GM's 200 mile electric car

[UltArc]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I honestly have no idea why more than just a handful of people would want, or require, their electric vehicle to go 200+ miles on a charge. 265 miles on a Tesla is absurd, and a waste of money.

Most families have 2+ cars, one of which should be a gasser. If the need arises to travel more than 100 miles, they should take the gasoline powered car. For those that have only an electric car in the stable, they should temporarily swap for their friend's gasoline car for the longer trip... and these are just 2 of the many other solutions to the range anxiety people have concerning electric cars.

I'd like to see a Leaf equivalent car sell for ~$20,000 and be available in the used car market (private party) a few years later for half that price. One of my cars would then be electric. As it is, there is no cheap commercial option out there for me, so I'm likely to purchase a used Prius.

The generator idea has been discussed at length in this thread, starting at about post #154.

To sum it up, if you're going to burn fossil fuels to propel a vehicle, it's more efficient to directly use the mechanical energy in a mechanical way, (IE pusher trailer). Extending the range of an electric vehicle using gas defeats the purpose of an electric vehicle.

The purpose of an electric car is to travel with electricity. As you mentioned, who needs the range to go 100+ miles in one direction? Well, if one had 35 miles of electricity(much less battery), and a generator to power up and charge it then shut down, it seems like the purpose is to make electricity, and extend that range when it's needed.

Not all power comes from rainbows, sunshine, and gentle breezes- it's still a fossil fuel somewhere. But that would offer an alternative. If some one from horseville was on the fence about an alternate fuel vehicle, would they be more likely to risk an electric vehicle, or use one with a back up?

Using gas is the opposite of defeating the purpose. It's expanding the purpose in a cost effective manner. Not wasting weight, money, and resources on batteries that will go unused. 40% of the batteries and a little generator could do wonders on a 200 mile commute, 20 mile commute, or 3,000 mile cross country trip.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by UltArc

The purpose of an electric car is to travel with electricity. As you mentioned, who needs the range to go 100+ miles in one direction? Well, if one had 35 miles of electricity(much less battery), and a generator to power up and charge it then shut down, it seems like the purpose is to make electricity, and extend that range when it's needed.

I quite like the idea of a generator extending the range of an electric vehicle, but it simply cannot do that efficiently. I see that the point of the generator is to extend the range, but I see no reason for doing so inefficiently when there are more efficient ways to travel those longer distances.

Not all power comes from rainbows, sunshine, and gentle breezes- it's still a fossil fuel somewhere. But that would offer an alternative. If some one from horseville was on the fence about an alternate fuel vehicle, would they be more likely to risk an electric vehicle, or use one with a back up?

Regardless of the hypothetical ignorant consumer, it's more efficient to produce electricity in bulk and distribute it, than to have mini power stations attached to electric vehicles. I'll admit that I may have missed the point regarding a consumer being offered a choice between an EV, or an EV with a generator. The Volt is essentially an EV with generator, but it doesn't get good fuel economy when running on gasoline, and is phenomenally expensive.

Using gas is the opposite of defeating the purpose. It's expanding the purpose in a cost effective manner. Not wasting weight, money, and resources on batteries that will go unused. 40% of the batteries and a little generator could do wonders on a 200 mile commute, 20 mile commute, or 3,000 mile cross country trip.

I'll argue that the 200 mile commute and 3,000 mile cross country trip are best served by a fuel efficient gasoline powered car, and that an EV is a poor choice for these distances. As you point out, making an EV with a minimum of weight, cost and resources is efficient. This relegates their use to typical commutes and around town errands. Pairing an EV with a generator is an added expense, hassle, and is inefficient when other alternatives exist.

If you read through the other thread I linked to, you will see that I started off on the side of generators for all EV owners. Eventually I crunched the numbers and came to the conclusion that it only makes sense if someone already has a generator, or has an alternative use for a car generator, such as emergency power for the home.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I honestly have no idea why more than just a handful of people would want, or require, their electric vehicle to go 200+ miles on a charge. 265 miles on a Tesla is absurd, and a waste of money.

Most families have 2+ cars, one of which should be a gasser. If the need arises to travel more than 100 miles, they should take the gasoline powered car. For those that have only an electric car in the stable, they should temporarily swap for their friend's gasoline car for the longer trip... and these are just 2 of the many other solutions to the range anxiety people have concerning electric cars.

The longer range is what makes Tesla be considered more seriously than just a neo-hippie attempt or a celebrity toy in the eyes of the average Joe. Not everybody would either want to keep a gasser beater to be used just eventually, or to depend on someone else's car.