Jump to content

Talk:Electric vehicle/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Sodium-ion batteries and EEstor???

I think it is too premature to mention in this article Sodium-ion batteries with claimed energy densities 400 wh-kg,especially because such densities is much more than any really existing Li-ion or Sodium-Sulfur battery,what is very unlikely.Is there any proof that any completely working prototype have been created? The same thing relates to claims that EEstors and supercapacitors could exceed Li-ion batteries energy densities a few times.This is very unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.120.139 (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Electromagnetic Radiation

Could someone find a source for the statement that some high performance cars emit electromagnetic radiation? I'm doubting the accuracy of this statement. Ednel 23:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

All modern cars emit Electromagnetic radiation (electrical noise or radio noise), from the various electronic gizmos which run them. However most countries require that they must conform to certain standards before they can be sold. I dont have all the numbers in my head but EN 95/54 was one. --Birdav (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cover image

What's up with the trolley busses picture on the front, plus the tram, train cars? As if those the only types of electric vehicles there are out there. At one time we used to actually have electric cars mass produced riding arround the streets. True story. Let's get some decent pictures for the cover. Alright! --24.85.149.203

Perhaps you are talking about Battery Electric Vehicles? --njh 11:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Layman's terms, please

In attempting to get background information of this topic, i searched for electrice vehicles and got this page. However, it immeadiatly goes into terms and phrases that I have no idea what to do with. Can this page be simplified so that people who do not have much knowledge on this subject can still understand it? I'm looking for information on Electrical Cars, as in the kind that you would buy and drive around in, but I have no idea which one of the types listed that is.

Aircraft Carriers

Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers do not have electric propulsion systems and are not "electric vehicles". Water heated in the nuclear reactor produces steam which drives a steam turbine to propel the ship. However nuclear-powered submarines do have electric propulsion. Eregli bob 11:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

The process of obtaining GM's first electric vehicle the EV1 was difficult. The vehicle could not be purchased outright. Instead, General Motors offered a closed-end lease for three years, with no renewal or residual purchase options. The EV1 was only available from specialist Saturn dealerships, and only in California.

Before reviewing leasing options, a potential lessee would be taken through a 'pre-qualification' process in order to learn how the EV1 was different from other vehicles. Next came a waiting list with no scheduled delivery date.

A documentary about the demise of the EV1 and other electric vehicles entitled Who Killed the Electric Car? debuted on June 30, 2006. Several weeks before the debut of the movie, the Smithsonian Institution announced that its EV1 display was being permanently removed and the EV1 car put into storage. GM is a major financial contributor to the museum, and both parties denied that this fact contributed to the removal of the display.

According to the interview with Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner in the June 2006 issue of Motor Trend magazine, the cancellation of the EV1 proggram has been one of the worst decision he has ever made.

Many proponents of EV's believe that even factoring in battery replacement EVs are much cheaper than oil. The barriers to EVs have been political for the past decade, not technological.

NPOV

I understand the fervency of the contributors to this page, but it needs to adhere to a neutral point of view. The biggest problem is the section about EVs and the auto industry. I think there just needs to be an alternative point of view added in that and other areas. Johnnyb82 03:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the NPOV concern of Johnnyb82. WP should remain nuetral on such items as to whether the auto companies do or don't support EVs for political/institutional reasons. This is particularly true for a lead topic article such as Electric Vehicles. While the actions of the auto companies with respect to promotion or non-promotion of EV technology might be worthy of a separate article, such non-NPOV material should not be detailed in the main topic article. (And I say this as a long-time EV owner of nearly 20 years and a general supporter of EV technology when it is economically justified.) N2e 22:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if the NPOV claim is about EVs and AI, lets work out where the problems are:

Most major automakers have attempted to postpone or prevent mass production of electric cars.

Needs some proof I guess.

This stems from their being heavily financially invested in today's dominant power technology, the internal combustion engine.

Believable, but not proven. An alternative claim would be that EVs are constantly being considered, but simply aren't justifiable on theoretical grounds. Toyota's massive prius sales might illustrate this, or disprove it.

At one time during emissions reductions regulations GM produced over 1,100 of their EV1 models, 800 of which were made available through 3-year leases.

fact, easily verified.

Upon the expiration of EV1 leases, GM crushed them.

fact.

The reason for the crushing is not clear, but has variously been attributed to (1) the auto industry's successful challenge to California law requiring zero emission vehicles or (2) a federal regulation requiring GM to produce and maintain spare parts for the few thousands EV1s.

Speculation. Herein lies the problem. Let's say everyone knew they did it for evil reasons, but they wouldn't admit it. How could we write an encyclopedic statement that stated this with NPOV? We do know that they took Cal to court and won, but that doesn't explain why they crushed the existing machines. Do we know which federal reg required spares? Can we get an estimate of the cost of this, compared to crushing the cars outright? (for example, what constitutes a spare?)

--njh 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The strange thing is there was NO federal request or requirement for them to be crushed, they simply were, at GM, Ford, Honda's request. There has been and still remains no evidence that this was done for any viable business reason except to eliminate evidence that the cars exist. Otherwise, why would they even DISABLE AND CRIPPLE all of the cars in museums and universities and require the smithsonian to guarntee in writing to never allow theirs (The last remaining intact EV1) never to be driven again!rxdxt 16:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds terrible! Do you have any evidence of this though? --njh 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Lack of evidence to the contrary is evidence in itself.
The two reasons I heard of are:
  1. Liability and safety concerns
  2. Concern for having to maintain the vehicles. (Sounds like a poor excuse.)
Daniel.Cardenas 19:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No, as much as I believe companies are evil etc, assuming that they did something for reasons other sound financial reasons is not reasonable in an encyclopedia. Liability and Safety sounds like a perfectly reasonable excuse to me. Lack of evidence to the contrary does not make hearsay true. I could equally say that I have no evidence that you aren't a bad person and that I've heard you jump on children's sandcastles.
Rxdxt claimed that a) no federal request (ok, easily testable), b) rather, crushed by GM etc (testable). c) purpose in crushing cars was to make people not know about them (this is where it gets shakey). Rxdxt then went on to ask a rhetorical question saying that they could think of no other reason why the cars might have been disabled than for an evil conspiracy. Well lets come up with a few:
The battery is known to become highly explosive after a certain number of years, and will explode if used after that point; The Chassis was damaged in transportation of the museum car making it unsafe; driving it may damage it, and being the last drivable model, this would be an act of historical vandalism.
I think that my next point disproves this, but I think that you make a good point. we should elminate any reference to reasons why and simply state what occured, Cars were taken, often against the leasee's will, cars were crushed, no demonstrable reason was ever given for this decision there is only one, now it's gone.rxdxt 05:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You see, we lept off the grounds of testable/verifiable fact and into the clouds of supposition. Assigning motivations to other people is always risky. --njh 23:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I say prove to me that flying apes don't exist. Oh what you don't have any evidence? Then it must be true.
That is why I say lack of evidence (no flying apes) is evidence in itself. Daniel.Cardenas 00:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
No, saying it makes it neither true nor false. That was my point. Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence, but nor is Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence. However, Evidence of Absence and Evidence of Existance are valid. And that is what you need to show. (and are humans not flying apes? - Evidently, you've made the same mistake again.) --njh 01:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree on assigning motivations, would prefer we leave the facts. The cars were removed, sometimes before the end of their lease, against their owners will in almost all cases (90% of owners signed petitions asking GM to allow them to keep them) the cars were shipped to the AZ desert where they were crushed (fact) except a few which were rendered non-working and given to Museum and universities (10 or so). With one exception, which was given to the Smithsonian Institute which INSISTED on getting a fully functional/working one. This car was in the museum in an exhibit sponsored by GM until last week. Wash Post 6/20 rxdxt 05:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree it does sound rather fishy. (Though what they hoped to achieve by this isn't clear either, as by seeming fishy it gives more weight to the 'conspiracy' theory and makes more people interested!) In any case, the reality is that the EV1 wasn't the final say in the development of the electric vehicle, and the recent emergence and market success of the hybrids may mean that we are closer now to 'electric vehicles' as private transport than ever before.

Let's focus and try to find an agreeable solution. I moved the NPOV tag to the Automotive Industry part of the article, since that is the focus of this controversy. If there are other possible NPOV statements, let's move them there. The dispute about "Who Killed the Electric Car" is now subject of the film, noteworthy enough for inclusion, so I suggest that we plan to include here a description of the film's allegations. (I'll bet someone will do that on WP). Castellanet 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Split into two articles

I've moved the old content from Electric vehicles in Battery Electric Vehicles as there was far too much detail and not enough general picture. Electric vehicles has been rewritten mostly from scratch and needs references. njh 13:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This isn't easily seen by the passer-by looking for info on current possibilities for EVs. Would it be a good idea to put a sentence in the first paragraph to help direct folks who are actually looking for Battery electric vehicles? I don't think people would think to search under that term, so we could help to make it easier for folks to find the page they are actually looking for, what do you all think?Sarah Katherine (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Old electrics

This page needs a section on all the early electric cars. They were once more popular than gas cars! Rmhermen 15:18 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to add that, but the history of the EV is so long that it deserves another page unto itself. I'm a bit busy right now, but I will get around to it, and eventually, I will move all the info in this article to a new topic entitled "Battery Electric Vehicle", or BEV so I can eventually go in-depth on BEVs without leaving out NEVs, FCEVs, NHEVs, ect. without making everything appear cluttered and what not. I will also get around to covering as many highway capable full-size electric vehicles as possible on these articles. I believe that they deserve a few looks given that the technology for them is here and we should be driving around in them right now. I want to above all, dispell the common EV myths with these articles, and I figured this site gets lots of visitors, so what better way to expose what these cars are capable of than getting the information into a comprehensive set of articles here, and for free at that? I eventually hope to add a lot to this site, as I have a lot of things to add, and the links/ documentation to back the info up. ~terrorist420x
Please add more. But at least a mention of the old cars needs to be here if you put them in another article. Rmhermen 16:34, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Might this help? I believe there was a car manufactured in France in the middle of the 1900's called something like "symetrix," or perhaps "simetrice" that had a motor/generator in each wheel and a tiny gas-powered generator in the rear to charge the battery. As I recall, this car had no brake pedal; when the accelerator was eased back, the wheels generated electricity to help keep the battery charged. I believe this car had a top speed of 35 mph. Details of this car might be found in the archives of Popular Science or Popular Mechanics from the 1950's. Or, hopefully, a knowledgable Frenchman might be able to shed light on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.250.121 (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Inductrack levitation not free

D0li0, I don't think Inductrack is completely without energy use, otherwise it would continue to levitate when the vehicle stops. Without looking closely I would guess that the levitation is provided by the diamagnetic repulsion due to eddy currents in the aluminium loops, which obviously get warmed by the current and lose their energy. I'm leaving the line in there because it is very interesting, but perhaps it should make more the point that the propulsion could be provided by something else (say a jet engine). Thanks for your input! njh 08:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Humm, it is my impression that it is less lossy than tire rolling resistance, perhaps not so clearly when compaired to traditional rail and wheels low losses? It would be great to have more clarification of the levitation force energy requirements of all three common methods! Till then I feel it's safe to say the the vast majority of power is consumed in overcomming inertia and wind resistance, I'de hate to bring something like a jet engine into the idea for the sake of seperation, we've already got enough gas in our mental veins. Granted the wording could probably be enhanced by removing the word "Free" as it tends to get tied up with "Over-Unity" and such, and we don't want to go there untill the laws of the universe change. --D0li0 11:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Honda's EVs, similiar to GM's EVs, same fate

Honda leased EVs in California, just like GM. Curious, why didn't Honda offer these cars in Germany, the UK, or Japan, countries with high gasoline prices.?

California had a law requiring a small number of non-polluting cars be sold. Rmhermen 19:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In the film Who Killed The Electric Car they show footage previousy aired on PBS proving that Honda had these cars shredded. rxdxtrxdxt 16:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Total Conversion of the US fleet to electricity

I am curious if anyone has seen any estimates of just how much electricity it would take to run every car currently on the road. I did a quick estimate by finding the annual gasoline consumption for 2003 171 billion (gasoline equivalent) gallons. Multiply that by 135 million joules per gallon,

That's 128.3 MJ per gallon of automotive gasoline, not 135 (http://www.ior.com.au/ecflist.html)

get 2,751,000,000,000,000,000 joules. Divide by three due to the thermal efficiency of gasoline engines, then divide by the number of seconds in a year to convert to average watts. I get roughly 244 Gigawatts. Annual average wattage of all US power plants is only 433 for year 2000. This is a very significant amount of energy, which would require a great number of power plants to be built and transmission capacity to be increased. I have no idea if this is right, in fact I'd be surprised if it was so I didn't include it in the article. But I would love to see a real number because this is an important issue if we ever do convert en-masse to electric vehicles. Another issue is where this electricity will come from. If it comes from coal, electric cars become even worse than gasoline cars, but if it comes from wind (or even nuclear, but thats a whole 'nother topic), its very clean.

First problem is, that You assume a much to high efficiency for the gasoline engine. Driving in the city with constant 35mph halfs the top efficiency. Standing at a traffic light with running engine, the efficiency drops even to 0. So it's more realistic to assume that only 6 kWh mechanic energy is produced by one gallon gasoline. This brings down the calculation from 244 to 117 GW.
The next problem is the air resistance. Todays cars look like aerodynamic, but only as long as You do not look at the cooler standing like a wall in the wind or under the car. Electric cars can have a much lower cw because of this. The Toyota Prius+, a Prius enhanced with 9kWh Lithium battery, uses around 15kWh for 100km.
With such a Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle maybe 75% or 15000km per year in electric mode. That's 2250 kWh per year or 15 square meter good photovoltaic, more in the north, less in the south. A calculation based on 150 million cars like this, the figure is reduced to 37 GW, but 25% remaining to drive with gasoline.

--Pege.founder 11:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There are other losses besides the engine efficiency on the petroleum end that don't transfer to EVs. Approximately 0.5% evaporates in the storage and delivery process. More of the energy is used in the refineries and the localized delivery of diesel/gasoline, I suspect about 1-2%. All these losses largely vanish in a electric powered fleet.--128.29.43.2 (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Infrastructure concerns do need to be considered in all alternatives to our current vehicle energy sources, however, all alternatives face similar difficulties. A hydrogen source of energy would face the same issue. How would the logistics and system costs for all the necessary hydrogen generation, transportation and storage be worked out?
What is needed is grid-intertied photovoltaic roofing, and we need to get with putting it in place ahead of demand. In other words, phase-in the supply of energy as we evolve the vehicle fleet to include a growing, and eventually significant, number of vehicles that recharge while parked for at least part of their energy supply.
For additional information on the viability and economics of vehicles and their energy sources, see the May/April 2006 Mother Earth News (#215). The articles are Drive an EV and Never Buy Gas Again (pg. 32) and The True Costs of Nuclear Power (pg. 146). Of the many problems with generating electricity with nuclear reactors, one problem is generally ignored. Electricity from nuclear reactors is substantially more expensive than electricity generated from other current technologies. Keep in mind that our government has provided federal subsidies of over $150 billion over the past 60 years (30 times more than renewables have received) and electricity from nuclear still costs far more than any other method we use. (Claims otherwise conveniently ignore the construction and decommissioning costs of the plants.) This trend continues. The Energy bill of 2005 contains $14 billion in research, development, construction subsidies and tax-breaks as well as guarantees for unlimited taxpayer-backed loans and insurance protection for new reactors.
The main nuclear plant point to note is: "nowhere in the world do market-driven utilities buy, or private investors finance, new nuclear plants, and that it is only continued massive government intervention that keeps the nuclear option alive."
But, maybe it's also our desire for a energy silver bullet. It's too bad we came to buy the claims after WWII that nuclear promised a wealth of energy in our future. The scientists who made these claims were apparently sadly mistaken.

--Mark Walker 2006.05.27.1941

Nuclear power has been a smashing success. It reliably provides around a fifth of all the electricity the US uses, and has done so very safely. There is no reason it can't provide 100%. The waste heat of the newer high temperature plants could even be used to generate hydrogen. Even the worst nuclear accident in US history, Three Mile Island, killed no one. Coal power, on the other hand, kills many people every year in mining accidents and will have a huge cost if the worst global warming scenarios come true. Wind and solar power should be exploited to the fullest extent possible, but they can't provide more than about 20% of all power due to their intermittent nature. Barring the invention of some new energy storage technology, nuclear is the only real option to replacing coal. Anyone who really believes the worst about global warning should be clamoring for all coal plants to be replaced by nukes. If we as a society turn our backs on nuclear power, we are needlessly resigning ourselves to low-energy future. Last I heard, at least 6 new reactors are planned in the US alone. Basic thermodynamics ensures that nuclear energy will always be a highly competitive energy source. The new European Pressurized Reactor can output 1.6 billion watts at a capacity factor of 92%, equal to over 3600 1.5 megawat wind generators at the industry average 27% capacity factor. And there are a host of new plant designs that integrate the lessons of the last 50 years.
At 5% discount rate nuclear, coal and gas costs are as shown above and wind is around 8 cents. Nuclear costs were highest by far in Japan. Nuclear is comfortably cheaper than coal in seven of ten countries, and cheaper than gas in all but one. At 10% discount rate nuclear ranged 3-5 cents/kWh (except Japan: near 7 cents, and Netherlands), and capital becomes 70% of power cost, instead of the 50% with 5% discount rate. Here, nuclear is again cheaper than coal in eight of twelve countries, and cheaper than gas in all but two. Among the technologies analyzed for the report, the new EPR if built in Germany would deliver power at about 2.38 c/kWh - the lowest cost of any plant in the study.

[1]

The German grid operator, Eon Netz,- one of the world’s largest managers of wind energy, addresses wind’s effective capacity in its 2005 Annual Report as follows: (emphasis added) ( http://www.windaction.org/documents/461):
Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent. Their dependence on the prevailing wind conditions means that wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available. It is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption. Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times.

http://www.windaction.org/documents/4032

  • a lot of the questions around costs of electricity generation come down to the discount rate you use for the cost benefit analysis, which, for fossil & nuclear, relies on major assumptions on the future clean up costs and subsequent impact on future generations. These figures are ultimately arbitrary political decisions. There is another problem with assessing the costs of nuclear, in that the economic models don't work well after 30-50 years, and the societal costs can't be scientifically costed. There already is cheap capacity suitable for overnight charging from the conventional base load generators, these come in on a long-term contracted-in price, but things like windpower and tidal rely on the efficient operation of a spot market because of the variability of their output. Ephebi 09:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My comments address: (a) the cost of "making a market" for electric autos; (b) the availability quantities and locations of manufacturing content materials for various electric auto motors and battery-energy sources; and (c) what are the intellectual property issues involved with current and developing technologies.

First, regarding the cost of replacing the U.S. auto fleet can be framed as follows: The U.S. can apply an investment in auto industry comparable to the $1-trillion investment in Wall Street financial appropriation to issuing an RFP for approximately 25 million electric autos at approximately $40,000 per auto, which would essentially make the market and replace most, if not all, of the U.S. government and personal auto fleets as based on the average annual worldwide sales of 10 million autos testified in Congress during December 2008 (needs citation).

Second, regarding the availability and locations of electric motor manufacturing materials, and the environmental and human impact of accessing these materials, have not been addressed in this Wikipedia coverage. For example, how much nickel and lithium is readily available? What is the environmental cost to access them for auto battery manufacturing? What is the environmental impact of usage and disposal? What is the physical process impact on the workers? Which geographies hold these materials and what are the political situations in these countries, as would concern us with petroleum, natural gas and diamonds?

Third, regarding the intellectual property issues, this Wikipedia article indicates that General Motors (and others) hold and deny access to valuable, ready-to-use, proven technologies. Given the likely government assistance expected for General Motors and others, should public access of their technologies be a condition? Should the U.S. and other governments invest or co-invest in technology developments with the pay-back of the results instantly becoming public domain in order to most rapidly evaluate, use, enhance and educate?

24.0.90.253 (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Steven Reichenstein, New Jersey, USA

Annual vehicle sales in the USA alone exceed 10 million per year. 25 million cars would be one for every 12 Americans, I imagine the other 5 or so who drive would be aggrieved at paying for somebody else's car that they can't use. Greglocock (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with the comments above that nuclear is among the cheapest of the non-CO2 generating methods of generating baseload power, the kind of power best suited to nighttime charging of EVs. But the critical comments about wind are somewhat misleading. Although true that "spinning reserve" generators are required in the event wind stops producing, this is true for all generators. Even a large nuclear plant can trip unexpectedly, and without sufficient reserves the result will be a blackout. Typical Independent System Operator rules require enough spinning reserves to handle the unexpected loss of the largest single generating unit or transmission line importing non-firm power from another area. If this is a 1+ GWe nuclear or coal unit, the spinning reserve requirement can easily exceed that of a large wind farm. Also, a generator spinning in reserve consumes very little fuel until it is called upon to actually produce power.

While it is true that wind is a "nondispatchable" source, the law of large numbers tends to make the combined output of a large number of wind generators much more predictable than the output of any one unit. This is especially so when those units are spread over a large geographic area and combined with other forms of renewable generation, such as solar. If there's interest, I can produce a reference showing the fraction of wind generation in a control area that can be counted on with the same reliability as a conventional thermal plant.

But what's most relevant to charging electric vehicles with renewable energy is that grid operators are concerned with the imbalance between generation and demand, not the absolute amount of each. Nothing requires an EV charger to operate at constant power, so why not let the grid operators control them remotely? The EV owners could be given substantial rate discounts to compensate them for the considerable benefits this could provide to the grid, especially if wind power and EV charging both grow to large fractions of nighttime generation and consumption. Karn (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! the first time I've heard somebody other than myself argue that a realistically large number of wind turbines makes their unreliability much less of a problem; maybe I'm just used to arguing with people who are only interested in the "not in my back garden!" argument. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Flywheel section?

Shouldn't this article cover possible future devlopment of flywheel based vehicles? I don't think there is currently any effort to create these, but shouldn't the ever-increasing capacity be mentioned? BioTube 01:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Fairs, events and exhibitions

I suppose to make a seperate page about fairs, events and exhibitions covering electric cars and plug-in hybrid cars.

It's difficult to find real good fairs about this theme.

I for my own visited the EVER Monaco, a real great show about electric vehicles. I received some advertising from the Hannover fair hall 13, where I expected a very similar show. But EVER Monaco and Hannover had been like day and night.

On the EVER Monaco I test drived several different vehicles, discussed about prices and market situation with the exhibitors. Completely differend in Hannover. No prices, no disscussions, no near market vehicles, only hydrogen fuel cells. No arguments how to compete against electric vehicles with new lithium battery technology.

I hope and I can not imagine that the EVER Monaco is world wide the one and only exhibition about this. So please make a new page and list all good fairs, events and exhibitions. --Pege.founder 11:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


If you want to mention the premier world event about electrically propelled vehicles, check out the Electric Vehicle Symposium (EVS). This years EVS-22 will take place in Japan. EVS22 website LHOON 18:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks for correcting the URL, sorry was wrong with it! LHOON 18:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead images

I rearranged and added some images. The EV1 is not really an appropriate lead since it is completely defunct (litterally a museum piece), while electric busses and streetcars are seen in many major cities. - Leonard G. 17:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It needs more rearranging - there are too many images for the amount of text. Rmhermen 21:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Can following images be added ?:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Designspace_Odyssee.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topview_Odyssee.jpg

91.182.197.81 (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.129.57 (talk)

Seattle Electric Vehicle Association

SEVA is a wikibased website that promotes and informs the public about electric vehicles.

Criteria for web content

3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster Wikipedia:Notability (web)

NanoBattery

Why is there no mention of the NanoBattery here: http://www.physorg.com/news3539.html Why did it disappear? Is there something I don't know. It says in the article it was planned for automobiles. Then nothing. Does anyone know? Cott12 (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nanobattery tech is used in the Ligning GT (release year 2010). Nanobat has some litium titanate oxide stuff.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.28.144.2 (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefly?

Why is Firefly referenced here? Seems inappropriate plug for a commercial vendor, not directly applicatble to the topic. 24.23.127.88 (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, Its just about the tech behind the firefly. It is not all in all about the producer just about the new ideas behind the lead acid technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.28.144.2 (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of Firefly the article can mention carbon replaced lead acid batteries (PbC) currently being commercialized by a number of companies in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.119.60 (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I think that electric cars should not be merged with EVs because cars are a subset of vehicles, and each article is already quite large. Greg Locock (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Both of these articles should exist. Merging would not be useful. Rmhermen (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Neighbourhood transformers

It should be noted in the article that the transformers of neighbourhoods (mains electricity system) are not equipped to support a possible transfer to (plug-in) electric cars. It is stated that only a 40% change of the neighbourhood to electric vehicles can be handled. This as the transformers are only foreseen on a electricity consumption of 700 watt per house (research conducted in and for Dutch buildings). I guess that the US transformers will be about the same, and that countries in 2nd and 3rd world are even worse. Also consider that this is a mere plug-in conversion; if the cars are equipped with high speed recharging, even allot more energy is consumed and less than 40% (20?%) can be maintained (full speed recharging consumes almost double). Info from NatuurWetenschap & techniek, January 2009, article:Rijden op Wind; research done by Petra de Boer of KEMA Include info in article

700 W does not sound like the correct number. Rmhermen (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The charger for the Chevy Volt draws 16 amps at 240 volts for three hours. If a suburban couple plugged in two of them after coming home from work, they would draw a combined 7680 watts for three hours at the peak of the suburban household consumption period. So I think that, yes, it would be a problem if everyone had an electric car (or in the US) two of them.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
No, they wouldn't normally be recharged at peak time/rate. If you have an electric car you would recharge overnight in most cases, and you are likely to get cheaper electricity/recharge doing it that way. If they want to recharge during the day, the company would charge them more, and the company can use that to upgrade the local circuits.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Studies show that the existing infrastructure is suitable for overnight recharge, without any modification, in most cases, in America already.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
At this point in time, no mechanism exists to discourage people from plugging in two electric cars at once during peak consumption hours. In the U.S., two-car families are the norm, and one would expect working couples to arrive home simultaneously and plug their electric cars in to recharge them before going inside to turn up the air conditioner, turn on the lights, and turn on the electric stove to cook dinner. The U.S electrical grid does not have very much reserve capacity at this point in time, and I'm not sure it can handle the additional load, which could be nearly 8000 watts per household. I'm not sure anybody has done a realistic study of what would happen if electric cars became the norm rather than the exception.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
They're certainly not going to become the norm overnight. Manufacturers are on the verge of releasing their first-modern-generation models over the next few years, and most of these cars will be purchased primarily by environmentalists, fleets, and early adopters. The transition to electric cars will take many years, probably two or more decades, and during that time the world's electrical grids will hopefully also undergo improvements to be able to withstand the increased load as civilization begins to rely more and more on electricity.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to nevertheless implement a section on this in the article. It is relevant to the article, so there is atleast no harm in doing so. Also in regards of AniRaptor2001's comment, I don't think that everything will happen "gradually". This is offcourse the ideal scenario, but given the blatant screw-ups of the civil government in the last 40 years (global warming was known since atleast this period; early research even goes back far further), everything will need to be changed practically overnight (by 2050 at the latest, and as electric driving is only a small part herein, this would spell out as almost instantanuous change at a point in the near future.

I really can't see how it's a problem

It's really difficult to see how residential distribution capacity limits can be a general problem for electric vehicles. Largely because of the popularity of central air conditioning, most US houses built within the past few decades have a utility connection providing single phase 120/240V at 100A to 200A; that's 24-48 kW. At the same time, other traditional large electric appliances like electric dryers (30A @ 240V) and electric ranges (50A @ 240V) are becoming scarce because of high operating costs and the increased availability of natural gas.

A Level 2 EV charger draws roughly the same power as an electric dryer, yet there's little handwringing about everybody running home after work and doing a load of clothes at the same time. Also, many utilities are already installing electronic meters and implementing time-of-use rates that will strongly encourage shifting all large loads to the wee hours. Some utilities, like San Diego Electric and Gas, even have special optional tariffs for owners of electric vehicles. Karn (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You said "wee hours" Parth Desai (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hydrogen vehicle

Would someone please look at the Hydrogen vehicle article? The comparison with EVs is being destroyed by a hydrogen POV pusher. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've hidden the text that's pushing the advantages of HEVs over BEVs using original calculations.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Battery types

In the battery types used, the differences in the lithium-ion batteries can be named (see Lithium-ion_battery#Cathodes and Anodes)

Its should also be mentioned that lithium-ion batteries are heavily weather-affected (eg they only provide 10% of their power in cold climates (under -30°Celcius). (Perhaps other types are thus better used here)

It should also be mentioned that batteries mostly cannot be created at a environmentally-friendly manner. An extra strain is that lithium-batteries (which are the most used) are made of lithium which is mined in South-America (often without much environmental consideration) -->this could perhaps be best placed in a new article Comparison of electrochemical batteries

In the history section, perhaps an image of the Camille Jenatzy car can be shown aswell as the 1900 Lohner-Porsche hybrid vehicle

Also, please mention the notion by Dirk Uwe Sauer that Electric cars with smaller batteries is much more efficient as this decreases cost, decreases wear (less weight=less wear; especially as 80% of most battery capacity is unused with large battery vehicles; most people drive only 40km/day and battery wears off after 5-8 years anyhow (80% battery capacity thus bought uselessly)

KVDP (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What does "environmentally friendly" mean? Few technologies, and even fewer energy sources and transportation schemes, are utterly benign. Relative figures are what count. It's hard to see how electric vehicle and battery manufacture is inherently worse than the production of conventional vehicles and the mining, refining, distribution and especially the combustion of petroleum-based fuels. Even when batteries use toxic materials like lead and cadmium, they do not merely spew them into the environment; when they wear out, they can be reclaimed and reused in new batteries. Automotive batteries have been almost completely recycled for many decades because, aside from its toxicity, even a "base" metal like lead is too valuable to just throw away. There's no reason to think that electric vehicle batteries won't also be recycled given their larger sizes and/or use of more valuable materials like lithium and nickel. Karn (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Electric vehicle organizations

I can see no reason for this list of websites. WP:ISNOT applies, as does WP:EL. Unless anyone can provide a coherent argument based on wiki policies that justifies its inclusion I will remove it tomorrow. Greglocock (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at that eyesore just yesterday. I think you'd be fine removing those based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Thanks. Dawnseeker2000 23:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Break even point (electric motors versus Diesel engines)

There are many tools to calculate the break even point for an electric car, are they useful for the page? (example) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.65.74.185 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No. WP:ISNOT a collection of links. Greglocock (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There are debates on the economy behind electric motors, a section would be useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.50.98.153 (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Electric ship

Theres is at least an electric ship, the USS Makin Island (LHD-8) and an article for hybrid ships. There would be an article and category about electric ships. --147.84.132.44 (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

the page on the USS Makin Island (LHD-8) says it is powered by gas turbines, and neither of the other two articles exist. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
There are some solar panel powered ships[2] Rmhermen (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
There is an article at Electric boat Rmhermen (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please verify

Can anyone please verify whether this source says what the editor claims it says?: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_vehicle&diff=394953238&oldid=393507210 Thanks! If possible, please let me know on my talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Buying and Leasing Section Updates

What is posted under this section about the U.S. Army's plans to buy 4,000 NEVs is great, but it is only one example of a company/entity planning to purchase multiple electric vehicles in the near future. I think this section needs to include more recent/current information (also factual) about other companies/organizations planning something similar, such as GE's recent announcement about its plans to help spur consumer adoption of EVs by planning to purchase 25,000 electric vehicles by 2015. This is big news not only for the industry but also for consumers to know about. Jessie.gillman (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Green

I wonder how are they green if most power plants in the world are coal? SHAMAN 23:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

They are green in as much as they don't add to the problem by producing local air pollution. The problem isn't just confined to the emissions of greenhouse gases causing global warming, in some major cities (e.g. London) you can find very dangerous levels of Particulate Matter and Carbon Monoxide both of which are very harmful to human health and none of which are produced by electric vehicles. Also, if you live in a country such as mine (Scotland), who produces a vast quantity of it's electricity through renewables like wind farms and hydro-electric power plants, then the idea of owning an electric car becomes more environmentally friendly. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
dangerous levels of CO, really, from vehicles? [citation needed], as they say.Greglocock (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
"Dangerous" as in the levels are high enough to affect the health of people regularly living and working in the area. The example I usualy use is; if one car in a garage is enough to kill someone through CO poisoning, imagine 1000 cars stuck in a traffic jam on an inner-city motorway, they can pose a threat to the health of people, for example, sitting in the jam with thier windows open.--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You can sit in a car in a garage with a modern car running and you won't die of CO poisoning. SO now what do we make of your well referenced and logical argument? Greglocock (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
[3][4][5][6][7] Do you want more, or is that enough? fantastically naïve of you to call an established scientific fact "laughable". --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes old cars had lots of CO. That EPA paper you cite is 1993. Things have changed. Try again. Laughable is right. If I might quote from our very own wikipedia [8] "Historically, it was also commonly used as a method to commit suicide, usually by deliberately inhaling the exhaust fumes of a running car engine. Modern cars with electronically controlled combustion and catalytic converters produce so little carbon monoxide that this is much less viable." Greglocock (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll concede that a paper from 1993 has debatable relevance to this subject today (although Cat. Converters have been around since the 70s and legislation requiring them began to emerge in the 80s and Early 90s) but that still leaves four; even if, for some reason, you want to discount the WHO paper from 1999-2004 that's still 3, separate, undeniably relevant, scientific papers; from vehicle manufacturing, medical and ecological perspectives, which demonstrate that CO emissions from vehicles are still a risk to human health. The example I had given is simply applying common knowledge to a concept in order to increase its clarity, a tactic which I have drawn from my education background, and the fact still stands that a large concentration of road vehicles running on ICEs will produce harmful concentrations of, among other things, Carbon Monoxide. Also, in that same article you referenced it states
"...even cars with catalytic converters can produce substantial amounts of carbon monoxide if an idling car is left in an enclosed space such as a closed garage."
a statement which has been cited [9]. The quote you used has no citation. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The first ref i tried to look at was pay to view, the last was out of date. So I gave up and assumed they were just a lazy google search and not a coherent set of refs. Anyway check out the decline in CO emissions by cars in the last 20 years here Euro 4. You will die eventually if you start a car in a sealed room, but not from CO poisoning. Greglocock (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, I get a lot of them for free so I can't really tell which are normally pay-to-view. I am aware of EURO 4/EURO 5 and of the EU Air Quality Framework Directive (Directive 2000/69/EC for CO emissions) that govern the emissions of these chemicals; but unless the CO emissions targets or limit values for these are zero, then the CO is still going to collect and concentrate around areas with high traffic flow and eventually reach dangerous levels; to use a metaphor, 100 dripping taps will still fill a sink pretty fast. Also, are you going to believe that every single vehicle on the road is compliant with EURO 4 and sold after 2005? I know my car isn't. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

yes I know the emissions of the real fleet will lag the emissions regs. I just doubt 'dangerous' is really an encyclopedic phrase for the likely effects in the real world. Greglocock (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The levels pose a risk to human health and to the state of the local environment, so technically, they are dangerous; however, I do see how it can be misinterpreted if you use the word "dangerous" on a space like Wikipedia where some people might interpret "dangerous" as "instant death" etc. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Confused nonsense

"An electric vehicle (EV), also and more properly referred to as an electric drive vehicle, is a vehicle that uses one or more electric motors or traction motors for propulsion. Electric vehicles include electric cars, electric trains, electric trucks, electric aircraft, electric boats, electric motorcycles and scooters and electrically powered spacecraft.[1] While most non-human powered vehicles in use today use electricity to some extent, the term "electric vehicle" in current usage typically implies that a vehicle obtains all or most of its power from batteries, which excludes most electric trains which usually derive their power from electric railways. "

This opening paragraph is confused and contradictory drivel. Who is editing this page, seven year olds ? An "electric vehicle" is one which uses electric motors for propulsion. OK. But a train which is "electric" is implied to use batteries ?? Or an "electric railway" , whatever that is supposed to be. Here's a tip, children. The majority of rail locomotives everywhere, are propelled by electric motors. The electricity is obtained neither from batteries nor from an "electric railway", but from a big diesel-powered generator. Is that an "electric vehicle", or not ? Its not rocket surgery. Make up your minds.Eregli bob (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a reference for the electric motors in diesel trains? That's sounds interesting. I believe what the author is referring to are electric trains such as mass transit trains in Chicago or New York City, where a third rail powers the train cars. The types of trains you are referring to sound more like hybrid electric vehicles, that is, vehicles that produce their own electricity and transmit it to another system for propulsion. 76.212.102.164 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Diesel- electric locomotives are discussed in detail at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_locomotive.Jkaness (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible errors and contradictions

Hi! I think there are some errors and contradictions in the article:

a) Under Section 2.2 (Electricity Sources -> Onboard generators and hybrid electric vehicle), the article correctly mentions that electricity is generated on-board using a diesel engine: diesel-electric locomotive. In fact, all vehicles with diesel-electric traction (diesel-electric locomotives and diesel-electric multiple units) are propelled by electric traction motors. They are therefore electric vehicles, in accordance with the definition in the leed. However, Section 4.3 on Railborne electric vehicles completely ignores the diesel-electric locomotives and diesel-electric multiple units.

b) Section 6.9.1 on Advantages and disadvantages of electric vehicles speaks about the advantages of electric motors when it says Electric motors don't require oxygen, unlike internal combustion engines; this is useful for submarines. But are there no electric vehicles with ICEs (hybrid-electric vehicles, or even subs?

c) Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 all talk about only the road electric vehicles, while this article is more broad-based and should include rail-borne, water-borne and air-borne electric vehicles also. This needs to be corrected.

These are my thoughts. In case, I am wrong, please correct me. Else, I shall wait for 15 days, before I correct the errors and contradictions myself. Thanks Tinpisa (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

SciAm resource

Current Developments: Innovative Ideas on How to Make Electric Cars Cost-Efficient Take Shape "Expensive batteries and limited recharging stations are the big impediments to making EVs cost-competitive with non-hybrid internal combustion vehicles, but new electricity pricing and distribution models may help break the logjam" by Larry Greenemeier November 21, 2011 Scientific American

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Superbus

Would be good to include some details of the Superbus, a 250 km/m electrically powered 23 seat interburban express coach which is being demonstrated around the world at present. PeterEastern (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Opinion on inserting the image of an environmental activist with a Poser Ref of this article

I inserted the following image into the body of the article but one contributor has objected this image saying this is a sort of advertising of this page of the Wikipedia. I leave the issue of adding or not adding the image to other fellow editors / admins:


This is the image of the backside poster of an environmental activist urging the use of electric vehicles during the First Wiki Conference India at Mumbai in November 2011. The poster points to this page of the English Wikipedia.
Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

.

It doesn't show an electric vehicle, or really anything about electric vehicles. It doesn't add anything to the article, in my opinion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Cost of Recharge

I believe the proper term for energy use is "KWH" vice the "KW/H" used in this section. Kilowatt Hours (KWH) is the term used on my Southern California Edison bill. The term is kilowatts of power multiplied by the hours that power is used. Thus, 2 kilowatts used continuously for one hour is the same energy (2 KWH) as one kilowatt used continuously for 2 hours. Your discussion of tiered rates agrees closely with my own residential Southern California Edison bill. Our residence normally uses both tiers 1 (average cost $0.13 per KWH) and 2 ($0.16) and should I add charging an EV the cost would start in tier 3 at $0.25 per KWH and extend into tier 4 at $0.28 and tier 5 at $0.32. These rates are exclusive of various taxes which will nudge the true rates a bit higher. Rates will vary throughout the state. Every EV ad I've seen talks about $0.16 per KWH. I agree that this is not a realistic number- at least for Southern California.Jkaness (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Battery-less electric vehicles

Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that in theory, electric vehicles can be made without using any batteries whatsoever or a connection to the mains electricity grid. This is useful as batteries pack a great amount of weight, need to be replaced after a few years and make up the bulk of the cost. Rather than using a battery, a range extender (ie microturbine, IC engine or Stirling engine) can be used. Especially microturbines (which are ?% more efficient than IC engines, ie regarding incineration) are very useful, as they are very light, and (as any range extender) allow to use energy dense fuels (more energy can be taken along compared to batteries). The only downsides of a fully battery-less system like this is that it may then be even more efficient to just use a microturbine powered by the fuel (as in the system proposed the microturbine needs to operate all the time anyway), and reducing output power (by reducing the fuel consumption) is also a problem. A intermediate system may thus be more efficient still, having only a small buffer (so storing say energy to drive a few hundred meters upto 1 km, rather than storing energy for say 100 - 500 km). This could be done by placing a (ultra)capacitor in between the microturbine (now fitted with a dynamo or alternator) and the electrical motor. Note that although one may perceive this setup as not that environmentally friendly (compared to electric vehicles which drive purely on their battery capacity), it actually is allot more environmentally friendly than most internal combustion and hybrid cars. This as: less batteries are required (environmentally polluting to produce), microturbines burn fuel more cleanly than IC engines, and finally, the fuel itself can be ie biofuel or a emissionless fuel (nitrous oxide, hydrogen, ...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.6.232 (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A HEV without a battery is a conventionally (or unconventionally) engined vehicle with an electric transmission. These transmissions have been around for a century, and have been used on trains and battleships. They aren't really a great idea for cars, as it is the addition of a battery that can give the improvement in performance emissions and fuel consumption seen with a hybrid. Any attempt to infest this article and similar ones with spiel about these will be editied heavily. Greglocock (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Plug-in Hybrids should have a separate article and not be included on pure Electric Vehicles

Pure Electric Vehicles are define by the absense of an onboard internal combustion engine and should not be mixed with hybrids which are a totally different category.

Battery swapping is 90 seconds on a Tesla

The article does not mention that Battery swapping is already at 90 seconds a swap on the Tesla Model S.

Except that there is nowhere that does that yet. So far it is still just a promise. Rmhermen (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no exceptions. The system is already in use. There are videos showing the fact and locations.

No, there is comment about what they plan to do but no swapping stations yet.[10] Rmhermen (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The original statement is that there is no mention of the 90 seconds swap already demonstrated on the video. Granted there are no swapping stations at this time but, the demontration is a working reality and should be mentioned in the article.

The demonstration seems hardly important in an article on the history and workings of all electric vehicles ever. Even if it works out for this one brand of cars in another year or two - I don't know if it is material for this article. Rmhermen (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Structure and content

The propulsion of the Vimanas according to Kanjilal (1985) is by a "Mercury Vortex Engines", apparently a concept similar to electric propulsion...

"Electric propulsion" goes to Electric vehicle but that has nothing to do with our topic. Better would be: Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion.

Safety

This section needs some work to be brought up to date. For now, I've removed the outdated references to the Chevy Volt NHTSA investigations and congressional hearings from 2011. I don't think that needs to be highlighted at this point, especially since those investigations have long been concluded. Then there are the Tesla fires, and the Mitsubishi fires, and other fires but I don't think it needs to be repeated here.Freeinfo (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried to restore what I think is a fair (NPOV), concise summary of the Volt/NHTSA affair here. The subsequent congressional inquiry (in 2012, not 2011 BTW) just looks like petty politics, and doesn't need to be repeated here.
(WARNING: a little rant to blow off steam follows; please indulge me briefly:)
The hypocricy of liberals never ceases to amaze me. The attitude toward automotive safety has always been "the bastards are trying to kill us!", and we make a national hero out of Ralph Nader for single-handedly killing the Chevrolet Corvair; and that spirit seems to be still alive and well. Yet now, when we have politically correct electric cars coming along, which are supposed to "save the planet" and make rainbows come out of everyone's ass, well, my oh my, now the shoe is on the other foot, and the safety concerns are somehow overblown?
(END OF RANT--We now return you to our regularly scheduled NPOV.) JustinTime55 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No citation needed

An edit on 20 March 2016‎ deleted "citation needed" re:"most electric motors deliver their full torque over a wide RPM range" with the comment "No ref is needed for well known & absolutely undisputed matters like there is a moon around the earth and the fuel engines give their full torque in a limited RPM range"

It is well known & absolutely undisputed that some electric motors deliver their full torque over a wide RPM range. It is disputed that "most" do. Dougmcdonell (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Which don't in this context?GliderMaven (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
For a view of the topic see Electric motor#Torque capability of motor types where it states "Some applications require bursts of torque beyond the maximum operating torque, such as short bursts of torque to accelerate an electric vehicle from standstill. Always limited by magnetic core saturation or safe operating temperature rise and voltage, the capacity for torque bursts beyond the maximum operating torque differs significantly between categories of electric motors or generators." Saying they share the same characteristics is incorrect.Dougmcdonell (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Electric vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Environmental Effects of EVs


Hello, in reviewing the section on the environmental impacts of electric vehicles I note that the article did not wholly capture the effect of coal power generation on the emissions of EVs. While its true to say that electric vehicles charged from a clean power system can help decarbonise transport, coal remains the second most used fuel in the world. A new study in China found that “the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of a battery electric vehicle production range from 92.4 to 94.3 GJ and 15.0 to 15.2 t CO2eq, which are about 50% higher than those of an internal combustion engine vehicle, 63.5 GJ and 10.0 t CO2eq”.

So I thought I would propose actual wording "One recent study in China estimated that electric vehicles generate about a 50 percent increase in both greenhouse gas emissions and total energy consumption in the course of their production [1]. The extent of environmental savings also depends on usage. While significant savings are possible within urban areas, long distance travel may offer more modest gains [2]."

I think the section on environmental effects of EVs could be edited to better reflect this, adding to the overall neutrality of the piece. Do please let me know if you're interested in updating the text. AlainMathuren (talk) 1 August 2017

@AlainMathuren The percentages are going to be a topic of debate, you might want to support that claim with either a very authoritative reference or more than one source. And in regard to others being interested in updating the text, please see wp:bold. Dougmcdonell (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Qiao Q. et al. (2017) ‘Cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas emissions of battery electric and internal combustion engine vehicles in China’ Applied Energy
  2. ^ Smith, William J (2010) ‘Can EV (electric vehicles) address Ireland’s CO2 emissions from transport?’ Energy vol. 35.2. pp. 4514-4521

Suggestions for Improvement

The article is already very well developed, their is a strong neutral tone throughout the whole article. I want to suggest small improvements like updating the cars selected for the Future sub category. Changing the old electric super car with the Nio EP9 which holds the current electric car record, and changing the Tesla with a newest model Tesla Model S 100D ( Can talk about how they have the farthest range). I would also like to suggest more content in the Electric Resilience category, or at least explain how it directly correlates with EV's. The Range and first paragraph of "Heating of EV's" also needs to be more developed and sourced. Hope this helped. Parth Desai (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The article provides a balanced review of both the positive and negative characteristics of electric vehicles. However, the organization of this section was hard to follow, because some subheadings listed pros and cons while others had only pros. I would like to suggest reorganizing this "Advantages and Disadvantages" section by acknowledging the benefits under one subheading and the risks under another subheading. I would suggest a bullet point format to list the information. JazminPfauUCSD (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Although the article provides a source, the sentence "The Volt should cost less than 2 cents per mile to drive on electricity, compared with 12 cents a mile on gasoline at a price of $3.60 a gallon." is plagarized and fails to use direct quotation marks. In addition, there are several statements throughout the article where information is unsourced. For example, under the heading "Energy Efficiency," the author provides information regarding "Wheel-to-wheel efficiency." The author should attribute this statement with a reliable source. JazminPfauUCSD (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is well put together with a lot of information; however, there is a bit too much written at times. The section about "Electric public transit efficiency" isn't entirely necessary to the article. While it is somewhat relevant as it discusses ev's, it's a bit off-topic as efficiency if public transport doesn't help to explain the original topic. I also feel that the incentives could be expanded upon. This is a rather important part of ev's and the relevant policies, yet it is barely glanced upon. This and the laws and changes to current laws could help to fully tie thus article together. CalebOates (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)caleboates

WP:SOFIXIT. Dicklyon (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Please suggest improvements based on facts, your instructor may be interested in your opinion Dougmcdonell (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electric_vehicle/Archive_1&oldid=1146790637"