Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News' started by johns258, Mar 25, 2012.
Tough but realistic reading:
The Electric Car, Unplugged - NYTimes.com
Too bad one can not make comments. I really feel articles like this are part of the problem. Why not educate people on the advantages instead of just talking about the negatives? Why not say how EV sales are 2X what they were for the first year of hybrids and few will say the Toyota Prius is a flop.
I think what is not realistic is to sell hundreds of thousands units right out of the gate. It takes some time to ramp up.
Not sure what part was "realistic" except perhaps the description of the rediculousness of those attacking EVs for political purposes.
"realistic" description of the current atmosphere in this country about EV.
It's written mostly from a Volt perspective. I'm not holding my breath for Volt's "third version" in 2020/2025.
Third sentence reads "The government is spending billions on battery technology". This sounds like a bit of an exaggeration to me. Does anyone have any specific numbers on how much the Federal government is spending on battery research, and whether that research is specifically aimed at developing batteries for EVs (as opposed to developing batteries for other purposes, such as grid storage...)?
But you can drive a Volt beyond city limits.......
I didn't read any factual errors. The article represented both the positive and negative factors impacting EV adoption. Whether you consider it a balanced acount no doubt depends on whether you're an advocate or skeptic. :wink:
The last paragraph wasn't bad. It appears to me that EV bashing has become a recent fad. Hopefully it will pass soon.
I don't think it will pass until the elections are over. The failure of Solyndra is the darling of Fox. The best thing Tesla can do is to loudly and publicly show loan payments being made, Americans put to work, and Americans driving American cars.
Perhaps. I don't have a specific account of all the funding, but part of the Nissan $1.9 billion DoE loan was to fund battery production for its Leaf.
Any time it says the government is "spending" it's completely disingenuous. They're loans. It'd be like saying a bank is "spending" on giving you a loan for your house.
Some portion will fail, but they're investing, not spending.
I actually thought it was a refreshing article, citing some knowledgeable, respected folks in the industry for a change rather than those who are cynical just for the sake of it. Not perfect, but pretty good.
The industry is in a vulnerable stage at the moment; I don't think enough people are cognizant of that. There are significant challenges, and a total of three automakers who have proven themselves to be serious. All of them have skinned some knees, and more will come. It is a particularly rough year, politically. Acknowledging these things isn't EV-bashing, and we gain more credibility by doing so. The industry has unfortunately invited some of the stinging press because sales projections and other messaging was always overly optimistic, and too many people have been assuming things would "sort themselves out". Tempering that with a few voices of reason is a good thing- especially when they're clear that these challenges in no way subtracts from the importance or long-term viability of the effort.
I quite regularly drive my Roadster well beyond city limits. I think nothing of visiting LA from Sandyeggo (did it just yesterday) and have driven it to Santa Barbara for a conference twice. And I have lots of fun on the mountain roads nearby.
The article wasn't all bad, but some phrases like "battery prices remain stubbornly high" annoy me. Battery prices are falling fast, so the writer just seems really really impatient.
Agreed- I'd have expressed a few things differently myself. But "fast" to those of us who live and breathe this stuff is different than the media or public would define it, in my experience. Until it's reflected in lower MSRPs, it's not happening.
It's difficult to compare MSRP of Roadster and Model S, but according to Tesla there will be an 40% improvement in the pack price in $/kWh, so it's there already. If I understood it correctly. But I think you are right, the media wants to see the MSRP for the same car to drop (until they are similar to the ICE equivalent). Which however for some might not happen as fast as the battery prices will drop, as some, in so far as I know, are currently sold below cost.
That would be cool: Tesla offering the Roadster 2.5.1 with a refurbished battery pack with 330 miles range (and "smart airbag" sensor) for $90k. Similarity to the ICE equivalent is either here today (if you compare the roadster to cars of similar performance) or far, far away in the future (if you compare to basic Lotus Elise). I'm afraid you won't satisfy all folks here.
I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree. OK, I agree with much of what you said in your second paragraph, but not the first.
The article is misleading in several respects. It focuses primarily on problems, exaggerating them in several instances, with very little commentary on how successful EVs have actually been. If I knew little about EVs, this article would steer me away from them. I'd like to know how you consider the misleading (if not downright false) statements about the gov't spending billions on battery tech to be part of a "refreshing article" or "not perfect, but pretty good."? The vast majority of DOE loans under the program went to advanced ICE development and the results were not nearly as productive as what Tesla, Nissan and Ford did to advance EV technology. But the article leaves the reader thinking the opposite. The very absence of comparisons such as this make the article lacking of credibility.
Yes there are worse articles, but I don't think that makes this one "refreshing" or good. Just my .02 and I hope my criticism doesn't discourage you from posting what you think...