Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by MDR, Feb 26, 2008.
Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution - USATODAY.com
I really wish the writers of these kinds of articles would take a moment to look at the promise of electricity, rather than borrow problems predicted by "studies" paid for by who-knows-whom. Electricity can be made cleanly, and is used cleanly. Gasoline, by contrast, cannot be made cleanly, and puts out nineteen pounds of carbon per gallon burned, whether by Porsche or Prius. In 100 years of improvements, the best pollution characteristics we have achieved with gasoline cars pale in comparison to the possibilities of electrics, where renewable energy sources hold out real hope of all-but non-polluting transportation.
It's important to not to deny what is in this study. CO2 and SO2 levels will likely be more than a conventional car if you utilize dirty coal plants exclusively to charge your plugin. Now some of these studies might be dead wrong on the amounts, but the overall it is true esp of SO2. However, it is important not to take it up at face value, just to be aware of it. This is because off-peak capacity comes into play and the fact that there are many states that rely very little on coal.
As Brent mentioned plugin cars at least has the chance of being close to 100% clean. Conventional cars will NEVER have the chance. They also don't put the burden on the consumer to change their cars for whatever new clean way to create energy comes along. Besides, our dirty electricity production will need to be addressed regardless of the existence of PHEVs, and I have always said PHEVs are a great way to put focus on cleaning up emissions from electricity production.
So, if electricity from coal is such a big problem when powering electric cars, why isn't it also a problem when powering all the other electrical appliances in our homes?
Maybe the problem is really the coal plants, not the cars. There are lots of other ways to produce electricty, and just about all of them pollute less than coal.
Interesting to wade through the comments. I was surprised to see comments where people think the Volt only runs 40 miles then needs a charge.
I thought Tesla had a hard sell to do. GM has even more work to set the record straight.
Ha, ha, that's what they get for trying to sell their car as an E-REV, a "full electric car". To this day there are still plenty of people who think the Volt can only go 40 miles total. If they went with what there car really was, a PHEV, they wouldn't have the same problem. Hopefully it won't be too hard to correct that perception once it starts selling.
There are still plenty of people who don't understand how a Prius works; a lot of them think you have to plug it in.
Luckily they started already with the most weird/disgusting commercials every made to sell a car. Can't wait to see what's next after the foot licking dog
In "Who Killed the Electric Car" the suggestion was made that GM wasn't really committed to trying to sell the EV1. They "went through the motions" of creating an advertising campaign with commercials and such, yet the commercials were oddly lacking in appeal. It was suggested at least some part of the organization was trying to discourage anyone from wanting to get an EV1.
Now you look at the Volt commercials and the way they are presenting it. Could it be that one "faction" wants the vehicle to be produced but other factions are trying to confuse or scare away potential customers because they really don't want to be selling that vehicle? A big entity like GM could have an internal disagreement that plays out as a mixed message to consumers. Someone could view it as a conspiracy, others could view it as a dysfunctional company. A whole other view would be that they just can't figure out how to market the product properly. Who knows, maybe there is a large group of consumers that like the "it hums" and "dog licking" angle, but to me it just looks like another repeat of the EV1 situation.
The "it hums" one can be easily misinterpreted and was a little strange, but it can still be considered a mainstream commercial. The dog licking one was shown on adult swim on cartoon network, and if you have seen that channel (pretty much lots of nonsense) you will see why the commercial was made that way. So I wouldn't fault them for the "dog licks" one. I don't think we should delve into the conspiracy theories on this one as GM seems like they are serious about the Volt, unlike the EV1 which many people didn't even know existed. Right now at $35k it's still unclear if it will be a success, originally at below $30k they had confidence it could sell 60k units in the first year; now they set the target back to 10k in the first year and ramping up later.
"Maximum" Bob Lutz is simultaneously promoting the Volt and trying to kill it with his announcement about global warming being a crock of s**t.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with that statement, it is incredibly stupid to turn off/piss off a large segment of your target market. He should have just kept his opinion to himself.
Now USA Today is further helping to dissuade those green-oriented potential buyers.
The latest news about gasoline likely to hit $4 by this spring may bring another sizable group of people interested in alternatives to gasoline, even if they don't think it helps with pollution or global warming.
Yeah, TEG, Anyone with a tiny bit of interest in all that EV1 infighting needs to read "The Car That Could". It would be a funny story if it were not so sad.