Reasonable Electric Car

[xoxoxoBruce]

While we love hearing about sweet rides like the $100K Tesla Roadster, a functional and economical electric car made for the rest of us would be even cooler.

This could be it: the Th!nk City electric car, a four-seater with 110 mile range and top speed of 65 mph, priced under $25,000, made from 95% recyclable materials, and available in the U.S. in 2009.

For two car families, this might be a viable alternative.

As an interesting aside, Ford Motor Company originally developed the vehicle, but (in a move they may soon regret), sold it to Norwegian investors in 2003. Why is it so cool? Because most of us don’t drive more than 40 miles in a day, and small electric cars are optimally suited for congested city driving. The benefits are pretty obvious, but if you’re worried about getting out for the weekend with the Th!nk City, don’t. Use it for city driving and keep that gas-guzzling SUV for forays into the mountains. You’ll still come out ahead.

Safety-wise, the Th!nk City meets the strict safety requirements of both Europe and the US as a highway-safe road car. ABS brakes, airbags, side-impact bars, and an advanced frame designed to absorb energy and distribute it away from the passenger’s compartment make it another blow to the myth that bigger cars are inherently safer.

There is still a question of what the maintenance costs will be. And yeah I know, the pollution caused by the plant making the electricity, to charge the thing, still pollutes the air. But looking at the cost of gas, and the possibility of charging with off peak rates, it might work for you.


And if you can plug it in at work...

[HungLikeJesus]

There's some more information here, with pictures.

[Radar]

There was a battery made that would allow trips of 300-400 miles in electric cars. It was bought by Exxon. They talked to the inventor of that battery in the movie, "Who killed the electric car".

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

There's some more information here, with pictures.

Looks like a mini mini.

Electric cars would help decrease our dependency on oil but if you have to plug it in you are increasing the demand on the power systems and that electricity is most likely made from a big assed power plant spewing stuff in the air.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Looks like a mini mini.

Electric cars would help decrease our dependency on oil but if you have to plug it in you are increasing the demand on the power systems and that electricity is most likely made from a big assed power plant spewing stuff in the air.

Coal is very dirty, and it may be better for the environment to burn gasoline in cars than to burn coal to charge the batteries to run clean cars. But if you are burning oil to make electricity, burning that oil in the plant will probably be cleaner than burning it in many cars, because the pollution controls in the plant will be better. Also, if hydro or nukes are used to charge the car, the pollution is virtually nonexistent.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Coal is very dirty, and it may be better for the environment to burn gasoline in cars than to burn coal to charge the batteries to run clean cars. But if you are burning oil to make electricity, burning that oil in the plant will probably be cleaner than burning it in many cars, because the pollution controls in the plant will be better. Also, if hydro or nukes are used to charge the car, the pollution is virtually nonexistent.

Hydro yes, nukes no. Still haven't found a long term solution to those pesky rods when they wear out.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's very true, but it's easier to monitor and clean up a few power plants than millions of cars, providing we can get the politicians out of the corporate beds. It also provides a way to run cars on coal/nuke, rather than oil.

The biggest single headache for the power companies is they can't store power. They have to make it when it's needed, so generation units have to be brought online, then idled down, for the day/evening hours.

These steam turbine driven generators can't be just started up like a gasoline engine, but must be brought up slowly, to heat soak and stabilize before ramping up to the next safe level. Then at certain rpms, the unit generates harmonic vibrations that can destroy it, so they have to come up quickly to safe spots and hold, like a scuba diver coming up from a deep dive.

For peak hours many use gas turbine peaking units, which are small units driven by what is basically a jet engine. But they burn natural gas or jet fuel... think oil.

Charging cars at night would use some of the wasted capacity, allowing the power companies to run a smoother operation.

tw will be along later, to question you on how much of the energy you put in your tank is wasted vs doing real work.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Hydro yes, nukes no. Still haven't found a long term solution to those pesky rods when they wear out.

I don't get it. The gumint has vast tracts of land that were used for nuke testing and are too contaminated for anything, for about a jillion years. Put the damn stuff there.

Also, the hundreds of thousands of barrels containing nuke plant waste, are filled mostly with contaminated clothing/tools that the nuke workers used. Yes it's not something you want in your yard, but it's no where as dangerous as spent fuel rods.

Oh, and Iran or North Korea would probably be glad to have the spent rods.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Hydro yes, nukes no. Still haven't found a long term solution to those pesky rods when they wear out.

Even stacking them next to the power plant is a better long term solution than burning and spewing in the air, which is what we do with fossil fuels.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's been the plan up to now, but they are running out of room.
One of the problems with nuke waste disposal is moving it. Even though they have built trucks and rail cars to carry it that are literally bomb proof, every time they try to make a move, dozens of groups file for injunctions to stop them.

Oh, and nukes are so easy to operate safely, even the french can do it.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Radionuclide pollution or contamination is a longterm bugaboo, but the nasties are in solid form -- concentrated at particular points and not spread through the biosphere. This is in a way easier to handle.

Reprocessing nuclear fuel recovers the one-third of uranium that hasn't been fissioned, and the plutonium that has been generated. Nowadays this is not done in the United States -- though Europe is -- because new-mined fuel is significantly cheaper. Strictly dollars and cents.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Dollars and no sense.

[Shawnee123]

I'm glad to hear this because there is nothing worse than a Surly Electric Car.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, Bruce, human history can be summed up as the harnessing of greater and greater concentrations of energy. We do know how to handle the messes. It's a pity we're not actually permitting ourselves to do so yet.

Yes, high energy fluxes are inimical to biological processes, as anyone who has mistakenly sat on a red hot stove can tell you. This does not in itself make it either a bad or a senseless thing.