Check out this car, http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/vide...ic-Drag-Racing Maybe there is a future in electric cars.

 

Pretty neat car, its different thats for sure, that guys kinda a dink haha, all this electric car hype, just plug it in right? zero emissions, good for the planet no pollutants, WHERE DOES THE DANG ELECTRICITY COME FROM!?!?!?! thin air right? is that what we are supposed to believe, if everyone went out and got electric cars this country would have a meltdown ahaha, we don't have the electrical infrastructure to support that kind of demand, greenies wont let us build coal plants, wont let us build nuke plants, cant damn up rivers anymore because of the poor fish, and wont let us put wind turbines in their backyards because its an eyesore, and on top of that WE should drive electric cars, what kind of fantasy world do these people live in because it certainly isnt reality

 

Excellent post. Never looked at it that way.

 

Electric has amazing torque. That's why electric motors drive powerful locomotives.

I understood that in 1980 when I drove my first electric forklift. It put the propane and gasoline forklifts to shame! Burnout? No problem!

Here is an American designed and British/American made auto you can actually buy. It will put most sports cars to shame:

http://www.teslamotors.com/design/gallery-body.php

 

That's got to be one of the most ignorant posts I've seen in a long time.

Wake up! Everyone is not going to convert to electric cars overnight! It would take decades. The infrastructure is not going to meltdown, it will adapt to changing needs.

Just think if Henry Ford thought he couldn't sell gasoline cars to the masses because there weren't enough oil wells out there! LOL!

 

until you hit 120mph.

 

well certainly don't mean to be ignorant, im not saying everyone is going to change to electric cars overnight, all im saying is people claim electric cars are the cure to global warming but when the fact is, energy has to come from somewhere, their not dumping fossil fuels directly into their cars but the electricity has to come from somewhere, and right now chances are its from coal, and when henry ford started rolling out cars there wasn't ANYONE who said you cant drill more oil wells, with green electric energy we have only made a dent in our domestic demand and to try and stack transportation energy on top of domestic demand would be crazy, they need to remain two separate entities, not to put down on these guys that have electric cars as projects, they do look fun, but as a national solution it is impractical

 

definitely a surprise in its own rights. but i'll agree, the electric car hypes gonna put a stress on the power grids that already have some weakness issues.

 

No, there is no need to keep transportion energy sources seperate from any other type of energy needs. In the end it's all energy and has to come from somewhere. Electricity has a big advantage in that there is a surplus of many types of energy at night (when electric cars would typically be charging). If the electricity comes from coal then the generating plants can be throttled back during off-peak hours but, if the electricity comes from hydro, wind, geo-thermal or tidal sources, then it is wasted if it is not used.

So electric cars certainly have a much bigger role to play in the world's energy future by utilizing this cheaper off-peak electricity. Don't believe everything you hear from oil interests.

The other advantage of electric cars is that they only consume energy when they are accelerating or maintaining speed, not while they are stuck in traffic, waiting for a light or decelerating. That is why diesel-electric hybrids can get 50 or 60 mpg in the EPA city drive cycle even though they generate all their own power by burning fossil fuel on-board.

 

The future is obviously magic.

Everyone now want's a green earth, and our creature comfort and toys. Even the hippies aren't going to go sit in the jungle and live like indians.

Let's face it, we are going to do what we were meant to do the hole time. Create and Adapt. We do that until our race will die, like those species in the universe before and after us.

I just hope something takes us out before we spread our desease to other planets.

 

It's electronically limited to 125 mph but that's the marketing decision of a company who has a market driven business plan to make a profit. The car has the horsepower and aerodynamics to go over 160 mph.

You can see the tech specs here:

http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/perf_specs.php

 

Tesla actually has a dealership here in Boulder...some SICK s**t in there!

Imagine 100 years ago when internal combustion was still in its infancy. (Obviously, this is a technology which we all know and love so I'm playing Devil's advocate here.) On the one hand, the people in favor (throughout it's evolution, of course) could say: "it will revolutionize the way we work", "it will change your life", "it will create a global industry", "it will bring jobs wherever it goes", and "it will make some incredibly rich". All of which, we now know to be true. Now, can you imagine if even 25% of the population (from day 1!) would have had the forethought to say: "Wait, what about the byproducts?", "Where will the waste go?", "Where is all this gas going to come from?", or "Do we have any potential solutions if this doesn't work?". If enough of the population had that forethought, IC might not have become the hedonistic monstrosity it is today.

Hell, I love the seat-of-my-pants feel of some torque as much as the next guy! I just want my future grand kids to know what it's like to kiss their girlfriends/boyfriends without having to take off their oxygen masks.

 

Wow..I'm amazed at that White Zombie car.
I have a '68 Mustang 289 Coupe that I'm restoring.
I've thought of yanking the engine and converting it, as I was planning
to use it as a daily driver.
EV Components sells a "package" to do this....it's only $18,792.00

I estimate I'd use $40. a week in gas with the 289.
It would take 9.03 YEARS to recover the cost.
Even longer...because the batt's won't last that long.

I guess the 289 will be staying...

I do agree that the future will be electric-propulsion in some way.
I think it will end up with your average daily driver using a plug-in rechargeable battery, backed up with a hydrogen fuel-cell for reserve power.

 

I know how to make it work, but don't have the time nor money right now to make it work or get a patent, so I can't save the world just yet.

 

We have a long way to go before pure electric cars are close to being viable for even a small percentage of the populace. Let alone 100-300 million people.

This article does nail it:

The push for conversion to plug-in electric cars will do nothing to stop carbon emissions, a report by the GAO warns, throwing cold water on a push by Democrats to get more plug-ins on the road. In fact, the problem could be made worse as demand goes up at coal-fired electrical plants. Plus, the need for batteries may just have the US changing the dictators to which we’re chained, as IBD reports:

It’s a beautiful theory — highways full of electric cars emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants after being plugged into an outlet in our garages overnight. The problem, according to a new Government Accountability Office report, is that the effort may only shift the problem somewhere else.

“If you are using coal-fired power plants, and half the country’s electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?” asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report itself notes: “Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy.”

The GAO report says a plug-in compact car, if recharged at an outlet drawing its power from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4% to 5%. If the feeling of saving the environment from driving an electric car causes people to drive more, that small amount of savings vanishes entirely.

This misses another point as well, one I mentioned during the campaign. Obama wants the US to decrease its electrical demand over the next several years as a means of conservation as we switch away from coal and other fossil fuels as a source for power. Transferring cars from gasoline to electricity would vastly increase demand for power at the outlet, which would conflict with the decrease Obama wants to mandate. The result would be prices skyrocketing even higher, and people unable to use their vehicles from a lack of ability to pay for recharging them.

Of course, we have a source for electricity in abundance: nuclear power. IBD suggests that a program to rapidly expand our nuclear-power generation could fill the gap while generating zero carbon emissions. The Obama administration and the Democrats don’t want that, though. They shut down the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility, which would have recycled used fuel rods into material for more nuclear power, giving us an almost-completely renewing resource for decades into the future.

The GAO also points out that electric cars would have the US trading one set of dictators for another in order to power our cars. The batteries for electric vehicles are lithium-ion, and for the experimental production levels in the US at this moment, we have enough lithium resources to keep pace. However, once we start building electric cars in mass numbers, we will quickly run through our proven stores of lithium. We would most likely have to do business with Hugo Chavez lackey Evo Morales of Bolivia, where half of the world’s proven stores of lithium reside. Even if we didn’t buy directly from the leftist leader, Morales has the ability to set the global price — just as Saudi Arabia and OPEC do with oil.

Plug-in electrics just trade one carbon source for another, one dictator for another, and deliver a lower-standard vehicle. It’s about as lose-lose as it gets, at least without nuclear power to fuel it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/0...bon-emissions/