ie8 fix

More evidence of consumer electric vehicle angst

By | February 17, 2012, 9:20am PST

Summary: Whether it is range anxiety or safety fears, 87 percent of U.S. adults have some sort of nagging concern about EV technology.

Apparently close to 90 percent of us have some sort of anxiety or concern about electric vehicles, which is probably a big factor in slower than expected electric vehicle sales over the past 12 months.

The data is part of the Consumer Reports 2012 Car Brand Perception Survey, which covers much broader issues than just the electric vehicle movement. Data was collected from 1,702 adults who lived in households with at least one home; the survey period was early December 2011.

What exactly are people worried about?

A majority of them (77 percent) fret over range concerns for electric and plug-in hybrids, even though most cars currently available have a much larger range that the average American drives during the course of a day.

Fewer of the Consumer Reports survey respondents were worried about safety: slightly less than one-third (28 percent) point up safety worries as a reason to stay out of the driver’s seat of an electric vehicle. Actually, far more of the respondents said they believed electric and plug-in hybrids were at least as safe as gasoline-powered alternatives.

Two other things that apparently worry people: the silence of electric vehicles, which some believe could result in more pedestrian mishaps and accidents, and the potential for fires started by home electric vehicle charging equipment.

Whether or not any of these fires are founded — there really hasn’t been much evidence that any of these things is a big issue — the electric vehicle industry still has a lot of marketing and education to do in order to reverse these perceptions.

Related stories:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Heather Clancy is an award-winning business journalist with a passion for green technology and corporate sustainability issues.

Disclosure

Heather Clancy

Writing publicly about what the high-tech industry is actually doing to help itself and the world get greener or more sustainable is one way I figure I can contribute more meaningfully to said effort. I am also a big OMG-kind-of-fan of smart leadership, which is why the goodly folks who publish this blog let me go on about this topic and why I am always on the hunt for forward-looking business management ideas.

My daily writing is focused on looking for topics for my blogs, GreenTech Pastures and Business Brains. I also write often about emerging technology trends such as mobile computing, unified communications and cloud computing. Occasionally, I will pop up at an industry conference in some sort of speaking capacity. In cases where a speaking engagement involves a sponsor that may be covered in this blog, that fact will be disclosed in coverage as appropriate.

My corporate writing work usually consists of crafting research white papers about some aspect of technology. In the event that my commentary (in written, audio or video form) mentions a company for which I have provided consulting advice, I will disclose that fact. However, there is no connection between these projects and the topics that I am covering in my blog.

Biography

Heather Clancy

Heather Clancy is an award-winning business journalist with a passion for green technology and corporate sustainability issues. Her articles have appeared in Entrepreneur, Fortune Small Business, The International Herald Tribune and The New York Times. In a past corporate life, Heather was editor of Computer Reseller News, where she was a featured speaker about everything from software as a service to IT security to mobile computing.

Heather started her journalism life as a business writer with United Press International in New York. She holds a B.A. in English literature from McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, and has a thing for Lewis Carroll.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
35
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Laughable
ScorpioBlack Updated - 27th Feb
1) Appears to me that most of the people whining about problems for electric vehicles (see baggins_z, ScorpioBlack, etc. above) likely have a financial interest in maintaining oil and its derivatives in vehicles.

Wish I had oil stock but I don't. happy

No, I'm just not interested in looking for an electrical outlet all the time just so I can make a lame extended range 40 mile round trip in a glorified golf cart running on lithium batteries.

Btw, lithium is an expensive, rare metal who's biggest supplier is China. You wanna rely on them?
0 Votes
+ -
I'm sure somebody will find some example of an EV with both, but typically, there's no heat or AC in them, and when it's below zero, or pushing 100, those things are pretty darn nice.
@Takalok

I don't know where you get your information from, but certainly both the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt have both heat and A/C.
@msalzberg

That means instead of 40 miles between charges you get 20 miles between charges. Awesome.
0 Votes
+ -
...in the car OR in the house!
DittoHeadStL 21st Feb
Consider also the extra stress added to the electric power supply grid. We already have rolling blackouts today resulting from increased use of computers and electrical gadgets, the power demands of which are dwarfed by those of electric vehicles. When my household power goes out because my neighbors are "filling up", I won't be a happy camper.
0 Votes
+ -
Range is a legitimate issue
itpro_z 17th Feb
While my daily commute is within the range of current EVs, that is not the total equation. I also do trips for a variety of reasons: Visiting family, doctors, vacations, shopping, etc. Why would I want to have two vehicles to cover what one can do? I can drive cross country in my car, refueling as needed. No EV offers me that convienence and flexibility.

The solution is hydrogen fuel cell powered EVs, but Obama killed the program started by Bush to move us in that direction.
@itpro_z

For most people (including myself), an EV would make sense. I rarely drive more than 10 - 15 miles in a day, and if I do, my wife rarely drives more than 10 a day. We could get by with one EV and a gas powered car. But we would need both for those days we each have places too far for a pure EV. The Volt would work for us.

I agree on hydrogen fuel cells: They are the future. Unfortunately, extracting the hydrogen isn't cheap, and setting up an infrastructure of filling stations would be a massive project.

By the way, Obama didn't kill the program, although he did cut it back. Try getting the funding past the Oil-industry Lobby known as Congress.
0 Votes
+ -
Hydrogen
itpro_z 17th Feb
@msalzberg, to some extent we already have most of the infrastructure in place to transport hydrogen in the form of existing natural gas pipelines. Getting it to the fuel stations would not be a great task.

Regarding your statement about Congress, it was not Congress that killed the initiative started by Bush, but Obama. Under Bush's plan, nuclear reactors along the coast would convert sea water into hydrogen to be piped to the consumer. A big part of Obama's base is totally against nuclear power, so the program was killed. As for the oil companies being against hydrogen power, they are precisely the ones with the expertise to produce, transport, and market hydrogen. Do you think Exxon, etc, are not aware of the finite resource upon which they now depend? Give them tax incentives to develop the technology and watch how fast they can move.
0 Votes
+ -
@itpro_z
baggins_z 17th Feb
natural gas lines cannot transport hydrogen. Hydrogen has a nasty habit of oozing right through solid metal, so you'll basically be leaking hydrogen all along your pipeline.

The best way to transport hydrogen is in gasoline. You get lots of energy when you crack those hydrogen-carbon bonds.
@msalzberg

Why should the Government (ie: you and me) pay to subsidize the cost of a consumer product?
Gets over a 100F here.
Need ac and I like having a decent powered stereo.
I drive 22 miles round trip for work, I hop into my work truck there.
Not far at all.
The expense is too expensive. A cheaper Toyota or Honda that gets major MPG and has all the amenities is way better.
However I drive a Ford Supercrew pick up. I gas up once every two weeks and use the Winn Dixie gas discount. I got 50 cents off a gallon last time I gassed up.
0 Votes
+ -
My V4 Honda Accord 4-door 5-speed gets 36-38 mpg on the highway. That's better than some hybrids.

EV need to step it up.
Range and price says it all - These things are WAY to expensive for what you get. The auto industry needs to concentrate on these two things before the public will ever bite and stop trying to peddle half baked solutions that no one wants. GM has already cut back on the Volt production. They need to be sensible & quit rushing these cars to production until the range & price fits what Americans will buy.
0 Votes
+ -
What other surprises?
Robert Hahn 17th Feb
There's also resale value. Deserved or not, 35% of those polled worry about fires. When a third of the market is scared of the product, the resale value gets clobbered. Plus there's just the fact that these things are new. What other surprises might lurk in them that would hurt resale?

Ultimately time and familiarity will make most of these go away. But not for a good ten years.
0 Votes
+ -
What other surprises?
ScorpioBlack 17th Feb
Never mind the range & price.

How about finding a convenient electrical outlet to plug it into?

Or if it's raining outside, do you get electrocuted when you do plug it in?

Or the added coal and nuclear powerplants we'd have to add to the nation's electrical grid to meet demand?

Gee, nobody wants to think about any of that. Doh.
if all passenger cars in the United States were electrical. I used gallons of gas burned as provided by the DOT, the energy in a gallon of gasoline, the efficiency of gasoline vs. electric, and assumed one coal-fired power plant would produce 500 megawatts. The number was 50 new power plants. Good luck with getting those built.
as we make a hundred million battery packs. You think oil is rare? Try lithium.
-1 Votes
+ -
More surprises
panelshop Updated - 20th Feb
Has anyone come up with battery replacement costs, what about green fees to dispose of the old batteries? Forget the claimed 10 year life span, the batteries will fail short time or long, youll need a lawyer to figure out the warranty exclusions. Has any of the manufacturers mentioned that the battery life gets shorter as the pack ages, ask your professional contractor who uses portable tools about life expectancy as batteries get used.

baggins_z mentions lithium shortages!! and the need for additional power plants, who has calculated this cost. What about the cost of hydro, here in Canada it's increasing considerably faster than inflation, what'll happen with millions of electric vehicles on the road?

ScorpioBlack mentions heat and A/C, electric heat is the most efficient available, 1500 watts (1.5KW) is 1500 watts of heat (5118 BTUs) but we will pull this straight out of the battery pack, for heat in the northern US and Canada we would need a minimum of 5 to 10kw for alone, wow what a drain on the battery! Hey, maybe take a page from the old VW Beetle, put a gasoline heater in the EV, that would save the batteries. While we're at it let's heat the battery pack with the same gasoline heater during the winter to try to maintain your driving range, I may be wrong but lithium batteries could lose 50% of their energy at 0c (32F) just like lead acid cells do. Lets forgo the heat and wear heavy fur clothing and wrap a fur blanky around the battery pack, damn thats no good PETA will get all upset!

ScorpioBlack mentions electrocution, there would be (or should be) safety interlocks and GFIs (ground fault interrupts) as well as insulated disconnect switches for connecting the battery chargers.

Speaking of charging, the faster you charge a battery the shorter its lifespan, so dont fast charge the pack.

OK, Ill stop my rant before I say too much and get put on a hit list.

PS
MoeFugger, I drive a Ford Supercrew as well, lets see an EV replace this for my 60km daily commute with my electricians tools in it!
"...even though most cars currently available have a much larger range that the average American drives during the course of a day."

You are implying that range shouldn't be an issue, then?

Listen, "averages" don't mean much here. I don't buy a vehicle based on what I might need in an average day; I buy a vehicle to cover as much of my transportation needs as possible. Having a vehicle that gets me to-and-from work everyday, but is useless if I want to go out of town over the weekend or even for a jaunt to the far side of the Metro area, well...that's just a total waste to me. It's not an attractive option at all.

That proponents of these short-range vehicles try to gloss over this glaring deficiency just baffles me! They're baffled at the lack of mass adoption by the general populace and I'm baffled at their bafflement! happy

I was very interested in the Chevy Volt concept when I first heard about it, but its actual implementation in the end strayed toward the hybrid concept as I understand it, rather than a truly electric vehicle with a gas-powered generator for extended range. My interest waned a bit. Then I heard that there were still concerns about battery fires/explosions/meltdowns in a crash. As a consumer, this dampened my enthusiasm further (and I fully admit that I don't know how much of a concern it should be, but I have a memory of an early electric car in our town that caught fire one day--I was just across the street and saw it happen--and within minutes was a total loss. Luckily the driver was able to quickly bale). So, the industry still has their job cut out for them: They need to create a compelling product that satisfies the vast majority of my transportation needs while quelling my safety concerns and to-date they have not. It's not my responsibility to feel like I need to make sacrifices and buy their lacking products because that's the "best they're able to do" and/or because someone else thinks I need to help the environment (which in this case is of questionable value to that end, anyway). I'll venture to bet that such practical considerations are the root of many people's thoughts.
@tr7oy

"Listen, 'averages' don't mean much here. I don't buy a vehicle based on what I might need in an average day; I buy a vehicle to cover as much of my transportation needs as possible"

Agreed. Totally agreed.

Let's be honest: Most people can't afford an extra vehicle only for work. They just can't. Cars are an expensive, long-term investment. Most families will have one or two. Not everybody can be Jay Leno.

Thus, the vast majority of people need a vehicle that doesn't just handle every day trips, but also handles trips they take less frequently.

I think this is a real problem for electric vehicles.

And I think glossing over it like Heather does is not doing the industry any real favors. She needs to recognize that this is a real issue, and one that simply cannot be glossed over with statistics. The EV industry really does need to address this shortcoming in a real way, and in a way that doesn't increase the cost of the vehicle itself.
right around what a typical American drives in a day. As if your average driver does all their driving by 10 PM so they can plug the car in for an overnight charge. EVERY NIGHT.
0 Votes
+ -
include a gasoline engine for backup to get any kind of decent range. Here's an idea: why not keep all the streamlining and high-tech range extending technology, then dump the thousand pounds of batteries and go with a regular IC engine and get 60 MPG.
The biggest issue for me is the additional cost of an electrical powered vehicle. The California Air Resources board is going to require that car manufactures start selling a certain percentage of electrical vehicles in the coming years. They also released a study on the costs of these cars. The study showed that, on average, an electric vehicle will cost $12,000 more than a comparable non-electric vehicle. The study also showed that over the life time of the car it would be $6,000 cheaper to operate. So the bottom line is the bottom line. It would cost me $6,000 more to own and operate an electric car. This makes no economic sense to me.
0 Votes
+ -
Vote for more of it
Robert Hahn 17th Feb
You should pay $6,000 more for your car in order to clean the environment so that I, who live in another State, don't have to. Think of how virtuous you'll be. Maybe you'll even get 72 virgins in the afterlife or something.
@gribittmep

Do you own a hybrid car? Why not? Too expensive? Back in '06 I heard a quote from a "GM executive" that "The American car buyer cares more about cup holders than they care about gas mileage". That was when I KNEW that an American car company would NEVER give me the hybrid I wanted. GM forced me to buy a Prius.

Well I can say for certain that for 2011 (12/31/10 through 1/6/12) my Prius went 17,050 miles using 396 gallons of gas (43.3 MPG) costing $1339 (average $3.40/gal). That's not highway miles, city miles or coasting miles, it's 24/7/365 miles, including going 5 mph on the throughway and idling the engine while I scrape the ice off the windows. I did lose about 2 mpg when I replaced the OEM Integrity with Triple Tred tires (12/31/10), but that's OK.

So, if I traveled the same with a car like my '67 Olds Delmont 88 425, 300 HP getting 14 mpg, I would have paid ~$2680 more for gas (about $220/month). If I compare against 14 MPG for the full 63,000 miles on the Prius since 2/10/07, I figure I've saved about $8600.

BTW, did that "study" include the $4.00 per gallon gas that John Boehner is talking about today?
I was considering a Volt, but the back seat can only take 2 passengers. I need to fit 3 back there regularly.
exist.

And, like anything else that government gets involved in, it's always more expensive, and its usefulness is less than desirable.

If the free-market were left to decide, the Volt wouldn't exist, and the Leaf would never have even been designed. In other words, the free-market, aka: the people, had no desire or need for such vehicles.

Those things are not ready for prime-time. R&D on them might be needed, and the car companies should continue trying to get something that approaches the utility of the gasoline-powered vehicles, but, they shouldn't be pushed onto the free-market if they're still as useless as they are today. Government should get the heck out of free enterprise, and let the people decide. Subsidizing the purchase of vehicles to the few, at the expense of the taxpayers, is wasteful and dictatorial, in a sense. Even the hybrids, are an idea which is less than "as advertised", with many of those vehicles producing MPGs that are less than many regular gasoline-powered cars.

EVs and hybrids are being produced to serve the agenda of the environmentalists, and not the agenda of the majority of the people or of the free-market. As a result, they're wasteful and inefficient and counterproductive.
@adornoe@...
A/C electricity. Radio. Television. Gasoline. Land-line telephones. Cellular telephones. GPS. The internet. And while each of these were being implemented, there were plenty of people like you saying "Why is the government trying to force this on us? We don't need it." The free market certainly wasn't going to pay the up-front cost of building the infrastructure needed for any of these things. Moving beyond any of these technologies is going to take the same kind of government intervention because the free market still refuses to pay for its own infrastructure needs. That's just reality. Once the market has been firmly established, they may start pitching in but getting the market off the ground? Forget about it. Ain't happening. And once the market has replaced old technology, people will talk about the days before it existed in stories like "You know, I remember when I was a kid and we...". Kinda like my great grandmother would talk about going to town on a horse, my grandmother would talk about sitting around the radio in the evenings, my mother talks about having to wait until she got home to call someone and I can talk about having to watch the news on TV in the evening to know what was going on in the world.
0 Votes
+ -
That's a lot of bull, jason...
adornoe@... 19th Feb
Fact is that, without government intervention, most of what was invented or created, was done by the private sector, and most of what people need or use, they can do without government involvement.

So, are you saying that, TV or radio or internet, or GPS or cell-phones, gasoline, would not have entered into the free market without the government getting involved. That's pure nuttiness.

Infrastructure for most useful devices or services, are developed by the free market, and, even if government's hand was needed in a few in order to accelerate acceptance/adoption, you can bet that, eventually, they would have entered the free market.

Now, when government needs to do something, like for the military, chances are that, they'll contract out the work to those in the free market system who do understand the technology to make it work. In other words, the resources and know-how already existed to make things work. There are many things that government does, like the military, that can't be farmed out to the free market system, and thus, we end up with many discoveries/inventions/methods that eventually enter the free market. But, if the know-how and the initiative is mostly from the free enterprise system, then, it can be argued that, government's hand wasn't needed. Government can inject the impetus and the cash to make things happen faster, but, again, it's not because it was intended as a benefit to the private sector, although the private sector will, no doubt, get major benefits.

In the current case of EVs, the consumer is resisting, and no amount of government intervention is going to get people to accept those expensive lemons. It's a waste of time and effort and money. That effort and time and money can best be used to improve something that already works, and that's the gasoline/diesel/natural gas/fossil-powered engines. In fact, many of those types of vehicles already outperform the EVs and hybrids. So, let's let the market dictate the direction it wants to take.

Now, when it comes to government involvement, the infrastructure that it's supposed to support is the free-market system. While there may be some benefits derived from government involvement in some instances, the majority of time we would be better off with keeping them out of our lives and out of determining between winners and losers. The EV is a loser, and the only reason it exists in the public conversation, is because of government insistence on it. Yet, that insistence is directed by the environmental lobbies, which are making things a lot more expensive and troublesome for the automobile sector and for the driving public.

If you want to see the effect of government intervention into the free market system, look no further than all of the outsourcing of businesses and the millions of jobs that have been transferred to other countries. If you want to see the effect of government intervention into our lives, look no further than the number of people who have become dependent upon government for their subsistence. About half of people have become dependent upon government support of one form or another, and about 1/3 of them are completely dependent upon government for everything.

When it comes to government subsidizing anything, oil companies or agriculture or anything else, they've stepped over their bounds, according to the constitution.

So, even if some of the things had not entered our lives through government, we'd still be better off. Government spending and government intervention has given us a country on the verge of bankruptcy, and in fact, we are bankrupt, because, we don't have the money to ever pay back the debt; it's impossible!

EVs are being shoved down our throats by government, and we actually don't need them. You might argue the point, but EVs are redundant when we already have automobiles which are much more efficient and cost a lot less, and which have an infrastructure which is highly efficient and easily accessible. EVs are mostly a burden on society, with government trying to make it happen by forcing auto companies to produce them and then subsidize them at the purchase point. That's not only wasteful, it's highly stupid.

So, while you're not 100% wrong, you are 100% wrong about needing government to make things happen. Government should be about national defense, and justice systems, and police and fire departments, and road building; but, it should not be about picking winners and losers. The people know what they want or need, and choosing EVs over gasoline powered vehicles is about picking a government approved choice. Government does not know best for the people. It should be the people making the choices, and then, all that's needed from government, is the support system for allowing people to make those choices.
  • Flagged
Couple of things:
1) Appears to me that most of the people whining about problems for electric vehicles (see baggins_z, ScorpioBlack, etc. above) likely have a financial interest in maintaining oil and its derivatives in vehicles. Exxon has been making in excess of $40B in annual profits lately, and overall there's an awful lot of people who want to continue to make lots of money selling oil for as much as they can.
2) I don't trust GM or most of the other CARB EV participants. Why was it necessary to crush/shread ALL of the EVs that were developed? Reminds me of Arthur Andersen shredding documents; getting rid of the evidence which didn't support their claims.
3) What is the current state of the COBASYS patents? The whole GM to Texaco to Chevron, to sitting on the whole NiMH technology has always stunk. I'm sure that the oil industry made many $billions by using COBASYS to stifle EVs.
4) As a Prius owner, in my opinion, the only company I would trust to build an EV right now is Toyota. They have more battery reliability experience than the rest of the industry combined, and, unlike everyone else, did NOT crush their Rav-4 EVs, some of which are still on the road.
5) The ONLY reason for using hydrogen in vehicles is to enable the oil companies to maintain their control and profits, via distributing hydrogen rather than oil.
and always with no real success. The only reason we hear so much about them now is because, the government has taken it upon themselves to shove the technology down our throats. And, hybrids are no different, and they too are overly expensive and not what they're touted to be, and their MPGs are not really anything to write home about.
@adornoe@...
As I pointed out in a previous post, most of the true life-changing technologies of the last 150 years were forced on us by government. Whether it's the power or natural gas line coming into your home, the radio you turn on in the car, the television you watch, the internet you use, the streets and highways you drive on, the airports you fly in and out of, the gasoline you fill up your car with, the GPS you use to find your way on the road, the 911 service you depend on to provide emergency services like ambulance, fire and police...all forced on us by government. All developed with direct or indirect government assistance. All built on infrastructure paid for directly or indirectly with tax dollars. There are plenty of examples of nations in this world with governments that stay out of the free markets. None would be a place anyone would choose to live given a choice. They're called third world countries not because their government is too active in their markets, but because their government is absent from them. There is a balance that needs to be maintained, but in emerging markets that balance will always be tilted towards more government involvement than less. Without that involvement, very few markets will survive infancy.
of the free market system.

The function of government, at least in the U.S., is not to determine between winners and losers, and it's not to tell us what's good for us. People know how to live their lives without intrusive government.

Government intrusion only serves to make people more dependent on that government, and no matter what the intrusion, people can do without it, and they actually can be more productive.

Government is in the middle of trying to wean us away from fossil fuels, and most of is intended to serve the ideology of the environmentalists. None of the new energy initiatives, like windmills and electric vehicles, have been as cost effective or as energy efficient as oil or coal or natural gas. Yet, we are to believe that, government knows best? Anybody that believes that can also be sold a bridge to the moon. It's illogical and nonsensical.

Government does have its functions, but it's not to tell us what's best for us. The last few times that government got so intrusive, the results weren't too great. What you and others believe, is the same as people in other societies and other times. The USSR and Hitler's Germany were prime examples of what awaits us if we continue down the road we're in.

You and others might be feeling comfortable right now because, you have a job and you likely don't have too many problems facing you right now, but, if we continue down the same path this country has been in for many decades, what awaits you and millions of others won't be lovely.

The lessons of history can't be ignored, and we are a country that failed to learn the lessons of the past.

"25 Signs That The Nazification Of America Is Almost Complete "

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012021615632/life-and-science/culture-wars/25-signs-that-the-nazification-of-america-is-almost-complete.html?utm_campaign=8c08076699-Sunday_News_Edition2_18_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Right+Side+News

"Kevin Myers: Energy policy based on renewables will win hearts but won't protect their owners from frostbite and death due to exposure"

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-energy-policy-based-on-renewables-will-win-hearts-but-wont-protect-their-owners-from-frostbite-and-death-due-to-exposure-3012098.html

From the above:

"Russia's main gas-company, Gazprom, was unable to meet demand last weekend as blizzards swept across Europe, and over three hundred people died. Did anyone even think of deploying our wind turbines to make good the energy shortfall from Russia?

Of course not. We all know that windmills are a self-indulgent and sanctimonious luxury whose purpose is to make us feel good. Had Europe genuinely depended on green energy on Friday, by Sunday thousands would be dead from frostbite and exposure, and the EU would have suffered an economic body blow to match that of Japan's tsunami a year ago. No electricity means no water, no trams, no trains, no airports, no traffic lights, no phone systems, no sewerage, no factories, no service stations, no office lifts, no central heating and even no hospitals, once their generators run out of fuel. "

"Without coal, oil and nuclear energy, mass deaths of the old and the young would have occurred on the first night. Three nights on of such conditions, and even the physically fit would have been dying of exposure, as the temperature inside dwellings fell and began to match that of the outside, an inverse image of what happened during the French heatwave 10 years ago, when there was no escape from the heat. "

"... madder still that RTE or the BBC will continue to trot out their pet wind-enthusiasts to bluster balderdash and poppycock about global warming and how renewables are the solution -- and without the contrary point of view ever being given an airing. This is dogma, as created, promulgated and enforced by the John Charles McQuaids of our time -- and if sceptics are not actually anathematised from the pulpit, they are ruthlessly and systematically ignored. These dishonest, hypocritical and deceitful energy policies are now widely accepted by our political and teaching classes as being the very embodiment of environmentalist virtue. Such imbecilic virtue, if implemented as energy policy across Europe, could have brought about a human catastrophe last weekend. "
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Laughable
ScorpioBlack Updated - 27th Feb
1) Appears to me that most of the people whining about problems for electric vehicles (see baggins_z, ScorpioBlack, etc. above) likely have a financial interest in maintaining oil and its derivatives in vehicles.

Wish I had oil stock but I don't. happy

No, I'm just not interested in looking for an electrical outlet all the time just so I can make a lame extended range 40 mile round trip in a glorified golf cart running on lithium batteries.

Btw, lithium is an expensive, rare metal who's biggest supplier is China. You wanna rely on them?
The second thing people are most nervous about electric car: Safety!!! I knew Homo Sapiens were stupid but never imaging that much. So they are afraid that lithium batteries leaks during a crash and stains their cloths or give their skin some red patches.. YEAH SURE pour on me 25 gallons of highly inflammable gasoline anytime and light it up I much rather have that!!! Shouldn't we all!
The problem is that we are a species more of habits not brain, I know that when cars replaced horses at the end of last century, people had the same stupid comments about cars and drove their horses up until they realize how stupid they were. History just keeps repeating it-self because we don't want to learn from it.
history of electric cars.

So, 100 years ago, people were skeptical and/or scared of moving from horse-drawn carriages to the automobiles. But, we managed to move away from that, even with the apprehensions. Now, when it comes to the electric vehicles, that technology has also been around for about 100 years, and people were, again skeptical. However, the difference with electric vehicles is that, they've had 100 years to prove themselves, and they've failed at every turn. You can't say the same for the move from the horse-and-buggy to cars, which, have proven to be worthy and accepted and quite cost efficient. And, again, the EVs have had enough time to prove themselves, but, they've failed every time. So, in order to get them "accepted" the government is forcing the manufacturers to produce them, and is, at the same time, subsidizing the purchase of those vehicles at the consumer level. The automobiles didn't have to be subsidized, and they're still the much better option.

History teaches great lessons, but, picking and choosing the lessons one wants to learn means that, other just as important, or more important, lessons will be missed.

It's always better to examine the whole picture.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix