty well, too — despite what you might have read. True, its range on a single charge-up was only about a fourth of what the typical IC (internal combustion) conventional car could manage — about 70 miles or so. But that impediment was more psychological than meaningfully functional.

How many of us, after all, drive 70 miles one-way on a regular basis? Even a long commute isn’t that long. More like 20-30 miles, for most of us. Right? And even if you push the envelope and the trip’s close to the thing’s max range, if it’s a commute to work, you don’t need to go anywhere for hours once you’ve parked and plugged in. Yes? So the beast would be fully recharged for the trip home.

For knocking around/commuting, the EV-1’s main functional limitation was not its range; it was its two-seater configuration — and limited cargo-carrying capacity. Kind of like owning any other small two-seater, such as a BMW roadster or a Porsche.

But the EV-1 had another thing in common with BMWs and Porsches — its price. Even by mid-'90s standards (when it was available to the public), the EV-1 was not a cheap date. About $35,000 — which is actually considerably more (adjusted for inflation) than the current base price of a 2009 model year BMW Z4 roadster ($36,700).

Now, if the whole point of owning an electric car is to save money — by saving on fuel costs — then a $35,000 electric car is as pointless, from an economy standpoint, as spending $10,000 to outfit your house with new triple pane windows but leaving them open all winter long.

Rich people don’t care about gas prices. To them, $3 or $4 per gallon is like what a few extra pennies jangling in our pockets is to us. Chump change!

NEXT UP, the Tesla roadster. It proves beyond any question that electric cars can also be blindingly quick and drop-dead gorgeous. It equals or beats the straight line performance (and handling) of just about any exotic sports car on the road. Keep in mind, electric motors have a huge advantage over IC engines when it comes to performance. They produce tremendous torque immediately — no waiting for the RPMs to build. There is so much torque available, in fact, that a car like the Tesla can’t really make full use of it — very much like a '60s-era SS 454 Chevelle on 14-inch rims.

The point, though, is not the Tesla’s superb performance. It is the car’s stupefying six-figure price tag — $109,000 (before taxes and tags). It’s important to bear in mind that as interesting as the Tesla is, from a technology standpoint, it is basically a modified Lotus Elise roadster — which you can pick up for $46,270. The two cars perform similarly, but if you bought the Lotus, you’d still have $62,730 left over (the “change” remaining vs. the cost of the Tesla).

How much gas does $62k buy? Even at $10 per gallon, odds are you’d be in Depends before you ever had to pay for a drop of fuel again.

So, what’s the point?

Like the EV-1, the Tesla is a talking point. It is sure to get you noticed. You’ll be driving something “different.” But you sure as heck aren’t going to be saving yourself any money.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (125) |

sean | 1.6.09 @ 6:21AM

What about the Zenn and the EEStor Ultracapacitor?

sean | 1.6.09 @ 6:26AM

Sorry, here is the URL: http://www.techheck.com/journal/2009/1/4/and-eestor-brought-forth-the-ultracapacitor-and-the-us-paten.html

상율 한| 1.6.09 @ 6:56AM

'Going Electric' is able to save costs and further bring the fuel costs down in the long run, which can cover stimulus investments. Positive and Comprehensive Thinking might be that crucial, I believe.

JP| 1.6.09 @ 8:26AM

Despite what the 6:56AM poster wrote, "going electric" is not cost-effective. Without a huge taxpayer subsidy or a huge federal tax on fossil fuels, there is no way an average person could afford one. Besides, the days of cheap low interest auto loans are gone.

It never ceases to amaze me how liberals continue to move the goal posts. Global Warming was the initial reasons to "go electric" -saving the planet and all of that. But now the liberals have dropped Global Warming and are attempting to paint electric cars as cost effective. They are anything but cost effective. Where I live, winters can bring 10-15 inches of snow overnight, and I wouldn't trust one of those to take me to the grocery store 2 blocks away. Better to walk or take my Suburban or 1978 Bronco

George| 1.6.09 @ 8:28AM

Lest we forget, our fearless-leader-in-waiting said that his policies will "bankrupt the coal industry" and cause "the price of electricity to skyrocket". If Obamao has his way with us, will we even be able to pay to charge our car batteries?

Bob| 1.6.09 @ 8:43AM

The big problem here is battery technology. Toyota is having a difficult time getting enough nickle for the Prius batteries. In addition, some environmentalists have brought up the fact that making batteries is more polluting to the environment than the carbon emissions that would be produced by a more conventional car of similar size.

The author is precisely right here. That's why the government should be investing in basic research rather than promoting these vehicles at this time. You can do a huge amount of research on a very small budget. That's where the priorities should be.

frost| 1.6.09 @ 9:17AM

Yup, Jerry (above) nailed it with his last words -- they're a "status symbol" for those who'd like to pretend that they "care." Am reminded of John Stossel's quote (at least I think it was him) about greenies: "People are willing to do the right thing for the environment - as long as it's easy" -- my wife is a college professor (Business) whose collegues' Priuses are usually parked where they'll be noticed most...

John| 1.6.09 @ 10:01AM

Oaky, now how about "Electric Cars and Advertising 101"? Any real guy does not want to hit the gas and hear Buzzzzzzz. As Mazda says:"Zoom, Zoom, Zoom." Has the feminization of America turned us all to wussies? Plugging in your car is so gay it's socially disturbing. Ultimately these lefties will FORCE us into this buzzing crap like it or not. Once they have us all in electric junk cars they will tax the hell out of electricity which will also affect our homes, businesses, etc. Wake up-it's a TRAP! I'm buyin' a new 'Vette. I'd rather not eat than buzz down the road in an Ombamobile.

Marc Jeric| 1.6.09 @ 10:29AM

In all this discussion about electric cars and their high initial cost one thing is forgotten - and that is the energy balance. When you put 1,000 BTU's (that's British Thermal Unit, a measure of energy) of gasoline into an internal combustion motor of a car, you get about 220 BTU's worth of motion; the rest of that energy is spent on friction (tires and wind) and hot exhaust gases. To produce electricity from, say, coal or oil or nuclear fuel, it takes 1,000 BTU's of that fuel to get about 350 BTU's of electricity; then to transmit that electricity to your plug will waste another 50 BTU's. Finally you have put about 300 BTU's worth of energy into your car; and now you drive it while overcoming tire friction and wind resistance (no hot exhaust gas loss here) in order to get about some 120 BTU's worth of motion. That is plainly almost twice as wasteful of energy as an internal combustion car engine. And who will build those thousands of new coal-fired or nuclear power plants? Our environmentalists - with the help of Abu Hussein and his Democrat cohorts? Dream on!

L. Ross| 1.6.09 @ 11:19AM

Another unaddressed thought on battery powered cars. In addition to the extremely long time they take to charge, plus the great strain they put on the power grid (utility companies say that a typical electric car draws as much juice to charge as a typical home, or as they like to put it, it's a house on four wheels) batteries just don't have the specific energy (energy per unit weight), or the energy density (energy per unit volume) required to do much more than power a scooter at scooter powered speeds. Gasoline has a specific energy that is 63 times higher than lithium ion batteries, and an energy density that is 18 times higher. Of course, convenetional gasoline engines are only about 30% efficient in converting heat into motion, so we could reduce the size of a fuel tank by 2/3rds, but still, to get the equivalent of 20 gallons of gasoline energy into an electric car, you would need batteries taking up 110 gallons of space, weighing 2600 lbs for the batteries ALONE. Of course, that kind of weight penalty is going to reduce the range of the vehicle, all those batteries are going to take longer to recharge, etc., etc., etc. A vicious cycle takes over, compromises must be made, and always those compromises involve decreased range and speed. Look at it this way. 500lbs of batteries are going to give you the range of about 3 gallons of fuel. That is the simple physics of the situation. And by the way, I'm using best case scenarios here. Lowered efficiencies are almost a certainty.

Short version is, even if the costs could somehow be contained, these cars will NEVER have a range over 100 miles. Fuel cells could be a different story, however, that is a century old technology that has received a great deal of investment and effort, and so far has yet to produce ANY mass produced devices. Most of the politicians making decisions about these technologies have no technical background whatsoever, and seem to think that just because they write words on a sheet of paper, the laws of the physical world will be bent to their whims and desires.

Raoul Bloodworth| 1.6.09 @ 11:27AM

I don't know if I can trust a "Car Guy" who doesn't know the 454 (LS6) wasn't available in the Chevelle until 1970, but he misses the big point:

How many CFCs need I install to offset charging up my Volt? Answer: 1,600.

Rachel Konrad | 1.6.09 @ 11:27AM

It's inaccurate to say that the Tesla Roadster is just a Lotus Elise with a battery pack dropped into it; the chassis of the Roadster has less than a 7 percent parts overlap with the Lotus. It also has the world's best electric powertrain, offering an EPA-estimated 244 miles per charge with a scorching 0-60 in under 4 seconds. This car has significantly more torque than other cars in its class, and the fit and finish, handling and performance are in line with other cars in the very low six-figures. (On this point in particular, please check out the first instrumented review of a production Roadster by a US "buff book," in this case Road & Track: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=10&article_id=7297 )

The author is correct that the significant amount of R&D;, as well as the component cost, make an EV's sticker price higher than a comparable ICE vehicle. However, I would argue that it's impossible to have a "comparable" ICE.

First, let's consider lifetime owership costs. With a Tesla Roadster, you never need to bring your car in for an oil change, an exhaust system tuneup, a new flywheel, replacement hoses, belts, spark plugs or other moving parts from the ICE. Regenerative braking means vastly less wear and tear on your brakes (a very expensive repair); in normal city driving you rarely even use your brakes to decelerate. Keep in mind all of these repairs are even more expensive on a luxury sports car.

Also, factor in tax incentives throughout the United States -- not only the $7,500 federal tax credit for the Roadster but incentives in states such as Washington, which offers a 100 percent sales tax exemption for the Roadster. In Seattle, that's 9.3 percent that a Roadster owner saves but a Lamborghini or Porsche owner would fork over.

Finally, since the author mentioned it, let's talk about gasoline. It's true that people who can afford a $109,000 car aren't going to cry poor over a $2 price fluctuation at the pump; they are blessed with having the financial means of liberating themselves from petrostate dictators, Big Oil and OPEC price swings -- and they also want to reduce their personal carbon footprint and that of the entire personal transportation sector.

But these people are very financially astute; they aren't buying the Roadster simply because it's a beautiful car. At a cost of roughly $4 per charge, the Roadster is still a screaming deal for fuel even if gasoline dipped to $1 per gallon -- and I think we cna all agree that's not likely. Combined with the maintenance costs and the benefits to the environment, and the choice for many buyers is clear.

Thanks for reading this, everyone!

Rachel Konrad
Senior Communications Manager
Tesla Motors Inc.

CBDunkerson| 1.6.09 @ 11:29AM

Thomas, your analysis of electric charge times ignores the obvious solution... just change the battery. Takes a couple of minutes. There's a company called 'Better Place' building EV battery changing stations in California right now. Drive up, take out the depleted battery, plug in a fully charged battery, and off you go. You also ignored the fact that the Chevy Volt HAS a gasoline tank... so you CAN just fill it up and be on your way like any other car. The benefit from the Volt is that it can go 40 miles on electric only. That'd cover the daily commute of 75% of Americans... allowing them to charge up each night and only ever need to use the gas tank for weekend trips longer than 40 miles.

Also note, the Volt's 40 mile electric range is on the LOW end. The EV-1 got 80 miles twenty years ago. The Tesla Roadster can go over 200.

A family car that can go 100 miles on a battery charge is well within the realm of CURRENT technology. Put in a gasoline generator for cross country trips and gasoline usage by automobiles around the world could be dropped more than 95%.

Gasoline is still the best option for cross country driving. But that's a tiny fraction of what it is currently used for... and there are several 'battery' technologies currently in development which could make gasoline obsolete there as well.

John (The other John)| 1.6.09 @ 11:40AM

1. Battery powered electric cars will be a fantasy in perpetuity. There is no practical battery that will store enough charge... for long enough... to power a respectable useful automobile much of anywhere. See the comment by L. Ross for an idea of where the problem goes.

2. The problem remains. Storing potential energy and releasing it into kenetic energy. In a perfect world PE=KE in the real world, that isn't close to true. So you have to store more to get less... Which means adding energy to the system. Regardless of where the energy comes from, it must come from somewhere.

3. Where? There is only one viable, reliable, relatively inexpensive source of electrical power... Nuclear Energy. All the rest are stop gaps, partial solutions, or politically incorrect/polluting...(coal).

4. Fuel Cells are a wonderful tool. The latest generation of cells are now coming on line with ever more range and power capabilities... BUT... they require hydrogen, and that hydrogen must be produced... electrolysis (see #3 for the only viable tool) and distributed "big Oil" to be sold...

Besides having the effective automobile designs that can take the greatest advantage of electrical power.

They will happen... when Nuclear power becomes the majority of our electrical power supply. Until then they will just be exotic play-toys of the rich and famous.

It will happen... automobiles were the exotic playthings of the rich and famous between 1900 and 1927. After Ford's successful experiment with the Model T... the Model A changed everything.

Time, money... power...

r/TMF

Tom Masles| 1.6.09 @ 12:48PM

People seem to forget that the GM EV-1 was lease only and you had to give it back at the end of the lease. GM would then crunch them into a ball. It was a political thing to even produce the things and for CAFE purposes. Besides, then GM would not have to make parts for them for the next 20 years. Honda, however, still supports it's EVO car.

Paul| 1.6.09 @ 1:35PM

Mr. Bloodworth:

True, the 454 was not available until the 1970 model year, but these were for sale in 1969. More importantly, the 70 Chevelle was a "Sixties Era" car in virtually every sense of the word.

Todd| 1.6.09 @ 1:45PM

Since Bob made a post without denigrating social conservatives, I actually agree with him for a change. I think it is rather obvious that GM built the Volt for political purposes and that it makes zero sense economically but use it as a prop to get their hands on taxpayer bailout money. Unfortunately Bush tarnished his legacy further by allowing the charade to continue and putting it in Obama's hands which we know will end disastrously with the inevitable bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler after throwing another hundred billion dollars or so down the drain.

Marc makes excellent points about energy usage that most people are clueless about. Not only are electric cars much more expensive to make along with the great amount of energy needed to produce the batteries, what about the additional demands made on the electric grid if they are actually produced in sufficient numbers? The same environmental wackos who think electric cars will save the world from global warming will fight any new additional coal or nuclear power plants needed to provide the additional electricity. Of course they have the delusion that so-called renewable sources like solar and wind will provide that power but they are living in the land of make believe. Only once the enviromarxists are soundly defeated in the court of public opinion and Al Gore shown to be the charlatan he is will we be able to get sensible policy in this regard. The tide is slowly starting to turn on global warming so maybe there is some hope yet.

CBDunkerson| 1.6.09 @ 1:46PM

'The Other John', your post is full of obviously false statements.

1: Not only will batteries 'eventually' be able to power 'viable' electric cars. They already DO. Tesla Roadster. 244 miles on one charge. 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds. That's as far as most cars can go on a full tank of gas and a heck of alot faster.

2: Nuclear is the only power source which is viable, cost effective, and environmentally friendly? Ha! Solar and wind are both obviously more friendly to the environment. Both have also recently passed grid parity. That is, the latest solar and wind tech produces electricity at a LOWER cost than coal... based on actually functioning CURRENT power stations. The US also has more than enough solar and wind resources for EITHER to replace all current power plants if fully developed.

3: Hydrogen fuel cells are a dead end technology. The amount of electricity required to produce enough hydrogen to drive a car a given distance is significantly greater than the amount of electricity required to charge a battery to drive the same distance. Once you HAVE the hydrogen you also have to ship it to convenient refilling stations... requiring more energy. And then store it safely... requiring more energy. So, in order to have an all hydrogen vehicle fleet we'd need to build the entire hydrogen infrastructure AND an electrical infrastructure much greater than electrical vehicles alone would require.

How would we go about paying for a solar/wind infrastructure in place of the current gasoline, coal, natural gas, and nuclear? Well, a good start would be to take the enormous government oil subsidies which keep US gas prices so much lower than Europe and put them towards solar and wind.

John| 1.6.09 @ 1:47PM

the car industry began with battery powered vehicle in the 1900s, not ICE. when the ICE was used in cars, battery technology improvement died with it, they used lead acid battery then, we use lead acid now- there was no technological improvement for nearly a hundred years. what do you expect? we build electric cars today, it is always expensive because the battery is a 100 years old technology. if you kill the electric car again, there is no way the batt tech will improve to what it should be. then what happens? you go back to gas, you go back to enriching the very people who hate you. batteries will never be economical unless there's serious development, and there will be no development unless there is substantial application.

Also, why would one count the power loss from the electric power plant to the transmission lines and then to the household and say that the electric car is more polluting than the ICE? ALL electric power plants, sits almost idle at night because of low demand. this is an imbalance all power plant experience and it costs money. Talk about pollution! This is exactly where the EV's come in: charge it at night, you balance the power plants, you save all the wasted energy.

John

Todd| 1.6.09 @ 2:29PM

CBDunkerson,
You are either absolutely clueless or you are a enviromarxist attempting to spread disinformation, most likely both. When viability regarding electric cars is discussed like in this article, it is regarding economical costs. How many people have $100,000 plus to spend on a little sports car like the Tesla? I am sure many of our overpaid celebrities will feel very good about saving the environment driving around in their Tesla's but it won't make a dimes worth of difference for anything. Or how about $30,000-$40,000 for the Volt which has a range of 40 miles? I will take a pass on that thank you very much.

As for your absurd claim that solar and wind power are cheaper than coal, your ignorance speaks for itself. I could show you about a thousand studies that say otherwise but I would be wasting my time on a brain dead moron like yourself. What exactly are these enormous government oil subsidies you refer to? Is that the 60% total tax Exxon is forced to pay? And if solar and wind are actually cheaper than coal, why would they need the subsidies form the government by taxing oil so we have to pay $7 per gallon like they get the pleasure of doing in Europe? Al Gore's propaganda has clearly worked on ignorant idiots like yourself, get a clue.

Thomas| 1.6.09 @ 2:40PM

See the problem here? The Volt has a a gasoline powered auxiliary engine [or are the electrics the auxiliary] so that it can go a meaningful distance. As for changing the battery, see just how quickly you can change the battery pack in a Prius? Battery packs in electrics or hybrids are not designed to be changed by amateurs. And what about the weight? I do not see my wife lifting a 150# battery pack out of a car and just dropping another one in. It is not a cell phone after all. And at even 100 mpcharge, how many times would you have to stop and change the battery in a 2000 mile trip?

And this is just one of the many drawbacks to the electric car. Try and sell electrics anyway that you want, but they are simply not viable as a replacement for the internal combustion powered vehicle.

Glenn| 1.6.09 @ 3:28PM

The other cost not mentioned w/ EV's is the cost to replace the batteries. They will not last forever. In fact, one of the reasons that GM took the EV1s back at the end of the lease, was that replacing the batteries was just not economical.

BigJack| 1.6.09 @ 4:18PM

Thanks for the comments Rachel- I was actually going to mention many of your points, but you hit it on the head. The Tesla is a fantastic buy for those in the medium priced sports car market.

Todd| 1.6.09 @ 4:52PM

$100,000 is in the medium priced sports car market? I guess its cheaper than a Ferrari or Lambo but that is a lot of dough. With a top speed maxing at around 125 mph, not really a car you can take to the track and get much bang for the buck. It will do well though in its limited market so it is a viable vehicle unlike the Chevy Volt.

Bob| 1.6.09 @ 5:00PM

Todd, when oil was $140 per barrel, wind was actually more cost effective -- and so was nuclear. The problem with coal is extensive pollution -- it is a cheap form of energy and we have a lot of it. And, there is no such thing as "clean coal".

The big issue with alternative power like wind and solar, however, is the grid. We will need a better grid with lower loss in the future. Once oil gets back up to $140, and it will, then there is a different story.

Carlos| 1.6.09 @ 5:00PM

Goodness, why would anyone but a gadget freak want to be an early adopter of this sort of exotic technology? C'mon, name one garage within a thousand miles of Kansas City that could fix a broken Tesla. Thanks for the fantasy, but I'll stick with my good old, mid-sized, roomy, gas-powered GM SUV. It ain't broke, and don't need fixin'.

Bob| 1.6.09 @ 5:30PM

Todd, when oil was $140 per barrel, wind was actually more cost effective -- and so was nuclear. The problem with coal is extensive pollution -- it is a cheap form of energy and we have a lot of it. And, there is no such thing as "clean coal".

The big issue with alternative power like wind and solar, however, is the grid. We will need a better grid with lower loss in the future. Once oil gets back up to $140, and it will, then there is a different story.

Todd| 1.6.09 @ 5:39PM

Bob, while wind might have been seen as more cost effective with oil at $140, a big problem with wind is with its inconsistently and unreliability. Coal plants are much more reliable to meet the demands of the electric grid. Most modern coal plants I believe do a good job with controlling air pollution since we have much better technology than China for example which has terrible air pollution problems. I know of no major air pollution problems in this country due to coal plants.

When clean coal is brought up today, they mean the carbon emissions which the enviromarxist are attempting to classify as pollutants though it is a naturally occurring element that we could not live without. I guess the idea behind clean coal is too pump the carbon back into the ground or some hogwash like that. I think there is much evidence that global man-made warming is a fraud and the cap and trade schemes are a way for the central planning advocates to control the economy.

We already know about Obama's plan to attempt to shut down the coal industry through these cap and trade schemes since he has already told us and by the people he has appointed in his cabinet who are extreme environmentalist. If he actually follows through on this plan, we will face a drastic energy shortage in this country as the so-called renewable "green" energy sources will prove enormously costly and unable to be anywhere close to replacing coal power no matter what Boone Pickens tells us.

Pete| 1.6.09 @ 5:44PM

I have yet to see anyone mention that it costs money to charge up a battery in an electric car--and that cost is NOT insignificant. Depending on what one pays per KWH, the overnight cost could easily amount to $2 or $3. That's every night. So at the end of the month, our electric car owner could find his electric bill has increased by $60 to $90.

Bob| 1.6.09 @ 5:55PM

Todd, when oil was $140 per barrel, wind was actually more cost effective -- and so was nuclear. The problem with coal is extensive pollution -- it is a cheap form of energy and we have a lot of it. And, there is no such thing as "clean coal".

The big issue with alternative power like wind and solar, however, is the grid. We will need a better grid with lower loss in the future. Once oil gets back up to $140, and it will, then there is a different story.

Thom| 1.6.09 @ 6:58PM

Some electric car advocates need to get a grip here on some of there claims. My 1989 5 passenger Honda Accord (2950 lbs) has a life time average mpg of 31 with 28-31 being local avg and near 40 mpg in top form. It has 204,000 miles on it and nominal range of just short of 600 miles on 15.9 gallons of gas which weights about 100 lbs. The “electric” Elise has a 900 lb battery pack filling a lot of the cars’ internal volume and requires a 220 volt charge to get anything less than an 8 hour recharge time. With my life time repair cost being about $2000.00 so far, the idea that any production electric or hybrid has less Total Ownership cost is laughable. How many gallons of gas can you buy for the current price difference between purchase price of the Tesla and a 2009 Accord which can actually carry people and cargo? Those who think you can just plug in at any commercial establishment and get home electric rates are delusional once the Lawyer class gets finished with the electrocution liability matter. Changing out battery packs? The person that said that has no idea what they are talking about. Tesla 900 lb battery pack fitted in every available inch of the car; Prius located under back seat and weighting several hundred lbs; Chevy Volt even more than Prius. Dream on guys. Like one post said, the available energy capacity of the best (and most expensive battery technology available) will weigh several thousand lbs in a normal 5 passenger car just to get it near where the Tesla is today and that is worthless for trips given the charge time that would have at 220 volts. Electric cars are just statements and are going to remain so until you can get all the “utility” of an ICE vehicle with a reasonable charge time and weight of fuel load. Most people would need two vehicles to cover the “utility” they get from one now if they could even buy an affordable all “electric”. Not going to happen. Given the real world cost of these things and their true cost of ownership (battery change out cost) this is all pipe dreams at this point. You might as well talk of the virtues of a “nuclear” vehicle and the positives of having an owner life time range (no refueling) and zero impact on the environment. All for a cost effective $1,000,000 a copy after tax, title and environmental impact statement and fees…. The math does not work in the real world. My friend is driving a 1995 Honda VX (50 mpg average) and at just under 400,000 miles today. He would have to change out the batteries in a Prius every 3.5 years if he bought that. Do the real world math. Money does not grow on trees even though our Government seems to think so.

chris pasqualini| 1.6.09 @ 7:54PM

rachel konrad of tesla motors reminds us of the various state and federal tax breaks which reduce the cost of her company's product. can everyone out there in eco-land please get it through their skulls that tax breaks do not reduce the cost of anything, they only shift part of the cost to someone else, usually someone who gets no benefit.

Neo| 1.6.09 @ 8:23PM

Since 53% of all electricity in the US is generated from coal, isn't an electric car really a "coal" car ?

Cheapness| 1.6.09 @ 9:27PM

I commute in an eight year-old Honda Insight I bought a couple of years ago for $5k and in mint condition. It still has 2 years (and 50k miles) left on the battery replacement warranty. My best documented mileage so far was 114 one way / 87 two way for 30 miles. Averages 65 to 70 for my commute. $0 so far for non-routine maintenance.

I would need to drive an electric for, like, 7000 years to equal the economy of this decade-old design, and the electric car would cause pollution somewhere.

Steve| 1.6.09 @ 9:39PM

Imagine NASCAR going electric. The pit crews will break for lunch in the middle of a stop.

DS| 1.6.09 @ 9:42PM

Eric Peters truly is a "spectator" and a confused one at that. The "big problem" with electric cars for Eric anyway is that he apparently can't afford them. The first thing he does is knock the EV-1. Claims it's main functional limitation was it's two-seater configuration and limited cargo-carrying capacity. And it was "expensive", at least by his standards. Yet most everyone who had one, mostly "rich people [who] don't care about gas prices" wanted to keep theirs. GM had other plans for them. Then he bashes the Tesla Roadster, which despite having supercar technology, performance and looks, should obviously sell for econobox prices. And finally the Volt, which despite maybe having conquered the range, batteries, performance, and looks, still is just a bit out of his price range. Therefore by extrapolation, it must not be good for anyone. If everyone felt like Eric, and thank gosh Eric isn't 'the decider' for everyone, we'd still be sleeping in trees.

DaveS| 1.6.09 @ 9:56PM

If is isn't nuclear-generated electric, it's not green.

Steve| 1.6.09 @ 10:01PM

As individuals, electric cars may not directly save us money, but as a nation, we import $400 million of oil per day (at $40 bbl) which is about half of our daily consumption. As individuals, how would we benefit if we kept that $400 million per day within our own national economy? That benefit will be tremendous,going far beyond the cost of conversion to electric cars. And in my opinion, mass production will result in a dramatic decrease in the cost of electric cars over a very few years.

george| 1.6.09 @ 10:08PM

We'll all go down the road with with one of those T. Boone Pickens (would you buy a used car from a man named T. Boone?) Whirly gigs . Just keep it facing Washington and you'll never be short on wind power.

JimmyCornBeef| 1.7.09 @ 3:03AM

I admit I'm no expert on this, so I'll ask you folks - what do you suppose the comparisons would be for an EV big-rig vs. an ICE big-rig? I'm pretty sure it would be next to impossible to make a competitive EV big-rig, but what do you think?

I saw someone mention coal is not clean - just to provide some comparison, since 1970 95% of unhealthy pollutants have been removed, and we use much more of it. So, it turns out it isn't all that bad. Here's a link if you like: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7361

SteveC| 1.7.09 @ 3:38AM

For Rachael Conrad I have some questions:
A. The stated 244 miless/charge is based on: 1) How many miles on the battery? All battery technologies have limited cycle life with capacity decreasing with each cycle. For an ICE vehicle that is the equivalent of the mileage dropping with every fill-up. 2) At what ambient temp? Battery capacity drops with the thermometer. Just ask Joe Sixpack in frozen tundra country. Also, cycle life is severly impacted by high temps. Too optimize range, life and efficency the battery pack requires thermal management systems (heating & cooling) which consume energy from the battery.
B. How many times do you have to replace the battery in the 200K miles that a Z4's engine is still going strong. And what's the replacement cost of the battery where Tesla does not lose money?

For John: Other than fuel cells solar and wind have the high cost per MWH even after factoring in the goverment cheese. Because of their low operating times, for a reliable electric system gas turbine peakers are required to provide the power demand when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow or blows too much. Oh by the way coal & nuclear plants provide the base load portion of the demand. So they ain't wasting energy when the demand is lowest. Also, they have the lowest wholesale cost per MWH.
P.S. for those who feel so pious for paying a few cents per KWH for "GREEN" electricity guess what the Energy Service Co. selling it to your utility is buying electrons from another ESC with CO2 belching peakers. Horors of horors it might even come from a dirty diesel generator.

CBDunkerson| 1.7.09 @ 8:42AM

Todd, your inability to discuss matters in an adult manner betrays the intellectual bankruptcy of your positions.

1: Electric cars are more expensive, therefor they are not 'viable'. Electric cars are a much less developed technology. That ALWAYS means higher prices. If every auto assembly line were retooled to build electric cars the price would come down dramatically. New technologies always cost more. However, even at their currently higher prices electric cars WILL start to become more economical when oil prices inevitably rise again.

2: "Or how about $30,000-$40,000 for the Volt which has a range of 40 miles? I will take a pass on that thank you very much."
75% of US drivers go less than 40 miles per day. So, if they had Chevy Volts they could drive to and from work every day without ever using a drop of gasoline. Charging the car at night for one fifth the cost of gasoline (or better... that's assuming current gas prices and peak electric rates). That's worth it. Heck, it would allow us to ignore the Middle-east, Russia, and other oil producing nations which we are currently dependent on. THAT alone would be worth it.

3: Solar and wind power HAVE BEEN more expensive than coal... but no longer. The most recently operational plant put in by First Solar costs 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour, which is less than the 9 cent grid standard. Recently installed wind farms have also beaten the grid parity price. Note that is with OPERATIONAL technology... stuff that was cutting edge in the lab three to five years ago. And both wind and solar technology have continued to improve. When the things being lab tested NOW go into mass production in a few years it won't even be close.

4: It is common knowledge that the US government subsidizes Big Oil. The amount ranges from $14 to $39 billion per year depending on whether you include the cost of things like defense of oil lanes in the Persian Gulf and guarding domestic infrastructure like the Alaska Pipeline.

5: You claim that CO2 is not a pollutant because it is naturally occurring and we need it to live. Ever heard of 'noise pollution'? Sound is naturally occurring, but the definition of 'pollutant' is ANYTHING which occurs in unhealthy or unwanted amounts. As to needing CO2 to live. Actually, no. CO2 is poisonous to humans. If you are in a sealed room with 100% CO2 to breathe you die. Quickly. If you are in a sealed room with 0% CO2 you'll be just fine so long as you have food, water, and oxygen. CO2 also absorbs infrared radiation. Which isn't a big deal until you get higher atmospheric CO2 levels than have been seen in modern geological history (currently at 385 parts per million, after varying between 170 - 310 for over a million years).

Todd| 1.7.09 @ 9:28AM

CBDunkerson,
Show me any proof that man-made carbon is causing this so-called global warming, the hockey stick graph has been shown to be a fraud but maybe you still buy it. How about the fact that the levels of the oceans have been shown not to have changed in the past 30 years? Despite Al Gore's ridiculous claims of Polar Bears drowning in mass, their populations are higher than ever before. As for your claim that we would die in 100% carbon room, that has nothing to do with anything so I don't know what you think you are trying to prove. To call carbon dioxide poisonous to humans is just a stupid statement since we breathe it out. The amount naturally occurring in the air is nowhere close to being poisonous. Tell me exactly how CO2 exist in unhealthy amounts and what effect that is having? I notice they don't call it global warming anymore but "climate change" so anything and everything can be subscribed to man-made carbon.

Go ahead and buy the Volt if you want it so much and you can pat yourself on the back. I for one will laugh at you. And by the way, more than 50% of our electricity is provided by your hated coal so you need coal to charge your car. Now with your wind and solar claims, they are patently false especially with solar. Show me a study that says solar is anywhere close to be as energy efficient as carbon based energy. There isn't one, at least one based on facts. Compare nuclear with solar and it is stunning how much more energy efficent nuclear is and how solar will never be anywhere close. Splitting the atom is the greatest achievement of man and nuclear power has been unfortunately marginalized thanks to the fear mongers on the environmental left.

Wind is very unreliable and on hot summer days when electricity is at peak demand, it will often not produce any energy. So that means you have to have a fully functioning grid able to meet demand excluding wind unless you want constant power outages. I am not writing a thesis about it but solar and wind are nowhere close to replacing carbon energy whatever your wishful thinking is.

Is that an adult enough manner for you?

eyeswideopen| 1.7.09 @ 9:36AM

CBDunkerson states:
CO2 is poisonous to humans. If you are in a sealed room with 100% CO2 to breathe you die. Quickly.

God I love this line from the ecofanatics. My reply: "If you are in a sealed room with 100%
BS you die. Quickly." CB better be careful!

Explain to us you ecogenius how such a scenario involving a 100% CO2 atmosphere would manifest itself! Sheesh!

Todd| 1.7.09 @ 9:37AM

As for your claim for for the US government subsiding Big Oil, whatever that amount is you say pales in comparison to the taxes that they pay to the government so it is very misleading in the least to say Big Oil is subsidized. I know a bit about the oil business as I covered an oil and gas company as a Research Analyst for an Investment Firm so I have a good idea on how high the tax rates are for those companies. The media made a big deal that Exxon's net profit in 2007 was $30 billion but they didn't mention they paid $50-60 billion in taxes yet there you are claiming how they are being subsidized. Anyone that knows anything about the Oil and Gas industry knows that is a fraudulent claim.

Todd| 1.7.09 @ 10:07AM

Whatever the US government spends on defending oil and gas lanes and whatnot is not a subsidy, it is what you call an investment with a very good return for them. I am sure any of us would love an investment that pays you back 5-10 times in a year. Got it CBDunkerson? I think even you might be able to grasp that basic premise. Subsidies are what solar and wind companies receive because they take taxpayer money and give back nothing because they cannot make a profit in the free market.

C. S. P. Schofield| 1.7.09 @ 10:28AM

1) I have been watching the "Alternative Energy" since I first became interested in politics in the early 1970's. All that time the proponents of Wind and Solar power have loudly assured me that their tech is "now" ready and economically viable. I will believe it when I see it, and not before ... and I will be checking the books for government handouts most carefully.

2) Disposal of batteries is already a non-trivial problem. The materials that batteries can leak into the environment if disposed of badly are highly toxic. And batteries wear out. Until this problem is addressed a lot more forthrightly than I have seen, I will maintain my serious doubts on the "environmentally friendliness" of electric cars.

3) Regardless of what happens in the transportation field, we are going to be refining oil for some time to come. Some 90% or so of all plastics are made from oil, and the few I know about that aren't are flimsy and nasty. I assume that some shifts could be made in the refining of oil to produce more plastic and less gasoline, but until told otherwise by reliable authority I also assume that no complete shift is possible. Which means that for the foreseeable future we will be producing gasoline, whether we use it or not. And, no, we aren't going to stop using plastics. Get a grip.

4) no matter how it is generated, a major shift over to electric cars would necessitate massive construction of electrical generation plants. What assurance do we have that the Usual Suspects will not block this (while many of them also beat the drum for Alternative Energy AND electric cars .. you KNOW who you are, too), and in the absence of such assurance, why should we even bother thinking about electric cars?

CBDunkerson| 1.7.09 @ 11:33AM

Todd, you ask for proof of man made warming;

1: It is a proven fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. There is a proven historical correlation between high CO2 levels and high temperatures. There are proven annual human CO2 emissions in excess of 100 times all the volcanoes on the planet combined. There is proven growth in atmospheric CO2 levels since ~280 parts per million (ppm) around 1800 up to 385 ppm now. There is proven increase in the average temperature of the planet... the past ten years had the highest average temperature on record, followed by the ten years before that and the ten years before that.

Some of us look at all of these proven things and say... obviously all the CO2 man is putting into the atmosphere is responsible for the increased temperature. Others refuse to believe these things and reach entirely different conclusions based on whichever fictions they choose to subscribe to (e.g. 'the Earth is getting colder', 'humans do not produce much CO2 at all', 'it's all sunspots I tell you!', et cetera).

2: You claim that ocean levels haven't changed for 30 years. Actually, they're up about 7 cm;

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise_png

3: "Despite Al Gore's ridiculous claims of Polar Bears drowning in mass, their populations are higher than ever before."

Untrue. The polar bear was nearly extinct 50 years ago when protections went into place. The population then grew dramatically (though still nowhere near what it was 300 years ago) before flattening out in the past 10 years or so. Charlatans point to this and say, 'look, the population is higher than when we had almost wiped them out... therefor everything must be fine'. What they don't mention is that northern polar bear populations are still growing due to the end of hunting... while southern polar bear populations are now dying out entirely. The net effect is flat growth, but also a clear indication that the growth that we would EXPECT to see due to the end of widespread hunting has been stopped by some other factor... specifically, that the polar bear's habitat range is shrinking northward.

4: "To call carbon dioxide poisonous to humans is just a stupid statement since we breathe it out."

Eyeswideopen engages in similar hyperventilating.

Do a Google search on "carbon dioxide poisoning". I 'stupidly' call it poisonous because... it is poisonous. 100% was just the extreme to show how ridiculous the 'CO2 cannot be pollution' claim is. CO2 actually becomes toxic at a mere 5%. You'd need to breathe four times as fast at 5% CO2 to keep from blacking out. Above that level it becomes deadly fast.

5: "And by the way, more than 50% of our electricity is provided by your hated coal so you need coal to charge your car."

We currently only use about 60% of that coal power. They have to keep the power output constant, which means that they keep burning coal all night even though electricity use drops way down. That's why electricity rates are lower at night. So alot of electric cars could charge up on currently WASTED power without requiring any more coal plants... even assuming we don't continue the currently ongoing transition to renewables.

6: Now with your wind and solar claims, they are patently false especially with solar. Show me a study that says solar is anywhere close to be as energy efficient as carbon based energy.

Ok, here's one;

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-thinsolar5-2009jan05,1,1659151.story

Active solar plant. Producing electricity at below grid cost. BTW... have you somehow not noticed that new wind and solar plants are popping up all over the place? Why do you suppose that is... given how 'prohibitively expensive' they are in your reality? Why is the percentage of US power coming from these sources GROWING if they are as unworkable as you say?

7: You ARE correct about wind and solar being intermittent and requiring a much more robust power grid to redirect energy from areas that are currently producing to areas which are not. However, that doesn't require any special 'new' technology. Just building of the infrastructure. Various 'energy storage' methods are also possible with current tech to help address intermittency by storing surplus power to provide load smoothing.

8: "As for your claim for for the US government subsiding Big Oil, whatever that amount is you say pales in comparison to the taxes that they pay to the government so it is very misleading in the least to say Big Oil is subsidized."

What? So... Big Oil shouldn't have to pay taxes? Everyone else who makes a profit pays taxes on it, but they shouldn't? Talk about a subsidy. Regardless, they currently receive subsidies. It's a fact. That they also pay taxes on their profits doesn't change that fact. Big Oil receives subsidies orders of magnitude larger than solar and wind power do currently. Switch that around and there is no question which would be the dominant technology.

Thomas| 1.7.09 @ 11:34AM

Re: the Vanadium Redox Batteries now in existence. PECB failed to explain the workings of the battery. It is true that charged electrolytes can be pumped into the tanks of the VRB and the battery will function without the cumbersome recharge time of a conventional battery system. However, to recharge in this manner you have to empty two relatively large tanks, store the liquid electrolytes for recharging and refill the twin tanks with charged electrolyte. Not a process that sounds either smooth or efficient.

Add to that the fact that the electrolyte must be pumped across faces of the vanadium plate in order for the system to provide energy and your system begins to become unwieldy. To top it all off, the VRB produces significantly less energy than the existing standard rechargeable battery designs on the market and operates in a significantly reduced temperature range than common rechargeables.

Maybe someday the all-electric car will be viable, but not for the foreseeable future.

Reality Bites| 1.7.09 @ 1:24PM

Hey CarGuy,

" And even if you push the envelope and the trip's close to the thing's max range, if it's a commute to work, you don't need to go anywhere for hours once you've parked and plugged in. Yes? So the beast would be fully recharged for the trip home. "

Easy for you to say. Unfortunately my employer and area retailers have refused to pay my fuel bill, albeit one way. I base that on the complete lack of any electrical outlets in the parking areas at work, the mall, the supermarket, the home center, or any other place I shop at on my way home from work (combine trips and save energy-right?). Nor do I expect them to be providing free electricity any time in the future.

Todd| 1.7.09 @ 1:45PM

CBDunkerson,
I am not going to get in a point by point debate with you because you have made up your mind about global warming but I will make a few more points before moving on from you. Maybe you believe all the proof is there and that we will all die if we don't go "green" immediately like in Al Gore's global warming propaganda film Inconvenient Truth. The time for debate is far from over whatever that fraudulent demagogue says. Here is a Wikipedia site for you if you make the claim that scientist all agree in man-made global warming. There are many other factors other than man at work and the earth is not nearly as fragile as you eco-extremists make it out to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

We will not hand over the economy to environmental extremist because of their fear mongering, green has become the new red as in communism and total power of the State. We know many of these environmentalist despise capitalism and will use whatever means they can to destroy it. Actually, many of them hate civilization itself and think man is a plague to the planet.

I read your LA Times story and it seems to be based on the claim of one person without any real solid basis. Sorry but that is not proof of anything. Sure it might be getting more efficient but is far behind the efficiency of nuclear power and will never be close. Solar power at best will be able to fill a niche market for our energy needs and is not a large scale solution.

Your bias against oil is very apparent, I did not say anything about whether or not oil companies should pay taxes but to refute your nonsense about oil companies being subsidized. Let me take down your subsidy argument once more since you just don't seem to get it but maybe you never taken an economics class and were a political science major at some liberal arts school. The government is not providing a subsidy to oil companies by protecting shipping lanes, that is called national security. Whatever money the government spends on security, they receive at least 10 fold back in taxes. Now I actually did a little research into how much is spent on energy subsidies right from the US Government and it proves your claim is preposterous so why don't you get the facts first. If you care to learn some real facts and not leftist propaganda, you can check this site out.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm
The reason why all these solar and wind plants are popping up is directly related to the amount of subsidies they receive. Don't even get me started on the outrage that is ethanol. If you can see the facts for what they are, you are the one who is intellectually bankrupt.

Todd| 1.7.09 @ 1:46PM

I meant to say if you can't see the facts for what they are just to clarify.

kelly| 1.7.09 @ 1:52PM

A viable electric car (60mi/day - 20,000+ mi/yr)
has been on sale since late year:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/12/byd-f3dm-plug-i.html
Plus, ICE included: $21,900 USD

James| 1.8.09 @ 4:05PM

It would be a convenience to live rather close to a hydroelectric plant, as Bolder Dam, otherwise the additional cost of electrical supply to home and office will require a substantial increase in hydrocarbon fuels – natural gas, oil or coal. No wind farm or solar facility can efficiently replace hydrocarbon fuels. Oh, what did Obama promise -- Shutting in the coal industry? Well that will get the community organized, especially in winter as we huddle together for warmth.

James Poch | 1.8.09 @ 8:55PM

Since when is buying fuel from Chavez, Putin, and the King of Saudi Arabia conservative? Since when is relying on one fuel for transportation smart (97% of transportation uses petroleum). Just because liberals support the electrification of the transportation sector, try not to discount it for that reason alone.

To Mr. Peter's credit, he has his facts straight but I offer two examples of economics to put this all in perspective. First, rent the movie Wall Street. Remember Gordon Gecko on the beach speaking on his brick sized wireless cell phone. That technological wonder was supposed to depict something only the ridiculously wealthy could afford. We all now own, one one-tenth the size and probably one tenth the cost - ditto for flat screen TV's that used to be priced at $10K. My guess is that all these folks who have disdain for expensive electric cars do not share the same disdain for country club dues, an overpriced meal at Ruth Chris, and yes when they turn 50, a red convertible that may or may not make them more attractive to younger women.

Second, look at the larger economic numbers. For every dollar we spend with Chavez, Putin, or the King of Saudi Arabia, we have to spend two dollars to prevent influence in South America, invasion in Ossetia, or rebuilding two towers that went down in New York. Do you remember how much money this country spent to confront Russia's tyranny in the 20th century. How many lives lost on the battlefields of Korea, Viet Nam? If our country diversified its transportation fuels to include natural gas / electricity / etc., the cost of oil would go even lower than it is now, we could bury any chance of Russia's resurgence, and we could permanently enjoy low gas prices where it makes sense.

Plugin hybrids, pure electrics, hybrids, are smart and conservative.

Mike Nystrom| 1.9.09 @ 5:25PM

CBDunkerson. Maybe you are confusing CO2 (carbon dioxide) with CO (carbon monoxide). If you are in a room with 100% CO2, you die quickly, but not from poisoning, but from lack of oxygen. The same thing happens if you are in a room full of N2 (nitrogen, 80% of the atmosphere) or helium, an inert gas. CO is however very toxic, and only small quantities will kill you almost instantly, since the lungs will no longer go for the oxygen in the air but only the CO.

As for "global warming", you have probably made up your mind and you will probably not be convinced for another 10 years or so of nothing happening. But it is actually just a theory with some scattered anekdotes that seem to support it. The world is always warming or cooling and some peaople are always panicking about it. We were in a slight warming trend until 1998. Almost all of that warming is now erased and we are back to some normal. CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with climate, despite what you have heard. (Other than that CO2 levels rise when the oceans warm up. Warm water can hold less CO2 that cold water). There is usually a lag of a few hundred years after a warming starts (due to the unimaginable heat content of the oceans) until we see the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. If you watch Al Gores movie you can actually see this in the graphs he presents (although he for some reason overlooked this). It is pretty obvious from the ice core samples.

CO2 is still what we call a trace gas. There is like a teaspoon of it for every cubic mile of atmosphere. One of the great things is that it so easy to verify how much radiation is trapped by CO2 compared to water vapor (water vapor being the most important greenhouse gas that keeps us alive here on earth). This is done in a lab and can be repeated in any lab anywhere in the world with the same result. It shows that if the CO2 would double to 560 ppm one day, this amount would be able to trap 4 W/m2 (up from current 2.5 W/m2). Compare this to the 1500 W/m2 that is radiated from the sun to the earth every second. Naturally, this will not make any difference. The phenomenon is non-linear, so if you double the CO2 level again, the increase in trapped energy is even less and so on. Again, this is not a theory, but something that can be repeated and the result predicted in a lab environment. That is why you never hear any physicist talk about AGW.

kelly| 1.9.09 @ 7:12PM

@Mike Nystrom
How did at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science miss your conclusions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Mike Nystrom| 1.10.09 @ 5:41AM

They did not miss it, but if you want to be funded well, you have to give lipservice to the hot topic of the day (no pun intended). This is nothing rare. During the LBJ administration, you simply had to add the words "cure cancer" to any request for grants if you were in the medecine research business, or you were simply wasting your time.

And by the way, you should not use wikipedia as a reference when you are trying to convince people about your view in a disputed topic like AGW. It simply ruins your credibility. As you know, anybody can change or edit the information in a wikipedia article. I (or anybody else) cannot know if you just wrote that article that you just linked to. Wikipedia is great if you are looking for infomation about the area of Denmark or the height of Mt Everest or stuff like that :)

Have a good one...

kelly| 1.10.09 @ 3:48PM

Mike Nystrom - Anyone can check the thirty separate scientific websites and quotes Wikipedia references. Not understanding this:
"It simply ruins your credibility."

Mike Nystrom| 1.10.09 @ 4:35PM

Don't get me wrong. I did not mean that you actually did write or tweak the article. It is just that Wikipedia has gotten such a bad reputation lately. Many has been caught fiddeling with wikipedia articles, from the Pentagon to climate activists. Nobody that wants to be taken seriously makes references to wikipedia in a contested topic. Would you trust wikipedia on the background to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I did not think so :)

I am sure that there are about 30 institutions that subscribe to AGW. And don't be surprised if there will be a sudden exodus from that standpoint. Scientists often behave like lemmings. They will go where the money is. (I have worked in science myself and our prime goal was not the welfare of humanity, but to get funding for one more year. Life in these institutions are very, very, very comfortable). But the temperature peaked over a decade ago and some people are getting very nervous that they will look like a fool if they are the last to defend a discredited theory.

Mike Nystrom| 1.10.09 @ 4:46PM

Kelly, I rest my case with these quotes from wikitruth...

I do not consider [Wikipedia] to be an appropriate source for use in academic work.
— Robert Rubin, Wright State University [2]

Relying on the Wikipedia for academic research seems a sloppy and negligent way to work.
— Wayne Bivens-Tatum, Princeton University [3]

I would advise teachers not to accept any student essays that use Wikipedia as a source.
— Paul Axelrod, Dean of York University [4]

Wikipedia is not getting better. It is getting worse. ... Wikipedia is unacceptable as a research tool.
— Ken Friedman, Norwegian School of Management [5]

The important point that we wish to communicate to all students taking courses and submitting work in our department in the future is that they cite Wikipedia at their peril.
— Don Wyatt, History Chair, Middlebury[6]

There are now enough serious incidents of false and defamatory information in Wikipedia biographies to warrant prohibiting this as a reference source in universities and university-level professional schools. ... This is made worse by the fact that Wikipedia is an automatic flow-through resource for other on-line sources.
— Ken Friedman, Norwegian School of Management

kelly| 1.10.09 @ 5:37PM

Mike Nystrom -- AGW without Wikipedia:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109115047.htm
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
http://www.cics.uvic.ca/scenarios/index.cgi?More_Info-Emissions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/12/climatechange.carbonemissions
http://www.mccip.org.uk/arc/2007/default.htm
http://www.unep-wcmc.org/climate/default.aspx
....
Still the same CO2/global warming conclusions.

Mike Nystrom| 1.10.09 @ 5:46PM

You don't seem to understand, but that is OK. I tried to talk about two different subjects at the same time. The reliability of wikipedia and lemming behaviour of some scientists. I give up on you.

Funny that you should reference the guardian of all "newspapers". Take care now, Kelly, and don't have nightmares about global warming. Nothing will happen :)

Bob R| 1.10.09 @ 7:18PM

The whole concept of Global Warming has no supportive science behind it. The idea was to pin the blame on mankind's dependence on carbon based fossil fuels and to force a crash development of green energy on the world within a period of 10 years, an impossibly brief time to replace the energy demands of western civilization. The demonizing of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the weakest link in their arguments. Had the Greens any brains at all they would have found that a study of ancient climates shows no drastic warming even when CO2 exceeded the present 390 ppm in our air by over 12 times. This occurred over a long period of time (over 100 million years) during the Mesozoic Era and life of that time thrived. Dinosaurs ruled, land, sea & air. Primitive birds evolved from reptiles. Mammals evolved but remained small due to dino predation. Birds evolved from reptiles, feathers replacing scales. Flowering plants evolved and trees and other vegitiation thrived in the high CO2 atmosphere, (still less than 1/2 of one %). I am a retired geologist and have deplored this travesty to real science ever since it appeared in the Kyoto Protocols over 10 years ago.

kelly| 1.10.09 @ 7:33PM

Mike -- We understand and achieved lemming behavior without scientists. It was refered to as the Bush Administration.. :)

kelly| 1.10.09 @ 8:05PM

Satellites show polar ice melting, which seems to fit global warming: Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegration Underscores a Warming World
http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3350631/Arctic-becomes-an-island-as-ice-melts.html

Peter Oppewall | 1.13.09 @ 2:48PM

True, electric and hybrid cars at present cost more to purchase than gas powered vehicles. Operating and repair costs? Arguably electric and hybrids are cheaper on a miles per kilowatt basis vs mpg, and far fewer parts mean less maintenance.
A valid comparison of the "economics 101" of gas vs electric transport must compare the "overall" cost of gas as a fuel, not what we pay at the dealer, or at the pump, for this is a small fraction of the true cost of gasoline. If you consider the billions of dollars in tax subsidies to the oil industry,
(such as paying zero royalties for oil drilled in US coastal waters), or the tens of billions spent on "protecting" oil supplies with the military (hint: more spent protecting supply than the value of the supply itself) or the incalculable human health costs in lung disease, asthma, respiratory problems, and cancer from gasoline combustion. then gasoline is certainly no bargain. Or how about the effect of gasoline on global carbon emissions which we now know account for around 30% of all emissions? How much is that costing us? As long as we continue to subsidize oil, privatize the profits and socialize the costs we will continue to be like frogs who, when placed in a pot of water on a stove, fail to notice they are incrementally being boiled alive and thus never jump out of the pot. The difference here, is that at least frogs aren't the one's placing themselves in the pot, and cranking on the heat as people are with using oil as a fuel. The US government has for the past 100 years subsidized the oil industry. It's time to end this practice, and make gas prices reflect the true cost of oil.

Pingback| 2.3.09 @ 5:16PM

Cooler Heads Digest | Global Warming links to this page.

Pingback| 2.20.09 @ 3:49AM

1997 Suburban Gmc Fuel Pump Replace Cost Mercury 99 Hp Outboard Motor Fuel Pump High links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Cl Condenser Fan Blade What's up guys! 86 F350 - what to do? - Diesel Forum - The Diesel … Daily Automobile Maintenance Answers: How do you buy the right … 86 Suburban - anything that can be done? - Fuel Economy … The American Spectator : Electric Cars and Economics 101 GRAND BANKS 46 EUROPE Classified Ad on Free Advertising Website Dekut - Sexy Lingerie Nauticat 43 Boat For Sale -…

Pingback| 3.6.09 @ 3:38PM

I love cars me! | Spiders Net links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Love Cars » Blog Archive » Ashlee Simpson Baby (boo)? Free Range Librarian › Lessons from my hybrid car Is it true you tell me we’re failing to see that we were dreaming … The American Spectator : Electric Cars and Economics 101 This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 14th, 2007 at 3:20 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can…

Trackback| 6.9.09 @ 1:00AM

Replica Model Ships, on Replica Model Ships, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

The interview took place late last month as a result of the book that Van der Eem is having an American journalist write. The maker of the programme Un Dia Den Bida said before De Telegraaf: “ I have taken two cameras with me. I had one turned off after the interview, and the other kept on rolling. Van der Eem didn’ t know that the camera was rolling and he kept answering my questions.” The entire interview will be transmitted on the Aruban TV tonight.

Pingback| 8.8.09 @ 8:36PM

How To Improve Air Quality With Alternative Fuels! | Chemical Agents links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Should We Squander $3 Trillion On New Nuclear Plants, As The … Fillr Up Tap Water Please | Autos BlogShots MotoringFile » Archive » Bring the MINI Cooper Diesel to the US The American Spectator : Electric Cars and Economics 101 MILITARY & OBSERVE AVIATION « Semoa's Weblog Bookmark this article This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 20th, 2009 at 4:11 pm and is filed under Benzene Products.…

Pingback| 10.26.09 @ 8:49PM

¤ Solar Power Industries Grow With Clean Air Demands ¤ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…about $100 a year in energy … What is the True Demand For Electric Cars? | GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt … Global Warming: White Man's Problem – Reason Magazine The American Spectator : Electric Cars and Economics 101 As melhores marcas do ano | Ronny Santana™ Post a comment Click here to cancel reply. Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website Categories Advice Business…

hgjhgj| 11.16.09 @ 1:04AM

M2TS Video Converter,
M2TS Video Converter

uytughj| 11.17.09 @ 10:52PM

iPod Touch Converter for Mac,
DVD to iPod Touch Converter for Mac

ganv| 12.4.09 @ 9:01AM

This is sensible short term thinking... the kind of thinking that is going to leave the US bankrupt from deficits, medicare, social security and sending huge fractions of our wealth to Saudi Arabia. In the longer term (20-50 years) we have to get our transportation system off oil, and electric/hybrid cars will be a part of the answer. Everything is for rich people when first introduced: think automobiles, airline travel, even running water. Get your head out of next year and start thinking about something that matters in the long run.

fdgfd| 12.29.09 @ 4:31AM

iPod to Mac Transfer,
iPod to Mac Transfer

uytt| 2.25.10 @ 3:16AM

DVD PAL to NTSC,
PAL DVD to NTSC

ink free shipping | 3.23.10 @ 2:46AM

it is cool

goplot| 4.22.10 @ 1:48AM

ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010Winning is without value if victory has been achieved ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 or dishonestly. Cheating is easy, but brings no pleasure. Playing ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 requires courage and character. It is also more satisfying. ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
always has its reward, even when the game is lost. Playing fair earns you respect, while cheats are detested. Remember: It's only a game. And games are pointless unless played ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010

I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. PoptropicaWhen all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You

Both FIFA and UEFA have awards which they hand out to individuals or groups of people who have promoted what they see as the spirit of ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
, both within and outside of football. An example of this was the Italian player Paolo Di Canio who, while not given an award, was congratulated by many sections of the football world for a generous display of ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
. Despite having a goal scoring opportunity while playing for West Ham United against Everton, when Di Canio saw the Everton goalkeeper had picked up an injury, instead of scoring what could have been the easiest goal of his career, he caught the ball, thus stopping ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
and allowing the goalkeeper to receive treatment

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. PoptropicaZeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale Poptropica

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. PoptropicaHe will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica

fjdsk| 4.24.10 @ 5:09AM

inflatables on sale

Mobile Phone Mobile Phones | 3.22.12 @ 8:15AM

Thank YoU
Mobile Phone Mobile Phones

More Articles by Eric Peters

More Articles From Car Guy

Speed Limiters, Too?

December 28, 2012 | Eric Peters

You’re in the AutoZone

December 10, 2012 | Eric Peters

Sayonara, Suzuki

November 30, 2012 | Eric Peters

85 MPH: Almost a Speed Limit

November 16, 2012 | Eric Peters

Nano Seconds

October 24, 2012 | Eric Peters

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/06/electric-cars-and-economics-10

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Heritage, Levin Call for Immigration Debate

Jeffrey Lord|14 comments

NSA’s Disclosures Cast Confusing Shadows

Luca Gattoni-Celli|8 comments

Exit the IRS Stage Left

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|20 comments

Oregon Uncovered

David Hogberg|8 comments

Lincoln on the Defensive

Christopher Orlet|14 comments

Another IRS Outrage

Kevin Mooney|7 comments

‘That De Gaulle, He Is Somebody’

Mark Tooley|2 comments

The Tea Party Returns to Washington

Kaylin Bugos|5 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Do Americans Need 12 More Years of Low Wages?

Matthew Walther | 9:25AM

James Gandolfini, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 6.19.13

An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War

John Tabin | 6.19.13

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 6.19.13

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 6.19.13

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 6.19.13

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 6.19.13

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 6.19.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Obama's Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara | 6.19.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

Barack's Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr | 6.19.13

There's Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn | 6.19.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman | 6.19.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.