Talk:Electric car/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Electric car. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

While I'm all for BEV's becoming available, this article is not close to NPOV. Looking back in on the article after a couple years I see that there are still numerous uncited and unsupportable statements, and many that are exaggerated. As soon as I get a chance I'll pull out a bunch of it to point out the specific problems. Further examples are using press releases to cite facts, which don't count as reliable sources. It would be better to not have distorted information that to leave it in. - Taxman ^Talk 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here are four diffs to show examples of what I've referring to. There's lots more to go. [1] [2] [3] [4]. - Taxman ^Talk 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadly one year later it hasn't really got anywhere. It is laughably POV. Greg Locock (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Without disparaging all the work that I'm sure has gone into trying to clean this article up, to my reading it's still very one-sided. I just about dropped one of those "the neutrality of this article is disputed" templates at the top, but drive-by templating is mean.

Electric vehicles are a great idea, don't get me wrong, but they are not a cure-all for the energy crisis or for global warming. They look as rosy as they do in this article only if you ignore the generation of the electricity it takes to charge the batteries -- but you can't ignore that. The charging electricity has to be generated somewhere, at the same cost in resources and emissions that electricity generation always entails. TANSTAAFL. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a Green energy-only-company? --Flammingo^Hey 23:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't quote me but I have heard that most of the Toyota Rav4EVs have had solar panels added to increase their range, and that many of the owners have solar panels at home, so most of the electricity used is 0 emissions. The National Solar project on the Capital Mall required the design of a building that included enough extra solar panels to power an electric car. Electric cars by themselves are not the cure-all, but they are almost half of the solution, the other half being solar panels, wind farms, hydro-storage, etc. 199.125.109.29 (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Although electric maybe redundant, it helps people understand we are talking about electric vehicles. I vote we rename it back to battery electric vehicle. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just move it back. According to the edit summary, the point was to try to change the standard industry terminology, not something that Wikipedia does.[5] 199.125.109.89 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the way to do the split. This article needs to be moved to Electric car and a new article Battery electric vehicle needs to be created with milk float and anything else you want in it. This is necessary to retain the history of the article. 199.125.109.18 (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we either work with what we've got or we do as you suggest. I'm inclined to rebuild this article since Electric Car is not too bad now. Someone removed a lot of content from this article which looked more like wp:point than useful editing. I shall add stuff that is common to all EVs such as batteries etc back in. Greg Locock (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Short of using big (and I mean BIG) banks of resistors, how exactly were people supposed to use EDISON DC to recharge their batteries? DC-DC down-conversion without going to AC is problematic, or at best unwieldy (DC motor drives dynamo). DC to DC up-conversion has fewer options. As in so much else of this article it is unreferenced and unlikely.Greg Locock (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Greglocock, aren't you confusing terms? George Westinghouse was promoting AC, while Thomas Edison championed DC. See War of Currents —Quicksilver^{T @} 21:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I was. Sorted out now! Greg Locock (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

link to impending vehicle: [6] --Billymac00 (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited the 'running costs' section of this article.

I didn't have time to find my sources for battery charge efficiencies as well as battery->inverter->motor efficiencies, but I know they are accurate. I'll find them and add them in in the near future. The previous calculation was incomplete, and didn't take energy conversion efficiencies into account which significantly affects the result.

209.97.222.2 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pedestrians are less aware of quiet vehicles, and are more likely to collide with them.

I call Bull Shit on that statement. By the time you hear the car, it's kinda too late to be looking for it. I'm not even sure how this makes sense. Are you in danger because you're going to cross the street WITHOUT LOOKING? I'm not sure how this problem is related to noise instead of common sense.

I'd going to go ahead and remove it. It's completely irrational. See Jaywalking for more information. --Can Not 06:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What about blind people? In a quiet parking lot, I think people don't bother looking if they can normally hear a car coming. A pedestrian can react instantly to the noise of a car, they can just stop walking and start looking. Daniel.Cardenas 15:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if people aren't smart enough to look both ways to cross the street, what's the point of blaming quiet cars? You've made it clear enough that the pedestrians are putting themselves at fault. Also, we seem to be ignoring the driving side of the issue. Drivers actually hit a small fraction of the pedestrians that they could have hit. Pedestrians make almost no noise at all, but drivers still hit close to none of them. The only remotely logical risk is when a blind man walks alone between columns of cars, and the blind man is in the car's blind spot. The fatal flaw, however, is that the blind man should not be walking around without a seeing-eye pet or a friend, and the blind man can't drive cars so he would almost never have a need to be in a parking lot without someone else to drive. Blind people walking alone in itself is a problem. I will not let electric cars be a scapegoat for problems related to human error and disabled people.--Can Not 13:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rply: I agree with you. I'm hearing impaired and I ALWAYS look both ways before crossing a street. One day, I was in my car driving along the highway parallel to a train track. The scariest thing is that I had no idea that a train was on the tracks behind my vehicle. My windows were up and and I did not hear the train on the tracks. Needless to say, it scared the crap out of me when I saw a train chugging along beside me. The use of a radio has nothing to do with it. Deaf people drive all the time. They observe their surroundings with their eyes. So it doesn't matter if vehicles are loud or quiet...LOOK both ways. A seeing eye dog does and is trained to follow certain procedures when crossing roads with its charge in the first place.Thank you kindly.68.217.204.11 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)((Tammy Hutchison 04/10/2008))

With that line of thinking, cars shouldn't have seat belts. Also why bother with 15 mph school zones. Its the childrens fault anyways. They deserve to get run over if they don't watch out for cars. Daniel.Cardenas 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the driver would be held responsible for not watching the road. --Can Not 19:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright. You win. GMA has official decided to add loud huming speakers to the headlights and tail lights of their car. Source[7] --Can Not 23:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A very small speaker can be added to the front of the car and used as a noisemaker at low speeds, sort of like putting playing cards in the spokes of a bicycle wheel, but using less power. Simulate a Ferrari if you want. 199.125.109.31 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an important enough issue to be listed in the article. Here's a link to some information on this subject:

http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/blind-people-hybrid-cars-pose-hazard/n20071003012309990002 :

"Because hybrids make virtually no noise at slower speeds when they run solely on electric power, blind people say they pose a hazard to those who rely on their ears to determine whether it's safe to cross the street or walk through a parking lot."

"the president of the NFB's Maryland chapter planned to present written testimony asking for a minimum sound standard for hybrids to be included in the state's emissions regulations."

"Officials with two separate arms of the U.S. Department of Transportation - the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration - said they are aware of the problem but have not studied it."

BradMajors 20:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the link to the patent? patents are publicly accessible.

how much were these large format nimhs? how much power could they hold compared to li-ion? all this needs to be shown and verified, it has to be more than a manufacturer claim. If this is a conspiracy and the reason why the electric car fails in the us, why does it not work over seas where the patent is apparently not applicable? that section seems to be based on the assumption the nimh's were the magic bullet for viability. this needs proof to be more than conspiratorial mumbo jumbo.

I'm just talking below. Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with anything.

>Where is the link to the patent?

I read a news story that chevron or some oil company threatened a lawsuit on Toyota because of the batteries in their hybrids. They settled out of court where Toyota agreed to keep their batteries small.

>how much power could they hold compared to li-ion?

Li-ion is better, but car manufacturers are very conservative with new technology. If you studied new technology trends in the auto industry you might see that it takes 5 years before the technology is in showrooms. Lots of safety concerns, durability concerns, and then time to mass produce. Right now they are concerned about cold weather power. Would be nice if they just started selling them to warm weather areas.

actually battery usage always has to be conservative with ev's. the fastest way to kill the battery is to use its full capacity on a regular basis. thats why the prius only uses a fraction of its capacity to prolong its life. this extends the life at the cost of vastly reducing efficiency in energy storage vs weight. if you put a new wiz bang battery into a car it has to last more than a few years, and it can't explode or burn or leak because it was left out in the sun or overheats or whatever. it has to be usable on a daily basis. one can do a lot of things if its a one time stunt, its much harder to build something that is truly viable in everyday use. right now they are concerned about longevity and cost as much as cold weather. its why the only viable ev is the tesla where money is no object and practicality is a low priority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Womulee (talk • contribs) 11:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

>why does it not work over seas where the patent is apparently not applicable?

Keep in mind that the U.S. is the worlds largest car market. You'd be surprised how many cards get sold in the U.S. compared to over seas. I've read that a manufacturer has to produce at least 40K cars per year in order to make it profitable.

Daniel.Cardenas 13:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

only 40k? because the markets in europe and japan are just simply huge as well. and they have plenty of cars models that we do not have. so simply not having an american market is not enough to sink a car at all. in fact some european car brands aren't even sold in the us;) think french/italian...

>why does it not work over seas where the patent is apparently not applicable?

Actually they claim worldwide patent rights. Daniel.Cardenas 22:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

actually there are limits to patent holders rights. it would seem to be a case where companies could sue over violation of antitrust laws. and in other countries i'm sure the laws against such stuff is even stronger.

and well i'm pretty sure the eu or japan have the power to basically ignore this patent limitation if they so choose. i do remember hearing about different patent laws over things like software in the eu, so its not all the same.

I see the discussion of pressure from Cheveron's NiMH patents has been completely removed. When it was in there, it looked like it was fairly well-documented. Could that be put back in, please? 75.18.201.56 06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed some material from the article which claimed that the total cost of ownership was lower of an electric vehicle. The claim was unreferenced and almost certainly incorrect. For example, the GM EV1 costs $40,000 according to the article for a two-seater subcompact, which is about $25,000 more than a comparable ICE car and which would not be compensated for by fuel cost savings.

The claim could plausibly be true for countries with very high gasoline taxes, or with vehicles (like the Tesla Roadster) that are intended to compete against cars that get very poor gas mileage. Twerges (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The costs are pretty speculative. In theory an electric car is a lot cheaper to make than a gasoline car because it has fewer parts. Gasoline prices are now determined by supply and demand and not by taxes - if you added a $2 tax gas would still cost $4/gallon, not $6, because of supply and demand. My guess is that gasoline will reach $20/gallon before the end of the decade (but a lot less in Euros). The EV1 was not mass produced and if it had been mass produced who knows what it would have cost. Theoretically it would have cost less (purchase price would be less) than a comparable ICE car, making total cost hugely less because electricity is like buying gas for $0.60/gallon. Notice that GM thought the EV1 so evil that it had to round them all up and destroy them all (quote is from "Who killed the electric car").199.125.109.89 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is highly disputed that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases, and there is no point in having someone from France add that electricity can be made in a nuclear reactor to this article. 199.125.109.42 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference about nuclear power emitting greenhouses gases? Do you have something against the French people? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an edit war in progress over the inclusion of references to nuclear energy as a potential energy source for electric cars in this article. To me, it seems that including nuclear energy as a source of electric power for such vehicles is a pertinent and important subject that is critically related to the content of this article. However, I shall stay away from the current edit war. Consider this a warning that, should this edit war continue, I will escalate the matter to admins on this notice board. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My apology for the comment on the nationality of the editor. However yes I can provide a reference that shows that nuclear is a huge emitter of greenhouse gases, both in the construction of the plant, making concrete is a huge greenhouse gas emitter, in the mining of Uranium, tons of CO2 emitted, in the decommisioning and waste storage as well. Adding nuclear to this article is just trolling and nothing else. Most people with electric cars also have solar panels and get their electricity from solar power. Only in France or in Illinois would anyone actually be getting a significant portion of the electricity to run the car from nuclear. It adds nothing to the article. There are a minority of nuclear nutheads running around Wikipedia adding nuclear to every article they can think of in the hopes of promoting nuclear as a solution to global warming, when nuclear is only like jumping from the stove to the frying pan and is not a solution to global warming and is projected to be gone completely within the century. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet I know that Daniel.Cardenas is anything but a "nuclear nuthead." Furthermore, significant increases in demand on the utility grid will increase the possibility of new nuclear plants coming on line to meet the increased demands. Recent plans for massive nuclear power buildup in China reinforce this prediction. Power generation sources for EVs will play an important role in any progress made in "mainstreaming" EVs. It is biased to include references to renewable power while deleting references to nuclear power. Note that I am personally scared to death by the possibility of a bunch of new nuke plants, but if we ignore that possibility, we risk allowing such plants to slip in "under the radar." Respectfully, Fbagatelleblack (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said adding it is simply trolling. Massive buildup in China? Don't even start on China. China is building two new coal plants a week. Nuclear fuel runs out in 20 years with the existing nuclear plants. There will never be a "massive buildup" anywhere in the world. One article points out that if 1500 new nuclear plants were built they would only reduce CO2 emissions by 20% (neglecting of course CO2 emitted by construction, transportation, mining, processing etc.) and the likelihood of a Chernobyl happening would be once every 5 years (1 in 10,000 reactor years). Nuclear is not relevant to electric cars and does not need to be mentioned in the article. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that as an engineer if I thought that the only source of energy available was nuclear energy I would still point out that this article is not the place to explain where energy comes from. Fortunately there is more solar energy available in a year than will ever be obtained from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear combined, forever. Whew. That is indeed a relief. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

to 199.125.109.89: You are going off the deep end by saying that the construction and mining emissions count as pollution. Solar panels large enough to replace a nuclear plant would have similar construction and mining emissions. These mining operations could be powered by electricity. If we make breeders legal again then we wouldn't need to mine or sequester. Solar is nice if you live in the SW USA, but what about the rest of the country? What about winter and night? To gather that solar energy in a year you are talking about would require a collector the size of England. Yes, I am an engineer too (ME), so what? Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 22:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss anything about nuclear. Suffice it to say that it is irrelevant to the article, and clearly trolling. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion of irrelevance does not suffice to dictate content on this article. Consensus of interested editors, on the other hand, will. You have not yet established a rationale as to why references to renewable resources are relevant, but references to nuclear energy are not. Please do so. BTW, I am also an engineer with several years experience in electric vehicle development, so do not be afraid to get technical. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A common but incorrect argument against electric cars is that you have to get the electricity from somewhere and in the US that means mostly from coal meaning that you still put the same amount of CO2 into the air. The most common response is, but you can get the electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind. That's all that needs to be said, although it can be added that even getting the electricity 100% from coal puts less CO2 into the air because of the efficiency advantage that electric cars have over ICEs. You have to admit that the argument is one of how do you improve the world and no one can argue that nuclear power is a step in that direction. I would really like to avoid the discussion by not even bringing it up, other than just the necessary points about efficiency and using renewable energy. 199.125.109.42 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is trivial, but since you guys are arguing I'll give my opinion. Nuclear energy is more practical than solar energy and thus should have a higher priority in the article. Arguments given against it need references, and I don't believe they are valid when considering apples to apples. I have references that counter the claims above for nuclear power. Near Phoenix Az, there is a large nuclear plant capable of powering the entire state, if it weren't for California purchasing much of the energy. 19% of the U.S. gets its electricity from nuclear. I haven't seen any projections of nuclear gone in 100 years and find the statement absurd. There is plenty of fuel for nuclear power to last a billion years[8]. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)--Uruhara k (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got a few engineering degrees, so I'll jump in as well. If you read everything 199.125.109.42 has said in this topic, you'll notice that interestingly he talks about sources he doesn't site, and then claims some "nuclear nuthead" have an extreme bias, noting that "when nuclear is only like jumping from the stove to the frying pan and is not a solution to global warming"

Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions. There is no reason not to say EV's are a paradigm shift, detaching the cost and pollution of power generation from the vehicle and placing it at electrical generation plants. Nuclear power is one such sited method of electrical generation that has the added bonus of an electrical corridor between generation and use of zero co2 emmision. If you clarify the point you are claiming, your arguement stands on legs. I'm not saying the building of the plant doesn't generate co2. If I did that, I could only fairly point out the pollution caused by building and maintaining the gasoline infrastructure. I'm far too lazy to calculate such an absurdity, so I'd rather compare where EV's are little to no polution in the energy chain vs ICE, it's easier to find supporting facts than to speculate and argue opinions.--Uruhara k (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a plug in hybrid, not an electric car. It does not belong in this article. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrectly limiting the definition of an electric car to that of a battery electric vehicle. An electric vehicle is one in which some or all of the power required for motive force is provided via electricity. We should change the introduction of this article to reflect this correction, and we should allow reference to any vehicle which gets at least the majority of its energy and power via electricity. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you are incorrectly defining this article. The standard industry definition of "electric car" is "battery electric vehicle" and the common name is "electric car". The volt is a plug in hybrid, and we do have an article that describes plug-in hybrids. This isn't it. The only reason we have two articles about battery electric vehicles is to have a place to put BEVs that are not electric cars. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. HEV is an acronym for hybrid ELECTRIC vehicle. PHEV is an acronym for plug-in hybrid ELECTRIC vehicle. These vehicles are, by definition ELECTRIC cars. I restate my position that any vehicle that, at the very least, gets the majority of its energy and power via electricity should be eligible for referencing. Let's see how other editors feel about these definitions, and make edits according to the consensus view. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. You are not likely to find even one other editor who agrees with you. You are telling me that the Prius should really be in this article, and the Honda Insight? Not a chance. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If consensus is with your limited definition, I shall abide by it. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I for one disagree with the limited definition. If someone can not site multiple sources that reference BEV's PHEV's and HEV's seperately when talking about anything that is not a summation of electric vehicles, nor a discussion of specific fuel characteristics such as MPG, then editors should refuse to consider the limited defintion to be the "industry standard".--Uruhara k (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Volt is a hyrid and should go in on of the hybrid articles. We don't need multiple sources for simple definitions. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary.com defines and electric car as "a car that is powered by electricity." Note that it does NOT say "...exclusively by electricity." See definition here. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the English language is that the sentence does in fact mean "exclusively" because otherwise it would have a further qualification, which does not appear. 199.125.109.42 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

When I say, "I eat pasta," I do not mean that I eat only pasta. I do not need further qualification to make that point clear, much though I do love pasta. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I can add my gas guzzler? It is an electric vehicle if I put it in first gear and crank the starter. However as is mentioned especially in the electric vehicle article there are many other types of storage other than batteries. I remember seeing an electric car that used flywheel storage about 20 years ago. What matters is, is the only way you get energy from electricity? If you get energy from two sources, you move from being an electric car to being a hybrid, and we have a separate article for those vehicles. Here is a question for you, should the Venturi Astrolab be here? It gets energy both from solar panels and from the grid. And what about the Venturi Eclectic - it not only has solar panels but also comes with a wind turbine that you can put up when parked. I would argue that solar panels are going to become a standard feature on all electric cars just as a way of extending their range. The Volt "range extender" is not exactly novel. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this for a definition: If you remove the ICE it is still fully operational within the limits of its battery. The Volt would fit this, the Prius would not. In my mind the Volt is an EV with a built in generator. Think of a BEV with a genset trailer - does it lose its EV status just because you attached the genset trailer? So now I mount the genset trailer in the trunk of a BEV - did it just loose its EV status? I don't think so. On the other hand, a Prius wont go over ~30 mph without its ICE, its complicated transmission and electronic controls might not work at all without the ICE attached, so it is not an EV. Bluetd

Modifications do not establish the definition. There are many converted electric cars on the road that started out as ICE cars. There is a company that produces electric cars by buying new ICE cars, and then stripping out the gas tank and motor and adding batteries, motor and controller. The definition of an electric car is "unmodified does it get all it's energy directly from electricity either from electrically charging it or from electricity produced from its own devices such as solar panels or built in wind turbine". If it gets all its energy from built in solar panels it is a solar car, but it is also an electric car, although it is very different from the plug in electric cars. There are no production solar cars at this time, but there are a lot of solar race cars. This article does not include solar cars at the present time. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cite the source for your definition of an electric car. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I made it up. 199.125.109.42 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to dictate content for an article using definitions you create on your own. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your original work. It is an encyclopedia in which the popular usage of a term such as electric cars should dictate content. See the referenced definition I posted earlier for an explanation of what the term "electric car" means in popular usage.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article I suggest it mean, exclusively electric. Otherwise we have other articles that are more appropriate such as hybrid electric. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This is bantering over nothing. The term "electric car" is by nature a colloquial rather than technical term, and therefore its meaning can vary. So, how about we have an article titled "Electric Car" that covers all the possible categories that the term covers, with links to specific articles that describe the individual types (such as BEVs, PHEVs, and dual-drive hybrids like the Prius) in greater detail. Sounds like common sense to me. That's probably why it is already what's been done. Jorkusmalorkus (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone can not site multiple sources that reference BEV's PHEV's and HEV's seperately when talking about anything that is not a summation of types electric vehicles, nor a discussion of specific fuel characteristics such as MPG, then editors should refuse to consider the limited defintion to be the "industry standard" or any other such nonsense. Any layman would consider all forms of EV's to be EV's, and would hope to find information about them on the EV page of wikipedia. As Jorkusmalorkus kindly pointed out, this is probably why the page was originally structured this way.--Uruhara k (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-04/ff_zapped —Preceding unsigned comment added by Womulee (talk • contribs) 11:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is about electric cars, and the CO2 references are too abundant and are heavily biased towards treating CO2 as a pollutant. Even if all the facts about the CO2 emissions are correct, their presence serves to support the point of view that CO2 is a bad thing. I certainly am opposed to that point of view, and so are many others. I don't mean to debate global warming here, but to point out that the article serves one side of that debate. I added some language to the article to make it a bit more neutral, but much more needs to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.176.224 (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I only see one paragraph and its accompanying table. This info was added because of intense debate by editors about the facts of CO2 emissions. You should be more specific in the individual references you think should be removed and present facts for why they should be removed and not just state that you don't like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetd (talk • contribs) 14:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "A 55% to 99.9% improvement in CO2 emissions". I dispute the term "improvement" because as I see it, it's not an improvement. It's a "decrease". "Improvement" is biased. I believe I corrected that before, but someone changed it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.224.12 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an article about electric cars, how come Think isnt mentioned? Its pretty much the cream of the crop of electric cars, and the first electric car mass produced as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.55.60.110 (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many misleading/wildly inaccurate "facts" in this article. I intent to rectify this. I will do so in two stages: First I will insert a section entitled "The Hype" which will outline some of the controversies and misinformation that have appeared with the modern electric car. All the facts in it will be backed up by references and shouldn't cause anyone undue complaint. The second stage however will be to wait for approximately one week after posting my additions at which point I will delete every piece of information in the article that I feel is suspect or untrue. If there are any unverified facts on this page I invite anyone who wants them to stay in to find reputable sources for them before I get there. If you cannot find evidence that these facts are true they DO NOT BELONG HERE as this is an encyclopedia not an advertising website for the electric car industry.

Note: If a fact is claimed by a manufacturer of a certain vehicle it needs to be independently verified. Advertising material is not fact and does not constitute a reliable source. Anyone who believes advertising is fact is welcome to invest in my own personal electric car project where I hope to make 100,000,000 electric cars at a cost of $1 per unit and retail them for $10 at 1000% profit, these cars will run forever on a 30 second charge giving a fuel economy of 1 googol miles per gallon. Please contact me at guilliblefool@gmail.com for investment opportunities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkenduncan (talk • contribs) 03:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the way wiki works. First a section called The Hype would be unacceptable, even if accurate, and not OR. Usualy you will get away with a section called Disadvantages, or Technical Criticism. Secondly the way to correct statements is to add ^{[citation needed]} after each contentious statement. This gives users the opportunity to add references. Although I agree with your basic concerns, if you proceed with your plan as stated it is doomed to failure.Greg Locock (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So the way wiki works is that people make outrageous claims and then get to take as long as they like in verifying them even though someone else can prove that they are false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkenduncan (talk • contribs) 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. If you have a WP:RS that directly contradicts the article then you should correct the statement and add your reference. Typically I'd allow a month for a ^{[citation needed]} to go unreferenced before deleting the statement. You don't need to attack me over this, as I said, I agree that this article is poor. Greg Locock (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean it to come across as an attack on you. To change all the references in the article with respect to my sources would basically require a total re-write, and not only do I not have the time for this I doubt it would be accepted by every other user as there is a lot of emotion involved with this topic. I would basically be starting an editing war where theings got changed back and forth and would eventually require action from the admins to resolve. This doesnt help anyone. I feel that the points I have made in the article are valid and constitute a reasonable opposing point of view. This gives other readers a chance to do the maths/research for themsleves and make an informed decision. Once the article is tidied up so that the parts I didn't write are impartial and accurate my part can be removed. Until then it is an important source for people who do have the time and inclination to tidy this article up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkenduncan (talk • contribs) 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The criticism states that the MPGe is wrong because its assuming 100% efficient power generation at the coal plant, that coal plants only have ~30% effiency, then cite the rest of the formulas used to show very low MPGe numbers. If that were true, one would then be assuming that gasoline MPG is also "wrong" because it is assuming the generation, collection, and delivery of gasoline is also free. Citation used to support the initial conjecture, actually did not support it it all, stating that MPe "MAY" be reported using the battery to wheels power instead of the plug to wheels power, which was unfair to use vs the pump to wheels power. In this case, the loss of power from charging the battery with AC is being ignored. I'm too lazy to find a citation, so I'm not adding this, but feel free to look for it : I saw an article on slashdot like 3 years ago about new technology in charging batteries with a nanocoating to serverely limit loss during charging, allowing you to recarge batteries 90% within 60 seconds, giving must greater charging efficiency making this all a moot point. Also, someone care to mention the charging efficiency of supercapacitors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uruhara k (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your criticism of gasoline mpg, it would be better to use a well to wheel figure. I disagree with your support for the mpge figure, it is a very poor piece of work, for much the same reason, and by a factor of 3 instead of 1.1 . I can generally live with 10% errors, 200% not so much. So I think a rational comment on the mpge calcl is fair, or else use well/mine to wheel calculations for both types of vehicle. Greg Locock (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That was not my source, it was the source the previous writer used to wrongly justify his conclusions. I mearly attempted to sum up the correct statement his source was making, I'd have removed it entirely myself, but I thought someone might find a reasonable way of explaining it after seeing the poor way. --Uruhara k (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel the DoE/EPA MPG ratings are the best source as it involves a reliable source, and no work on my part. I've included a link in the above discussion.--Uruhara k (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar to my complaint of MPG, I have a problem with the explination of polution but I'm unsure of how to rectify the situation, so if someone can find a way, I'd be very happy. When pollution is mentioned, there is talk of the pollution of the electric factory, and how net pollution for the electric car will still be high while we have dirty energy plants. While at it's face value, this is true, I feel it ignores the fact that it's not an equal pollution comparison to the car emmisions of gas cars. We never see gas car pollution figures include the pollution of the generation, collection, and delivery of gasoline. It should be equal. EV car making no pollution vs Car's emmisions, or average pollution of electric generating plants vs average car's emmisions, tanker and ship transport emmisions, refinery, and diging site pollution ect ect. As the later is so hard to calculate, i feel the former is the best comparison.--Uruhara k (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A recent revamp of pollution stated "As in the analysis of carbon dioxide emissions, the relative pollution depends on the sources of electricity." this is a false statement as per above. If pollution is going to talked about in this manner, one must compare something like total carbon footprint of 1gallon of gas at pump + ICE emmissions, to carbon footprint of 1gallon gasoline electricity at plug equivilent. --Uruhara k (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone has the time, I'd like to see the MPG calculated by the DoE/EPA added to the site somewhere, they can be found at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/byfueltypeNF.shtml by clicking on electric for any year the car was made.--Uruhara k (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the page is liable to be deleted, how about a discussion on this one? The green nazis don't want to talk about how this will pump the demand for coal (which is the #1 fuel at powerplants), with a contingent jump in deaths from mining & moving coal, & the environmental damage from acid rain. Nor do they want to talk about the huge increase in attendant toxic waste from the batteries in these cars (which will wear out); this seems to be transformed into something non-toxic by the same "green magic wand" that makes wind power practical, or terrestrial solar viable & eco-friendly (never mind solar panels will place hectares of land into permanent shadow, which is hardly eco-friendly). Nor will they admit the battery pack will have to be replaced every five years or so; how many drivers like the idea of changing the engine on a regular basis? I might also wonder where all the material for the millions & millions {sagans?} of batteries will come from...) Trekphiler (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourced information about how pollution might be moved around is fine; probably it should be done by someone with a less extreme POV, but I'm sure if you start we can work it toward neutral and encyclopedic. Starting with terms based on your POV is more likely to just earn you a revert, however. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Points to consider:

1. 50% of the country doesn't use coal. So your coal argument is irrelevant to half the country.
2. It is easier to clean up a relative few coal plants than it is to clean millions of cars.
3. Batteries are li-ion which aren't toxic to environment.
4. Five year replacement of batteries is crystal balling which isn't encyclopedic. Toyota warranties their hybrid batteries for 10 years in California.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The simple solution would be to find references for the REV page, then it won't get deleted. I didn't find any good ones. BTW Toyota may well warrant their batteries for 10 years in the people's rebublic of california, but I suspect that is because powertrains have to be warranted for 10 years there. Therefore it doesn't cost them anything extra and they might get away with it. Your comment about cleaning up coal plants is a bit of a distortion. Plot the pollution from cars over the last 30 years. Now do the same for coal plants. Cars have got a lot cleaner, coal plants, not so much. Greg Locock (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

5yr or 10, it's still a major replacement cost not being mentioned; that Explorer or Suburban's V8 will last a great deal longer. "50% of the country doesn't use coal." So "50% of the country" spiking CO₂ & acid rain is OK with you? I bet is isn't for the bordering states. Or Canada. Spiking the deaths from producing coal is OK? I'll bet it's not for the families of the people dying. And I'll bet even the powerplants not using coal are pretty dirty. Now, if you want to endorse (true ZE) Solar power satellites or OTEC to produce the power... Trekphiler (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Its still crystal balling. Electric cars won't be popular until they are cheaper than gas cars. People will factor in all costs. You'll be buying one too and forgetting your arguments when gas reaches $10 a gallon. I'm all for clean up of coal plants if people find them unhealthy or alternative power generation methods. Hopefully the majority has similar thinking. Keep in mind that li-ion batteries will drop in price significantly when they are mass produced. The major elements are cheap. Perhaps the costs will be more like replacing a fuel tank than replacing an engine in 10 years. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're a lot more likely to be taken seriously if you stop being so needlessly venomous. Phrases like "green nazis" and the "people's rebublic of California" aren't going to do much except make you appear to be a mouth-foaming ideologue. You honestly sound like you have something to contribute, but wikipedia is neither an editorial page to share your opinion or a journal to publish your work, so you have to do more than just state arguments and opinions. You have to be able to back them up. If you can't find sources that back up your position in general, what would probably be best would be to take your core argument and cite sources to support its major points. Your argument appears to be that widespread adoption of electric vehicles presents its own set of problems that will have to be addressed. This definitely is true and deserves a place in the article. It seems important to you, so why not try to implement it in the article instead of ranting and raving on the talk page? Jorkusmalorkus (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple. No good sources to hand. And this is a talk page. "Raving" is allowed. Trekphiler (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say raving wasn't allowed; I implied that applying your effort to actually changing what you're complaining about would be much more useful. You could, say, do a Google search for "electric car implementation problems" and come up with two articles backing up your position. Or just keep whining and doing nothing; nobody's stopping you from doing that I guess.Jorkusmalorkus (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, an article backing up your position!

Too bad there's no good sources to hand, oh well.

If you want to complain about green nazis go look at the global warming article. That article is a crock of shhh_t in my opinion. For example: for references that back up their claim of global warming they use references that talk about "climate change" and infer that to mean global warming. Even though climate change doesn't mean anything and can mean global cooling. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Pollution is more than CO2 emission. I don't mean to minimize the global warming problem, but at this moment air pollution in cities is a MUCH bigger direct health hazard for the population worldwide. Think of Mexico City, Beijing and a million other cities. Electric cars produce zero emissions and the effect that a switch to electric cars would have on the global health is enormous. CO2 comparisons on the other hand will show only a small effect, as long as we get a large part of electricity from fossil fuels. Piet | Talk 10:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the main pollutants of interest are sulphur compounds and nitrogen oxides. These are overwhelmingly produced by coal fired power stations in the USA. Both have a continental wide impact (acid rain, albedo effects, ozone layer). EVs produce zero emissions at the tailpipe, they none-the-less add significantly to atmospheric sulphur and NOx, compared with IC vehicles. I have pointed this out in the pollution section, it needs more work. In general this article reads as if it was a manifesto for promoting EVs, I shall spend a fair bit of effort pulling it back into some objective form. It may need restructuring. Greg Locock (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your information is wrong and theoretical and wp:crystal. The use case for electric cars is charging at night were more hydro power and nuclear is used.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale cost for hydro power is around 80 cents per kwh, for nuclear it is $1.33 per kwh. For coal it is $2.33, and for natural gas it is $4+. Electric cars will likely be charged when energy is the cheapest. I got this info from Palo Verde Nuclear article.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You would need proof of that. Why wouldn't other people use want to use that cheap electricity? (Clue: they do). The contribution of EVs to pollution should be established on the basis of the marginal plant that has to be started to supply the extra electricity, not the base load plant. Greg Locock (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As stated numerous times in this discussion page, why do people feel the need to lump the pollution of the electrical generation onto the shoulders of EV?

Because it is a real effect. If everyone plugs their EVs in then power stations will emit more pollution.

When talking about the pollution of an ICE do you factor in the pollution of the extraction, refinine, and transportation of the gasoline to the pump for the ICE to use? If we were going to claim the pollution of burning coal as pollution of the EV's, then why not the pollution of strip mining the coal? Why not the pollution caused by the ICE bulldozers that are mining the coal, and then the cost of the gasoline infrastructure that powers the vehicles that mine the coal that power the plant that power the EV? Dont forget the pollution of the people transportation vehicles that bring people to drive the bulldozers that mine the coal. I mean thats rational, yeah?

Yes, that is rational if you really want to do a proper comparison.

When you look at it that way its easy to see how ICE is much more eco friendly.

Have I clearly pointed out the absurdity yet? -- Uruhara K

Looks more like throwing a tantrum from over here. No, you haven't made it look absurd becasue it is the correct approach for an apples to apples comparison. SO, you have two choices. Either find good references that support the claim that an EV produces less pollution when you take the inefficiency of the supply chain into consideration, or retract the claim. 07:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason for me to find such a reference. I am not posting on the wiki that EV's are less polluting. I am refuting the claims of others that claim EV+supply chain vs ICE shows EV's to be of equal pollution. To say that if everyone plugs in their EVs then power stations will emit more pollution is just more of the same illogical nonsense. If everyone stops using gas, the gas infrastructute usage will be lessened. It is the burden of the one making a claim to reference their claim, and to make sure it is a logical claim. --98.217.72.35 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

See Off peak, another reference: http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204 "...the study presumes that drivers would charge up overnight when demand for electricity is much lower."

Why wouldn't other people use want to use that cheap electricity?

Because you don't need to use the AC as much during the night. In the winter people turn down their thermostats. Business operate mostly from 8-5 and don't use as much electricity at 2am.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Greg: "EVs add significantly to atmospheric sulphur and NOx". Huh? Do American Power plants emit sulphur and NOx? Don't they clean their waste gases? If they don't, they should. You cannot blame EVs for environmentally unfriendly power plants. CO2 is different because there is currently no capacity for producing all energy in a CO2 neutral way, but sulphur and NOx emissions from power plants can be reduced to almost zero. That's a major advantage of electricity: production is centralized, more efficient and cleaner (compared to driving half a billion individual power plants throughout the US). But even if the plants are polluting, at least those emissions are not in the city centers. And that is the main advantage of electricity, and the main benefit for the human population. Piet | Talk 07:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, once half a city has electric cars there will be referendums by the non smoking car owners to get those stinky, smoking, polluting cars off the roads.   :-) Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Very amusing boys. "Huh? Do American Power plants emit sulphur and NOx? Don't they clean their waste gases? If they don't, they should. ". Well they do. Live with it. As the reference I put in to the article said, electrical power generation in the USA is responsible for more than 80% of all sulphur and NOx emissions in the USA. EVs will use some of that power, ipso facto they will be generating pollution. Well, now to start a bit of rational editing... 09:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Very amusing boys. Do not use such words, be polite and stick to rational reasoning. Belgian power plants do NOT emit sulphur or NOx. Technology to clean this has been available for years and it is applied in Belgium because it is required by our environmental laws. In my country, cars are responsible for more than 2/3 of sulphur and NOx pollution and for power plants, this is close to zero. I am very surprised this is not so in the USA. But of course USA has been stuck for 8 years with a president who is not interested in the environment, and is not doing anything. But in my opinion, sulphur and NOx emissions of power plants are not a consequence of the use of electricity but a consequence of unwillingness to apply clean technology. This should not be counted as debet for electric cars, because there is absolutely no reason why electricity production should cause sulphur or NOx emissions. Piet | Talk 11:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tedious facts: more than 70%^[1] of the electrical energy in the USA is made by burning fossil fuel, and the well to wall-socket efficiency of the electrical generating system is only 52%^[2] at best (actually less on average). "While coal combustion accounts for only 44 percent of electricity on the continent, it is responsible for 86 percent of total sulfur dioxide emissions from electricity and 90 percent of nitrogen oxides."^[3] So stop being surprised. Those are facts. Deal with them. Greg Locock (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not very polite and not listening.

1) SOx and NOx emission reduction is a simple political decision, not related to electricity consumption.

2) Emissions from power plants are outside the city and therefore health risks are smaller when using electrical cars.

Piet | Talk 12:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I should also mention this: "USA" is not equal to "world". Piet | Talk 12:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant facts per references already supplied. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple more references about off-peak electricity characteristics:

1. http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/vault/utilities.htm

   Vehicles give utilities added markets for electricity and natural gas, the opportunity to use excess off-peak electricity that is now wasted, and long-term opportunities to capture electricity from vehicles (V2G) when electricity is in peak demand.

2. http://www.lcra.org/newsstory/2007/peakerfacility.html You can find plenty of references that show that natural gas is used to satisfy peak electricity demand. In other words, its not used during off-peak times.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your message. EVs don't use peak electricity, so they use fossil fuels (dirty) instead of gas (cleaner)? Is that what you mean?

Anyway, while these are facts and sources, they all share one big problem: they only deal with the American situation. See my previous remark. There really are many many people outside the USA. Using these references to draw conclusions about electric vehicles, means that the assessment is based on the current status of American electricity production. Two problems: (1) this situation will change. Electricity production will become cleaner in the future (really :-) ). (2) Other countries produce electricity in different ways. This makes the assessment so complex that in fact it's better to explain this rather than making calculations. Whether EVs are clean or not depends on the method used to produce electricity.

But two basic points always remain:

1) Combustion cars pollute city centers and power plants do not (public health advantage).

2) Centralized power production emissions are easier to control (environmental advantage).

Hence, electric cars are much cleaner.

This does not mean they do no damage: there is currently no capacity for CO2-neutral electricity production. Therefore electric cars will contribute to global warming in a quite similar way as combustion cars. Piet | Talk 14:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My comments were intended as a response to Greg's comments. Hopefully they don't conflict with anything you are saying. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My experience is that anyone who has an electric car also has solar panels on their house and/or a wind turbine, so I would say that it may be closer to most than none the proportion of electricity that is coming from CO2-zero electricity production (which is quite different from CO2-neutral). The most recent solar challenge on the Washington mall required building a solar house that also provided enough electricity to power an electric car. 199.125.109.42 (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"My experience is that anyone who has an electric car also has solar panels on their house and/or a wind turbine" -Well I'm sure you'll be able to find a reliable source for that amazing fact. You lot are describing the world as you would like it to be, I am describing the world as it is. Which is more appropriate for an encyclopaedia? I realise that the whole world is not the USA, that was just the easiest to get data for. The same is roughly true for Oz - our base load electricity (what you are calling off peak) is from coal fired power stations. If you recharge your EV overnight in Oz then you are using coal. Incidentally I rather imagine that the oh so clean Belgian generating grid also uses German and Polish electricity, you might want to check out how wonderfully non-polluting Polish power stations are.

According to http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf fig 2 fossil fuels are used for 67% of global electricity production. Nukes and coal form most base load generation. So, from a global perspective it would be a reasonable guess to say that if you plug your EV into the grid you are burning 67% coal, oil or gas. The grid is what 40% efficient at extracting power from ossil fuel and getting it to the plug. Your charger may be 90% efficient. For comparison an IC engine is perhaps 20% efficient and the well to bowser efficiency is 87%. A modern ICE car typically uses 4 times more energy per mile than an EV, but generates virtually no pollution other than CO2 and water vapour. Coal fired power station create far more CO2 per unit of energy, AND sulphur dioxide AND nitrogen oxides. Greg Locock (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No its not a reasonable guess because the reference stated above says that electricity is wasted at night. In other words plugging in at night adds no extra load to the power grid. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not so sure that in this case it's helpful to describe the world as it is. You're making projections about an increased use of electric cars, and you draw conclusions based on current electricity production methods. First of all there's Daniel's remark, which says that electricity production does not need to increase if we will charge the vehicles at night. Second there is my remark that electricity production methods will change in the future. Which is an uncertainty, but it only matters when electric vehicles will be used more, which is also an uncertainty. Either way we're dealing with the future here. Current use of electric cars is too low to make a difference.

Concerning Eastern Europe: In 2004, SO2 intensity of thermal and electricity production in the 25 EU member states (that includes Poland etc.) went down to 20% of the level of 1990, NOx to 40% [9]. Also check [10] and note reductions also occur in Eastern Europe. And the situation is far from ideal, most power plants are not using best available technologies. But there's no denying that it is possible to produce energy with a much lower emission level than today. While there's no indication that ICE cars will significantly lower their emissions.

A modern ICE car generates virtually no pollution other than CO2 and water vapour.

This here says that in 2000, the transportation sector was responsible for 49% of nitrogen oxide emissions in Ca/USA.

Here it says that nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO), account for 58%, 50% and 75% respectively of all such emissions.

Here it says transport accounts for 42% of nitrogen oxide emissions in the UK in 2005.

So don't present it as if an electric car will pollute MORE than an ICE car. It's much easier to clean emissions from one centralized utility than from a million separate engines. It's just common sense, and if it wasn't for the power of car and oil industry we would have been doing it for years now. Piet | Talk 11:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"No its not a reasonable guess because the reference stated above says that electricity is wasted at night. In other words plugging in at night adds no extra load to the power grid" Which reference says that Daniel? (Later edit - ok, I found the quote.) It is wrong. "You're making projections about an increased use of electric cars" Never said that. Where have I said that the number of EVs will increase? "But there's no denying that it is possible to produce energy with a much lower emission level than today." more futurology. "A modern ICE car generates virtually no pollution other than CO2 and water vapour.This here says that in 2000, the transportation sector was responsible for 49% of nitrogen oxide emissions in Ca/USA." Yup because that includes diesel trucks and trains. Learn to read. I said ICE cars. So, I will start treating you with respect when you start being honest and stop engaging in futurology. Greg Locock (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Modern ICE cars cause no nitrogen oxide emissions. And no VOC or hydrocarbons or particulate matter. Okay Greg, you win. Piet | Talk 13:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that including euros in the table of vehicle prices isn't accurate... The prices listed are the price at the economic conditions of the day the vehicle was available, NOT the equivalent 2008 price. I don't think that a meaningful correlation can be made between the "then dollar" and "today euro" price... speaking as a Brit, there were about $5 to £1 back in the days of the Baker and Detroit Electric vehicles, so converting it to £'s at today's exchange rates is meaningless. I propose that in an article covering history, such as this one, it would be more accurate to list prices in the units of their domestic market (i.e. French cars in francs, US cars in dollars, British cars in pounds etc. etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.182.109 (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

MPG is not the correct unit of measurement for electricity. Measurement should be Miles per KwH or cents per mile or both is preferable. Cents per mile depends on off peak electric rates in your area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.30.10 (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

the metric unitie Joules(J) is equivelent to KwH and is the prefered unit for comparing energy ecconomy between fuels or as in this case between ICE and EV.

The units should be in kWh/km. MPG is an Americentric unit. International units should be used. While not specifically SI (the SI unit is the joule), kWh are used throughout the world when charging for electricity usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.25.126 (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have worked on an array of equipment cars, trucks, tractos, small engines and I have had the most difficulty with batteries followed by starters. How reliable are electric cars? Does the 3-5 year life of lead acid and NiMH batteries hurt energy footprint and cost effectivness?

I would also like to know if these cars work as well in nothern cliates as they do in California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the most interesting images should be first on the page. More interesting are highway capable electric cars. Less interesting are vehicles limited to the neighborhood. For example the GM EV-1 should be first since it was the best spec vehicle. What do you think? If you agree please make the changes.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The EV-1 is still the best car (of any type) ever designed. 199.125.109.42 (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

is that electricity is an all-use energy source nowadays. You power your stereo, your lights, anything with it. Electric cars won't need to have extra power sources. I see that rarely or never discussed. Actually I see it never discussed while it's so obvious. I hope there are sources on it to be included in the article. --Leladax (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"powered from sustainable electricity sources (e.g. solar energy)"? Who says terrestrial solar is "sustainable"? (What does that mean, anyhow? I've yet to see it quantified.) Is terrestrial solar to be used for nothing else? Are EVs to use nothing else? How's that to be enforced? Or are the charging stations going to be marked "solar"? This is another example of green zealotry: make it look as good as possible & ignore the flaws. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 10:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence reads "CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are minimal for electric cars powered from sustainable electricity sources." It seems clear enough here that sustainable means not involving the burning of fossil fuels or other fuels that are not "farmed" in some sense. Perhaps there's a more explicit or clearer way to say it? There's nothing in this sentence that suggests any policy, exclusivity, enforcement, etc., nor that applies to electric cars powered by electricity from fossil fuels; the previous sentenced does comment on electricity from other sources already. Want to improve it? There are better ways than carping at it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To be of any use this needs also to specify the market where that price is available, and give a reference. The Tesla Roadster is listed at $100,000, in the UK it is £92,000 (about $170,000 today). The REVA is listed at $15,000, in the UK it is about £10,000 ($18,500). If we say it is the U.S. market, then we'll need a column for each other market. What is the solution - should we delete this column altogether? -- de Facto (talk). 12:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There being no apparent views, one way or the other on this, I removed the prices from the lists. -- de Facto (talk). 09:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This section and its reference on internal combustion engines used to justify it, has compared the total efficiency of some of the least efficient (American) gasoline engined cars including all vehicle losses, solely to charge/discharge efficiency of an EV. This is misleading as it excludes vehicle efficiency losses for electric cars but includes them for gasoline powered cars, and so is not comparing like with like. Comparable figures for engine efficiency only are Gasoline engine 27% and TDI Diesel engine 44%. [11] Checked - VOLVO says - 30% and 45%.

This section only refers to 'internal combustion engines' making no distinction between petrol/gasoline and diesel engines - again misleading as diesel engines are nearing twice the efficiency of a petrol/gasoline engine.

The section completely disregards the fact the most vehicle users will use power from the grid. 40% Efficiency at the Power Station - 75% Grid transmission loss = 10% efficiency at the socket. On that basis overall efficiency is 0.81*0.1=8.1% rather than 32%. [[12]] Cock-up here - UK transmission losses 7% approx. But US DOE says 9.5% for USA [13] and 'The average thermal efficiency is around 33%.' in US Power plants - not 40%. The same reference shows the US grid is seriously under invested and having trouble meeting current US demand. I think I got the original 75% loss figure from when I was at school and it represented the total UK efficiency loss of the power station and grid transmission at the time.

So total generation and transmission efficiency is: 33%-9.5%=29.865 Converting that for car use is: 0.29865*0.81=0.2419 or 24.19% rather 32%. So Electric Car = 24.19%, Diesel = 45%, Petrol/Gasoline = 30% - All figures do not include vehicle losses E.G. (Tyre friction, Aerodynamic drag) and so are like for like comparison.

Critiqued and amended by the original poster in italics.

If the object of the exercise in looking at alternatives to conventional vehicles is to reduce Co2 emissions, then that has to mean using the most efficient vehicle you can buy. That currently is a diesel and not an EV with 8.1% efficiency. A TDI vehicle is 36% more efficient AND can run on renewable waste fuel. Electric vehicles did not win the US 'Tour de Sol' competition for greenest car, a VW TDI running on Waste Vegetable Oil did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.112.115 (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I see 3 problems with that: it's very POV; it's entirely unsourced; & your math is terrible. 44% efficiency v 8.1% isn't 36% better, it's 36 points better, or about 5.5 times better: 0.44/0.081. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've ripped into what was a pretty horrible mess and probably made it worse. Do others agree that the headings are right now, and that they are in the right order (I have no particualr opinion there)? I've then distributed the various facts, rants, factoids and so on into the appropriate headers, and deleted the worst of the soapboxing. Next step is to decide on what representative fuel consumption vs energy consumption we want to compare and apply them consistently. Pricing is aproblem since it will change. I added some uncited statements that are more thoughtstarters than encyclopedic statements.Greg Locock (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OY SHOUTY. Can you stop using all caps? So, we have a reference for the 9.5% http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html (interesting number), can you get one for the 33%<Late edit I see it in that same article, great>? I suggest that you don't hot link refs in Talk pages, just use normal text. I'll edit the article, that's a 30% overall efficiency. Greg Locock (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't edit my mistakes out. I used caps to differentiate what I had been posted at 2 different times, as a correction - not to shout. The 33% power station efficiency is the same US DOE reference as the transmission loss.

Electric Generation

America operates a fleet of about 10,000 power plants. The average thermal efficiency is around 33%. Efficiency has not changed much since 1960 because of slow turnover of the capital stock and the inherent inefficiency of central power generation that cannot recycle heat. Power plants are generally long-lived investments; the majority of the existing capacity is 30 or more years old.

Mr IP 85.119.112.115, according to this Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses

the electric power transmission losses are 7.2%. And you are not including the transmission losses for oil. Oil has to be shipped from the Middle East, then trucked across America. I cant put a number on that but I am guessing that is pretty high loss. Oh, you have to refine it as well. Bluetd (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(a) You can't use wiki as a reference, you need to use external referneces (b) the loss is about 15%, it also applies to the fuel for the power station so it is roughly a wash. Well/coal pit to socket/bowser efficiencies would make more sense I agree, but for the purposes of comparison I don't think it makes a huge difference. If you can find good sources put them in. Greg Locock (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We are on the talk page - I can use Wiki as a ref here. Bluetd (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but in the article the figure given is externally referenced by a reasonable source. I don't know how we decide between the two.Greg Locock (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The US DOE reference says 9.5% for the US Grid. The Wikipedia page included UK grid efficiency references. I believe that the total efficiency of all the types of vehicles should be used, (from the oil well / coal mine / Co2 created building wind turbines, nuclear power and extra grid capacity etc, for fuel, and to include car transmissions, aerodynamics, friction etc, and the Co2 emissions from building new cars as opposed to retrofitting), because that indicates the actual amount of Co2 they put into the atmosphere. It would also be a like for like comparison. The objective is reduced Co2 emissions not a particular technology. The section was misleading, because it ignored where electric propulsion most loses efficiency, and used slanted information to mislead about the efficiency of internal combustion engines. The comparable efficiencies above also brings into question equivalent MPG figures for electric cars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.112.171 (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been many studies comparing the CO2 emissions of electric vehicles vs. gasoline/diesel vehicles, and an accurate statement is that the electric car is 60 to 100% less than the gasoline/diesel vehicles. Someone is doing some really strange math to come up with such nonsense as is currently in the article. or was in the article - I'm about to delete it as total OR. The main point, though is that with a gasoline or diesel car it is impossible to keep CO2 from the atmosphere, while with an electric car it is easy - just charge it from solar panels/wind turbines. One recent study includes road maintenance, and while I interpret black differently than they do (where it says black, substitute light gray, where it says gray substitute dark gray), they predict a 50% reduction in CO2 even including road maintenance (most big trucks don't run on electric, although Beijing has 6,000 electric trash trucks now, just for the olympics).[14] 199.125.109.129 (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference? "There have been many studies comparing the CO2 emissions of electric vehicles vs. gasoline/diesel vehicles, and an accurate statement is that the electric car is 60 to 100% less than the gasoline/diesel vehicles. Someone is doing some really strange math to come up with such nonsense as is currently in the article." The 'strange math' was referenced from a solid source - where's yours? "The main point, though is that with a gasoline or diesel car it is impossible to keep CO2 from the atmosphere, while with an electric car it is easy - just charge it from solar panels/wind turbines." Did you bother to see that you can have the most efficient engine type and run it on renewable fuel? Did you not read the US DOE link that most electricity in the US is fossil based? or do you only charge up at home?

Yes there certainly is a lot of 'strange math' associated with electric cars. Dude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.112.139 (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention that electric cars can recover their kinetic energy? Considering that is effectively a built-in feature of EVs, it seems unfair to not include it the above comparison. Also, ICE-based engines achieve their maximum efficiency moving along the highway at constant load and RPM. I'm quite sure that EVs are much more efficient at variable load and RPM than ICEs. Lastly, EVs are powered by a combination of renewable and non-renewable sources. Of the non-renewable sources, they shouldn't cause much more consumption because they would charge at night, when coal plants and still going full-speed but power demand is much lower and therefore wasted. This section is over simplifying the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.163.126 (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor removed the list with the following comment"Removed table as per wp:pov and wp:or. Any "selected" list needs a source supporting the specific selection otherwise the selection criteria are personal POV and/or original research"

Another editor added a new list, with similar problems

I removed it, using the same edit summary.

Dicklyon then (Reverted 1 edit by Greglocock; It would be better to add to the list to make it more complete than to delete it. (TW)) (undo)

No, either the list has to be complete or the criteria for inclusion havbe to be externally sourced. I don't see any middle ground, and it obviously cannot be complete. Greg Locock (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see plenty of middle ground. There are many lists of electric cars on the web. Just reference one of them. Here is one for example: http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarselectric2a.htm Or we can reference several of the lists out there. Seems kind of silly though. Who created the list? Just a person not too different than us. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A list criterion that's commonly used on wikipedia is "notable" in the WP sense; that is, list items that have articles about them. I don't see a problem in the current case, though; the criterion "currently available" seems perfectly reasonable, whether or not someone else has used it. Where does this idea come from that a list must be based on a sourced criterion? And what do you mean by "has to be complete"? Who can decide when it is complete enough? Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check "List of Supercars" for my prior history there. Basically lists are unworkable unless defined by a criterion that is well supported by WP:RS,- they are hard to maintain, usually unreferenced, and subjective, boring and incomplete. Some lists have a purpose, but a shopping list of EVs looks like a total bore to me. Cats are a better solution, I am told. Incidentally, why not ask the original editor what they meant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greglocock (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out what felines had to do with the discussion - perhaps you meant categories? The main advantage of a list over a Category:Production electric vehicles, is that you can add interesting details such as range, cost, and performance, and sort on each column. By the way, any reason the Tesla Roadster isn't on the list? 199.125.109.129 (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Grins, well that kind of makes my point. Every new electric car that comes out should go on the list, pushing interesting content off the bottom of the page. Oh well, looks like people want it, let's give it a month. Greg Locock (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention that electric cars can recover their kinetic energy? Considering that is effectively a built-in feature of EVs, it seems unfair to not include it the above comparison. Also, ICE-based engines achieve their maximum efficiency moving along the highway at constant load and RPM. I'm quite sure that EVs are much more efficient at variable load and RPM than ICEs. Lastly, EVs are powered by a combination of renewable and non-renewable sources. Of the non-renewable sources, they shouldn't cause much more consumption because they would charge at night, when coal plants and still going full-speed but power demand is much lower and therefore wasted. This section is over simplifying the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.163.126 (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The list has been split into two sections: "Low speed" and "Expressway capable". Are these generally and consistently internationally used definitions? If they are, we need to reference them and explain the qualifying factors. If they aren't, and the categorisation of individual cars cannot be referenced, then I think we need to re-combine the lists into one. An arbitrary editor decision as to whether a car belongs in one list or the other (the Buddy being "Expressway capable" for example) is surely original research. -- de Facto (talk). 09:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The minimum speed on many US interstates is 45 mph. Any car that can not meet that speed is clearly not freeway capable. You can't mix in the NEVs with the Tesla. It just doesn't make any sense. Call them whatever you wish, but keep them separate. The only real difference is their speed - one group goes over 45 mph, the other less. Oh, and you can't use NEV, because that is a stupid US only designation. I was going to use "high speed", but 130 mph is barely moving, in my opinion of what real speed is today. What is the minimum speed on the Autobahn, 60 kph (37 mph)? Since 45 mph is higher I would stick with that. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The categorisation then, is based only on which vehicles can/cannot use many U.S. interstates. That is probably not a strong enough reason to maintain those U.S. specific categories, in what should be an international article, so I favour merging the lists back into one. So long as the maximum speed is listed, then those who are interested in knowing which ones can be used on their local interstate will have enough information to judge that for themselves. -- de Facto (talk). 08:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is based on which can use the Autobahn, in Germany, as well as those that can use US interstates. And honestly, putting both in the same table would be like putting electric cars in with golf carts or barbie cars. They are massively different types of vehicles, the low speed ones for city use and the normal car type ones for highway use. 199.125.109.129 (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think de Facto's point is not that there's not a distinction to be made, but that the distinction needs to be sourced. What cutoff is used to define autobahn-capable, or whatever, and who classifies EVs into these two classes? Bring a source, or leave them all in one table if there's no source for a categorical split. Dicklyon (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S. there is federal law about NEVs versus other cars. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds perfect; what's a source for that criterion? Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They are speed limited to 25mph and don't have to be crash tested and don't have to meet a ton of other rules for regular cars. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

25 mph sets the bar too low, I think you might be better off having three sections. Golf cart wannabees (NEVs), town cars, and high speed commuter cars. Jeremy Clarkson says 60hp is the lower limit of acceptability on motorways. So I could find a citeable reference for that as a split(grins). Greg Locock (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

25 mph is a silly limit, perhaps chosen so that the centurions who drive them around won't do any damage. If I was more paranoid I would say it was chosen so that no one would want to buy them. Most of them can get hotrodded to illegally remove the speed restriction though. Many of the 25 mph ones are speed limited 35 mph ones. There is no need for three groups. Autobahn capable is very precisely defined - any vehicle capable of a sustained speed of 60 kph (37 mph). To make the category more international, 45 mph is a more reasonable cut off. The Reva is the only one that is straddling both groups. 60 hp is a lot for an electric car. I really don't think that motor size should be used as the criteria. Speed is much more important. For example, would you put an 80 hp car that could only do 15 mph in with a 60 hp one that could do 80 mph? 199.125.109.29 (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I merged the tables back together as there appears to be no generally acknowledged or supported speed categories. Readers can sort by speed if they desire. -- de Facto (talk). 19:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read the above you will see that these are very distinctly different vehicles, it would be like mixing motor scooters with motorcycles - they are totally different animals. Besides, no one cares about the acceleration of a low speed electric car. I didn't see the point in splitting into three groups if there was only one car in the middle group, but using these groupings they are fairly evenly split. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

DeFacto has a history of unpopular edits. See prius talk page for example. I hope this group can band together like in prius and remove his often reverted edits. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem on my part. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of his edits may be unpopular, and as an owner and appreciator of 2 Prii I might disagree with them, but his point in this article remains valid, I think, which is that if we want to split a list by some criterion, we should use a criterion that has support in some source, not make up our own. Countering his argument by pointing out that he's been in a fight somewhere else doesn't help resolve anything. And as far as I can tell from Talk:Prius, there's an argument with just one guy. So it remains unclear why Daniel.Cardenas is making this suggestion here. Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the criteria certainly need to be existing and verifiable. Additionally though, I think that they either need to be relevant and applicable to the worldwide audience of this article, or if not, then presented in such a way that they can be ignored by readers for whom they have no relevance. For example, if the split is at 60 km/h in Germany, at 25 mph in the U.S., but there is no legal distinction in, say, the UK, then one table, sortable on maximum speed, allows all readers to see the data in a way which is relevant to them. -- de Facto (talk). 10:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the above little catfight. Wiki is not a popularity contest. DeFacto raised good arguments on the Prius talk page, I notice that few of his arguments were answered. I think in this instance on this page his merge is superseded by Dicklyon's approach. Greg Locock (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a proposal: why not go with the distinction explained in neighborhood electric vehicle, which derives from US NTSA rulemaking. It's pretty much the same as the 40 km/hr autobahn boundary. There are many more entries for the slow half of the table at neighborhood electric vehicle if someone doesn't want it so unbalanced. We can add another split if/when we find another good sourced criterion. Dicklyon (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems eminently sensible. Greg Locock (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I was wrong about the autobahn criterion, which is 60 kph, not 40. If someone provides a source, that could be another logic split point. Dicklyon (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The rules in Germany though, are only relevant in Germany. For a global article we need to present the data in a way which is relevant to all readers. One way is to have one table, sortable on maximum speed. That way, those who are interested in which cars are capable of 60 km/h can easily see that. An alternative would be to have columns for region-specific qualifiers, "German autobahn capable", "U.S. expressway capable", "U.S. NEV compliant", or whatever. As a resident of a country where neither the German nor the U.S. regulations are relevant, I am not necessarily interested in having the table split along those lines. -- de Facto (talk). 10:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And so we come full circle. One sortable list? Several lists? An infinitude of lists? A list of lists? A sortable list of lists? An unsortable list of sortable lists? F*** me dead and call me a zombie. NO LISTS. Greg Locock (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Street Legal" for the English wiki should probably be based on current US laws; other language wikis can (and should) alter them for "localized" information. I frankly find the list valuable (knowing full well it is virtually impossible to maintain adequately)

As such, I would propose the following:

+ Leave the list; link each section to a page explaining the rationale.

We really need to split this page apart anyway. It is beyond cumbersome...

Mjquin_id (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to realise that even if you only consider jurisdictions where the primary language is English, you need to cater for readers not only from the United States, but also from Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, Belize, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Grenada, Guam, Guernsey, Guyana, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jamaica, Jersey, Montserrat, Nauru, New Zealand, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, United Kingdom and United States Virgin Islands (from the English Language article).

For that reason alone, I would suggest that splitting the cars by a category that does not apply equally in all of those places should be avoided, and that the lists should either be removed, or merged back into one. Remember, that if the defining feature of the U.S. categorisation is "speed", then if a sortable speed column is provided, readers from the U.S. can easily see which cars comply, by sorting the table on the speed column. -- de Facto (talk). 09:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The only split that makes any sense is that you can't mix in the Tesla's with the Barbie cars, the ones that can't even go 60 km/h. For the Tesla's you want to know a totally different set of characteristics, such as acceleration, which is meaningless for a car that you can ride a bike faster than they can go. So I really don't care if it is two or three groups, but no way can you mix in motorcycles with motorscooters and no way can you mix in Tesla's with Barbie cars. Where you make the split is totally arbitrary as long as it is separates below 60 km/h and above 100 km/h. Where you put anything from 60 to 100 really doesn't matter as long as it isn't with the below 60s. The current splits of below 60 and below and above 80 are fine. They are well defined and they have lots of examples in all three groups. If there was only one car in a group then you really need to move the location of the split. Bear in mind that the purpose of splitting them at all is to help the reader, not to define some special category of car that gets a special designation. For that we have the article NEV, for example. We can't just create a group for every car that is made just because there is one that goes 43 kph or 44 kph or 45 kph or 46 kph etc, and believe me that's exactly what we can expect, cars with every possible top speed from 40 to 200 or so. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I am bit newbie with all the details so I have bit questions about following electrical car components Some questions about electric car batterys: What battery is the best? And by best I mean the driving range: There is nowdays Lead-Acid, NiCd, Ni/MH, Lithium-ion, Lithium Iron Phosphate Cathode With Traditional Anode, titanate electrode material lithium-ion batteries, Sodium/Lithium mixture batteries. Then there is also some lithium ion nanowire battery, and of couse ultracapasitor such as EEstor.

I tried to find technical chart from following articles, but could not find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Improvements_to_Lithium_Ion_Battery_Technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery http://www.revaindia.com/futec.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NanoSafe More questions about electric car motors: I have read that electric cars can use AC or DC motors eaven supramotors are used. What is the best solution with the very best coefficient of efficiency? I did not find anything from wikipedia with "" elecric car motor"" search :/.

From Reva is said:The latest model now uses AC rather than DC motors which increases the top speed by nearly 10 km/h.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor http://www.pinktentacle.com/2008/06/superconductor-electric-vehicle/

I hope that in the article would be more defined the key components technical data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.28.144.2 (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Again :),

Thanks about the add of tech. specs -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle#Technology though I feel that more detail info about Energy cofficient and components would be welcomed. When some one is planning to buy electric car at least at basic level it would be extra good to have Old/New component list somewhere -> E-motors and batteries, similar things as mentioned here-> http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-21.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.250.192 (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"The use of solar, wind, nuclear electric generation along with carbon capture for fossil fuel powered plants means that in the long run,"

wp:crystalball

" electric vehicles will produce less carbon dioxide over their life time since it is impractical to reduce carbon dioxide at the tailpipe of diesel/bio fueled cars."

but 100% bio fuelled cars are inherently carbon neutral, so their tailpipe co2 emissions don't matter.

" Based on GREET simulations, electric cars can achieve up to 100% reductions" not over their lifetime.

" with renewables electric generation vs 77% will B100 (100% bio-diesel car). Of course at present only 32% reductions of carbon dioxide is available for electric cars with current US Grid due to heavy fossil fuel use and inefficiencies. "

That sounds more like it. So the reality is that a B100 car will show 77% reductions, an EV 32 %. I would like to congartulate the editor for succesfully confusing the issue. I'll check the references to see if GREET are as confused.

Greg Locock (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As a quick reply:
As today, I believe pretending 100% biodisel is just as irrealistic as pretending 100% renewables or 100% EVs or 100% bio-cars. Given that, I am not aware of the exact meanings involved but keep in mind that the fact that biodisel emissions are 100% "fast cycle carbon" (note: CARBON - and so they are carbon-neutral worldwide) doesn't magically mean their CO2 is good in a city scale and they don't emit other stuff. I feel the comparison falls a bit short in that regard, reducing emissions isn't just about an emission benefit, it's also about air quality. In that sense, it doesn't really matter whatever the CO2 of your city is "slow" or "fast".
Now, about the two references (43, 44): http://www.nesea.org/transportation/info/documents/Transportation_Climate_Change.pdf (reference 43)

“

all greenhouse gas emissions from the full fuel cycle (including fuel extraction or production, refining, transport, and use (including particulates from tire and brake wear) are used.

”

“

- 100 Electric car (renewable source) - 77 B100 (100% biodiesel)

”

Both figures are relatively realistic for only small sets of cars and anyway the key point is likely to be the particulate and distribution issue.

I believe reference (43) is quite accurate and clear in describing how its model works.
It'll take a while before I can point out the other key points in reference (44) as it's just a dump of all the publications.
I encourage you in looking for the accurate reference, it's good to do so every once in a while and providing some more accurate links will surely be a good thing.
MaxDZ8 talk 13:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Does anyone one wich is the most fast way to charge batteries? Epyon, Altair Nanosafe, A123 or EEstore. From all is said that quick charging is possible. What is in numbers this mentioned Quick charging?

If you have a 16 kWh battery and you want to charge it in 10 minutes then you'll need 100 kW of electrical supply - about the same as 30-50 houses. You'll also need electronics able to handle those very high currents, which will be very expensive. Much better to physically swap batteries if you need a fast charge. Greg Locock (talk) ??_Fast_battery_charging_Altair_Nanosafe," class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying a typical house is only good for 2-3 kW? That wouldn't even run two compact 1600 W hair dryers. I'm pretty sure I can run a hair dryer, electric oven, coffee maker, toaster, microwave, and pool pump all at once. I've got lots of 20A circuits, but don't know what my total load limit is. Perhaps 100A? That would be 12 kW, within a factor of 8 of what you'd need for a 10-minute charge; it wouldn't be hard for a service station to get an order of magnitude more, or to charge at home in a couple of hours. Ah, a quick search shows that most house have 100 Amp or 200 Amp service. So you could charge it in 40 minutes at 200 Amp. Or get 4 houses... Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the supply to the street can't give the full fused capacity to all the houses at once. I suggets you do some research. For instance, my house uses at most 2000 kWh in 3 months, so that is an AVERAGE draw of just less than 1 kW. Sure, the main fuse is 100A, or 24 kW, but if I and my neighbour tried to use that at the same time I doubt we'd succeed. The peak I actually use is probably around 7 kW. I don't actually know what the street wiring is good for, but I am 100% certain that it is not anything like the fuzed capacity*the number of houses. You could contact your local utility and find out, I'm sure they'll be happy to quote you for a 100 kW supply.Greg Locock (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that in the future the 10 minutes charging may expode bulbs if everyone are doing it at the same time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.28.144.2 (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, just a brownout. Like I say, ring em up, publish your results. I'm guessing about $30000.Greg Locock (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering also about this Firefly composite battery technology-> Is is better than Nanosafe and all the rest litium batteries?? http://www.fireflyenergy.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=204&Itemid=89 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.250.192 (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Beijing electric buses were designed to have the batteries replaced in 5 minutes in order to allow 24 hour operation, and from an engineering standpoint that is a much more reasonable approach than trying to charge a battery that quickly. Should I say it is just plain stupid? Anyway, I believe that according to the article (Electric car) Nissan developed replaceable batteries way back in 1947 for their electric car. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

May I say that that is actually GREAT idea to have quick rechargable battery that can be replaced quickly too. 10 min with charging, if you are in horry you can change the battery in less than 5 minutes. I quess you were meaning that?

Yes. But for the purposes of an encyclopedia just documenting what has been proposed and what has been done - this is not a design by committee for the car of the future. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the average draw on for a house is around 1 kW. This can vary a lot; especially when using A/C, an electric drier or an electric stove. A typical electric stove can pull a maximum of 15 kW (on 240V) / 11 kW (on 208V). Thus, for a 6.6kW car charger, you'd need a 208/240 - 40 A circuit; since circuit breakers are tripped by thermal overload, you need the actual load (6.6kW) to be ~ 80% of the full load. Actual current draws during charging would not necessarily be 6kW.

Also, the dramatically increasing loads from recharging electric cars could be problematic for peak load management; but, if the chargers were integrated with demand response settings (http://dr.berkeley.edu/) electric cars plugged into the grid could easily be modified to provide power (and get paid for this power on your bill) during peak energy times. ALSO, in the case of charging over night instead of during the day / evening charging during non-peak hours might end up being Pay those charging at night for load leveling service.

Finally, the 250kW charger (the 10 minute charge), will not be showing up in houses because of the immense draw they require (and, thus, significant distribution system improvements that would be required to get them installed). The root of this technology is to enable frequently used "charging stations", much akin to gas stations, so that those on long trips can charge in a short time. These stations will most likely use 480 3 phase for the charging circuits; which makes the economics viable. This would be a 200A (per phase) three phase power source.

As some people would say, oh but you don't know my house... 199.125.109.98 (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I just read intresting articles and I thought that in electric car article should be mention about this-> please see the links. It seems talking about minutes in car battery is too much researchers are already speaking about seconds. http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090311/full/news.2009.156.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/battery-material-0311.html http://en.wordpress.com/tag/byoungwoo-kang/

However very fast charging needs some sort of special charging station for some reason.

Hello,

Wich supplier has the best techology at the moment? I have heard that in Finnland supplier http://www.fevt.fi/technology has the best car batteries. I wonder is this true? The main benefit -what i have heard- is the patented battery management -> Cell Control System.

..Does anyone know by the way is litium phosphate(A123) really better in any way than the litium titanate-oxide (nanosafe)?

I think you would need to ask that question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, but there may be other forums that would be much better for getting an answer to that than an encyclopedia. We don't do homework and we can't design a car for you. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Just found this one; not sure what it could be used to validate: [[15]]
Mjquin_id (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we already have most of them, but it was published January 10th, 2008 anyway, and 9 months ago is kind of a long time. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed this section because it was particularly badly written and had no refs, etc. If anyone can be bothered to fix it up and make it worthwhile... Motorracer (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Due to the relationship between automakers and car dealers the progress of electric cars could take longer than expected. Still finding ways to make gas powered cars better does not sound good enough to keep them on the road. I could think of several reasons why we should switch from gas powered to electric. Or at least try it out by just making some of the electric cars and see how people like them and how they operate and if they like it more than the gas powered cars then we should take the gas powered away completely. A managing director at Draper Fisher Juvetson, Fonstadsad that Detroit automakers have created an enviroment,through discounts and volume buying, that make it touch for new, electric car companies to squeeze into the market. It never hurts to just try a car or two out to see if it would make it easier, even though the charging would take a while and the travel distance might change dramatically. Jim from Nissan saids they hope to come out with a fully electric car in about five years, he said that everyone needs to get into the education on how they will operate etc. We are closer to comming out with electric cars than we were about 30 years ago. Toyota and Honda started comming out with hybrids in the 1980's, which are cars that are half gasoline powered and half electric. There is a possibility that some automakers and dealers have no idea how much more money they can make from electric cars, as long as they get better gas mileage than the gas powered cars. It could take time to make this electric car deal happen, but at the end it may be worth it and cheaper also less of a hassle for us people that have cars that need to be filled u two or three times a week. Doing research made me think more about my topic and how it could really be accomplished if more people think logically about how if things are changed it doesnt only mean a bad thing, but could make things less complicated. I think that I could go much further with this subject of electric cars and how the progress has increased or decreased. Learning from the dealers at different dealership and there opinions on electric cars was interesting and made me still go on with there is a possibility of getting them on the road and fully replacing gasoline cars with fully electric cars or at least have equal amounts of both so there could be a choice." date issued:december 3,2008

The article says no prius has ever had its battery replaced due to wear and tear. Read

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Prius_Technical_Stuff/message/32149

and many similar posts there. Greglocock (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)