Talk:Electric car/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →


Electric motor development and new models

There is really not much mention about new kind of electric motors that are developing and surging up, for example this-> is this kind of motor special one time build, or is is just hypeing and science fiction?

Other intresting tech is that what the HECK is 3D motor? The Infinite Europe car model is making commersials about this kind on motor. Are'nt all the surfing up e-motors simultanioulsy charging up the battery and giving propulsion? The commersial phrase goes like this ""Because the 3D Motor operates in both propulsion and power regeneration modes, the battery pack is kept charged up"" I also found some links about this:,;do=show/site=a4e/sid=10724083949bd29a345aff427803417/alloc=1/id=9325,,,

I would be extra happy if in the E-car artile would be own "Electric car terms in common language" article. This 3d stuff sound like tech hype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Solar panel usage in cars

Hello, I just found intresting article about Swedish Koenigsegg and Finnish Fisker Karma that are sport cars with solar panels. I found it extreamly intresting that solar panels are entering the car technology- > , Electric car article SHOULD have mention about this kind of thing too? I wonder do cars use solar power for charging or just ventilation? And where are the Koenigsegg panels? It is mentioned that it has some layer of solar film on it, though it cannot be seen in car. Comments? (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Timppa

Street Chargin' Man

Hi, I've got a 'citation needed' that can be filled in on the Electric Car page. Not sure if I'm in the right place here, but I'll give it a shot. The article mentions about the infrastructure in place to charge cars in public places at public plug-ins in cold climates like Minnesota or Canada. Here in Calgary, we have that. You can verify it at <> about 1/3rd down the page under 'Park'n'Ride'. So, I guess that's my contribution to this place. I'm not sure how to update the main article, someone want to give it a try? -Christopher, Calgary —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put it in, but anyone trying to grab some 'free' charging is going to have to be patient. Block heaters are rated at 350W and the parking people have put circuit breakers in to prevent higher currnet draws. They also only switch on for 1/3 the time. SO your average charge rate will be 120 W. So something like a week to recharge a GM Volt. Greglocock (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of waste heat and car heating


I think the article should contain mention about car heating and solutions for it. The gasoline and diesel car get the heat from the waste heat from the motor.

In reseach is semiconductors that could cooldown and heat up the vehicle.

Also auxiliary heater such as Webasto or Eberi can be used, but only for heating (and also small fuel tank).

This is needed in Northern countries.. Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland..

I really would love that someone could write with thought from the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's quite convenient to use a kerosene heater in the car. The Kewet Buddy has a heater like that. 2-3 liters is enough to keep you through the winter. Cskotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe most electric cars use electric powered AC/heaters, but it's a valid question. I know I would croak if I spent $100,000 to get a non-polluting vehicle and was told it burned kerosene in the winter... (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Battery warming and keeping it in stable temperature

Hello, I read an intresting article about problems in battery if it is in cold temperature. In the article is mentioned about in minus temperatures battery capacity is reduced by 20 to 25 presentages. How ever problem can be fixed with special electric car battery heater. Should the electric car article contain some information about car battery heater (Thing that is meant it is not Eber or Webasto). Or does anyone know from what heater is spoken of in this article? (it is in Finnish) (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Timppa

Air heat pump to cars?


Since the heat pump has better ratio in heating than resistors, is it possible to use heat pump even in theory for car heating or does someone know has someone tried such solution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Heat pump doesn't seem to be the right term. When I think of heat pump, I think of a home or factory that has buried tubing in the earth which is at a nicely warmer temperature than the outside air to use as a heat source in winter and nicely cooler than outside air in the summer to use as a heat sink. It's hard for me to imagine the plumbing for a car on the freeway being hooked up to some tubing that is buried a few meters below the road surface. On the other hand, if the heat source/sink is outside air vs. cabin air, that's just a vane that switches from recirculation to fresh air, and I would hardly call that a heat pump. The device I was thinking of was not a resistance heater or AC but a Thermoelectric cooling/heating Peltier effect device, but according to that article they are not very efficient. I see wide spread linking to heat pump, but the heat pump article describes the whole system, and is not actually about the mechanism for moving the heat, so the Peltier effect devices should probably not even be called heat pumps. (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You need to broaden your conception of heat pump; the earth is only one possible heat source/sink for pumped heating/cooling. And many books refer to the Peltier device as a heat pump. Dicklyon (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Silly me. I was reading the heat pump article, and recalling my own knowledge of what a heat pump is. I still say that bringing in fresh outside air in a car is called a vent, not a heat pump. (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Basically you are talking about a reverse cycle air conditioner. It would be a sensible choice for an EV, or at least, far more sensible than a kerosene stove. Greg Locock (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I was reading the goofy CAFE standards for electric cars fuel economy ratings from 2000 in the United States (you take the energy in a gallon of gas, but then reduce it by about 3 because of the efficiency of the US generation of electricity, then multiply it by 6.67 for who knows what reason...), and they have a provision for auxiliary use of fossil fuel, specifically such as a kerosene heater, and if you have one you arbitrarily reduce your fuel mileage rating by 10%. Not sure we have that in the article, but the EV1 gets 488 mpg at 60 mph if you only consider use (was that done so that GM could show a better fleet mileage?), if you use the charging figure, it is 220 mpg, while a straight calculation of use would give 200 mpg. I suppose they are still in effect, I think the Tesla article includes a discussion of them. They seem to be a calculation of how much petroleum you are actually using. (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I have seen devices in Finland that take heat energy from outside air. It works even in minus temperatures (down to - someting...) Here is picture too
It seems some people have made even someting with heat pump in car, they really use term "heat pump" see article: and —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't listen to the audio of the interview, but it seems that everyone thinks that if you use the words "heat pump" instead of "AC" it means more efficient, when in fact heat pump generally does not refer to the mechanism for moving heat but to the system including a large favorable heat source or sink which is what makes the AC/heat pump more efficient, not the efficiency of the device used to move heat. In it's more general meaning, AC and heat pump mean the same thing. If you are trying to heat a car by extracting heat from 2C outside air to warm the already 15C inside air you are wasting your time. Flip the lever to recirculate and heat the 15C air. (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Semiconductive heating and cooling elements in the future?

Hello, I just read intresting article about new type of cooling elements in e-cars. it seems that they are somehow better than good old heating resistors? Is this stuff someting caller thermoelectrics?

Rudolf Querfurth and Waste heat gathering from electric components with oil

Hello, I just read about one German gentlemen whos life hobby has been self made e-cars. He actually is gathers waste heat from cars components to heat the cabin and windows. Life story and his inventions from 70's and later are quite intresting so I suggest to read them:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Amp my ride?

This section got removed.

"===Tuning, or amping===
"Electric cars will be modified for visual appeal, aerodynamic performance, and driving performance (speed, braking and handling). Some of these will require significant changes in how they are approached.
"Amping[1] (as opposed to pimping[2]) is the process of modifying a solely electric car.
"Changing the look of a vehicle (for example adding a bodykit to alter the aerodynamic properties of the car; or modifying paintwork) are unlikely to change significantly. Modifying suspension (for example, lowering a car to lower its centre of gravity, or stiffening the shock absorbers) may have to take into account changes in weight distribution - hub motors, regenerative braking equipment, etc, will change the unsprung weight, and additional batteries will change the weight distribution of the car.
"The skills required to extract more performance from an electric car are quite different because common modifications, such as changing an exhaust or camshaft, or adding nitrous, are irrelevant. Whereas with cars powered by an internal combustion engine modifications might include a less restrictive muffler, increasing the displacement, and other engine tuning methods, modifications to electric cars will focus around providing more instantaneous battery power while not compromising the weight of the vehicle.
"Many people that modify a car's engine do so for the change in engine tone (for example, commercial wastegates are available that add no significant performance, but just make a louder sound when activated). This will undoubtedly continue. Companies such as Brabus offer a modification package for the Tesla Roadster[3] which comprises some basic exterior modification, and a sound system that will make it sound like a V8 Supercar/NASCAR, and features two more futuristic sounds (Beam and Warp). The Fisker Karma offers a turbine sound, projected using speakers.[4] It is not unfeasible that new sounds could be offered to owners, even made available by downloading them into the car.
"The Californian Senate has approved a bill.[5] Companies such as Lotus Cars have shown systems like the Safe and Sound.[6] The question remains whether certain sounds will be disallowed from being used in electric vehicles."

While I find the tone unencyclopedic, there's no cited evidence of it happening yet, & there's overemphasis on non-electrics being modified, I don't doubt it will happen as described. If there's sourced evidence of it, I'd say, re-add it. Or post it here (if you can get past the Philistines deleting anything "not relevant"). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I zapped it. Wiki is not a collection of pointless trivia. If it becomes a trend with a significant following, fine. First knock out any sentence that ref's a blog. Then eliminate crystal ball. Then eliminate the banal. Then the neologisms. etc. That pretty much leaves the noise stuff, which I would agree is worth putting back in if it ever becomes significant (and I do not know how to judge it). As it is that stuff looks more like promotional material than an encyclpedia entry. Greglocock (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Even non-hybrid gasoline cars today have gotten super silent compared to just a few years earlier. I suspect a 2 inch speaker and a 1/10 watt output is all that is needed to meet the California requirement, which of course applies both to hybrids and electrics. There was also a bill in the US House this past April covering the same issue. For electric cars, and this article, it is a non-issue, because it also applies to hybrids, which are far more common than electrics. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a distinctive sound for electrics. (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Led lightning/illumination possibility for E-cars and reduce of current consumtion?

Hello, I am not sure is this right forum for my question at all BUT more or less related to electricity. Does anyone know is there any electric car where is used as led's driving lights -> for details see specifications in future development section of Audi R8 V10 car model has both driving lights made with LED's. Btw. does anyone know how much less us the current usage with the lights. ..I hope someone knows :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section POV

The points made in this section are interesting, but they sound like "telling" rather than "showing", amd thus somewhat partisan. I think they would be improved by a rewrite and some context:

several electric car companies have been accused of dishonest business practices, including misleading information about products and failure to deliver.

Specifically listing the companies and allegations would be "showing", and this deserves some context - I'm sure there are conventional car companies that have also acted dishonestly.

As with any new technology that requires mass uptake by the public to succeed, there is a great incentive to convince people that electric cars are a good thing.

This is a bit veiled; come right out and say what kind of conflict of interest there is. Environmentalists greenwashing the electric car? Salespeople greenwashing it? Salespeople hyping it in other dishonest ways?

This is not always done in the most honest way possible.

A list of specific examples would be "showing" rather than "telling".

There are many objections both from an engineering point of view and from an economic point of view.

This statement sounds defeatist. I'm sure readers would be interested in reading a list of actual engineering and economic objections, all of which I'm sure have responses from advocates. Many of these are probably already covered elsewhere in the article.

-- Beland (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as a side issue there is nothing wrong with having POV sections in an article, the requirement is that overall the article should be Neutral. By its nature a criticisms section is unlikely to be any more NPOV than an advantages section. Greglocock (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Having a section that covers a particular POV might be warranted, but it still must be done in a neutral way. For example, the encyclopedia can't simply write under Criticism, "Electric cars are a great idea, but unfortunately they will never happen because it is impossible to engineer adequate performance." which is almost what is sounds like this section is saying. It's fine to present that as an opinion of some third party. Part of the problem with this section is that the context and opinions that disagree with the criticism are missing from the article, and the details supporting the criticisms are hidden, making them sound more like established fact than allegations or opinions. For what it's worth, Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure cautions against creating sections that segregate coverage of a particular POV, and Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves essentially recommends "showing" rather than "telling". -- Beland (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like an interesting experiment in writing, and I think you are mistaken in your use of the word 'must'. As it is, a schizophrneic " this is so, no it isn't" section always reads like an argument with itself. Greglocock (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

3 wheeled vehicles

Perhaps 3 wheeled vehicles can be included and info can be given on benefits (lower weight meaning less power required, more aerodynamic, faster, ...) For example the BioTrike (wgen fitted with batteries) would be very useful/functional. See this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The cellphone-like electric car ISN'T an Agassi idea!

the Electric Cars' "Battery Swap" was MY idea and NOT an Agassi/BetterPlace's one, since I've ALREADY suggested it in MY July 23, 2007 "cellphoneCAR" article:

and I've posted MY idea FOR THE FIRST TIME in July 24, 2007 in a comment in this Technology Review article:

then, I've posted it again and again in other Technology Review comments and on several other forums and blogs around the world!

it's a GREAT idea to solve the MAIN electric cars' problem: the (4+ hours) too long recharge time but it's NOT a "BetterPlace project" (a company born months LATER my article!)

"sell electric cars without batteries and just swap them" was/is/will be an ("open source" and public domain) idea of MINE, while, the BetterPlace's peoples have (probably) just READ MY ARTICLE or one of my comments on Technology Review or one of my posts written on several other forums and blogs around the world!

please note that I DID NOT WANT A CENT from those who want to develop, use, apply, rent and sell electric cars and batteries based on MY idea (and on MY brand new "no home-recharge strategy") but ONLY that Agassi, BetterPlace and ALL other users/manufacturers of MY idea will (always, everywhere and forever!) acknowledge ME as the AUTHOR of this NEW and WINNING "strategy": sell electric cars WITHOUT batteries but just RENT their "energy" at new "electric-gas" stations

unfortunately, thanks to MY idea, Agassi has become a Gates/Jobs/Kamen-like "Green-Tech Genius/Star" with LOTS of FLATTERING articles on several prestigious scientific and technological websites and magazines (like Technology Review or Wired) so, it's VERY HARD to believe that he will (someday) ADMIT to have just READ this idea on MY website (or on another forum or blog) and that he is NOT the REAL inventor of the "cellphoneCAR" but just the Milli Vanilli of the electric cars industry... :(

posted by gaetano marano in Feb. 21, 2009

Sixty years before you published your idea, Nissan, though not likely called that at the time, produced a car in 1947 using "your" idea, which you published first in 2007? (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So-called "Safety" section

To increase range on any vehicle involves lightening the vehicle among other things. Electric cars are not all designed for the lightest weight (see Smith electric delivery floats). This section is just FUD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your rewrite is an improvement. Greglocock (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


The EV1 still today represents the gold standard for what an electric car can be, much more so than the Tesla, or any other electric car on the market today. (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Redefine City/Highway speed

Originally these were set up so that about an equal number of cars were in each group. Now that there are so few in the City group and so many in the Highway group it is appropriate to rethink this and redefine City speed as 61-100 km/hr and Highway as above 100 km/hr. I realize that any car that can exceed 60 km can be used on the Autobahn, but when someone tried to put in the acceleration of the Th!nk from 0 to 60 km/hr (31 mph), it was blatantly apparent that the car was in the wrong group, and needed to be thought of as a City speed car, not a Highway speed car, along with all of the rest of the 81-100 km/hr cars. (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we find a source that specifically defines the "highway-capable" vs. "city-capable" performance limits? I can imagine that various countries would have text defining this in their legislation... or will we this definition be limited to electric car articles on wikipedia?—Preceding unsigned comment added by AniRaptor2001 (talkcontribs) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The only "definition" that I know of is the totally useless U.S. definition of Neighborhood Electric Vehicle, which is completely contained within the slow speed group, which uses the Autobahn requirement as a cut-off. I do not see it at all as a "definition", but simply a matter of convenience in grouping so that we are talking about the same sorts of vehicles. The "highway" grouping, and "city speed" grouping, which are names but not definitions (we had to use something for the headings), are names of convenience which are fairly descriptive of the type of car to expect in each grouping. For example, driving on a modern highway really requires significant acceleration to keep from getting run over, while driving on city streets, which normally are limited to speed limits of 40 to 60 km/hr you really want a car that can do quite a bit more than that so that you can merge in with traffic etc., but you have no need for one that can keep up with highway speeds which in light traffic are normally 100-130 km/hr, and getting stuck on a highway behind someone doing only 80 km/hr, with no chance of passing, is everyone's nightmare. So I say, change the dividing line to 100 km/hr instead of 80. That way we go 0-60, 61-100, and 101 and above. There are very few highways in the world with a speed limit of 100 km/hr or less, and where there are, no one follows that limit anyway. (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

EV CO2 Emissions

In the "CO2 Emissions" section of the article, it says that "currently a diesel is better than an EV", and that didn't seem right to me, and it seemed to contradict the paragraph above it. Because of that, I decided to do a bit of research, which consists of the following, and my extrapolations (the parts in bold are what I directly copied from my sources):

CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon (

US electricity production makes 2300 Tg of CO2 emissions


US Electricity - production: 4.062 trillion kWh (2005)


Therefore CO2 emissions per KWh are:

(2300 Tg / 4,062 TWh) * 1000 or (2,300,000,000,000,000 g / 4,062,000,000,000,000 Wh) * 1000

~ 0.566223535 grams of CO2 per Wh * 1000

≈ 566.22 g of CO2 per KWh

≈ .566 kg per KWh

≈ 1.25 lbs. of CO2 per KWh


A diesel vehicle at, say, 40 mpg emits 22 lbs of CO2 every 40 miles

To travel 40 miles, an ev1 (which travels at .07 kWh per km according to The Electric Car, page 130) would use

0.105 kWh / mile -> 4.2 kWh in 40 miles

And therefore "emits"

4.2 * 1.25 lbs CO2 per kWh -> 5.232 pounds of CO2 in 40 miles

Which would seem to go against what it says in the paragraph that has all of the "citation needed"s.

Is this of a quality to go in the article, or is it too much of "original research"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately (a) you have made a very big mistake somewhere in your diesel calc and (b) it is OR. Greg Locock (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The "diesel calc" is from the EPA! Unless, of course, the EPA is wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Shrugs, OK, the mistake must be elsewhere then. Ah, yes, your average CO2 per kWh is wrong by a factor of 2. Either way, your conclusions are strange. At the very least you are also ignoring battery efficiency, charging efficiency, and 70 Wh/km is not for a vehicle with the same capabilities as a 40mpg diesel car. Greg Locock (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Eg Chev Volt optimistic estimate is a range of 40 miles on 16 kWh, ie 400 Wh/mile, or 240 Wh/km, three times your figure. That still ignores charging and battery efficiency. Even the 2 seater EV1 "only" managed around 150 Wh/km in practice, I doubt you'll see a realistic EV that beats that. Incidentally I am not anti EV, but I really dislike agenda pushing distortions.Greg Locock (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, it wasn't an "agenda pushing distortion", it was just a calculative error. Also, the EV1 .07 kWh/km was what was in my book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference we have for the EV1,[1] which should agree with the book, is that at a steady speed of 45 miles per hour (72 km/h) the NIMH used 0.127 kWh/mi, which works out to 0.079 kWh/km, and at a steady speed of 60 miles per hour (97 km/h) it used 0.168 kWh/mi, or 0.105 kWh/km. The lead acid battery ones were slightly better at 115 Wh/mi at 45 mph (71 Wh/km) and 164 Wh/mi (102 Wh/km) at 60 mph. So the book was evidently referring to the lead acid ones at below 72 km/h. Or it just rounded a bit in favor of better efficiency. And yes you need to include charging efficiency - the same ref states that the lead acid EV1 gets 0.248 kWh/mi (154 Wh/km) charging efficiency, but does not specify under what conditions. While their paddle inductive charging connections were easy to use and safe for the consumer I'm not sure they were very efficient, as it looks like you lose half your juice in charging the car (for the NIMH it was 0.373 kWh/mi). (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

22lb is not far out. UK Diesel Car 100-150 g/km (see So 40 miles = 65km = (at midpoint of 125) 8 kilograms (18 lb)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

added link to 'Definitive Guide to Electric Cars'

This is one of the most comprehensive and detailed guides to electric cars I have found on the web.

For some reason, it keeps getting deleted. I think its as good of a resource as anything in the references and the externals links - if not better.

Please don't delete without clearly explaining why it doesn't make Wikipedia's quality criteria and comparing it to other sites cited on this page.

That's easy. It doesn't fit the criterion of WP:EL. You won't 'win' this one. Greglocock (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


I don't quite understand why the two "Electric Car Comparison Pages" - which are unknown, quasi-spam comparison shopping sites e that are choked to the gills with AdSense .... make the criteria -- yet a comprehensive guide from the most trusted hybrid car site on the internet does not?

After carefully reading WP:EL - it would appear that is a quintessential, by-the-book "reliable source" on the subject of HEVs - meeting every one of the criteria. The guide in question is linked to by MIT,,, national government research labs and libraries & Treehugger, etc. The site is used as a citation reference in the Wikipedia - reference #19, the Hybrid Vehicles article and several more - and wasn't added by me.

I'm not trying to "win," I'm just trying to follow the guidelines and improve Wikipedia with quality reference information. I don't understand how the current links are acceptable yet this link is not. Can you briefly explain?

Clearlight418 (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Repeated from my talk page, let's keep the discussion here. In my opinion it fails WP:ELNO 1 - no unique content , 2 - few sources, very misleading diagram (EVs produce greenhouse gases in almost all cases, at least until we build more nuclear power stations), 11 non authoritative publisher - the site is basically a blog and a forum. Personally I am very tough on ELs as they become spammed so quickly, I'd rather we got rid of them completely! The best way of incorporating content from an EL is to use it to build up the article - the problem you face there is that blogs are not WP:RS - that is not insurmountable, if the point you are making is a good one then finding RS is usually not too hard. The other two sites you mention snuck in under the radar!Greglocock (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Electric vehicle comparison websites

Someone has questioned the neutrality of this section (two external links) mainly because of the ads that are within the pages. Personally I always ignore any ads (maybe I'm odd). I examined the second link (as that is UK based like myself). From what I see it is a reasonable set of reviews of the current vehicles. If WP stopped showing links to sites that did have ads in them, then there would be a lot less external links. Without ads, I suspect a lot of sites would not be viable.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

comparision with fuel cell / hydrogen vehicles


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talkcontribs) 14:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

electric car upgrading

perhaps a section can be added about electric car upgrading. These include

  • Adding a hydrogen fuel cell to a battery electric vehicle to increase its driving range.
  • Adding more electric batteries to a battery electric vehicle to increase driving range. Besides placing more batteries, this operation offten requires additional modification of the Battery_Management_System. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Adding a fuel cell bumps the vehicle from this article into the plug-in hybrid article. Not sure why "adding more electric batteries" is significant. If you bought a Tesla, which already has a 200 mile range, and you never go more than 50 miles/day, why would you care if it had a longer range? For the road warriors that want to go 800 miles in one day, the options for that are already covered (battery swap and quick charge). (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

CO2 soapboxing ?

An editor objected to my recent insertion of conclusions from a WWF report. Please could that user explain in what way these are inappropriate, since this article is supposed to be NPOV. Greglocock (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to the inclusion/exclusion? Was it me? SimonTrew (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
No simon it wasn't you. Look in the history of the article. Actualy the whole article is a all over the place for NPOV, and mini rants. Oh and stellar job on the refs by the way! Greglocock (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I just have, you're kinda just ahead of me.
To put you on guard, I'll let you know I've just changed the citation form to match the other 101 that I changed to cite notation and tried to fix up. I've also changed CO2 to CO2, which is used consistently throughout the article.
With those minor subbing points aside, I have no problem with this being included. It's an RS (I assume is considered an RS, assuming it's not a blog &c but this isn't) and it should be in there.
There's a bit of a problem here with "best case scenario" and "worst case scenario": I'd link to have these linked but the first goes to Best, worst and average case and is specific to computer programming, and the second to a dab page. Suggestions please (the suggestion "don't link them" is valid but I feel it's one of those terms that could perhaps be misunderstood, especially by non-native speakers?)
Thanks for the compliment about the refs. Yeah it is a bit lopsided but for myself I prefer to get the text right first then consider restructuring (I've done a little but not too much). I think you get people onside that way, making incremental changes, and it allows people also to revert them if they're not happy with them, making a HUGE structural change would, naturally and rightly, just cause an immediate revert.
Nobody seems to have noticed my addition of Citroen C1 ev'ie yet :( never mind at least that way it escapes AfD!
Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


I think a good move to whack that Safety section in. My personal peeve is people on little street cars that in the UK are licensed to drive on the pavement if they are limited to 4 mph. As an able bodied fully sighted person they still are almost impossible to hear, and the people riding them seem to think they rule the road.

That's a pet peeve of mine (and my aunt and father had them so I am not outside of their benefits) but should that be linked to another article? I am not sure it's really an "electric car" in the sense of an enclosed, long-distance automobile. I wonder if we are mixing it up more than necessary. What do you think? SimonTrew (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Time Magazine

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AniRaptor2001 (talkcontribs) 02:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New Electric Vehicles Available

First we should add the Mitsubishi iMiev and the Subaru Stella EV as well as the Smart EV which have all entered production as available. Also I think we should just create a entire new page. It's not sustainable to have this ever-growing list within the electric car article. Let me know what you think Abdelkweli (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's already been split off into a sub-article. SimonTrew (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Recharging Batteries

I know this may seem just too simple an idea but the question of recharging batteries seems to be a key issue for the electric or hybrid car. I wonder if the thought of using the car's wheel rotations to generate electricity to recharge the batteries has been thought of? Like the old generators on our bicycles used to generate the bikes lights can they not use something similar to generate the power to recharge the batteries as the car is moving? If not to fully charge them at least it will lessen the need to fully charge batteries and therefore reduce dependence on the power grid? The car will be a sustainable energy source within itself?

Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is regenerative braking, yes? Bluetd (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's covered under regenerative braking, and in the article. SimonTrew (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as the sugestion that the car can provide sufficient power for its use, I invented that at an early age for a washing machine , but my father said it was a perpetual motion device and so could not work (see Second law of thermodynamics). - Leonard G. (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the idea of a moving machine that produces enough energy to keep itself going is precisely what perpetual motion is all about. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What the Dickens is this?

"...true the electric car weighs more, but now the passenger is surrounded by high DC voltage, not to mension that most electric vehicle batteries are full of acid!"

Wow. How 'Encyclopedic'. I suppose it didn't occur to Wikipedia that hydrocarbons in standard ICE vehicle fuel tanks are highly volatile (thus the 'combustion' part) and pose at least as significant a hazard to the occupant of a vehicle as the 'acid!' in the batteries of an electric car (the batteries which are typically located in the rear of the car) or the 'high DC voltage' (which is hardly 'surrounding' the occupants and is also present ICE vehicles).— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. First, I advise you to take one of these, breathe deeply, then proceed. Wikipedia's content is made up of the contributions of thousands of editors. The material is kept encyclopedic by editors who dedicate their time to reviewing articles of their interest and making sure that they abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. What you have stumbled upon is a contribution that is unscientific, contains poor grammar, and on the overall, should not be included in Wikipedia. I recommend that you delete that text or modify it so that it contributes positively to the article. I invite you to join the Wikipedia community so that you can help improve the quality of these articles. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah a car is essentially a Faraday cage. Relatively low voltages at high current can kill you. Compare a telly (a cathode ray tube not the lcd ones) they have about 25000 volts going up their jacksie but at a very small current. it's Ohms Law. You may want to look it up and get back to us. Since there is an entire section giving the physics i don't think you can find much fault, then there are (incomplete) figures for every car. But having done it myself several times I know that a `12v DC shock can hurt more than a bit of AC be it US 110 or UK nominal 230. one thing you learn first lesson when you do electrical engineering is never grab a wire if its DC it will grip your muscles and you cant let go, cos the leccy will grab the muscle and hold you to it. AC will let you go (usually flying across the room going OWWWW but thats not the leccy thats just your own stupidity). And who's to know which is which? So tHat perhaps is something to consider why they are mostly DC not AC perhaps that should be mentioned in the article, i cant really see why it couldn't run on AC. SimonTrew (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not very accurate. In general AC is more dangerous because of the peak voltage being so high compared to DC. Skin requires a certain potential to break down the insulation, but it is the current that kills, not the voltage - and it only takes 10 mA through the heart to be fatal. See Microshock. Concerns about electricity in an electric car are totally a red herring. There is far more danger of being shocked in the average home than there is from an electric car. Oh and most electric cars today do run on AC - they use an inverter to convert the DC from the batteries to AC for the motor. (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Having worked on solar cars I can assure you that 100-200V DC is plenty exciting. Arc welders use much less than 100 V DC, and you can get horrible shocks from them accidenatlly if you are welding outside on damp ground, even though you are holding an insulated handle and wearing dry clothes. Greglocock (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I have been away for a while, my mother's mother has early stage alzheimers and I have been retraining her to remove albumen from hard-shelled ova by orally lowering their internal pressure.
I thought by invoking Ohm's Law and giving an example of a high-voltage, low-current device I had implied fairly strongly that it was the current that was the trouble not the voltage. Which negates the argument that since the AC voltage given is usually RMS and not peak voltage, 250VAC is somehow "worse" than 200VDC since the voltage doesn't really come into it.
Hence Greg's remark about arc welders etc makes sense, cos they have quite a few amps going though 'em. I mean, they have enough to arc in air... SimonTrew (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Voltage does play a factor, it breaks down the insulation. Once the insulation has broken down, it is the current that kills, not the voltage. And it only takes a few hundredths or even thousandths of an amp, not the hundreds of amps typically used in an electric chair which not only kills, but roasts you alive as well. (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Top picture

Let's have some discussion regarding this subject. I feel that the REVAi, though certainly not the most attractive or elegant electric car, should be at the top, as the most popular electric car of modern times. Other editors seem to feel that the GM EV1 best represents electric cars. My issue with that is that it seems to be an America-centric representation, as the EV1 is a very famous electric car but in the wider world of EVs, had a short-lived and troubled existence. The pictures of it that wikipedia has access too are also noteworthy for being absolutely terrible, and I would like it if someone could find better images of it. Your thoughts? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends what your aims are. I think a photo of the REVA, preferably with two occupants wearing orange fright wigs and red noses, would be ideal if you were trying to discredit EVs. Greglocock (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You jest, I'm sure! Personally, I'm a proponent of EVs, and I'm also aware of the fact that it's the 70 years of near-ignoring their development that has resulted in a four-wheeled toaster like the REVA/G-wiz being the most viable electric car at the moment. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The EV1 is at the top because it is still the best electric car ever made. If Reva or anyone else makes a better one, it can go on top. You don't have to make very many electric cars to achieve the honor of being the most - only about 2 or 3,000 will do it, compared to the millions of Taurus's or Hondas made it is pretty small potatoes. (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Best? Depends on who you ask. The REVA/Wiz has also been in production for 8 years now, longer than the EV1, and about as many cars have been produced. I'm not knocking the EV1 at all, but I believe it doesn't represent the current state of electric cars. Especially not with an image of such poor quality. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You could put a picture of the Toyota RAV4 EV in there. This was if anything more advanced than the EV1, and was actually in producton for some 6 years! Soarhead77 (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Valid suggestion; however, the RAV4 is a conversion, wouldn't an original-design electric car be more appropriate? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The only characteristics that one is looking for in an electric car that the RAV4 had was that it was a full sized electric car, and used NiMH batteries. The EV1 was designed from the ground up as an electric car and had many, many innovative features that should be included in any electric car, almost none of which are present in the Reva, other than, that it is electric. The Reva has the distinct disadvantage as an electric car that it is pokey slow, and tiny small, unlike the EV1 - see the youtube video of Tom Hanks saying "and that [car] was fast", or something like that. There is no other car made since the EV1 that meets the criteria of iconic electric car that deserves to be shown in the lead. The Tesla comes close, but it is too much of a niche market (high end sports car). Maybe in the next batch of electric cars one will be better than the EV1, but so far nothing has even come close, other than the Tesla. As to the poor quality of the image, I believe that there are currently on display at two museums EV1's that could probably be photographed. At the time the current photo was taken, I believe the car was being warehoused in the basement, which is why the lighting is so bad. However, a bad photo of a good car is far better than a good photo of a bad car (not implying that the Reva is bad, it just is not what an electric car could be, and the EV1 is). (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The REVA is a city car, designed to be very compact (easier to park) and to be used over short distances in urban environments, where speed is not an advantage. Your IP address says that you live in the United States, as do I; therefore I assume that you know, as do I, that the American driving public has historically and notoriously been repulsed by the concept of small city cars for the better part of a century now. But in fact, electric cars always were city cars; their limited range did not hamper them, and their low speed posed no difficulties either. The EV1 was the first step towards making a viable commuter electric car, but this was the arena in which an EV's downsides are most visible; insufficient range for long distance driving, low capacity (only two drivers); all the things that do not matter to the driver of a city car. Had development of the EV1 continued, it could today be a car that could satisfy all its intended goals (though being an American car it would probably begin to bloat unnecessarily). The REVA, on the other hand, is inarguably more successful at its intended goals than the EV1 is, but sadly suffers from EV stigma that dates back to the days when manufacturers would mount non-functioning radiators to their electric models, lest male drivers be seen to be operating a "woman's car."
As far as the point that a "poor picture of a good car" is better than a "good picture of a bad car", which is highly rooted in personal opinion, I have to disagree. We do, however, need more and better pictures of the existing EV1s. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What's to develop in the EV1? It's darn near perfect as is. I'd take one any day. Until there is a better example of an electric car, I see no reason for not using a photo of the EV1 in the lead. (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


I see the reflist has been pared down and moved to one column. As some of you know, I edited the reflist and got it all with access dates and so forth since I got the about 102 that were there in otder. I don't obkect to the current format, and if I see a change I tend to put it in the style of this article for references (i.e. extremely well referenced and checked), but it would have been niceif there was a discussion about it before it happened. I see as of today it is down to 80, which means someone has been removing references (I assume as unreliable or whatever), but that is not shown in the history. PLEASE USE MEANINGFUL EDIT SUMMARIES. Thank you SimonTrew (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to go to FAC or peer review

Shall we take this to FAC or peer review now? It's looking pretty good and on my talk page it has been suggested that it should be. SimonTrew (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's still a couple of sections that have been tagged, and have you checked the previous checklist? Greglocock (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It still is not perfect, admittedly, but sooner or later we should maybe go for GA? I am still a little unhappy with the section ordering, myself, but an outside peer review might be useful at this time? SimonTrew (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Lithium[-]Ion hyphen or not

Can we agree whether we should a have a hyphen in Lithium-Ion? I don't mind either way but it should be consistent. Or, in the alternate, after first use and except in external links/references should we just use Li-Ion? SimonTrew (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The lithium-ion battery article hyphenates, let's stick to that. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it not depend on whether or not lithium ion is modifying a noun or not? A lithium-ion battery vs. Batteries that contain lithium ion.

List of electric car main components


Can someone make totally own wikipedia article for list of main components of electric car? The components are pretty important in each elecric car, but no clear info available :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Some subbing: conversions, use of U.S.

I have addded convert templates and now there are no bare references to "miles" or "kilometres" (or derived units thereof) except a couple in quotations and for miles per gallon equivalent. We need somewhere at the top of the article to link to mile and kilometre articles probably, even if we have to introduce some kind of artifice just to get them mentioned, just to conform with WP:UNIT ("If a unit symbol which can be unfamiliar to a general audience is used in an article, it should be shown parenthetically after the first use of the full unit name"). I can't really believe anybody interested in this article would not know what a mile or kilometre is but your choice. At least now it is all consistent with the units always abbreviated, and always converted.

I changed all mentions of US to U.S. for consistency. I am happy with US but we should be consistent. I am happy for it all to be changed to US, in fact I would prefer it. SimonTrew (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of mentioning it on the talk page, and pointing the edit summary to it, if people just go ahead and change it anyway? Now I have added other stuff and did it in what WAS the consistent style, now I find someone else (without leaving a summary) has changed it to be US. Why bother to mark it for discussion if nobody bothers to check? I am getting fed up constantly making this article consistent because nobody seems to bother to check the existing consistency in the article. Hrrmph.. SimonTrew (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

One major flaw with electric cars

There's one problem I have with mass producing these cars, the United states power grid is unstable as it is as shown by the Northeast Blackout of 2003. an example was when NYC was without power because of a short in 2003; adding these cars would destablize the overtaxed power grid from the 40's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss electric cars. It is the place to discuss the article. Anyway, the problem you mean, assuming it exists, is in the mass *use* of these cars and not in their production. SimonTrew (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It it is not already there (sorry I don't have the time to read such a long article), it should be, that there was a study showing that up to something like 20% of cars could be electric with no change in the grid, due to the fact that most of them would be charged overnight when the grid is very much underutilized. As to the grid being unstable and all, that really has nothing to do with this article, and without quantizing "adding these cars" - did you mean adding two of them, or 100 million of them - it flies in the face of the study that should be in the article. (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Energy Efficiency" & "CO2 emissions sections unclear, probably contradictory

The section titled "Energy Efficiency" contains what appears to be contradictory information. I know it will be a lot of work, but someone should go through the two sections and straighten them out, since they are key to the controversy over the vehicle of the future.

Paragraph 1: A grid-charged EV has a 'well to wheels' (WTW) energy efficiency of 20-25% vs. 20% for an ICE vehicle. Paragraph 2: Tesla source cited claiming that its EVs have a WTW efficiency of 24.4 kWh/100 km. Author cites US ICE fleet average of 96 kWh/100 km. That would mean that an EV is four times more energy efficient than an ICE vehicle.

These two paragraphs seem to in conflict with each other. It leaves the thoughtful reader confused as to whether EVs are actually a better choice than ICE vehicles.

The next section, "Carbon dioxide emissions" does not clarify the situation.

Paragraph 1: "emissions of electric cars are always lower than those of conventional cars". Paragraph 2: cites a 2009 study that says introducing 1 million EV cars into Germany would -- in the best case scenario -- only reduce CO2 by 0.1% (that's zero point one percent, not a typo). Paragraph 4: "Using fossil based grid electricity entirely negates the in-vehicle efficiency advantages of electric cars." Paragraph 5: "Electric powered automobiles, even using the most CO2 intensive coal produced electricity, produce half the emissions of gasoline powered automobiles."

My sense, judging by the material in these two sections, and from an MIT paper indirectly cited here (Kromer, M. A.; Heywood, J. B. [2007] Electric Powertrains: Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet): There is no clear scientific consensus on the value of EVs for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Star-lists (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone should go through them? Why don't you then? SimonTrew (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead: "nearly 50%"

This has been bugging me for some time:

"...reduced prices of gasoline cars to nearly 50% of that of equivalent electric cars..."

Now does that mean that gas cars were slightly less than half the cost of electric ones, or slightly more than half? i.e. is the 50% the reduction or the final amount? This could be avoided by recasting:

"...reduced the prices of gasoline cars to less than half that of equivalent electric cars..."


"...reduced the prices of gasoline cars so that equivalent electric cars were nearly double the price..."

Note how I have got rid of 50% ("half" is perfectly good english last time I looked) and could go farther:

"...[nearly] halved the prices of gasoline cars compared to those of equivalent electric cars"

But the "nearly" is probably unnecessary as surely nobody would expect that to mean they were exactly half, to the penny? Since the statement is unreferenced, I cannot check which meaning it should have; i.e. which side of 50% the cost of the gas model was compared to that of the electric.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Simon, here's the text in question, it's in the History of the EV article, which I contributed heavily to:
"Acceptance of electric cars was initially hampered by a lack of power infrastructure, but by 1912, many homes were wired for electricity, enabling a surge in the popularity of the cars. At the turn of the century, 40 percent of American automobiles were powered by steam, 38 percent by electricity, and 22 percent by gasoline. 33,842 electric cars were registered in the United States, and America became the country where electric cars had gained the most acceptance. While basic electric cars cost under $1,000 (in 1900 dollars, roughly $26,000 today), most early electric vehicles were massive, ornate carriages designed for the upper-class customers that made them popular. They featured luxurious interiors, replete with expensive materials, and averaged $3,000 by 1900 (roughly $77,000 today). Sales of electric cars peaked in 1912."
and also...
"...the initiation of mass production of gas-powered vehicles by Henry Ford brought the price as low $440 in 1915 (equivalent to roughly $9,200 today),[17] and $360 by 1916 (roughly $7,000 today). By contrast, the price of similar electric vehicles continued to rise; in 1912, an electric roadster sold for $1,750 (roughly $39,000 in today), while a gasoline car sold for less than half of that, $650 (roughly $14,000 today)."
The first excerpt is fully sourced, the second excerpt lacks a source for those 1912 prices (the 1915-16 prices are sourced). It seems that an adequate wording for the lead would be thus be: "reduced prices of gasoline cars to less than half that of equivalent electric cars". I'll go ahead and put that in. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I think much better as "half" instead of the overprecises 50%, and thanks for clarifying which way it was, and reffing it. Good job. Thanks, it runs better now. SimonTrew (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Regenerative Braking

"Using regenerative braking, a feature which is present on many electric and hybrid vehicles, estimates of 71-93% of the energy used to accelerate the mass of the vehicle may be recovered during braking[7], increasing its efficiency, particularly in urban drive cycles."

It was my understanding that the 71-93% figure referred to the efficiency of converting heat at the brakes into electricity. Since this amounts to about 20-40% of the total positive energy generated at the wheels, the actual figure should be between 10-30%.Mrwobbles (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

read the reference, correct the article if I have misinterpreted it. More useful would be to find a reliable ref for more realistic levels of energy recovery. and sign your posts. Greglocock (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The article isnt free and I'm Scottish, I refuse to pay for anything I don't have to. I'll look for another study into it, thou a quick search seems to show them as being few on the ground.Mrwobbles (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Found an article into F1 regenerative braking carried out by Cranfield, 'A STUDY INTO REGENERATIVE BRAKING WITHIN A F1 RACE CAR', concludes that a mechanical system is more efficient than electrical but the mechanical system has an unknown real response and hence is riskier. I'll go thru the rest of the article when I have time. Found another study into train regenerative brakes that seems to agree with the 10-30% figure but whether comparisons can be made between this and PHEV regen brakes is debatable.Mrwobbles (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

一輛电车是為推進力使用电动机和馬達控制器的一輛代用燃料汽車,在更加共同的推進力方法位置例如内燃机(冰)。 电车是明確地各種各樣供用途使用打算的電動車作為一輛路去的汽車。 电车由在機上電池組裝共同地供給動力,並且,因為這樣是電池電動車(BEVs)。 预计進入用途在將來包括ultracapacitors的其他在機上能量储备方法或者一個轉動的飛輪,存放能量作為动能。 电车享受在中間第19個世紀和20世紀初的世紀之間的大眾化,當電是在汽車推進力的首选的方法之中,提供舒適的不可能乘时间的汽油汽車達到的水平和操作方便。 前進在冰技術很快使這好處需討論; 汽油汽車,更快的換裝燃料时间的更加了不起的範圍和生長石油基礎設施,與汽油車的大量生产一起由公司的這樣福特,比一半使汽油汽車降低的價格到較少那等效电车,导致在電推進力,有效地去除它的使用的一種衰落從重要市場例如美國在20世紀30年代之前。 近年來,對汽油汽車的环境影响的增加的關心,與減少的消費者能力支付一起燃料汽油汽車,在电车上达到了更新的兴趣,被察覺更加不傷環境和更加便宜維護和跑,儘管高最初成本。 电车在國家當前享受相對大眾化環球,雖然他們是顯著地缺席的美國的路,电车在90s末期簡單地再現作為對改變的政府规則的一個反應。 雜種电车成為了电车的最共同的形式,結合一内燃机powertrain以補充电动机跑汽車以無所事事和低速度,利用技術例如再生制动改进它的在可比較的汽油汽車的效率,當不被阻礙由有限的範圍固有對當前電池电车时。 雜種汽車由多数主要製造商現在賣,與著名的模型包括豐田Prius和即將到來的薛佛列汽車伏特,使用一臺靠汽油發動的電發電器補充的充分地電傳動延伸它的范围的一個插入式雜種。 在2009年, world' s多數普遍的電池电车是REVAi,亦稱G-Wiz,是由印第安公司生產的並且在一定數量的國家被賣在歐洲和亞洲。 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinthfan (talkcontribs) 14:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

France invests $2.2 billion in charging stations

See this article: -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

References 32 and 33 are doubtful

The efficiency of a gasoline engine is about 16%, and 20% for a diesel engine.[32][33].

  1. ^ Johnson, C (15 April 2009), Physics In an Automotive Engine, Public Service Projects at,, retrieved on 2009-04-25

This reference uses a 20MPG small block Chevrolet 350 V8 engine with only an 8 to 1 compression ratio. I had a Gas/Petrol car 25 years ago with a 10 to 1 compression ratio. CR is directly related to efficiency. Can you actually buy a modern car with a CR that low?

The US DOE and EPA rate modern TDI type engines at 44%, there is serious book cooking going on to rate it at 20%. In fact there is no specific reference to diesel engine efficiency at all in the 'Reference'. The gas engine efficiency similarly bears no relationship to US DOE / EPA figures. This reference is not credible and the statement it 'references' should be deleted.

I personally drive a 15 year old direct injection diesel Golf sized car, (rated by its makers as 38% efficient), that returns 55MPG (imperial), that is a world away from these fantasy figures. It has a 600 mile range on renewable fuel and can seat four with luggage. (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have given up any attempt at fixing these calculations. The problem with your observation is that you are quoting peak efficiency, whereas a car very rarely runs at that particular speed and load. Greglocock (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comparing a 1970s gas/petrol powered car with current electric vehicle technology is not fair or reasonable, it is biased. Because diesel cars have higher torque generally than comparable gas/petrol cars, their efficiency is less impaired by urban driving conditions than gas/petrol. The effect of automatic idling shutdown systems (or even by turning the key! by law in Germany), six speed manual gearboxes and Continuously Variable Transmission should be considered, if a like for like comparison is to be made. CVTs allow engines to run at optimum efficiency. That is current conventional IC engined vehicle technology. According to a review of a Toyota petrol/gas hybrid SUV against against a Mercedes commonrail diesel SUV, in the UK 'What Diesel?' magazine, the diesel with a conventional five-speed gearbox was slightly more efficient. This would seem to indicate that the efficiency improvement of hybrid drive technology (which very similar to plug in electrics), is about the same as diesel over petrol, which is about 15%. This reference is claiming it to be much higher than that. Where are the diesel hybrids that use both technologies? Cooking the books with biased comparisons, and fishy figures is damaging to the push for reduced carbon emissions. Why not tell the truth and leave chicanery like this, to people like the car industry, who used a CO2 emission argument in the UK to get a government 'banger' (that all had to have a current certificate of roadworthiness) car scrappage scheme, with very fishy figures for CO2 emissions of car production vs lifetime emissions. (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: The MPG of the diesel SUV was slightly higher than the MPG of the hybrid SUV over the same testing, with vehicles of the same size. AFAIK the hybrid drivetrain is very similar to plug in electric cars. The grid efficiency of fossil powered electricity is about the same as that of a petrol engine in a hybrid. How can efficiencies so much higher than diesel powered cars be claimed for plug in electric cars in the light of this? Do the figures come from people who have a vested interest in electric cars? Perhaps it is no accident that when you try to compare the figures it is an apples and pears situation. (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote : "An accident in a 2,000 lb (900 kg) vehicle will on average cause about 50% more injuries to its occupants than a 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) vehicle"

This fails to mention what it means for the occupants in a vehicle that's been hit by a heavier vehicle as opposed to a lighter vehicle. I'd guess it's not good. F=ma last time I checked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What does the reference for that remark say? oh. Greglocock (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

One has to question the quality of a reference from! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Are you claiming not WP:RS? If it is a fact it is a fact, and to my mind it doesn't matter too much where you get it from. However, if it is a blurb from a company, to emphasise their good deals on smaller or larger vehicles, I would say that is not RS. Can you qualify your objection? SimonTrew (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the worst part about all of this is that there is a misconception that a heavier vehicle automatically is safer than a lighter vehicle. However, this doesn't address the issue of why the vehicle is heavier. Is the vehicle heavier because it has a large engine bay, lots of safety reinforcement all around or is it because some guy took a 1800lb CRX and strapped 12000lbs worth of gold into the trunk and passenger seat. Don't argue about whether or not someone would do such a thing, the point is, what percent of the weight of the vehicle is used to decelerate and the other percent that is BEING decelerated. Batteries are heavy and having 1000lbs worth of them means that's 1000lbs that can't be used towards the safety of the vehicle and if they're working within a weight constraint, then that means the vehicle is inherently less safe than another vehicle that doesn't have that constraint. --Imzjustplayin (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that you are wrong. Do the physics. A Mini with 1000 lb of batteries hitting a Mini with no batteries will see lower accelerations. Greglocock (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lower accelerations or not, the accident is going to be worse if you have two minis with 1000lbs of batteries hitting each other than without those 1000lbs of batteries. You also seem to forget that while a disparity of accelerations can be an issue, there is going to be much more serious deformity in the cars when the weight isn't able to be used in the deceleration of the car. I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that two cars going 30mph weighing exactly the same, and crashing head on into each other would be the same as a one car going 60mph into a wall. Fact is, the accident will be worse for BOTH drivers, meaning that adding that 1000lbs of weight made the situation worse for that mini driver than had he not had it in the first place.

To quote the NHTSA using the very article that was used to backup the claim that heavier cars are safer..."

Momentum conservation: When a heavy and a light vehicle collide, the heavy vehicle keeps moving forward; its occupants experience a small velocity change. The light vehicle gets pushed backward; its occupants experience a higher velocity change. These are consequences of the laws of physics; nothing can be done to equalize the velocity changes. For example, in a head-on collision, a 1 percent weight advantage corresponds to more than a 5 percent reduction in the driver's fatality risk, relative to the driver of the other vehicle.

What benefits an individual – being in the heavier of the two vehicles – however, does not necessarily benefit society as a whole. Based on momentum considerations alone, the risk reduction in Vehicle 1 as it becomes heavier is cancelled by a risk increase in Vehicle 2. If momentum conservation were the only factor making heavier vehicles safer (it isn’t), overall fatalities in multivehicle crashes would neither increase nor decrease if the entire vehicle fleet were reduced in mass.

Crashworthiness: Heavier vehicles have historically done a better job cushioning their occupants in crashes. Their longer hoods and extra space in the occupant compartment provide an opportunity for a more gradual deceleration of the vehicle, and of the occupant within the vehicle. In the New Car Assessment Program, crash test results have been consistently better for large cars, given the same 35 mph barrier impact. While it is conceivable that light vehicles could be built with similarly long hoods and mild deceleration pulses, it would probably require major changes in materials and design and/or taking weight out of their engines, accessories, etc.

Structural integrity: Heavier vehicles have historically provided better protection against intrusion by fixed objects, heavy trucks, etc. Doors, frames, pillars, roof rails, etc. are thicker and stronger. Since the occupant compartment is larger, these structures also have more room to deform.

Mass mismatch: There is widespread belief that a collision between vehicles of similar mass is safer than a collision of badly mismatched vehicles. If so, making the heaviest vehicles lighter, and the lightest heavier, could reduce fatalities in crashes between passenger vehicles. (However, analyses in Section 6.6 of this report do not show significantly higher fatality rates per unit of exposure in crashes of 2,000 with 4,000 pound cars than in crashes of two 3,000 pound cars.)


--Imzjustplayin (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Now you appear to be writing more sensibly on the matter. Keep it up Greglocock (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I guess one swallow doesn't make a summer and you've gone back to a distinctly unhelpful mode of editing. Greglocock (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss as I already proved my point. You're unable to refute what I say yet you keep insisting on putting back that drivel, which is completely inaccurate. The batteries do NOT make the car any safer which is clearly pointed out by the very source that you and I are referencing. I added to the article sufficient information, and you decide to completely strip it of that and put back that garbage which is wholly inaccurate. We're not talking about SUVs or Supras crashing into Geo Metros, we're talking about light weight gasoline Geo Metros crashing into Heavy, Battery powered GEO metros carrying 1000lbs worth of batteries into each other. You can be assured that nobody is going to survive that crash because neither car is capable of dissipating the additional crash energy.--Imzjustplayin (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You have proved nothing. A car with 1000 lb more of batteries in it hitting an identical car without the payload will see lower accelerations. Quit bluffing and accept the truth of that 400 year old statement. The refs support that statement Greglocock (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you keep emphasizing accelerations yet what we're talking about is actually what is a safer situation. Let me write it again; "There is widespread belief that a collision between vehicles of similar mass is safer than a collision of badly mismatched vehicles. If so, making the heaviest vehicles lighter, and the lightest heavier, could reduce fatalities in crashes between passenger vehicles. (However, analyses in Section 6.6 of this report do not show significantly higher fatality rates per unit of exposure in crashes of 2,000 with 4,000 pound cars than in crashes of two 3,000 pound cars.)" (From the NHTSA report). So while the heavier vehicle may see lower accelerations (which you seem to have been so caught up on) the crash is overall more deadly. It's not the weight mismatch that is the issue, it's the whole energy equation, that when you add more weight, especially into vehicles that aren't designed for that additional weight, you end up with a much less safe crash. A car with four passengers is going to receive a lower crash test rating than a car with a single passenger. I think the most bothersome thing about all of this is that you revert my edits and have the article go back and state that those heavy batteries make the car safer when it in fact does not and actually does the opposite. The NHTSA article you reference backs up everything I say and while it won't say what you say about accelerations is wrong, what it will say which is what you've effectively said is that heavier cars makes for more deadly crashes especially if the weight isn't able to be utilized in the dissipation of crash energy. Maybe you want some reassurance, here I'll give it to you, you are right, the heavier Geo will see lower accelerations than the lighter one. With that said, a weighted down car does not make a safer car.--Imzjustplayin (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What we are talking about specifically is the fallacy that adding batteries to a car will make it more dangerous. So far as the occupants of that car are concerned that is untrue, for good fundamental reasons, which you now seem to agree with. I agree that for the other car in a two car collision it'll be worse. I have reverted your deletion yet again, and added a sentence that discusses the negatives. Why not spend some time EDITING that section instead of deleting it? Also do not delete the part about LRR tires. Greglocock (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's better to receive higher accelerations if it means that you aren't crumpled to death which is what very well would happen if you added 1000lbs worth of batteries to a Geo metro which isn't even considering the weight of the passengers themselves. An 1800lbs geo metro crashing into a Camry will be safer for the passenegers than a 2800lbs Geo Metro crashing into the same Camry because the heavier Geo Metro while experiencing less accelerations will have devastating crumpling of the passenger safety space, making accelerations completely irrelevant. --Imzjustplayin (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If you recently reverted my edits using an IP then you are playing a rather silly game. I have moved LRR to a separate section. I am afraid you are wrong, adding batteries to the Geo will reduce the accelerations it sees, and will reduce the severity of the accident for its occupants. Not so for the guys in the Camry. I suggest you build a simple analytical model of two crashing cars and use the known laws of physics to validate my comments. Greglocock (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong with the people at wikipedia, either they're incapable of actually reading your references or they're too busy trying to make the articles look like they have as much data as possible, but the fact is, not only is your post about a heavier car sustaining less damage irrelevant but it's factually inaccurate when it pertains to a car that had the weight added to it after the fact and not when it was designed with it. You know absolutely nothing about crash testing if you think that you can just add weight to a car and not suffer serious negative consequences in doing so. Where does this additional energy go? Huh? When you crash a car, the energy is dissipated by crumpling of the car, when you add more energy to a crash situation you're either going to get more crumpling. If you had seen the crash tests of a Geo Metro into a wall, you can see the vehicle can barely prevent itself from crushing its passengers. When you add more weight, how can you expect anything but more crumpling of the safety space which in the case of a Geo Metro could mean life and death (the car already does poorly enough as it is). You and the other wikipedians seem to be incapable of understanding this, what exactly do I need to give you to stop reverting my edits and the edits of others that contradicts what you feel should be posted? Do I need a representative at the NHTSA to write you an e-mail, explaining to you why you're wrong or is this crap just going to continue ad-nauseum because you can't bare to find out that you're actually wrong and the very article you reference proves my point...--Imzjustplayin (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to have a very good handle on the physics. The energy goes into the other car (to use your terminology). As I suggested before, build a simple model, using Newton's laws. You are absolutely right, in 30 years of automotive engineering I have never worked directly for crash. I do however work out dynamic loads for them if their sensors fail or they don't measure something important, and investigate specific mechanical problems that they run into. Can I ask how much experience you have with crash, or indeed physics? Just for grins I set up a Monte Carlo simulation of a population of heavy cars, with a variable crush zone, smashing into a population of lighter cars, with variable crush zones. The results were banal. You always want to be in the heavier car, no matter what crush zone you, or the other car, have. Your main problem with Wikipedians is that you keep deleting stuff instead of editing it. You even deleted a sentence that specifically mentioned your point. How dumb is that? Greglocock (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind in all this - the acceleration each vehicle suffers is in changing from its initial velocity to the velocity of the center of mass of the combined two vehicles. If you add mass to vehicle A, then the velocity of the center of mass changes, lessening its velocity change during the collision. That explains some of the physics disagreement here.

If you're running into a solid wall or pole, the center of mass is only the center of mass of vehicle A, so there's no change to the dynamics from weight changes (but the energy does change, with total M...). If you hit a much heavier vehicle, the center of mass velocity change also is minimal. So adding some weight to an otherwise structurally identical light car does make some collisions worse, certainly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we stop the nonsense about accelerations not being indicative of crash severity? Bothte EEC and NHTSA use accelerations, here's a couple off the web. Here's the allowable sled pulse for a belted occupant in the EEC I think

head pulse here from nhtsa

Google is your friend , corridor is the term. Greglocock (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

LRR tires

I'm deleting your bit about the LRR tires because they do NOT necessarily have worse braking performance compared to some of the cheap OEM tires that many cars are equipped with. Some tires aren't LRR at all, have poor tread wear rating, braking performance, handling performance and in a sense poor everything except price. There are a lot more factors into what makes a tire a tire. You can have an LRR tire outperform and high performance tire, it's not an impossibility. We will not know definitively whether or not a particular tire is truly an LRR and has good performance until the Feds finalize the rating standards for LRR tires this December.--Imzjustplayin (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The sentence on LRR tires is supported by a reference. I also have, but cannot publish, a chart showing the rolling resistance of about 100 different tires and their peak braking force at nominal load and pressure. As you might expect, the data is noisy. But the trend is as you would expect - more grip costs you more rolling resistance. The upper limit of performance forms a nice straight line. The reason is fairly obvious - the same property of the compound that improves adhesion also increases its damping, hence its rolling resistance. That is not to say you can't have LRR and good mu, but it will be a more expensive tire, and may involve other compromises. Yes Virginia, I did used to be a tire design engineer. Greglocock (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


"Lead-acid batteries are the most available and inexpensive and can be charged and controlled with low cost equipment, although owing to relatively short lifetime, due to high discharge rates and deep-cycling which they are unsuited for, have a higher overall cost than more expensive alternatives."

There are deep cycle lead acid batteries, so the statement is wrong as well as enigmatic (nowhere in the article is deep cycling defined). Lead acid batteries have a much lower overall cost than any other form of battery, this is indisputable. This is so wrong I have changed the section. (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Charging time is limited primarily by the capacity of the grid connection."

In most cases, it is limited by the speed at which the battery can be recharged, not the supply.

 --> No, as long as the battery can be kept sufficiently cool, the rate at which the battery can be recharged is dependent on power availability. You can charge a very large battery in a very short length of time given enough power and a method to dissipate waste heat.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC) 

" A normal household outlet is between 1.5 kW (in the US, Canada, Japan, and other countries with 110 volt supply) to 3 kW (in countries with 220/240V supply)."

The "capacity" which you seem to be referring to here, is the power output. Now, P = IV Power (W) = Current (A) x Voltage (V)

for a 240V system on a standard 10 Amp wall outlet: P = 10 x 240 = 2 400 W (2.4kW) for a 110V system on a standard 10 Amp wall outlet : = 10 x 110 = 1 100 W (1.1 kW)

However, the relevant figure is Kwh(kilowatt-hours), not power(kW), in order to calculate the charging time. (BTW, households in countries with 110V power outlets have access to 220V at the meter). The article also says nothing about 3 phase power, which will reduce charging time.

This section needs to be rewritten by someone with a better understanding of electricity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

300W electric car heater

The citation for the 300W electric car heater in the energy efficiency section appears to be advertising/spam. The product is not designed for use in electric cars and the source website does not show that a 300W electric heater is the proper size for an otherwise unheated vehicle. The heater shown is for supplemental heat in the backside of a gas or diesel fuel car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

íTake it out then. WP:BOLD Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Protest here, That wasn't intended as spam, and the link states that the product is used in cars, now 300 Watt is not enough in cold climates, a 1kw or 2kw heater would do, "The cabin heater also draws a fair bit of power (1500 watts),"[], and a 25% range reduction [2]. Mion (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a much better quote than what is in the article. The 300W unit is not for EVs, and wouldn't even get the frost off a windscreen. Greglocock (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Efficiency Comparisons are Misleading -- need Apples to Apples

The discussion of efficiency talks about power transmission and generation costs for electricity (which are perfectly legitimate) but neglects to discuss the efficiency of fossil fuel production and distribution. I've seen "guesstimates" of 50% (i.e. one gallon of fuel is needed to produce and distribute one gallon of fuel) which seems ridiculously high, but massively modifies the equation no matter what the figure is.

In short -- well-to-wheel needs to be broken down into well-to-car and car-to-wheel and the two figures compared fairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is ridiculously high. A more common figure is 83-87% of the energy in the well gets to the tank. There are many problems you will run into when performing this calculation, terrible tho that section is, it is the best compromise we could achieve. Make sure all the figures you use are from a believable source, and that the algorithm and assumptions you use is not WP:OR. in particular any claim that you will be able to magically use renewable energy alone (or natural gas) to recharge your batteries will be laughed out of court. Use real present day or recent values. Oh and get a username.Greglocock (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
No one needs to get a username if he/she would prefer not to. There are many reasons why some people might prefer anonymity. We need to edit based on the quality of their input rather than whether or not they choose to adopt a username. In the past, I've been admonished by admins for suggesting that contributors would be taken more seriously if they signed up for usernames.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
True. But your edits ARE far more likely to be taken seriosuly if you have a username, whatever ideals admins may have.Greglocock (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The explanation that diesel and gasoline powered cars use heat engines to produce work while EV's use chemical energy to produce work should be removed; internal combustion engines aren't heat engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kram-bc (talkcontribs) 08:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Israeli site

This Israeli site: [EC] has an article about this subject.Agre22 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

The electric car revolution starts in Israel

This Israeli site: [Haaretz] tells that the electric car revolution starts in Israel.Agre22 (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Special pleading in lede

An editor seems overly fond of the rather silly claims in the second part of this para (the first part is just classic NIMBYism, and of course fails to point out that levels of CO2 in city streets is NOT an issue).

Electric cars have the potential of drastically reducing city pollution by having zero tail pipe emissions[9][10][11]. It is estimated that greenhouse gases are reduced by 20% if using electricity from fossil fuel plants and greater from nuclear or other renewable energy plants.[12][13] The reduction comes from the greater efficiency of electricity plants versus a car engine.

There are many studies by more reputable organisations that indicate that for overall CO2 emissions EVs are worse than HEVs, or even conventional cars, for the sort of electricity generation plant that actually exists. I have seen studies for Germany and the USA, I'm sure others exist,. Greglocock (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor seems overly negative of the rather silly claims co2 emissions would not be reduced by electric cars.
Show your sources. Here is an article claiming that CO2 might increase[14] and a counter from a more reputable source that says co2 would be reduced by 40%[15] Hint: If you see "may" or "could" in the title then it is not a convincing source. For example: the sky "may" fall. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
From the article you are editing so badly "This study concluded that introducing 1 million EV cars to Germany would, in the best case scenario, only reduce CO2 emissions by 0.1%, if nothing is done to upgrade the electricity infrastructure or manage demand.[27]". So I suggest you stop including pie in the sky speculation. Bear in mind that any attempt to reduce the non carbon emissions from coal plants will reduce their efficincy and increase CO2 emissions. Greglocock (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
What pie in the sky speculation are you referring too? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the current summary of the CO2 levels issues in the lead is a good summary, but I agree that electric cars are likely to reduce air pollution- it's easier to control pollution at a power station.- Wolfkeeper 00:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Another thing that's missing the article in general is that electric cars avoid having to use petroleum products which are often produced in unstable areas of the world. Mostly they're powered by coal.- Wolfkeeper 00:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Coal is 45% for 2009.
Sources of electricity in the U.S. in 2009.[16]
Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and now check how much CO2 you get from coal per kWh at the socket, compared with a hydrocarbon burnt in an engine. I have no problem with saying that electric cars /could/ reduce pollution, but I really think you need to add the rider that with current (and forseeable future) power generation these advantages are minute, if they exist at all. As mentioned and reffed further down in the article. China is building two coal powered power stations a week. What do you think their electric cars will be fueled by? Greglocock (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Since you want to include transmission losses for electricity you should also consider inefficiencies in transmitting oil from Saudi Arabia to the pump. Not just inefficiency of the engine. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, methane produces a lot less CO2 than coal or oil does, as does nuclear. Hydro- dunno there's a lot of CO2 produced when you make the dam due to vegetation you flood. Other power sources like wind and solar are good too. So it depends where you are, but the graph suggests that electricity generation involves a lot less CO2 per kWh. Either way, it's not petroleum, petroleum is quite carbon heavy, and petroleum prices are unstable and generally going up.- Wolfkeeper 13:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe I softened the statement some, since I couldn't find in the references how they calculated co2 savings. Here is the source for china savings: . Let me know if you prefer the updated version. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know how green your state's electricity is, you can use this table: . Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no point in trying to correct your OR. Of course I was going to include well to wheel efficincy for hydrocarbons, that number is well known to anybody who has any knowledge of the field (15-17% covers well to bowser losses). I'll read the revised article and take it from there. Greglocock (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "OR", "bowser"? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR, and thing in a service station where the fuel comes out. Incidentally the para in the lede is now complete nonsense. Well done. If you were to switch every car in the entire world to running on moonlight the drop in global anthropogenic CO2 emissions would only be les than 20%, so those figures you have quoted are just ridiculous or don't mean what you say they mean. Greglocock (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you were very specific. The info in the lead is backed up by references. For example are you saying that if u.k. people switched to electric vehicles they would not save 40% in co2 emissions, contrary to what the source says? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
They would save 40% on the vehicle emissions, not 40% of the total emissions of the UK of course. Still, 40% is quite a lot. And if the UK builds more wind farms, it could be a lot more than that; the UK has got massive amounts of wind (probably due to the jet stream).- Wolfkeeper 13:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)