The alternative to progress is not stagnation, it is extinction. As a nation We are afraid of change. We don't take risks. This logic would have stopped the use of fire. Fire kills, Burns forests, cities, and plains an ecological disaster. This logic creates a world where our decendants sit in the road picking of flies. There is no future with out risk.
The 50% electric vehicle production vs. gas engines was achieved around the early 1900s. As electric lost popularity to the more efficient gas engines, the industry back then promised that all they needed was improved battery technology...so here we are 100 years later with a negligable % of electric vehicles manufactured. 20 more years won't change that unless there is a mother of all disruptions.....no more economical oil.
There is much less appetite for deficit spending now, than there was during most of the previous administration, because of the out-of-control amount of deficit spending taking place since 2009.
I agree with Harris, in the sense that government should play a role funding basic research primarily, but it's really bad at picking winners and losers in the marketplace.
Lavishing taxpayers' dollars on selected companies, because their sales brochures parrot the political slogans of the administration, is never good policy. We've seen more than one example of government mantra ultimately proved questionable or even conterproductive, after people did the arithmetic. For example, the emphasis on biofuels.
Here's what Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chairman of a congressional subcommittee on energy, had to say Thursday (July 26) about U.S. support for advanced vehicles technology:
"I am strongly supportive of advanced vehicle technologies if the government role is carefully limited, and the market matures through free enterprise and American innovation, not through the vast spending, mandates, and special tax treatment that we have today."
It's worth noting that there were few complaints when the previous administration committed millions of dollars for research on hydrogen powered vehicles.
But clearly those are the few exceptions success stories. I still do not see the infrastructure catch-up that does countries would need to be able to use such vehicle.
I still find myself doubting the ability for developed countries to make the switch, in that time frame.
I just wishful thinking, is what I say to those bold statements, and I do not consider myself a pesimist... ;-)
What has been largely ignored in the EV discussion is the definition of the vehicle itself. Conventional cars have evolved from a replacement for a horse drawn carriage into a multitude of designs to serve performance drivers, families, luxury connoisseurs, commuters and every driver in between. It seems the electric car industry is trying to build a one-size-fits-all vehicle, and trying to market it as an energy saving device which it most certainly is not.
The concept, as of now, is simply one of producing the energy elsewhere in the form of electricity to be delivered to the vehicles parking spot. It seems obvious, using the numbers in the various posts, that there is no economical energy advantage to an all electric vehicle (compared to the best diesel car), and after factoring in the ancillary costs such as component production energy, grid improvement, grid losses (which average 25% in the US), component disposal costs, there may be no economical advantage whatsoever. The only real energy savings comes from regeneration of braking energy. Nevertheless, there may be applications for all electric vehicles where their advantages outweigh their inefficiencies.
The all electric car would be successful as a small urban commuter vehicle, where the benefit of removing engine combustion products may outweigh the lack of overall efficiency and limited range. I live in the west where we measure distances in hours, not miles. The nearest Wal-Mart is 175 miles away and I routinely drive 5 hours at 60 mph and can do so with no fuel stops. A fuel stop takes less than ten minutes, including washing the windows. All electrics may never get to that point. But, why should be expect that? EVs are only one solution to the transportation problem.
"Fully electric" was not defined, but one presumes he actually mean Electric Motor Motive.
The inclusion of a generator, is an option, that does not add to motive power, but does allow trade off of battery size, and weight, with range.
Meanwhile, we can expect 'stop/start' systems to slowly expand to be in nearly all models of Fuel Motive vehciles.
By the way, that 30 percent figure is optimistic. If you read the Wikipedia article, you'll note that true average efficiency of the ICE is in the 18 to 20 percent range.
ICEs are opposite fuel cells, in the sense that the ICE is most efficient at full throttle. That's when it puts out most power for a given amount of fuel. Fuel cells are the other way around.
Which in this case, is actually a plus. Combined with a small aux battery, like a hybrid, you can make this owrk to your advantage.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.