The Mini E was the talk of the L.A. auto show. Or at least it was everywhere I was. Maybe this is because there were a surprising number of electric vehicles on display. After plenty of talk about the electric car over the past couple years, it seems to be almost here.
My friend at BMW North America is really happy with the way the lease program for the Mini E has turned out, as the company has got a lot of input from a wide variety of sources. Says the company is planning a similar program for another alternative-fuel vehicle in the near future. I warned him that BMW has been lucky that everyone finds the Mini so charming, as the last company to trick the public into paying for the privilege of doing durability testing (you know, as in General Motors) didn't generate many smiles during the process.
My friend at Mazda expressed his usual skepticism about the electric car, and he's in a position to know. "We're just not there yet," he said. He pointed out that the key is not getting the technology to work but instead in standardizing the technology so it can be affordable to make. This is an aspect of the conventional automobile underappreciated by people who think cars should be sold in blister packs down at Radio Shack. "Let's gather everybody in a circle and ask them to pull the battery put of their cell phone and hand it to the person to their right and see how many phones still work," he said. "If we can't get this done with something as simple to package as a cell phone, what chance do we have of doing it in a car?"
My friend at Honda and I talked some about the best electric car ever built, the 1997 Honda EV Plus. I had one in my garage for a month back then with the fast-charge setup and used it pretty extensively around town. It really was better than almost anything electric I've driven lately. My Honda guy said he'd spent some time in the Mini E. He liked the way it didn't try to disguise its electrical nature and just stacked all the batteries in the back seat and just asked you to accept the compromise. He said he liked the really strong regeneration effect when you lift off the throttle; took him only about an hour to get used to it, he said. He said he wasn't surprised to hear about the quick degradation in the cruising range afforded by the batteries. Then he said that he has a lot of people at Honda come up to him and ask about the EV Plus, because the questions that the engineers and the product planners asked back then are still waiting for answers now.
That's kind of what I think whenever I look at the Mini E and compare it with the Honda EV Plus. It seems every generation has to rediscover the electric car, only to find out that it's still not quite ready yet.
Michael Jordan, Executive Editor
benson2175 says:
09:32 AM, 12/ 8/09
Once this global warming bruha goes the way of y2k, killer bees, and evil gods eclipsing the sun so kill yourselves, the electric car will be put away again for the next time sheeple need to freak out about something.
hybris says:
01:18 PM, 12/ 8/09
@benson2175
I can't agree with you more.
I'm one those guys who believes electric cars will never come to full production. It will be either hydrogen fuel cells or as a more short term solution synthetic oil.
uncanny_man says:
02:24 PM, 12/ 8/09
Synthetic oil? I hope you mean biofuels!
hybris says:
03:24 PM, 12/ 8/09
No you can make synthetic crude oil the only reason you don't see it is because of economics and how much more it costs to make synth-oil.
I know the Germans during WWII had a fairly large synth-oil industry as well.
nealibob says:
07:30 PM, 12/ 8/09
Gas powered cars are not some American birthright. Things are going to change, but it will take a while. Climate change is not a matter of debate, and it is not just a talking point, unless you want question the same science that makes your cars possible. I guess I do not see a reason to question it, anyway, since what is the harm in changing our ways to something we know for sure is good even if the rationale proves false?
I agree that battery-electric vehicles may not be the future, and hydrogen does still seem viable in a variety of forms. I just wish our government would really get 100% behind an infrastructure overhaul to make real alternative fuels viable on a national scale. Until we physically have to make a change, there will be little incentive to switch on anyone's part, from the manufacturers until the consumers. It just seems to me that regardless of reasons, diving into alternate energy sources is the best way to resuscitate the economy, as it would have benefits across the board.
cwc1 says:
07:44 PM, 12/ 8/09
^True science is always open to debate and peer review. Global warming has not been "proven". There are a huge number of credible scientists who dissent, and whose statements and research are purposely suppressed by our propaganda oriented mass media.
In not wanting to debate the junk science of global warming supposedly caused by human activity, what are its advocates afraid of? Perhaps they're afraid of their hoax getting shredded to pieces by those with the truth on their side. Global warming is a religion; not science.
nealibob says:
08:07 PM, 12/ 8/09
@cwc1: but again, what difference does it make? Why deny it?
Global warming itself is not at all debatable. The jury is perhaps still out on the human role in it, and I am not going to argue that point, but the science that temperatures are rising is undeniable. Because of that, and the projected effects of the warming, we should consider doing whatever we can to avoid it. I do think that we should exercise prudence, but I think this is a perfect opportunity to explore other options that can have many benefits beyond their carbon buzzword output levels.
cwc1 says:
08:22 PM, 12/ 8/09
^You're behind on your news. The warming trend has subsided.
Besides, the former warming trend isn't even a bad thing. It's better for crops which lead to more food production. The earth's temperature has always fluctuated - it's not like the thermostat in our houses that always regulates a perfect temperature. When the next cooling trend gains momentum, the intellectual wizards will be wringing their hands about that too as they did in the '70s, and using that to give themselves even more power and influence.
clarkma5 says:
08:34 PM, 12/ 8/09
"Global warming itself is not at all debatable. The jury is perhaps still out on the human role in it, and I am not going to argue that point, but the science that temperatures are rising is undeniable." - nealibob
Thank you! I'm tired of skeptics ignoring it and arguing against it because they don't understand it/don't want to hear the truth. Increasing temperatures are hugely demonstrable, and the human cause hypothesis (I could call it a theory at this point without too much complaining from most of the scientific community, I think) is at least our best idea of what's going on here...and even if that (well-supported) notion is bogus, it is STILL responsible to improve our efficiency, our sustainability, and reduce what pollutants we expose ourselves and our environment to. And to those who claim "global warming is a religion", remember: anti-global warming is BUSINESS. Money talks in this world, people, so if you want to question the motives of those who are arguing that there's a problem at least do us all a favor and question the motives of those who are arguing that everything's alright and this whole thing is a sham.
But even though I believe global warming's real and that we really should look to be more responsible as a race, the electric car is NOT the answer IMO. Storing energy in batteries is wasteful and the resources necessary to produce batteries, integrate them in vehicles, and then move their mass around is really too large for any real benefit. They degrade too quickly to be practical in something that people own for as long as a car as well.
Sure, research and development could overcome these problems with time and a ton of money, but that same time and money could be being put toward giving us ultra-efficient ICEs until we get to something that's a REAL replacement for gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. And I'm also a huge fan of finding efficiencies in places besides just the powertrain...cars run so cleanly these days that looking into how they're built, how they're shipped, what their interiors and tires and so on are made of...that's what is going to really improve matters. Also, increasing longetivity and durability is always good to reduce the disposable nature of our cars. And then there's all the million and one things we can be doing to improve our impact on the environment that have nothing to do with cars of any sort...which are where the biggest gains in our planet's environmental friendliness are to be had.
In conclusion, environmentalists need to get over their Priuses and Mini Es and what not and look at the big picture and their opponents need to get over whatever fear of reality or change or red ink or whatever and realize that when you put 7 billion consumers on one little ball in space that sustaining our resources and our healthy environment are GOING to have to be priorities one way or another, whether you call it a reaction to "global warming" or something else entirely.
cwc1 says:
07:31 PM, 12/ 9/09
^The common rhetoric that it's "not debatable" is an attempt to shut down and silence those who disagree with the premise and who have evidence to the contrary.
Power talks in this world as well. Once government has power, it never gives it up. All the supposed solutions involve government seizing more liberty from the people. The U.S. system of government is constitutionally a representative republic, and not rule by the few.
I am all for efficiencies and minimizing environmental damage. But this is best left to the free market and the ingenuity and creativity of individuals, and private companies, rather than by government tyranny.
clarkma5 says:
07:42 PM, 12/ 9/09
cwc1, then hate the government, not what they're trying to deal with. You're really missing the forest for the trees it sounds like...
cwc1 says:
08:06 PM, 12/ 9/09
^Point is, government should not be trying to deal with this at all. First, it is a hoax. Second, it is not within their constitutional authority, unless it's amended by the people, which it has not. Nor have they sought to amend it, because that would fail. That doesn't bother them, of course, because they'll just bloody well do it anyway, and too many Americans have been duped into letting them.