The calculations and research was done several years ago and at 90% engine efficiency and electricity at 70% at worst with 30% lost in lines the output is still more efficient for electric vehicles. That research was done using coal power and improves CO2 emissions with sustainable power. Nuke plants are the most ineficient as from all the uranium mined only 0.7% is usable or compatible for enriching which is U235 while the 99.3% U238 goes to waste, leaks into the environment as been discovered all over the world now and nothing can be done to stop cheap steel canisters rusting and deteriorating. Gas power makes Electric CO2 friendlier while Wind and Thermal the ultimate clean energy.

I just look at Remote control cars and say why not scale up with better batteries eg: BP, Exxon and other Oil Monopolies have stashed away patents for battery architectures/chemistry that is 100-1000 times better than currently used in the best smart phones!

Toyota won the JTP endurance race almost 4 years ago with a seriously awesome Supra hybrid also so this concept will be interesting to see what it transpires eventually

wow, 2dollars a day?

How many Kms can they go after a full charge?

So are there any disadvantages of electric cars? How are the maintenance costs or cost of replacement parts?

The new porshe 918 converts the energy used while braking to recharge its batteries.Ive also seen the nissan leaf has solar panels on roof spoiler.

This kind of technology might make oil companies very wary in another decade or so.

off peak charging or office charging makes it much cheaper to free

Nissan Leaf v1 200kms and there are better for mileage and custom options

since 75% of pop in the 1st world dont drive more than 50kms a day an EV with 100km range is plenty but 200lm really has no disadvantages.

Toyota has been converting brake energy for much longer than Porsche, its called re-gen braking

Oil companies already own the best battery tech patents so they are in fact controlling EVs evolution

electric-cars-make-more-emissions-unless-greenpowered

and that's only in terms of running costs. Doesn't even factor in the increased environmental cost of producing the electric vehicle and disposing of the waste batteries that only last 5yrs at best.

The Gov is controlled by Banks, energy and mining industries so its always going to be biased research sponsored by big energy & its network. I logically will never support coal knowing and experiencing what my friends suffer living near these dirty industries. Nukes even worse.

There is plenty of independent research not related to politicians and energy companies and here is an article the other side that steers towards sustainability but the links show the research behind this other side of the argument. Mining, processing, refining then transporting liquid fuel is very inefficient for starters and liquid fuel industry is heavily subsidised. Maintanence of service stations, cars driving to fuel and many other factors including controlled world prices of fuel will keep evs at bay until the prices can no longer be sustained for liquid fuel as viable.

Energy companies invested heavily in liquid energy will keep their already invested interest and infrastructure as long as they are subsidised.

The mass production will increase efficiency of EVs but also the lack of servicing in comparison to an ICE car is superior even tyres wear less with regen braking.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1 ... ug-ins-show-coal-as-worse

another good site with good reference and blogs

http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/

i really don't get it why 'petrolheads' hates hybrid. i mean, you if you can make any car faster, more mpg, or both, why not?

Hard to reason with a leftie conspiracy theorist, but here goes. One reason that US based report might have come to a different conclusion is their electricity mix is very different, relying on coal for just 40-45% of their energy production, we rely on it for 75%.

But I think it is in the minority coming to that conclusion. "The conclusion: Even in the few states with the very dirtiest grids, driving a mile on grid electricity is barely worse than the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid car (roughly 34 mpg"
It's only looking at operating emissions, not lifecycle. And only carbon at that! Both biases skew it heavily in favour of the EV.

But credit to them for ending with this; "We should note, however, that for certain non-carbon smokestack emissions--including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)--that mile driven in an coal-powered electric car is worse than one in a modern gasoline car."
And remember - that's in the US where they rely less on coal than we do in Aus.

Nope its true ev and hybrids do create huge waste in production and salvage phases of their lifespan.
I dont hate hybrids I actually prefer the camry hybrid in our work pool than the prius but prefer the prius over the cruze by far.

The consumer is the only one that benefits during the usable lifespan of the vehicle and emissions.
All other aspects of the vehicle are more pollutant than a regular vehicle.
Camry and civic are but better due to body and component sharing intheir ranges.

I prefer the local ev conversions. Take 1 hyundai and $15, 000 and conversion done for you with cost effective and easily replaceable parts.

Harder to reason with masses of consumerist brainwashed fold yet the interesting part of the mix is the hybrid. Personally I never liked them and prefer a straight EV though many rave about the Camry Hybrid I would prefer the locally converted datsun or a 23kw battery Leaf.

Back to the EV part, for the ones who trust the Government research cause they are so trusting - the whole petrol aspect of a car does not consider the subsidies for all the requirements to get the petrol to the pump. That in itself is a major issue when doing the per mile calculation a big failure of these discussions.

Just to show how trusting and efficient our Gov is here it fined a big polluter "Santos" with 1500 little ones for indefinitely polluting an acquifer near a CSG project in the Pilliga Forest, its only 20 over the limit for Uranium 238 yummie! yellowcake
http://www.echo.net.au/2014/03/pillig ... -calls-halt-csg-industry/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014 ... taminates-aquifer-uranium

Quote:

utter nonsense. "Well to wheel" comparisons are the norm. So much so they invented a now commonly used term for it. EV's do not stack up. Particularly not in Australia, one of the worst places on the planet to own an EV, where they are more polluting than equivalent ICE vehicles both in terms of carbon and smog.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Shades-of-Green-Full-Report.pdf


Quote:

lol good example - more dirty, polluting electricity generation - this time CSG instead of coal. These are the kind of environmental costs of electricity generation in Australia which are not factored into the Electric Vehicle equation. Thanks for bringing it up!

Stick with the cleaner, greener, Internal Combustion Engined Vehicles to reduce our reliance on that sh1t.

It's a similar story with the environmental costs of battery manufacture. People living in regions where lithium, copper and zinc used in the batteries are extracted, are at risk of exposure to toxic groundwater contamination and air pollution.