• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Automaker Fisker recalls some 2,400 Karmas for cooling fan issue

The Chevy Volt. What a useless car that is.

It's base price is roughly double what a fully loaded Chevy Cruze is...yet it is smaller inside, has a smaller trunk and seats 20% less people.

And this was the car that was supposed to save GM?

The only people that buy Volt's are either green fanatics or automotive ignoramuses.

...And people who don't support middle-east terrorists. And people who don't like the idea of the US being economically raped by middle-east sheiks without the aid of lubricant. There are plenty of America-haters out there who'd like to see the US get a bad deal, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when some oppose the US establishing energy independence.

20% less people makes it useless? So it seats 4 people instead of 5. In trade for that one person, people who own a Volt and travel less than 32 miles a day (which represents a large percent of people), don't need to buy gas for their daily commutes, EVER! A great way to flip the bird at OPEC and their al-Queda friends. Does this mean that ANY 2-seater is "worse than useless?"
 
Last edited:
...And people who don't support middle-east terrorists. And people who don't like the idea of the US being economically raped by middle-east sheiks without the aid of lubricant.

20% less people makes it useless? So it seats 4 people instead of 5. OMG! Stop the presses! GM is NOT making clown-cars. How will they ever hold up?
Did I say that the sole reason it is useless is because it seats 4 instead of 5?

No.

But you decided to make it try and sound like I did.

I think I know all about your character from that one post.


And no, what makes the Volt 'useless' is it's base price of almost $40,000 for a car that is being sold on it's gas mileage (among other things).

And considering they probably won't even sell 20,000 in 2012 - even with massive government price breaks - looks like most Americans agree....it's useless unless you are a green fanatic or an automotive ignoramus...or a combination thereof.

You disagree?

Then I guess we know that you are probably one of the above.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Did I say that the sole reason it is useless is because it seats 4 instead of 5?

No.

But you decided to make it try and sound like I did.

I think I know all about your character from that one post.


And no, what makes the Volt 'useless' is it's base price of almost $40,000 for a car that is being sold on it's gas mileage (among other things).

And considering they probably won't even sell 20,000 in 2012 - even with massive government price breaks - looks like most Americans agree....it's useless unless you are a green fanatic or an automotive ignoramus...or a combination thereof.

You disagree?

Then I guess we know that you are probably one of the above.

Well, the car DOES get great mileage, and it's doing so with a newer technology, and that always costs more, at the start. The Volt will take you 25 miles for slightly over $1.00. It's best gas-only competitors in this regard take you 25 miles for slightly under $3.00. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to work out which has better cost per mile performance. That would hardly make someone picking the lower automotive cost an automotive ignoramus. And performance like that hardly makes a car "useless."

And I notice you didn't comment about the alternative choices of people who don't want the US taken advantage of by the middle-east. The absence of comment is telling.
 
Well, the car DOES get great mileage, and it's doing so with a newer technology, and that always costs more, at the start. The Volt will take you 25 miles for slightly over $1.00. It's best gas-only competitors in this regard take you 25 miles for slightly under $3.00. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to work out which has better cost per mile performance. That would hardly make someone picking the lower automotive cost an automotive ignoramus. And performance like that hardly makes a car "useless."

And I notice you didn't comment about the alternative choices of people who don't want the US taken advantage of by the middle-east. The absence of comment is telling.

So your idea of stopping the US (which has over 8% unemployment) from being 'taken advantage of by the middle-east' is for more Americans to go further into debt to buy a $40,000 Chevy Volt instead of buying a $16,000 Chevy Cruze (as an example) so they can save a few hundred dollars a year on gas?

Noted.


And btw - Canada sells more oil to America then all the middle eastern countries combined.


Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
 
Last edited:
So your idea of stopping the US from being taken advantage of by the 'middle east' is for more Americans to go further into debt to buy a $40,000 Chevy Volt instead of saving a bundle and buying a $16,000 Chevy Cruze (as an example) - which even if gas goes to $6 a gallon will cost Americans thousands and thousands of extra dollars over the life of the car?

Noted.


And btw - Canada sells more oil to America then all the middle eastern countries combined.


Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

It is not the Volt itself that will do it, but the further development of the technology that will bring costs down and performance up for future uses of the technology
 
It is not the Volt itself that will do it, but the further development of the technology that will bring costs down and performance up for future uses of the technology

Remember when everyone crapped all over the Prius? Now it's one of the biggest selling cars on the market. The cost came down and now everyone and their mom has one.

The Volt is still very new; it's easy to pooh-pooh it. Let's see where it is ten years from now.
 
Remember when everyone crapped all over the Prius? Now it's one of the biggest selling cars on the market. The cost came down and now everyone and their mom has one.

The Volt is still very new; it's easy to pooh-pooh it. Let's see where it is ten years from now.

If they don't radically reduce the cost...it will probably not even exist.

You cannot sell less then 20,000 units forever for a non-luxury model.

Americans are not stupid about cars...they see that a 40K compact with a neat power train ain't worth buying...even with pathetic government rebates that force American taxpayers who cannot afford the Volt to give their hard earned money to upper middle class/rich people who already can - with or without the 'rebates/tax breaks'.
 
So your idea of stopping the US (which has over 8% unemployment) from being 'taken advantage of by the middle-east' is for more Americans to go further into debt to buy a $40,000 Chevy Volt instead of buying a $16,000 Chevy Cruze (as an example) so they can save a few hundred dollars a year on gas?

Noted.

And btw - Canada sells more oil to America then all the middle eastern countries combined.

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

OPEC's vast oil reserves means they are a primary influencer on the price of oil. They are well known for doing this in ways that drive up the price. Since ALL oil purchased from anywhere (Mexico/Canada included) is purchased at the same international price, that means, yeah, OPEC is sticking it to us. And people should buy the Volt only if they can afford it, and it suits their driving needs. Short daily commutes to work and back are perfect for the Volt. It's all about choice remember. If the BMW 5-series and it's ilk are still selling well, price really isn't an issue.

And if we no longer require OPEC's oil, energy must still be generated to power the cars that no longer use oil or use very little of it. So that means domestic energy must still be generated here. And that means jobs for Americans, rather than cash in the pockets of Sheiks. That will take a nice bite out of that 8% unemployment. I like Canada and Mexico just fine, but I'd rather give Americans the energy jobs, wouldn't you?
 
If they don't radically reduce the cost...it will probably not even exist.

No one in America is in the market for a $40-50K car? BMW sold 265,000+ vehicles in 2010. Mercedes Benz sold 245,000+ units in 2011. Audi sold in most ever in 2010, with 101,000+. These are not cheap cars. The entry levels cost near $30k, and they don't have tax credits like the Volt does (making it approx $33k after credits).

Now take a look at the Volt. Better gas mileage then basically any competitively priced vehicle. It's American made, a selling point with many people. It's reliability has been better than average, although this is probably due to over-engineering in response to market scrutiny.

I'm saying Chevy doesn't have it's work cut out for itself. But it seems that many good automotive ideas get dismissed out-of-hand only to quietly become staples of the road. The Volt has gotten good reviews from almost every automotive and science publication it's been featured in.

FFS, give it a chance, son!

You cannot sell less then 20,000 units forever for a non-luxury model.

Prices comes down as the technology evolves and gets cheaper. There will be basic versions of the Volt and luxury versions over time.

mericans are not stupid about cars...

I beg to differ. What do you call the SUV craze of the late 90's and early 2000s? There was ZERO rationality in that trend.

they see that a 40K compact with a neat power train ain't worth buying...

A more advanced system than one of the biggest volume sellers in the US, the Prius? That doesn't exactly make sense in light of the market.

even with pathetic government rebates that force American taxpayers who cannot afford the Volt to give their hard earned money to upper middle class/rich people who already can - with or without the 'rebates/tax breaks'.[/QUOTE]

What does it come out to per person? A couple of pennies? Gimmie a break!
 
OPEC's vast oil reserves means they are a primary influencer on the price of oil. They are well known for doing this in ways that drive up the price. Since ALL oil purchased from anywhere (Mexico/Canada included) is purchased at the same international price, that means, yeah, OPEC is sticking it to us. And people should buy the Volt only if they can afford it, and it suits their driving needs. Short daily commutes to work and back are perfect for the Volt. It's all about choice remember. If the BMW 5-series and it's ilk are still selling well, price really isn't an issue.

And if we no longer require OPEC's oil, energy must still be generated to power the cars that no longer use oil or use very little of it. So that means domestic energy must still be generated here. And that means jobs for Americans, rather than cash in the pockets of Sheiks. That will take a nice bite out of that 8% unemployment. I like Canada and Mexico just fine, but I'd rather give Americans the energy jobs, wouldn't you?
You obviously think Americans buying 40K cars to save some oil is a good idea for America.

And I think the last thing Americans need is to go further into debt.

There are FAR better ways of saving gas then buying brand new, over priced cars with feel good technology.

You obviously disagree.

Fine - now if you will excuse me, this pointless debate lost interest for me about 3 posts back, no offense.


Have a nice day.
 
The Chevy Volt. What a useless car that is.

It's base price is roughly double what a fully loaded Chevy Cruze is...yet it is smaller inside, has a smaller trunk and seats 20% less people.

And this was the car that was supposed to save GM?

The only people that buy Volt's are either green fanatics or automotive ignoramuses.

By comparison, Carl Benz's first automobile was useless and waste of time also or Henry Ford's Model A and Model T. So was the Wright Brothers first Airplane or Goddards first chemical rocket. How useful is an X8088 Intel processor today?

Is it more expensive than a Cruze? Sure, but one is old technology based on over a 150 years of developement (first gas internal combustion engine built by Belgian Jean Joseph Etienne Lenoir in 1860, first actual internal combustion engine was in the 1600s, gunpowder fueled and was used to drive water pumps so the Cruze could be considered an end product of around 400 years of development) and the other is a technology that is just now being developed for the market. While certain types of hybrids do go back to the late 1800s, the current focus on hybrid use is only recent probably due to the relatively low cost of gasoline and gasoline powered cars for over a century (and most likely to a lot, and I mean a lot, of lobbing dollars). Before, there simply wasn't enough motivation to put money into developement. Like any "new" technology going to market, it is initially going to cost consumers more. As development continues, a greater variety of choices will become available and prices will go down once companies recoup research and development costs.

What is really more interesting to me though is that the government had hybrid HUMVEEs as early as 1985, where the hell is our usable hybrid pickups and SUVs after 27 years of development? The government already covered the R&D costs on that. So GM and others, fess them up!!!

(God forgive me for saying this) Be thankful for those green fanatics and automotive ignoramuses, because they are going to pay for the development of the future of automobiles.

As to seating 20% less, how many people do you commute with? In the early 1980s, GM and Toyata starting building the Pontiac Fiero and the MRII as a base commuter car. (Ok, so GM did their usual 1980s number and tried to cut costs and basically destroyed one of the best ideas and base designs for an easy to use, park and fuel efficient daily commuter they ever had, but hey, they tried.) Why did they do it? Because they found that most commuters only had one or two people commuting and so they made it a two seater. My 1985 and 1986 ones, both converted to manual 5 speeds, got around 38 mpg until I added a MSD 2A multispark unit and capacitance discharge coil, then they got up to 42 MPG. Now consider that they were a pushrod, rotary distributer, all iron motor with a single draft Throttle Body Injection system, and that is really damned good. The Cruze uses a slightly smaller, alluminum alloy, 32 valve twin overhead cam, timed sequential multiport fuel injection, distributerless ignition (with a coil for each sparkplug and no plug wires motor) motor (less weight, reduction of rotating mass and a lot less resistance for spark) and the best model of it can only match what I got from that 1985 car with a $150 upgrade and I still had a somewhat reliable daily driver for commuting. My 2010 HHR with the 2.2L and 5 speed manual only gets around 29-30 (supposed to get 32, but ethanol gas screws up gas milleage.) So personally, I am saying screw the newer cars, I am going back to the old ones (I can get a crate motor for them for under $5000 and still get a 5 year/100,000 mile warrenty on the motor) and if they ever get the hybrids bigger, affordable and reliable, then I might consider them.
 
Last edited:
...And people who don't support middle-east terrorists. And people who don't like the idea of the US being economically raped by middle-east sheiks without the aid of lubricant. There are plenty of America-haters out there who'd like to see the US get a bad deal, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when some oppose the US establishing energy independence.

20% less people makes it useless? So it seats 4 people instead of 5. In trade for that one person, people who own a Volt and travel less than 32 miles a day (which represents a large percent of people), don't need to buy gas for their daily commutes, EVER! A great way to flip the bird at OPEC and their al-Queda friends. Does this mean that ANY 2-seater is "worse than useless?"

The Mazda Miata is a two seater and it was a total hit. The RX-8 is a two seater, and they sell plenty of 'em. Same for the BMW Z4 and the Corvette.
 
No one in America is in the market for a $40-50K car?
That is not what I said and you know it.

The Volt will probably not sell even 20,000 units in 2012.

I will let others decide if Americans have a demand for it.

What does it come out to per person? A couple of pennies? Gimmie a break!

That line explains all I need to know about you as far as this conversation is concerned.


And btw:

'Typical buyer of subsidized Chevy Volt earns $170,000 per year'

Typical buyer of subsidized Chevy Volt earns $170,000 per year | timesfreepress.com


So you apparently think taking money from lower/middle class Americans to give to upper class/rich Americans so they can buy more Chevy Volts is a good idea?

Noted.


I am done talking to you about this for now...life is WAY too short.

You love the car so much? Great...go and buy one.


Have a nice day.
 
Developing new technologies is the only hope this country has of making a comeback. We led the computer revolution and we very badly need another one.

Whether is electric cars or robots or whatever, this is the one place I don't mind government spending at all. Some projects are very difficult. So wether it's a rover on mars or a great electric car, we better start leading again or we'll soon be following.

I can think of many other areas that don't deserve what the government "invests" in.
 
That is not what I said and you know it.

The Volt will probably not sell even 20,000 units in 2012.

I will let others decide if Americans have a demand for it.



That line explains all I need to know about you as far as this conversation is concerned.


And btw:

'Typical buyer of subsidized Chevy Volt earns $170,000 per year'

Typical buyer of subsidized Chevy Volt earns $170,000 per year | timesfreepress.com


So you apparently think taking money from lower/middle class Americans to give to upper class/rich Americans so they can buy more Chevy Volts is a good idea?

Noted.


I am done talking to you about this for now...life is WAY too short.

You love the car so much? Great...go and buy one.


Have a nice day.

Did I say that the sole reason it is useless is because it seats 4 instead of 5?

No.

But you decided to make it try and sound like I did.

I think I know all about your character from that one post.


And no, what makes the Volt 'useless' is it's base price of almost $40,000 for a car that is being sold on it's gas mileage (among other things).

And considering they probably won't even sell 20,000 in 2012 - even with massive government price breaks - looks like most Americans agree....it's useless unless you are a green fanatic or an automotive ignoramus...or a combination thereof.

You disagree?

Then I guess we know that you are probably one of the above.


Have a nice day.

LOL! Instead of a Volt, go buy yourself some unhurt feelings.
 
That is not what I said and you know it.

The Volt will probably not sell even 20,000 units in 2012.

I will let others decide if Americans have a demand for it.



That line explains all I need to know about you as far as this conversation is concerned.


And btw:

'Typical buyer of subsidized Chevy Volt earns $170,000 per year'

Typical buyer of subsidized Chevy Volt earns $170,000 per year | timesfreepress.com


So you apparently think taking money from lower/middle class Americans to give to upper class/rich Americans so they can buy more Chevy Volts is a good idea?

Noted.


I am done talking to you about this for now...life is WAY too short.

You love the car so much? Great...go and buy one.


Have a nice day.

Investing in new technology, sure. Investing is a luxury sports car like Fisker, not so much.

But what has investing in technology gotten us in the past? Who was the first to use airplanes? The military and the postal service with a few rich thrill seekers thrown in. RADAR was developed for the military, but look at all the uses it has today in the civilian world (one you may not know of is the Microwave oven, the first ones were developed off the Klystron Tube originally designed for RADAR systems). Who paid for the development of the internet (not the WWW that everyone thinks of as the internet but the real internet, the TCP/IP connections that is the base for it all), yep, the government. Your cell phone, yep, again the government, the technology that allows them to work is based off of a usage scheme developed for the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System as part of the AEGIS package for the navy.

So lets see, so far the government has developed and funded a lot of things and technology, so who were always the first to have access to them and purchase them? The automobile, darn, those pesky rich guys. How about using passenger airplanes, darn, those pesky rich people again. Microwave ovens, TVs, Radios, cell phones, HD TVs, CDs, VCRs, PCs, etc, etc. Always the people who could afford them, not the average person and yes, the government funded a lot of the technologies that made them possible. So, "taking money from the lower/middle class Americans to give to upper class/rich Americans" has been going on for a longtime now, maybe just not as openly as the case of the Volt. I can't say for sure, but for an introductory piece of technology, the Volt is actually quite affordable to more Americans that almost any other tech that has been released, at least in my lifetime. How much was the first Blue-Ray players compared to basic DVD players? Average new car price in the US for 2012? According to Forbes, $30,303. The cost of a volt? Starts at $31,465. Wow, new tech that close to industry average price, probably unheard of in any industry.

I doubt there is a single person who knows all of the things that the government paid to develope with tax payer money that later was marketed to the public and the wealthier people were almost always the first to pay for it, not the average person. Do I dislike Obama, sure do. Do I dislike his energy policy and spending policies over the last four years, absolutely, but supporting the Volt is not one of the things that I would criticize him for.

The curtailing or hindering the advancement of mankind is the greatest evil that a person or society can commit.
 
By comparison, Carl Benz's first automobile was useless and waste of time also or Henry Ford's Model A and Model T. So was the Wright Brothers first Airplane or Goddards first chemical rocket. How useful is an X8088 Intel processor today?

Is it more expensive than a Cruze? Sure, but one is old technology based on over a 150 years of developement (first gas internal combustion engine built by Belgian Jean Joseph Etienne Lenoir in 1860, first actual internal combustion engine was in the 1600s, gunpowder fueled and was used to drive water pumps so the Cruze could be considered an end product of around 400 years of development) and the other is a technology that is just now being developed for the market. While certain types of hybrids do go back to the late 1800s, the current focus on hybrid use is only recent probably due to the relatively low cost of gasoline and gasoline powered cars for over a century (and most likely to a lot, and I mean a lot, of lobbing dollars). Before, there simply wasn't enough motivation to put money into developement. Like any "new" technology going to market, it is initially going to cost consumers more. As development continues, a greater variety of choices will become available and prices will go down once companies recoup research and development costs.

What is really more interesting to me though is that the government had hybrid HUMVEEs as early as 1985, where the hell is our usable hybrid pickups and SUVs after 27 years of development? The government already covered the R&D costs on that. So GM and others, fess them up!!!

(God forgive me for saying this) Be thankful for those green fanatics and automotive ignoramuses, because they are going to pay for the development of the future of automobiles.

As to seating 20% less, how many people do you commute with? In the early 1980s, GM and Toyata starting building the Pontiac Fiero and the MRII as a base commuter car. (Ok, so GM did their usual 1980s number and tried to cut costs and basically destroyed one of the best ideas and base designs for an easy to use, park and fuel efficient daily commuter they ever had, but hey, they tried.) Why did they do it? Because they found that most commuters only had one or two people commuting and so they made it a two seater. My 1985 and 1986 ones, both converted to manual 5 speeds, got around 38 mpg until I added a MSD 2A multispark unit and capacitance discharge coil, then they got up to 42 MPG. Now consider that they were a pushrod, rotary distributer, all iron motor with a single draft Throttle Body Injection system, and that is really damned good. The Cruze uses a slightly smaller, alluminum alloy, 32 valve twin overhead cam, timed sequential multiport fuel injection, distributerless ignition (with a coil for each sparkplug and no plug wires motor) motor (less weight, reduction of rotating mass and a lot less resistance for spark) and the best model of it can only match what I got from that 1985 car with a $150 upgrade and I still had a somewhat reliable daily driver for commuting. My 2010 HHR with the 2.2L and 5 speed manual only gets around 29-30 (supposed to get 32, but ethanol gas screws up gas milleage.) So personally, I am saying screw the newer cars, I am going back to the old ones (I can get a crate motor for them for under $5000 and still get a 5 year/100,000 mile warrenty on the motor) and if they ever get the hybrids bigger, affordable and reliable, then I might consider them.
Yeah, yeah...we all get it.

This is a wonderful technology that must be developed and we as Americans should support this foray into the future of automotive powertrains...blah blah blah.

I do not give a rodents buttocks how cool the tech in this car is (in so far as this discussion is concerned).

I only care that a) it costs 40K and is selling like snow cones in the Antarctic; b) is another dumbass hybrid that I do not believe is remotely the future of U.S. automotive technology; and c) taxpayers are being forced to subsidize this overpriced experiment so that people who make $170K a year can buy it more easily.

A $24K Prius I get. I hate ALL hybrids in cars, but I get it. A 24K Volt I might get (as in understand the attraction). But at 40K with government subsidies? A waste of metal and plastic and glass....


I am done with you on this subject for now.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
I only care that a) it costs 40K and is selling like snow cones in the Antarctic; b) is another dumbass hybrid that I do not believe is remotely the future of U.S. automotive technology;

That's not what I'm seeing...

Through the first half of this year, sales of the extended-range sedan have already surpassed all sales in 2011.

According to the Detroit-based automaker, Volt sales through June were at 8,817 units, up 221.2 percent compared to the same time period last year and up nearly 1,200 units sold from all of 2011. GM sold 7,671 Volts in 2011
GM: Chevrolet Volt sales in 2012 already surpass last year; on track to sell nearly 18,000 | MLive.com

In Europe, the Volt is sold as the Ampera, and it's doing extremely well.
In April, right-hand drive versions for the UK were introduced and this month, sales begin in Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia.

Opel noted particular examples of regional market dominance, especially in the Netherlands where public sentiment – and government incentives – favor this class of car so much so that Rux said the Ampera even dominated hybrid sales.

“In the Netherlands, we were able to sell not only more Amperas than every other EV, but also more than every hybrid competitor,” he said.

In all, the Ampera took more than 77 percent of the passenger EV market share in May. In a statement, Opel noted this made the Ampera “the undisputed leader of its segment by a wide margin with all the other competitors only managing single figure percentages.”

Further, Opel noted, the average year to date market share for the Ampera in the Netherlands was more than 50 percent, “underscoring its continuing popularity there.”

“We are proud that we are the number one in Europe. Our sales data and customer feedback confirms that we are definitely on the right track with the Ampera”, said Enno Fuchs, Opel’s e-mobility launch director in the statement.
Opel Ampera dominates European EV sales in May
 
Again, instead of billions to winners/losers, billions to fleets. As more and more of these cars get on the road, the fuel will be there (in the case of natural gas, as an example); the parking spaces with rechargers will be allocated. They can't do it fast enough, in my opinion.

I rather think the American public could get behind a program like that. We know we're held hostage by the Middle East. Nobody likes it.
There used to be tax breaks for people that converted to some types of cars, and not just electric hybrids, IIRC. I don't know if those tax breaks are still in place.
 
Man, I wish that we had diesel powered SUVs, light trucks, etc. Wonder what the mileage difference would be on a Volt if it used a 1.4L TD instead of the 1.4L gas motor? Considering the torgue difference at low end, a diesel can turn a generator a lot more efficiently than a gas motor can. Most gas motors have to be up around 3000+ rpm to maximise efficiency in the engine under heavy load, a TD would chug along very efficiently at less than 2000 rpm, heck, a lot of diesels used in industry for generators and such cannot even reach a 1000 rpm. Quick someone out there swap a VW TD motor into a Volt and tell us what you get.
Most hybrids don't operate like trains. The engine isn't just providing power for the electric motor, it's also turning gears under certain conditions. That design makes Diesel engines less efficient because electric motors also have their highest torque on the low end instead of mid-range like a gas engine. Electric engines and gas engines compliment each other as long as the gas engine isn't just turning a generator.
 
Why all of this? To explain something really quite simple. No matter what we use, be it electricity, oil, natural gas, hydrogen, or wind...a car requires the same amount of energy being applied to it, in order to achieve the same amount of motion. The question is, from where can we derive the most energy, and, of the options, which is the most efficient, and these days, more importantly, which is less harmful to our environment. Where does electricity come from? Why, mostly, from fossil fuels, just like oil. Only, coal does not have NEAR the energy potential that oil has. It has less stored energy. In essence, then, it is less efficient. We can also generate electricity from the wind, and from water, by working in reverse...which is to say, by turning MOTION into electricity, instead of the other way around. But we can only ever generation as much energy this way as those forces can generate motion. In other words, not nearly enough to power all the worlds automobiles, as we currently stand.
Fossil fuels provide less than half of the electrical power in America and that percentage is getting smaller every day.

ICE engines waste a huge amount of energy, mostly as heat, even before the transmissions/gears are factored in. The transmission and other gearing loses another 22-24% for automatics, 16-20% for manuals transmissions. Electric motors are the most efficient motors in the world and few electric cars use a transmission for the electric motor. The electric components of electric cars are extremely efficient as far as how much work is being done compared to the energy put into the system.

In my mind, trying to make a car that runs on electricity is a step backwards. We already had them in the early 1900s, and ditched them, for the very same reasons they are not too popular now. Think about what electricity is, and what it takes to transport it. What happens when you try to power, say, a drill, with a 5 foot plug, from a wall socket? It runs fine, to tax to the grid at all. Now, whip out a 500 foot extension cord, and try to do the same. Not gonna work out so well for you. This is the inherent problem with it, as an energy source. Oil, on the other hand, does not release it's store of energy without a catalyst, typically, heat. Ideal.
Electricity is a step forward. Even now we talk about changing fuels but something as simple as switching to NG/LNG will take a huge amount of investment because the entire infrastructure for automotive fuels is built around gasoline/Diesel. To switch to NG/LNG every gas station in America would need new storage tanks. The existing NG pipelines couldn't handle the increased capacity we'd need. Unlike electricity that can be generated locally from wind/solar and stored, NG is only available in some very exclusive places in the country and needs to be transported - and transported - and transported until it finally gets somewhere that can put it into your car's tank. Or we can replace the millions of miles of NG pipelines in country, which is even more expensive. Then 50-80 years from now, if we switch fuels again, we get to do it all over - re-building the entire fuel distribution infrastructure to meet the new fuel's needs. :(

Better to switch to electricity now and upgrade the grid as needed (local generation will reduce that need) to be ready for whatever fuel we decide to use in the future. Whatever it is can be used much more efficiently at a fixed, large-scale facility than it can ever be used in a small, mobile application like a car.

But what of that other elusive source? Hydrogen?
Even if we get hydrogen to work it'll still be more efficient to burn it at a fixed, large-scale facility than it will be to burn in a car or truck - and much safer, too.
 
Fossil fuels provide less than half of the electrical power in America and that percentage is getting smaller every day.

Just to clarify (and I think you know this, but maybe others don't), but oil provides less than 1% (0.9) of our electrical needs. It's mostly coal providing electricity. Thus, to get away from oil, we need to get away from gas-powered cars.
 
Just to clarify (and I think you know this, but maybe others don't), but oil provides less than 1% (0.9) of our electrical needs. It's mostly coal providing electricity. Thus, to get away from oil, we need to get away from gas-powered cars.
Yeah, I misspoke. I was thinking "coal" not "fossil fuel".

Oil provides almost nothing in the way of fuel for electrical power.

NG provides about a quarter of our power and that's growing. Coal provides less than half and that's shrinking, at least for now.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I misspoke. I was thinking "coal" not "fossil fuel".

Oil provides almost nothing in the way of fuel for electrical power.

NG provides about a quarter of our power and that's growing. Coal provides less than half and that's shrinking, at least for now.

Let's hope it shrinks down to nothing. NG is another fossil-fuel that I'd like to stop using, but I'd happily take it in replacement over coal any day. Then phase out NG as necessary, but I could see NG as tiding us over for a while until other tech matures a little more.
 
Back
Top Bottom