Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and suburb

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

It's called a Tesla Roadster www.teslamotors.com

the question is ... what is the battery warranty, and ... how much does it cost to replace?

IIRC , the Roadster basic battery warranty was about 3 or 4 years and costed thousands more to extend warranty more years. Replacement cost, don't know. But it must be $$$$.

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

No one? You're kidding, right? Or you've never read threads on any of the EV boards ... or you didn't keep up when the Leaf was driven accross the nation . . . or read about the fast charge infra structure being built for upcomming EV's. oh well, if folks think negative ... I guess that defines the term, 'self-fulfillin prophecy'. 100 years ago, folks said, "who'd want to drive in a stinky horseless carriage, when they're so unreliable". Folks said man can't fly ... or travel in space. Somehow, do'ers manage to prevail, despite the nay-sayers.

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

Sounds like you are going to buy a plug-in.

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

Well, ok, not 'no one'. Some will do it.

What would I have to do to drive a Leaf from San Fran to LA?

I'm not clowning on the Leaf, I think it's great and I'm really glad Nissan is bringin it out. Kudos to them.

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

Plug-in?
I already own a plug-in. My next vehicle will be a pure EV.
And right now, it looks like it will be a leaf.

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

to supply all this electricity, alternative power will be needed. including nuke plants most likely.

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

Nuke plants would be one of the better options.

Tom

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

That's cool. By the same token, polls show an EV CAN work for the typical drive distances for 80%-90% of U.S. citizens (80%-90% drive less than 40 miles round trip each day). So ... figure 150 million drivers times (let's go conservative) 80% ... what ... that'd mean EV's will only work for 130 million people ... heck round it down to only 100 million. Say most families are 2 car families, now we're down to only 50 million EV's. Even if only 1/2 of folks are not single, you can whittle the EV number down to 25 million. But, if it's not for you ... again, that's cool. Even so, there IS a market for millions & millions.
.

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

but can we make them 100% safe? human nature, there's always a screwup somewhere. europe has been doing a pretty good job. watch something happen now.

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

Nukes in the U.S. have one of the highest safety records (not that I'd want 'em in my back yard)

Perhaps you haven't read up on how many workers die anually in:

Oil refinery fires
Coal mine fires
Coal mine cave-ins
Natural Gas - Propane fires

Heck ... for that matter stat's show 365 car fire deaths per year.

Nope ... the alternatives to running nukes for EV fuel, is NOT exactly created by the laughter of children.

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

I would rather have wind or solar energy, it's safer.

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

I have read articles that you could replace every 4 door car in America with a pure EV, charge them at night and we would need a grand total of 0 more power plants, and burn 0lbs of coal more per year.

The key is to charge at off peak times, when most of the electricity on the grid is unused.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_peak]Demand response - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

Me too, as long as you can get enough of it.

Tom

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

There is nothing wrong with nuclear power. It is extremely safe, clean, and huge outputs. The radioactive waste is nothing compared to what you get out. Nobody can honestly think that a solar or wind farm will generate any normal amount of power, it just takes up too much physical space for small power output. I am all for solar and wind, and will be putting both on my house, but for main power outlets, they should replace the coal with nuclear. You even get medicinally valuable products as a side effect.

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

And there it is in a nutshell. Over the rest of our life times we are going to need to be flexible, using all of the available options for power. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, but only a fool would think that any one technology will keep us afloat as we develop new technologies for energy production.

Maybe someday we will have the magic wand that makes all the clean energy we can use, but for the foreseeable future we will need every tool in our box. Nuclear can be a very good option, but it requires some responsible leadership from our government. The problems are not technical, but political.

Tom

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

I would never say nuclear solves all problems forever, but it solves most problems immediately. Even the load following problems of yesteryear are solved, and I think France is doing it right.

I don't see any downside to replacing most to all currently available coal plants with nuclear reactors, and you would need less of them too. Then in the mean time fusion research and solar/wind/tidal/geothermal implementation can continue.

I think the nuclear-hate is generally because of chernobyl and 3-mile island. People think it is dangerous and can explode at anytime, which is about as logical as the death-panels...

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

sure it's good for us or even the next generation...what's the radioactivity decay again? many hundreds of years? Sure, fire up the nuke electric plants. WE don't have to worry about it. And let's continue to mine dangerous fuels. That isn't our problem either. the next generation can deal...

no one has to EVER ask where do u store the waste from solar or wind power.

1st step is efficiency. use less. 2nd step is cleaner. pollute less.

I have a real hard time seeing "advantages" to nuclear power over solar and wind. Gees, even "clean coal" is bogus...but we got a s$#tload of that waiting to dig up and burn. joy. (sarcasm)

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

While I am a huge supporter of Wind and Solar energy (I have it in my back yard powering my house). It is not a steady stream of power. It is great for peak power needs, but hydro and nuke are the best options right now for off peak, steady power production.

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

Yes "WE" have to worry about it. Do you think "we" are not worrying about the coal emmisions right now? It is trading one bad for another bad, but gaining lots in the transfer. You can safely store radioactive waste deep underground. Yes it takes lots of years to decay, but where do you think it comes from anyways? It doesnt just appear, it came from the ground in the first place.

Solar and wind are not efficient. It is a physical impossibility. If you think with enough time and money the research can make them good enough to replace conventional power sources you are fooling yourself. The laws of physics will hold you back all the time.

An old school nuclear reactor will emmit 30-80 (almost all are around 30 by now) cubic meters of waste per year. That means it would take 3 reactors to fill the back of 1 52ft trailer (like what you see 18-wheelers towing). So over the course of 1 year, 3 reactors, fill 1 truck trailer. Now, if you have ever seen a mountain you will realize the scale of a trailer vs. mountain. I think the US uses Yucca (sp?) mountain for waste storage whereas other countries put it somewhere where they can reclaim it if neccessary.

Also the radioactive lifespan can be drastically reduced by some of the newer technology out there (basically convertering the isotopes using actinides and such).

It is hard to see how a little radioactive waste is more harmful than a constant burning of fossil fuels and a huge scaring. How many trains does a single coal factory take in every day? There are 3 coal trains that dump into our city's coal power plant every day. That doesnt grow on trees. (Well it sort of does, but takes a long time to form! )

Anyways, I will stop hijacking the thread...

 

Re: Toyota believes that electric-only vehicles will only suitable for short journeys in city and su

The last big solar farm put up in the fresno area is in the neighborhood of EIGHTY MEGAWATTS. Or, to put it is simple terms ... enough juice to power over TWENTY THOUSAND homes.
You gotta get out more

Takes up too much space? Um, our tiney little roof space generates enough juice to meet ALL our needs, and STILL backfeed an easy TWO MONTHS of surplus onto the grid, to give away ... even to folks that think solar panels take up too much space.

BTW, that 80megawatt solar farm? it sits on LESS than 38/1,000ths of 1% of all U.S. acreage. Take the math out a bit farther, and you'll find the fraction of U.S. land needed to generate ALL residential commercial and business needs (via wind, and/or solar) is quite small ... even if you COULDN'T put 'em on existing homes, parking structures, office buildinigs, etc.

As I stated in the earlier thread, the U.S. has a good record with nuke power, but there IS risk. No one minds living next door to a solar generating house, or even a large solar farm ... but if nuke power was next door? There you go. But with solar ... what catastrophic worry do near by cities have? Maybe a panel falling off a roof? No, wind & solar safety records are miles ahead of the rest.