Why are ReTHUGS against electric cars

[malaise]

Is it because they are owned by big Oil?

I don't get it.

[GoCubsGo]

1. Yes.

They are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the petroleum industry, as are some Dems.

[lacrew]

28. I am bracing for the slapdown...

...but I don't like electric cars.


There is very little upside.

1. Cars that get over 40 mpg right now have comparable CO2 output.

2. Cost - cost to buy (and since the $7,500 credit is non-refundable, you've got to be a top tier earner to even get that discount), higher cost to insure (due to higher cost), and, in the states with personal property tax, high taxes due to higher cost. As an example of the taxes, if the Leaf cost $10,000 more than a comparable car, in my county (30% assessment and 141 mils), I would pay an extra $423 in the first year. As an example of the insurance, I got on-line quotes from my insurance company for a Volt vs a Ford Focus...around $500 a year difference.

3. Savings not that great. Ignoring the additional costs to own, we can look at the operating cost savings. It costs around 4 cents a mile (34 kwh/100 mile and $0.12 per kwh). A new Hyundai Elantra gets 40 mpg...and $3.75 a gallon, that's $0.094 per mile. We average 12,000 miles a year, which would save us....$648 a year in fuel.

As you can see, you would have to drive several years, in order to lower the car's insurance and tax value, before you even get to start thinking about the gas savings offsetting the initial cost.

And lets be honest - the battery will not last forever. Its hard to nail down the cost of the battery, but a Reuters story from 2 days ago says $689 per kwh, which is $15,800. A story from yesterday says the Ford Focus electric battery will cost between $12,000 and $15,000. Just using the low end cost of $12 thousand, and the anticipated gas savings (ignoring the higher cost of ownership), you would break even, if you went 222,000 miles. They've got a warranty for the first 100k, so assuming you get a change out then for free, and you need a new one at the 222k mark, you've broke even. I understand engines go bad too...but the cost to replace an engine is less than half that cost. (BTW, how on earth would Nissan make any money, if most people came back for a 'just in case' battery swap at the 99k mile mark).

But what about the environment? CO2 is a wash with some of the uber mileage gas and Prius style hybrids.

But what about the future? I remember just a few short years ago, when everybody (and 95% of politicians of all stripes) was shouting 'HYDROGEN' from the rooftops. Remember? Hydrogen fuel cells were going to save us? It was the future...except it wasn't.

Then there was ethanol. It was surely going to be our saving grace...but, it wasn't.

But what about getting away from oil? I do not have my head in the sand about oil. In fact, I think we can follow what many Europeans have done. They are putting LNG conversion kits in their cars...as an aftermarket device. It makes the car a multifuel vehicle...because sometimes natural gas is cheaper than gasoline, in Europe. Anyone know where we have a newfound glut of NG?...and the underground storage space is running out? Here. Right here.

With much fanfare, my community installed a free to use charging station...which I have NEVER seen used.

With no fanfare whatsoever, two privately owned LNG stations have opened in my community. I really do think LNG is the quiet wave of the future.

Where will electric cars be in 5 years? There will be a few - fleets, ride-share arrangements, etc....but for the most part, they will be as memorable as all those hydrogen fuel cells we were supposed to have by now.

Flame away - I've been called plenty of names. But, I would be especially appreciative if anybody finds a factual flaw in my reasoning.

I don't 'hate' electric cars...but for the reasons listed above, I'm not a supporter.

Disclaimer - the technology of the non plug in Prius, and those that copy it, is much better at costing out; and, I do not lump it in with plug ins. I do think that more and more new car models will copy. I understand that Prius now has a plug in model...and it does make perfect sense to start out with a fully charged battery...as long as the good people of Toyota aren't tempted to add substantial weight, in the form of a larger battery.

[taught_me_patience]

39. I disagree with your assessment

The technology will get better and cheaper and the economics will be much more compelling when gas tops $5.00/g. By 2020, I predict that hybrid cars will outsell non-hybrids and 5-10% of the total market will be full electric. And by 2030, full electric will outsell traditional gas cars.

I do agree with you on natural gas, though. By 2030, Nat gas will make up 25% of car market and 50% of truck market.

[lacrew]

48. Technology

We would need a quantum leap in battery technology, before anything gets better or cheaper.

The economics do get better, if gas goes up...but, in my neck of the woods, something has gone up at a much higher pace than gas...my electric bill. Just yesterday, my utility was given permission (as a regulated monopoly) for a $50 million rate hike. Seriously, as much as politicians scream about gas prices, I bet any study of the two would show electrical costs outpacing gas costs.

With current CAFE standards, I agree with your assessment on hybrids..in fact, I think they will outpace non-hybrids before 2020 (if you take fleet sales out of the equation).

I have no confidence that battery technology will be any better in 2020, than it is today....I base this on the fact that they haven't improved much in the past. Remember the EV1? The 2nd generation version had a 26.4 kwh battery (more than the Leaf), with a range of 160 miles (more than the Leaf). I assume that the aluminum skinned EV1 was too expensive to mass produce, so the Leaf weighs more, and the trade off is a shorter range. But that's the point - all anyone is doing with battery technology these days is figuring out where the trade-offs are...weight, safety, cost, range, charge time, reliability, etc...but there have been no breakout advancements.

Here's a tid bit, just to show that electric cars are not a 'new' or 'emerging' technology, really (from wikipedia): "At the turn of the century, 40 percent of American automobiles were powered by steam, 38 percent by electricity, and 22 percent by gasoline"

So, they've been around for a while. Lets look back a half century - to the Henry Kilowatt. The 1959 model went 60 mph, and travelled for 60 miles....not too shabby, when compared with the Leaf.

Sooo...I have no reason to believe the plug ins will ever reach more than 2% of sales.

2030? I'd say we're still at 2% market share. Its just reality. That's 18 years from now. Where were we 18 years ago? The EV1. We haven't really eclipsed that technology yet.

[taught_me_patience]

55. Great points

I'm hoping the government announces that they will convert their entire fleet to natural gas as part of the next economic stimulus. I think it would be the boost that nat. gas needs for widescale adoption.

Tesla seems to have much better technology than the leaf. It just seems like that tech is much more expensive. But, like all technology, the costs will come down as the market for it grows.

[DirkGently]

41. None of that qualifies as the screeching hate I think the OP was referencing.

But factually, you are listing a bit to the critical.

- "Some" electric cars are a C02 wash. Generally, they're much better. And C02 is just one issue. Fossil fuel cars emit particulates and hydrocarbons. Odors. Soot. And by and large, electric vehicles, no matter what the fuel to charge them, are massively more efficient, which means less waste overall.

- "Additional costs." For now, generally, yes. But against initial costs and the battery, you can put a long list of maintenance issues electric cars avoid entirely. Oil changes, spark plugs, fuel and air filters, etc., aren't free, and cause waste and hassle.

- Not taking over in the next five years? No. But that's not a reason not to like electrics. They've come a long way recently, and there's no reason to think the technology is going to stop advancing now.

Then there's performance. Current hybrids are tepid, but a pure electric with a decent motor has 100% torque at 0 RPM. Anyone who's played around in a golf cart knows that waiting for an ICE motor to spin up is a poor way to move a vehicle.

I know the idiocy of which the OP speaks. There's a large cultural contingent of knee-jerk green haters and enviro-mockers, who knock electrics simply because they resent anything tainted with any wiff of social responsibility. "Michelle's trying to make us eat BROCOLLI!" I remember Car and Driver columnists flatly stating that no electric car would ever work, ever. Too weak, too costly, too hippie feel good kumbaya whatever to ever compete. Then, a while back, they tested a Tesla, and it had the best 50-70 mph acceleration they'd ever tested. "The electric car we'd drive, if we wanted to drive one. Which we don't." Or some such, was the best they could do when confronted with being completely wrong for 20 years or so.

No one has to love electric cars. No one will be forced to drive them. Most won't even have the option for a while. The poor and middle class will get semi-satisfying hybrids, and the rich will get the Teslas and Karmas, et al.

But they're not a hopeless boondoggle, or a greenie morality trip, or not actually a net environmental benefit, which is what the rightwingers I assume the OP was thinking of keep trying to say.

[lacrew]

49. LNG shares some of the same advantages

Soot, particulates? Hello LNG

Maintenance costs? Some vehicle fleets are converting to LNG, because of a demonstrated (and drastic) reduction in maintenance costs. The oil change interval can be tripled, spark plugs never foul, etc.

Come a long way? I'm really not trying to be snarky; but, I'd humbly point to the EV1..its range exceeded the Leafs. We really haven't come that far...and instead of advancements, differing strategies for trading off weight, cost, and range are being tried...but essentially the technology is the same. The batteries have shaved off 10 lb per kwh in the last 15 years...but that's about the extent of the improvement.

I certainly can't control the future; but, I can make wild predictions. My prediction: The continued rise of hybrids...to include LNG hybrids...but pure electric cars will never gain more than 2% of market share.

Sure there are some amazing 'supercars' out there...but I wouldn't expect mass production. BTW, the Tesla batteries weigh 10 lb/kwh less than the Leaf's...but they cost 30% more per kwh...and only last 7 years...more trade-offs, but no giant leap in capability.

[DirkGently]

51. I think we'll see any number of useful hybrids, but I'll take the bet on just 2% electric.

I suspect the Leaf / EV1 comparison has a lot to due with the increased vehicle weight on a modern car. I think the EV was about 500 lbs lighter. And that's the case with most of the "My xxx-yr-old car gets 50 mpg, therefore anti-mileage conspiracy" stuff you hear out there. Whether it's older diesels or cars from the first gas crunches, you're inevitably talking about cars with no airbags, anti-locks, side impact beams, etc. that weigh hundreds of pounds less.

The overall limitation is the same one it's always been -- battery capacity / energy density. It's no small hurdle, but I don't think it's insurmountable, or that the Tesla's lithium cells are as good as it will ever get.

What I'd expect to happen first is an improvement in hybrids -- small fossil fuel generators running at constant rpm to extend battery range -- and a movement to pure electrics first in urban areas, where a small vehicle with a 50-100 mile range is plenty for commuters and charging stations are already cropping up.

[lacrew]

54. Time will tell

You are correct, as far as the EV1 weighing less than a LEAF.

The last paragraph, about the small fossil fuel generator....is the Volt. And that contributes to the Volt's weighing 450 lb more than the LEAF. IMHO (and its an opinion that gets alot of people upset here!), the Volt is not going to be produced in 5 years. The reason - all the extra batteries, all the battery temperature management systems, the 20k additional cost, the plugging in, all that....and the big payoff is.....you save a gallon of gas. Its electric range is literally less than what one gallon of gas will get you, in around a dozen models you can buy today. I think GM is going to regret their experiment with the Volt.

[movonne]

2. Rush and other rw talk show hosts tell them how

to think...if it is anything progressive they hate it...

[Politicalboi]

3. My guess is

If they accept electric cars, they are accepting Global Warming. It's their way to rebel.

[LiberalLoner]

6. Yup, it means they would also accept the idea that gas will continue to be more and more

expensive (peak oil.) Peak oil is another concept they don't believe in.

[WingDinger]

12. Actually, they now have socalled EXPERTS that claim that oil is replenishing itself.

They claim that oil is not organic, but from rocks. They say that LIBERALS are in a worldwide conspiracy, to control humans. That Al Gore orchestrated this all, to make himself rich. And the scientists are all on the take.

In other words, resources are infinite. And we should act like they are. And we should be killed, imprisoned, expelled, ignored.


And we damn sure, should be requiring women to have many babies, as there is no population bomb. Nor is there climate change, or any of the other negative things we use to control humans.

[malaise]

14. In other words

They are fugging crazy

[hifiguy]

18. "Nothing is infinite except for

the universe and human stupidity. And I have my doubts about the former." Albert Einstein

[malaise]

21. Excellent

[Eddie Haskell]

24. Because they're assholes.

They believe in the abiotic theory of oil generation. The earth has a creamy nougat center that pumps oil to the surface on an as needed basis. Just drill a hole and wait awhile.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. Because they're conservative. Nothing should ever be tried for the first time. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

20. Exactly, they hate change, even when they pooed in their diapers as babies, they didn't want change.

It was God's will for the poo to be there.

[malaise]

45. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Guess that explains Vitter

[BlancheSplanchnik]

63. And *that*, my friends, is why we call them "shitheads"

[FSogol]

5. Because they are dinosaurs.

[Vehl]

15. best answer!!

succinct!

[librechik]

7. yes.

[shcrane71]

8. Electric vehicles = HUGE economic shift

If rechargeable electric cars catch on, here's some things that will happen:

People will spend much less on oil changes. The Chevy Volt recommends an oil change ever TWO YEARS.

Much less gas will be purchased.

People may get the bright idea to install their own solar panels and wind turbines on their properties. If we have a mass exodus of consumers from the electric grid, then it's very difficult to have price gouging rates. It would also mean that centralized large power corporations aren't so powerful -- no pun intended.

[malaise]

16. So we'll have a new economy

and the fossil posse will atrophy??

I can't wait.

[shcrane71]

57. I once heard excerpts of a Bill Clinton speech about the need for renewable energy.

Clinton was basically saying that it would create a whole new bigger, more egalitarian economy.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. The Third Industrial Revolution

Book Review: The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy, The Economy, And The World


http://www.plusultratech.com/2011/12/book-review-third-industrial-revolution.html

^snip^


To Rifkin, this third industrial revolution will be made of five supporting "pillars." They are:

Shifting to Renewable Energy

Transforming the building stock of every continent into micro-power plants to collect renewable energies on site

Deploying hydrogen and other storage technologies in every building and throughout the infrastructure to store intermittent energies

The use of Internet technology to transform the power grid of every continent into an energy-sharing intergrid that acts just like the Internet

Transitioning the transport fleet to electric plug-in and fuel cell vehicles that can buy and sell electricity in a smart continental interactive power grid



Rifkin defines the critical two parts to any economic revolution that has occurred in history,


...the great economic revolutions in history occur when new communication technologies converge with new energy systems. New energy regimes make possible the creation of more interdependent economic activity and expanded commercial exchange as well as facilitate more dense and inclusive social relationships. The accompanying communication revolutions become the means to organize and manage the new temporal and spatial dynamics that arise from new energy systems.

[malaise]

36. Makes a lot of sense

Nice post

[shcrane71]

56. I need to read that book. Thanks for sharing! nt

[Motown_Johnny]

59. I hope to get to it over the summer,

been putting it off for months but I also need to read it (and soon).

[tinrobot]

60. The shift will happen, regardless.

Europe and Japan will make this shift over the next 10-20 years. China won't be far behind.

If we don't shift, then we'll be the laggards and on our way to insignificance.

[Maraya1969]

9. They don't know how they are going to store all those big extention cords.

[Turbineguy]

10. OK, tell me...

how are you gonna get 8 miles per gallon in an electric car? Hmmm? I thought so. How can you be a Patriot and not get 8 MPG? You can't.

[CJCRANE]

11. The exciting thing is

that in a few years time, all the cool cars will be eletric...

[WingDinger]

13. Actually, they might be nat gas.

nat gas is mondo octane, and purpose built nat gas cars will have huge compression ratios, and will make big power, and likely get reasonable gas mileage. Dual fuel, is stupid.

[CJCRANE]

26. Could be

but I haven't noticed any nat gas concept cars at the autoshows recently. The trend seems to be towards hybrids and a few electrics for the more cutting edge stuff.

ETA: But if natural gas engines promote energy independence then that's a good thing IMO. But personally I'm more and more liking the idea of a car that I can just plug in without all the messing around with flammable liquids.

[Motown_Johnny]

29. Right now only the Honda Civic is the only production natural gas vehicle in America

and the infrastructure simply isn't there for a natural gas fleet. A few years ago it was a big thing, now it seems to have fallen by the wayside.


The fuel economy is great but you only get about half the distance from a "tank" than in a gasoline powered car.

I have seen "pumps" that you can install at your own home so that you can refuel your vehicle right in your own driveway. The problem is that there are not many service stations where you can refuel while on a long trip. Add in the shorter range and you see the problem.


The most interesting vehicle I have seen recently is the concept Prius with a fuel cell. I know everyone talks about Hydrogen but that is just a bait and switch. These will end up running on natural gas since that works just as well and is much less expensive. If only we had natural gas filling stations we might be able to transition. Maybe after the election someone can try to make larger gas stations have one LNG pump too.


http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/natural_gas_locations.html

[trof]

17. They aren't in the bible.

If it ain't in the bible, it AIN'T!
period

[malaise]

22. But neither are US dollars

and they love the greenback

[trof]

32. Well 'talants' are, and that was money.

And that's close enough for them.

[malaise]

46. Getting up off the floor

[TheWraith]

19. That, and they're reflexively against progress. nt

[Spike89]

25. Don't think they are, formally

Of course, as many pointed out, there are lots of reasons that many ReTHUGs are against electric cars. I might also add that some are against any regulations, government subsidises, or even gov.-funded research--all of which are entangled in the issues around electric cars.
I personally hope we can come to an alternative to the internal combustion engine. I also think it is very much government's role to promote the research and development of more efficient transportation modes. That said, I'm still on the fence on whether the path we're heading down is the best.
I've heard lots and lots about the consumer cost-payoff equations for electric cars and they basically aren't compelling. However, that isn't what is really important. What matters is the overall environmental cost-payoff equation. If electric cars truly are much better than conventional vehicles, then it makes sense for the feds to push for a switch over. However, if the energy/environmental cost of producing and running electrics is equal or greater, then it isn't good policy.
For instance, what is the true energy/environmental cost of producing and disposing of current batteries. Some of the materials are rare, difficult (energy-intensive) to extract/refine, and most of the batteries are quite toxic and difficult to dispose of/recycle. Furthermore, electric power is far from free and capacity is finite. To switch over, how many new power plants will be needed, how will they be fueled?
A car that has 100,000 average mile lifespan getting 33 mpg will use 3000 gallons of gas. An all-electric car uses no gas, but from assembly to scrap heap, it certainly does require some amount of energy. The big question is how much, and is that savings (if any) over the old technology worth the environmental damage?
How anyone can be passionately for or against electric cars without knowing these answers is beyond me.

[malaise]

30. Good post

with some reasonable questions but ReTHUGS have no problems with subsidies for big oil et al even when their profits are going through the roof.

[CJCRANE]

35. There's also the question of

energy independence. That's also a big part of the case for electric cars IMO.

[Spike89]

43. Yeah, but rare earths are potentially the next "oil"

I really don't want to be "the anti electric" guy. I'm just very skeptical when I don't have/can't find answers to questions that I think must be answered. but I digress...
My understanding is that one of the real issues behind researching and producing current and next-generation battery technology is the access and availability of certain rare earth compounds that are almost exclusively in China. If we escape the imported oil trap but end up relying on even more scarce imported materials, have we made any progress?

[Shankapotomus]

27. Because Democrats are for them (nt)

[Motown_Johnny]

31. They want to burn through all the oil in the world so our coal will be

more valuable.

That is their long term plan and has been for at least 40 years (maybe more).

This whole silly "destroying the planet with fossil fuels" thing just doesn't work for them.

[veganlush]

33. it's

similar to why they hate solar and wind-that is, nobody owns the sun and wind (yet), therefore, there's a limit to how much people can get rich off of us. it's the same reason they are so hostile to bicycling, if you aren't burning fossil fuels you are a commie to these people.

[DirkGently]

34. Yes. They don't make the right people rich. And, progress = boooooo!

That's pretty much it.

[bbinacan]

37. They aren't practical. n/t

[Raine]

38. Reactionairies, if "we're afore it, they're agin it". If we were against them

they would be in favor of them.

[sorefeet]

40. Locamotives

are diesel electric hybrids. Ya never hear Rush complain about that. Some of the most economic freight we have in America.

[jmowreader]

52. Locomotives aren't generally "hybrid" in the way a Prius is

Locomotives have electric wheel motors powered by a (huge!) generator because it makes designing the locomotive easier. They don't need driveshafts or 90-degree gearboxes on a diesel-electric locomotive. The torque an electric motor provides is handy too--it's much easier to get a million pound train going if you have full torque throughout the motor's power range.

GE is developing a hybrid locomotive that captures electricity generated by the motors during braking, but it's not out yet.

[malaise]

53. But aren't ReTHUGS against

railway developments as well?

[jmowreader]

58. Yes they are

Republicans do not like to spend public money for anything, especially transportation.

Their wildest dream would be to sell every road in America to a private company and allow that company to charge tolls. With modern technology you wouldn't even need to build tollbooths every block; you could require EZPass transponders in cars and put the detectors in lampposts. The thing is, the Constitution specifically authorizes public roads in the same line it authorizes post offices (a "post road" is one mail is moved on, and since mail is moved on every road in America...), but that's not one of the parts of the Constitution Republicans like.

Now check this out: A Republican actually had a good idea a few weeks ago. You'll never hear of it, though. He proposed to repeal the federal excise tax on new heavy trucks and replace the revenue with a seven-cent increase in the tax on a gallon of diesel. This makes a lot of sense: it instantly cuts the price of a new truck by $15,000, with all the benefits new trucks bring (jobs at truck factories, reduced emissions, reduced fuel consumption and a safer vehicle because new trucks come with new truck parts in them), and it will increase tax revenues because trucks burn a LOT of diesel. Believe it or not, all the trucking industry groups are in favor of this. You won't hear about it because the Republican Way is to offset a tax cut with a spending cut, not an increase in a different tax. I've got the Republican's name around here somewhere, and will mention it when I have it here. You'll know it pretty soon though: the story will read "Congressman Tax Hiker has become a Democrat because John Boehner threatened to drag him behind a car if he didn't."

[NNN0LHI]

42. Because if Obama cured cancer they would be against that

Isn't the answer to your question really obvious?

Don

[spanone]

44. i believe you have answered your own question!

[fascisthunter]

47. because they only listen to the types who invest in big oil

[BlancheSplanchnik]

50. I would guess a couple of reasons:

Corporate jerks don't want the bajillion $$$ oil industry threatened.

Ignorant jerk offs hate them because

1) liberals support them AND because

2) electric cars aren't manly, in the way guns, NASCAR, deep-fried Manwiches, Hummers, Trans-Ams, off-road giant trucks and pig-roasts are manly.

[malaise]

61. Pretty much

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Actually it is not that. At the base level it is change

and change is quite scary. In fact, in that sense they are closer to most of human history. It is hard to comprehend how how risk and change averse humans have been across history.

[Odin2005]

64. Because we are for it, that's the only reason.

If we said the sky were blue they would insist the sky is red.