Electric Cars in Hoboken: How?
Chevy Volt a major dud, even for short trips!
Wow, what a “vlop” this Chevy Volt turned out to be!
Eric Bolling from Fox News ran out of electric juice inside the Lincoln Tunnel – twice – while “testing” this dismal failure of an “eco-friendly” car.
I wonder if that Hoboken resident who was considering this car has changed his mind!
Enough with Hertz. What about the dang environment?
8/23/2010:
So we already know that these Hertz on Demand (formerly Connect by Hertz) Cars have already created a divisive stir in Hoboken. The primary problems being the reserved parking, the city favoritism, NY State Plates, among others.
But one Hoboken411 reader has a different, yet similar question. Since city officials are so hell-bent on promoting “green” (i.e., bike lanes, etc.) – would the Hoboken administration stay true to their mantra – and allow more reserved parking to benefit the environment?
“Dear 411,
I was considering buying a Chevy Volt when they are available. The only issue is being able to plug it in somewhere. I live on Hudson Street and would pay for the installation of a secure charging mechanism in front of my house if the mayor/city Council/Zoning would agree to a designated spot similar to a Handicap Spot allowing me to do this.
I work approx 15 miles from Hoboken (30 Miles Round Trip) so I would effectively reduce my carbon output to Zero.
Perhaps there could be an additional cost for a permit for this to generate much needed city revenue, while being a model for other cities around the nation.”
Ah ha! How is the city going to be able to sell this? First, it’s “in line” with their eco-orgy mentality, but at this point, the personal vehicle isn’t “shareable” by the community. That’s a tough sell, isn’t it? They love the green concept and carbon footprint nonsense – but hate the fact that someone will have the spot for themselves (and without back-room deals, envelopes, corporate gifts, off-the record transactions, etc.)
However, if this somehow did get traction – what would a monthly spot be worth to “save the environment?” Since Hertz pays only $100 a month for these spots – with NO ecological benefit – do you think the price should remain the same for an electric car owner?
Hoboken NJ
August 23rd, 2010 |
Your carbon output will not be zero.
Login or Register to reply
August 23rd, 2010 |
Didn’t a poster claim that there was a bidding process involving Hertz and Zipcar? Is this a lie?
Perhaps the person looking into the Volt would be better off having some kind of charging facility at their workplace rather than in Hoboken. I think for most cities, it’ll take a very long time for residents to have access to any kind of charging stations on the street. If it were me, I’d be looking into a plug-in hybrid instead.
Maybe they’ll start doing this as electric vehicles become more popular? If PSE&G saw a market, perhaps we’ll start seeing electric vehicle only spots on every block with a charging station next to it?
411, saying that car sharing has no ecological benefit is just not true If everyone on the Zipcar or Hertz program went out and bought a car it would be a positive or negative ecological impact? All of the resources and energy it takes to make a car, then the gallons of fuel, oil, and other poisonous fluids that cars need to run, sounds like less is more to me.
Login or Register to reply
August 23rd, 2010 |
Electric cars make for good feel good politics, but they are horrible for the environment. The carbon footprint of an electric car is much higher than a gasoline or Ethanol powered car.
Simply put, burning your fuel directly in a modern internal combustion engine is much more efficient than the alternative of burning it in a power plant, sending the current over transmission lines, charging a battery, then finally discharging the battery to generate motion. To go 30 miles might require 1 gallon of fuel in the car, or two or three gallons burned in a power plant for the electric car..
In addition to the wasted energy electric cars use large batteries containing rare and toxic elements that are problematic to produce and must be recycled carefully.
Electric cars DO have one good purpose in that they can reduce emissions in a high pollution zone (Think Los Angeles) and allow the emissions to be moved to the location of the power plant. Although the total emissions will be higher, they will be in a less compromised location.
Now if we had lots of Hydroelectric or Nuclear power available the equation might be different, but the majority of our electricity is based on fossil fuel.
So… even if you decide you still want to have electric cars it will require new power plants and big upgrades to transmission lines to deliver all the extra power for the cars.
If you really want to lower your carbon footprint, use mass transit, or drive the most efficient lightest car you can (The argument against electric cars does not apply to Hybrids, other than the battery issues)
Login or Register to reply
August 23rd, 2010 |
If you really want to be Green get one of these.
livevideo.com/video/5EFA0061567849D...6A/flintstones-car-pulled-over.aspx
Login or Register to reply
August 23rd, 2010 |
I think you’re wrong about the efficiency of millions of small combustion motors compared to large power generators, regardless of what drives the rotors. I could be wrong, but I have yet to hear of anyone who has an electric car complain that what they pay in added electricity was higher than their gasoline bill when they had a regular car. If it cost more to produce the electricity needed to go 30 miles compared to gas, wouldn’t the electricity cost more since you’d be using more energy to go from point a to b? Feel free to prove me wrong, I am curious why that would be.
The truly brilliant thing about electric cars is that it doesn’t matter what’s used to generate the power, coal, oil, gas, wind, tidal, hydro, Nukular. The end user isn’t effected. As newer tech comes online, they just plug into the grid.
Nuclear is very safe, especially the latest generation of reactors, too bad they’ll have a hell of a time getting approval to construct more, because we need them.
In response to SummitGuy who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 24th, 2010 |
If we could get a handle on nuclear power in this country, it would be great. France’s energy model is as close to perfect as you get.
Considering we do not have clean or efficient electricity, if you want to go “green”, get a newish Diesel. The car will last 300k miles and you will get great mileage and likely have the ability to use bio-Diesel if you wish (not that all bio-Diesel is green, mind you).
In response to Easy-E who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 24th, 2010 |
It is not the efficiency of the motor versus the generator, it is the efficiency of the whole system.
Modern motors are surprisingly efficient.
Transmitting and storing electric power is not (I concede the power plant might be as or more efficient than the motor) I lived in Los Angeles when they where mandating electric cars for the future, and there was a lot of published info on the inefficiency of electric cars.
When and if we get clean electric power, I am all for electrics. Till then small car(Diesel is a good idea!) and I’ll hope that they get fuel cells sorted out.
Login or Register to reply
August 24th, 2010 |
I only mention it because from the few things I read about it, in terms of energy produced and how efficient the use of that power is, electric motors outperform gasoline engines.
My point came down to consumer cost. If you drive 30 mile per day and you use up 1 gallon of gas at $3, or 10 cents per mile. Say you switch to electric. If what you say is true, the cost to drive it per mile would have to be more than $3 per day/10 cents per mile for it to be less efficient and more expensive, and I don’t think that’s the case here. At least what I have read has lead me to believe that electric is still cheaper per mile.
I’ve never found information that actually breaks down the real cost for both of them side by side so i could be wrong.
In response to SummitGuy who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 24th, 2010 |
Electric cars are cheaper per mile only if you ignore the fact that the electric car costs more and your battery pack only lasts a handful of years before it has to be replaced. Battery packs for electric cars cost thousands of dollars right now. You also have to purchase a charging station which also isn’t cheap. Factor in these costs and you are better off buying a modern fuel efficient gas powered car.
In response to Easy-E who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 24th, 2010 |
…and Summit Guy correctly points out the materials used for these batteries is rather toxic and the energy cost to actually make them is rather high. Lots of people overlook that little fact, so I figured it was worth repeating. The technology was intended for small, portable power where other power sources were not feasible. They have been jammed into the car because of a mandate. It may work out in the end and push the technology forward, but to think an electric car is green is insanity.
In response to matt_72 who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 24th, 2010 |
And I wasn’t disagreeing w/ him. I was responding to Easy-E’s most recent post and only commenting on his belief that the cost per mile for an electric car was lower than gas/diesel.
In response to getz76 who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 24th, 2010 |
Here is an article from CNET on this topic.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10231102-54.html
Login or Register to reply
August 24th, 2010 |
Sorry if I implied you were disagreeing with him; not my intention. I get it and got what you meant. Cheers!
In response to matt_72 who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 24th, 2010 |
Nice link.
Again, imagine the Green-ness of everyone getting a Diesel compact or even a Diesel SUV and keeping the car for 300k+ miles instead of trading in a leased gasoline car every 36k miles.
If I was without kids and drove more, I would be all over a nice Diesel. The offerings in the US are still not up to snuff and the availability of Diesel is tough on a consumer.
In response to SummitGuy who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 24th, 2010 |
Well one thing is for sure, if gas heads over $3 a gallon, the situation changes, even factoring in the battery cost.
I think there’s a place for them. Especially urban Municipalities that have all kinds of vehicles that don’t need to be gas powered, drive above 35 mph or even go that far in a day. Less emissions in the confines of a city is definitely a good thing.
I still say plug in hybrids are the best, at least for now. Take advantage of a power outlet when you are able, I just think it’s easier to get stuck somewhere with all electric.
If I lived in a rural area, I’d definitely consider solar power to augment my energy use if I had a plug in hybrid or electric vehicle. Sure, it’s not quite cheap to do that yet, but the technology is rapidly improving.
Don’t know why Germany is getting rid of nuclear, I know energy is typically much more expensive in Europe and as a result they are far more conservative. I’ve read that they have a booming solar tech industry over there, not sure if that has anything to do with it.
Login or Register to reply
August 24th, 2010 |
Also it’s important to note that the battery efficiency is also rapidly advancing, more than combustion engine tech has in decades. For example, I owned a ’88 CRX HF 20 years ago and got 45 MPG on a bad day, so really I have to ask… WTF is the hold up?
I forgot, we don’t pay $9 for gas yet.
Login or Register to reply
August 24th, 2010 |
Natural gas is far cheaper for municipalities which is why they are used and battery powered vehicles are not. Solar is not a great option, the payback on that is horrible in most of the country w/o the tax rebate. Government agencies don’t get tax rebates. Solar only makes sense for consumers b/c the US Gvmnt & many states subsidizes solar installations. The same is true in Europe. Get rid of the subsidies and solar makes far less sense economically.
In response to Easy-E who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 24th, 2010 |
Jeremy Clarkson goes over the electric Tesla Roadster and in the process touches on some of the issues with electric cars…
(video added by admin)
Login or Register to reply
August 25th, 2010 |
I’m projecting future improvements, like I said, not the best for everyone right now.
As long as oil is plentiful and we can secure a massive supply and battery tech and solar tech never improve efficiency, you’re absolutely right, not a cost effective idea it seems.
I read that in Spain (I think it was Spain) a solar company that was subsidized by the government was caught in a massive fraud scheme. Apparently they trucked in the huge lights and were using power from the grid to shine on the panels. The idea being every watt they generated earned them more because of the subsidy. Someone noticed that they were generating power in the middle of the night and investigated.
In response to matt_72 who said:
Login or Register to reply
August 25th, 2010 |
Electric cars will lose their carbon footprint when we start building nuclear power plants again and stop using coal and oil to generate electricity.
In response to SummitGuy who said:
Login or Register to reply