Harry P.

But surely not because of the demand electric cars produce? Aren't there too few electric cars on the road to even move the needle on total electrical demand?

Look at it this way: IC car: energy consumed and pollution created to make the gas the car needs. Plus the car itself adds pollutants into the air throughout its life. Electric car: energy consumed and pollution created to make the electricity the car needs, but the car itself adds no pollutants. So in the overall "cradle to grave" sequence, the use of electric cars would cause less pollution overall.

And remember... the overall amount of energy consumed in the process of refining oil into gas (the drilling rigs, the transportation, distribution, etc.) is far greater than the energy consumed to produce electricity.

I have to disagree. The electric car doesn't directly add any pollutants into the air, the way an IC car does. Like I said, the electricity that electric cars run on is generated largely by plants that run on fossil fuel, true... but that electricity would be being produced anyway, even if there were no electric cars at all! It's not like we had to put a bunch of new coal-burning plants on line to feed the demand for electricity that electric cars created. What I'm saying is, whether we had electric cars or not, the overall amount of electricity being generated by fossil fuel-powered plants (and the overall number of those plants) would probably be pretty much the same.

Welcome back!

The point of driving an electric car, as far as "saving the planet," is this: Yes, to make the parts and manufacture an all-electric car, it takes energy (most likely from fossil fuel) to power the factories involved in the process, same as it does t build a conventional IC car. So up until the cars arrive in the showrooms, the "cost" (in energy used) to produce the all-electric car and the IC car is roughly the same, nothing saved as far as energy usage. But... once the electric car is bought, it adds no more pollutants to the air, while the IC car will continue to add pollutants (albeit with today's technology, not all that much) throughout its life. And the electricity that powers it, while most likely having been produced via the use of fossil fuels, would have been there anyway, whether that electric car existed or not. So there's no "extra" fossil fuel being used to produce the "extra" electricity that electric cars use. Yeah, an electric car doesn't earn any "save the earth" brownie points until it's put into use. So in fact, the people who drive electric cars because they think they are making a difference are correct. They are making a difference. Maybe in the overall scheme of things, a small difference, but a difference nonetheless. And as electric cars continue to grow in popularity, the net difference will become greater.

You don't have to. The post is about the price the lot sold for.

I read that Tesla has recently shown a profit. So things look they're turning around for them.

The car in the picture is a 1959 Autobianchi Bianchina Transformable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobianchi_Bianchina Who got it right: kennb Badluck 13 Thom GeeBee Jon Cole patami wisdonm sjordan2 CorvairJim mr moto ChrisR maltsr G Holding blunc carsntrucks4you George53 draggon Nxr otherunicorn customsrus

There was a lot of talk about hydrogen-powered cars a few years ago, then it sort of just went away. I guess the oil companies don't like that technology one bit!

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/12/black-is-dead-china-introduces-colored-tires/ http://www.moderntiredealer.com/news/story/2013/01/living-color-north-tread-launches-borealis-way-color-tires.aspx?prestitial=1

Or at least spray outdoors where the vapors will quickly dissipate into the air.

Gotta love free enterprise!

I knew there was a reason it wasn't being done! You're right, of course. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Of course, the problem with Chinese bat poop is that you're hungry again an hour later...

I was thinking two identical packs, one that would be powering the car while the other was being recharged by onboard generators operating off the rotating wheels somehow. Then switching to the freshly charged pack when the first pack got low, and that pack would recharge... always just switching from one pack to the other, one powering the car while the other was being recharged. But I think you may have hit on it... there would be a loss of energy throughout the process due to friction, heat, etc. But it still seems to me that this system of switching from one pack to the other would result in a longer range than could be gotten with a single pack design. But then again, if this was possible (or feasible), bigger brains than mine would have already thought of it!

I don't think all the leftover styrene trees from all the models sold would even be a drop in the ocean compared to the volume of other "waste" that gets recycled, like paper, glass, metal, etc. There's just not enough styrene waste out there to make recycling it profitable. And let's face it... recycling is about profit more than anything else.

I'm not talking hybrid, I mean a pure electric. Using dual battery packs, one to power the car, the other being recharged while the car is in motion, then switching from discharged pack over to fully charged pack, etc., to extend the car's range over a single-pack design. I realize that this switching between packs can't keep the car charged and running forever... but it seems a system like that could take what would be a 200 mile range for a single-pack car and maybe make that range 300-400 miles using dual packs. Again, assuming that the 2-pack system was physically feasible as far as weight, size, etc. Maybe that's the problem... fitting two packs would mean that each would be too small to give much range, so a single-pack design would give just as much range? A lot of variables to consider, for sure. Oh well... I'm just thinking out loud. But it's an interesting topic. At least I think so!

Ok, the "alternate battery packs" idea can't keep the car going forever, that defies the laws of physics, I guess... but couldn't that system significantly extend an electric car's range? Using two packs, one recharging while the other is powering the car, seems to make sense vs. just one pack that's constantly being drained while driving. Maybe it's a function of battery pack power/range vs. weight and or physical space to fit both packs, or some other technical reason I'm not allowing for.

Yeah, I guess what I described does equal perpetual motion, which can't be done. But it sure sounded good in theory!

How long do those PE blades generally last?

Ok... here's something else I've wondered. This obviously isn't possible, I guess, because it's not being done AFAIK. Remember those generator-powered bike lights we had as kids? When the little wheel on the generator was in contact with the tire, and the bike was moving, your light lit up. The faster you pedaled, the brighter the light. You were getting "free" electricity. So why can't an electric car be set up with a dual battery pack? One pack powers the car, and as long as the car is moving, an onboard generator or whatever charges up the other pack. A dashboard indicator could show charge levels, and when pack A got low, you would switch over to pack B while pack A recharged, etc. I know this sounds logical (to me, at least), but apparently I'm missing some obvious reason why a system like this couldn't work to keep an electric car constantly charged?

I know that colored tires exist today... I'm sort of surprised that none of the automakers offer different colored tires as options, especially on cars aimed at younger people, like the Soul. I think that red or blue or yellow tires could be a popular option.

Here's a related question I've wondered about... maybe one of you knows the answer. Does an electric car's range change much over time? I mean, let's say the car has a range of 200 miles when new. Do the batteries "age" somehow, so that let's say in 3-4 years the range is down to 150 miles? Or maybe the range actually increases over time as everything gets "broken in?" Or is the range something that stays pretty constant over time (assuming a consistant driving style)?

No, not a decision based on price and value. Based on overall performance. You can't "test" price. The best you can do is compare similar cars that sell for similar prices. For example, the Tesla vs. a comparably priced BMW or Audi or Lexus. You can't compare a Toyota Corolla and a Lexus and say that because the Corolla is cheaper, it's a "better" car or a "better" value. If that were the case all the Kias and Hyundais would be top-rated and all the Mercedes and Audis and BMWs would be rated poorly. A very expensive car can be a good value. A cheap car can be a bad value.