New Lithium Batteries Offer Double The Capacity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
We’ve heard similar things before, but I guess it doesn’t hurt to be optimistic. Someone has substituted graphite with “lithium metal foil” to make a far more efficient battery, but who knows if commercialization will be successful.

SolidEnergy Systems has developed an “anode-free” lithium metal battery with several material advances that make it twice as energy-dense, yet just as safe and long-lasting as the lithium ion batteries used in smartphones, electric cars, wearables, drones, and other devices. “With two-times the energy density, we can make a battery half the size, but that still lasts the same amount of time, as a lithium ion battery. Or we can make a battery the same size as a lithium ion battery, but now it will last twice as long,” says Hu, who co-invented the battery at MIT and is now CEO of SolidEnergy.
 
That would be fantastic. That would put 300-400 mile ranges within grasp of many electric vehicles, which I think would over come most peoples range anxiety. Just use the destroyer of worlds on the long range road trips.
 
Its sad that you have to explain this to general public.

With two-times the energy density, we can make a battery half the size, but that still lasts the same amount of time, as a lithium ion battery. Or we can make a battery the same size as a lithium ion battery, but now it will last twice as long.

or when news has to explain that 29% is 3 out of 10...
 
westrock2000 said:
That would be fantastic. That would put 300-400 mile ranges within grasp of many electric vehicles, which I think would over come most peoples range anxiety. Just use the destroyer of worlds on the long range road trips.
Click to expand...
If 200 miles isn't enough, I doubt 300-400 would be enough, people gonna be people and bitch up a storm regardless.
 
westrock2000 said:
That would be fantastic. That would put 300-400 mile ranges within grasp of many electric vehicles, which I think would over come most peoples range anxiety. Just use the destroyer of worlds on the long range road trips.
Click to expand...
Give me one with 400 mile range and I will buy. Range is the reason I did not buy one earlier this year. If I can't drive it to San Antonio or Houston from north Dallas, I ain't buying. Nothing to do with anxiety, it has to do with being able to get there.
 
TwiceOver said:
Hey look, another battery technology I'll never see.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any of their detailed reports, but 99% of this stuff is just used to make headlines. They aren't actually financially viable in most cases, or they can't be scaled to any useful real world application. In most cases though it's just way too expensive to be viable.
 
ChefJeff789 said:
This is my only issue as well. I hate the buzzwordy phrase "range anxiety," because it paints over the biggest problem facing electric vehicles. I won't buy one until I can take it literally everywhere I might want to drive.
Click to expand...
So you will never buy one?

Me personally I'm happy the market (mainly Tesla) is pushing the technology regardless of the people who complain 200 miles of range isn't enough. The batteries are not the problem, it's people who drive that far regularly that are the problem.
 
sfsuphysics said:
If 200 miles isn't enough, I doubt 300-400 would be enough, people gonna be people and bitch up a storm regardless.
Click to expand...

I drive 130 miles round trip for my commute. It might be obscene where you come from, but in DFW it's not uncommon at all.

200 miles is not enough to cover all possibilities with a safe headroom. And I have driven nearly 200 miles in one day just "shopping". It's what we do in DFW.
 
sfsuphysics said:
If 200 miles isn't enough, I doubt 300-400 would be enough, people gonna be people and bitch up a storm regardless.
Click to expand...

My father lives 90 miles away. Easy 180 mile round trip to visit in a traditional ICE vehicle. A 200 mile range EV doesn't leave any room for road detours and I doubt allows for the energy usage of the climate control system. And buying an EV as a second vehicle incurs a second charge for liability insurance. Until we insure drivers instead of vehicles for liability risks, EVs will be a hard sell as a 2nd vehicle. Even if the EV was free, the insurance costs will eat most of the fuel savings.

If this new battery tech does prove marketable and safe, it will be a big help for the home solar panel market.
 
sfsuphysics said:
If 200 miles isn't enough, I doubt 300-400 would be enough, people gonna be people and bitch up a storm regardless.
Click to expand...

Here is the other thing for my scenario. In addition to regularly driving lots of miles, I also have to think about the fact that the AC is going to be on full blast for 3 months out of the year, and the heater will be running for 1-2 months out of the year. The AC and heating system have a huge effect on the range of the car. This report showed a 20-50% loss in range. Thats the kind of stuff that worries me. I have been thinking about the Chevy Bolt coming out later this year to replace my wifes car. It should get a little over 300 miles per charge, which is great. But my overhead margin is about 50%. So I think 150 miles in absolute worst conditions is probably adequate for the family car. But I would still commute in my 40+ MPG Honda Fit.
 
lostinseganet said:
I think 1,200 milee range in winter would be enough. The battery would also need to last 15 years.
Click to expand...


I actually think we'll get to that point, and at such a point gasoline cars will be in major decline, not to mention jet fueled planes for interstate flights.
 
I'm in the Southern Californian desert this summer and we're hitting 110 regularly but it was 120 last month. My wife and I are only driving surface streets with our eGolf and with the A/C we're getting about half our normal 100 mile range. If we take it on the freeway at 75, even for a short hop of a few miles, the range drops precipitously. Those of you in Texas would need a 400 mile range car to get 100-150...and that's new. In a few years, after some normal degradation (even ignoring the high heat and ranges putting extra wear and tear on it) you wouldn't be able to make your commutes.
 
Screw double the capacity, I want NO lifetime loss of capacity or significantly lowering the manufacturing cost of what we are using right now.
 
westrock2000 said:
I drive 130 miles round trip for my commute. It might be obscene where you come from, but in DFW it's not uncommon at all.

200 miles is not enough to cover all possibilities with a safe headroom. And I have driven nearly 200 miles in one day just "shopping". It's what we do in DFW.
Click to expand...

Oooo! another local DFW resident :) hallo!

What part are you in? I'm just south of the DFW airport off 161 in N. Grand Prairie, I drive to Waxahahcie for work 5 to 6X a week (70ish mile round trip commute)

Even with my some times lead foot, I still do 75% of my commute in all electrice mode (that's with AC going as well) in my 2nd Gen Volt. Would i love more range? Of course, I'm still saving money eithier way though :)
 
Between fancy new battery technologies we never see and prototype solar panels breaking new records every year (that we will never see) the future is NOW (we will never see)
 
lostinseganet said:
I think 1,200 milee range in winter would be enough. The battery would also need to last 15 years.
Click to expand...
Hey since we're asking, don't forget the "Must fully charge in 5 minutes or it's no go!"

westrock2000 said:
I drive 130 miles round trip for my commute. It might be obscene where you come from, but in DFW it's not uncommon at all.

200 miles is not enough to cover all possibilities with a safe headroom. And I have driven nearly 200 miles in one day just "shopping". It's what we do in DFW.
Click to expand...
Don't take offense at this, even though it will sound that way. But the battery technology isn't the problem, you are the problem. You and everyone else who has these huge commutes that must be done on a daily base due to suburban sprawl. To every business who decides they must set up shop in a particular city which means every other business must do the same so that all the desirable jobs are in one location where they can't possibly live either feasibly or financially. You are seriously the poster child for that HyperLoop thing that just sticks your car in a big air tube and fires you nonstop to the city where the jobs are and then you can do your commute in your vehicle.

Trust me, I've lived my whole life in the San Francisco bay area, and in over 40 years I have seen how bad the commute has gotten as people go farther and farther out for affordable housing (makes me wonder how the people paying rent with shit jobs can afford to be honest). Everyone screams "Affordable housing" when the real solution is just to spread the jobs out. Why must there be *A* location for all the tech companies? The idea used to be being near by a school so you have access to workers, yeah after college even those going to Stanford couldn't afford to live here. It's crazy. Now I'm lucky, in that parents, grandparents, etc, has the foresight to buy houses in the area when they were still cheap (my parents house cost like $25k 40ish years ago, which was an EASILY affordable price for a house 40 years ago), but unfortunately I still have to deal with the backlash, of either horrible traffic wanting to get anywhere, the complete lack of parking anywhere, and unfortunately the further crowding due to vertical building and people moving here somehow in an area that isn't affordable.


Dead Parrot said:
My father lives 90 miles away. Easy 180 mile round trip to visit in a traditional ICE vehicle. A 200 mile range EV doesn't leave any room for road detours and I doubt allows for the energy usage of the climate control system. And buying an EV as a second vehicle incurs a second charge for liability insurance. Until we insure drivers instead of vehicles for liability risks, EVs will be a hard sell as a 2nd vehicle. Even if the EV was free, the insurance costs will eat most of the fuel savings.
Click to expand...
Well you hit the nail on the head, insurance drivers not vehicles and see where that brings you. It's funny you can get comprehensive insurance and then you as a driver can drive any other vehicle (i.e. rent-a-car) and you as a driver are covered if you get in an accident with your insurance. But you can't have 4 cars and expect to pay the same as the neighbor with 1 car.

But that was my point, people are ALWAYS going to have a point to complain about. There's always some problem, their commute, their parents, the weather. There's a real good reason why California sells the most EVs, we don't have as many weather issues as other places, and even those who live relatively far away it's still not crazy Texas distances for commuting, it's just super long because it's a lot of traffic, but stop and go is fine for EVs ... as long as you aren't an idiot (i.e. you're not most drivers) and accelerate fast and stop hard.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Hey since we're asking, don't forget the "Must fully charge in 5 minutes or it's no go!"


Don't take offense at this, even though it will sound that way. But the battery technology isn't the problem, you are the problem. You and everyone else who has these huge commutes that must be done on a daily base due to suburban sprawl. To every business who decides they must set up shop in a particular city which means every other business must do the same so that all the desirable jobs are in one location where they can't possibly live either feasibly or financially. You are seriously the poster child for that HyperLoop thing that just sticks your car in a big air tube and fires you nonstop to the city where the jobs are and then you can do your commute in your vehicle.

Trust me, I've lived my whole life in the San Francisco bay area, and in over 40 years I have seen how bad the commute has gotten as people go farther and farther out for affordable housing (makes me wonder how the people paying rent with shit jobs can afford to be honest). Everyone screams "Affordable housing" when the real solution is just to spread the jobs out. Why must there be *A* location for all the tech companies? The idea used to be being near by a school so you have access to workers, yeah after college even those going to Stanford couldn't afford to live here. It's crazy. Now I'm lucky, in that parents, grandparents, etc, has the foresight to buy houses in the area when they were still cheap (my parents house cost like $25k 40ish years ago, which was an EASILY affordable price for a house 40 years ago), but unfortunately I still have to deal with the backlash, of either horrible traffic wanting to get anywhere, the complete lack of parking anywhere, and unfortunately the further crowding due to vertical building and people moving here somehow in an area that isn't affordable.



Well you hit the nail on the head, insurance drivers not vehicles and see where that brings you. It's funny you can get comprehensive insurance and then you as a driver can drive any other vehicle (i.e. rent-a-car) and you as a driver are covered if you get in an accident with your insurance. But you can't have 4 cars and expect to pay the same as the neighbor with 1 car.

But that was my point, people are ALWAYS going to have a point to complain about. There's always some problem, their commute, their parents, the weather. There's a real good reason why California sells the most EVs, we don't have as many weather issues as other places, and even those who live relatively far away it's still not crazy Texas distances for commuting, it's just super long because it's a lot of traffic, but stop and go is fine for EVs ... as long as you aren't an idiot (i.e. you're not most drivers) and accelerate fast and stop hard.
Click to expand...
Maybe people like him can get aeromobiles "Google it. Its pretty neato"
 
sfsuphysics said:
But that was my point, people are ALWAYS going to have a point to complain about. There's always some problem, their commute, their parents, the weather. There's a real good reason why California sells the most EVs, we don't have as many weather issues as other places, and even those who live relatively far away it's still not crazy Texas distances for commuting, it's just super long because it's a lot of traffic, but stop and go is fine for EVs ... as long as you aren't an idiot (i.e. you're not most drivers) and accelerate fast and stop hard.
Click to expand...
And that doesn't make their complaints any less valid. Hey, guess what, not everyone lives in places where these systems are viable. Instead of finding a solution that's viable and achievable for everyone, all we get from the pro-EV crowd is "It's not the cars fault it can't handle your requirements, it's YOUR fault. YOU need to change every little facet of your life until MY solution is good enough." It's a crock of shit and I ain't hungry.
 
mope54 said:
I'm in the Southern Californian desert this summer and we're hitting 110 regularly but it was 120 last month. My wife and I are only driving surface streets with our eGolf and with the A/C we're getting about half our normal 100 mile range. If we take it on the freeway at 75, even for a short hop of a few miles, the range drops precipitously. Those of you in Texas would need a 400 mile range car to get 100-150...and that's new. In a few years, after some normal degradation (even ignoring the high heat and ranges putting extra wear and tear on it) you wouldn't be able to make your commutes.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure tesla cars are better engineered for battery durability. I think some of the initial nissan leaf models did not have climate controls for their batteries to make sure they did not get too hot or cold with ambient temperature and lower the life of them and range. You'll still take a distance hit in a tesla, but a smaller one compared to the trash heaps of most electric cars that are ONLY made for compliance and sold in california.
 
The batteries not powerful enough until it can smelt the entire car down to a molten blob of metal when you get a short circuit.
 
Extra-Titanian said:
And that doesn't make their complaints any less valid. Hey, guess what, not everyone lives in places where these systems are viable. Instead of finding a solution that's viable and achievable for everyone, all we get from the pro-EV crowd is "It's not the cars fault it can't handle your requirements, it's YOUR fault. YOU need to change every little facet of your life until MY solution is good enough." It's a crock of shit and I ain't hungry.
Click to expand...
And that's the problem in itself, the only solution that's "viable and achievable for everyone" is gasoline powered cars. And then you have the anti-EV crowd (thanks for the thought), is "it sucks not enough range" "Doesn't have the advertised lifespan when I'm driving 80mph uphill when it's 100+ outside with the AC cranked" and all this bitching says one thing "If it doesn't work for my lifestyle than NO ONE should have it". I don't care if it's not a solution for you, I don't like Coke either but I don't go around saying how horrible Coke is, how it makes my teeth feel gritty, or any other negative shit whenever someone mentions a new flavor of Coke is coming out, and most of all, I'm not trying to convert you to drink Pepsi either

So yes it is YOUR fault, that current EV technology doesn't work for you, don't fucking use it, sit around and wait until it is useful for you, and continue to use what is available to you and in the mean time stop pissing on my parade because I forgot to bring an umbrella.
 
sfsuphysics said:
And that's the problem in itself, the only solution that's "viable and achievable for everyone" is gasoline powered cars. And then you have the anti-EV crowd (thanks for the thought), is "it sucks not enough range" "Doesn't have the advertised lifespan when I'm driving 80mph uphill when it's 100+ outside with the AC cranked" and all this bitching says one thing "If it doesn't work for my lifestyle than NO ONE should have it". I don't care if it's not a solution for you, I don't like Coke either but I don't go around saying how horrible Coke is, how it makes my teeth feel gritty, or any other negative shit whenever someone mentions a new flavor of Coke is coming out, and most of all, I'm not trying to convert you to drink Pepsi either

So yes it is YOUR fault, that current EV technology doesn't work for you, don't fucking use it, sit around and wait until it is useful for you, and continue to use what is available to you and in the mean time stop pissing on my parade because I forgot to bring an umbrella.
Click to expand...
And that's why so many of us support alternative/renewable fuels. The infrastructure is there. We've been able to build 70+ mpg cars for years. Everything from small commuter vehicles to large freight trucks can use it. The refining process is already there. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. But instead of getting even the slightest acknowledgement, the EV crowd behaves like the first gen Prius crowd and acts like shit to everyone not jumping in their pool. We're not "luddites" or whatever buzzword you can can come up with, we're not "slaves to big oil" or whatever, we're realists. Because half measures are worse than doing nothing. Why should we invest BILLIONS of dollars in something that's not going to ultimately fix the problem? Why should we have two broken ass systems across the country? It's not any different from the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray debacle. Remember what a headache that was? Electric cars are fun for scooting around town or whatever, but mainstream America needs a real solution, and calling 200 miles on a single charge a victory isn't it.
 
westrock2000 said:
That would be fantastic. That would put 300-400 mile ranges within grasp of many electric vehicles, which I think would over come most peoples range anxiety. Just use the destroyer of worlds on the long range road trips.
Click to expand...
A vehicle's range isn't primarily limited by the size of the pack, but the cost. They could put twice the amount of lithium batteries in current vehicles, but that would be twice the cost, so a $10K battery pack would become a $20K battery pack.

And that $20K battery pack, just like your laptop, tablet, and phone battery, has a limited life and will lose how much charge it can hold every year until it has to be replaced at great expense... in this case, twice the expense.

That's why some are still using NIMH tech is simply a cost matter.

What we really need are CHEAPER batteries.
 
Extra-Titanian said:
And that's why so many of us support alternative/renewable fuels. The infrastructure is there. We've been able to build 70+ mpg cars for years. Everything from small commuter vehicles to large freight trucks can use it. The refining process is already there. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. But instead of getting even the slightest acknowledgement, the EV crowd behaves like the first gen Prius crowd and acts like shit to everyone not jumping in their pool. We're not "luddites" or whatever buzzword you can can come up with, we're not "slaves to big oil" or whatever, we're realists. Because half measures are worse than doing nothing. Why should we invest BILLIONS of dollars in something that's not going to ultimately fix the problem? Why should we have two broken ass systems across the country? It's not any different from the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray debacle. Remember what a headache that was? Electric cars are fun for scooting around town or whatever, but mainstream America needs a real solution, and calling 200 miles on a single charge a victory isn't it.
Click to expand...


I don't want alternative fuels personally for my car. I want electricity. It's a single form of energy that can be supplied from various different types of generation (even off grid generation), on top of ALREADY having built in infrastructure to "refuel" at our homes through the grid. It's a natural type of energy to utilize. Once the range is long enough, there will be zero reason to bother with liquid fuels for regular commuting. The maintenance is lower, electric cars are just better save range and cost. And those are being chipped away at.
 
tybert7 said:
Pretty sure tesla cars are better engineered for battery durability. I think some of the initial nissan leaf models did not have climate controls for their batteries to make sure they did not get too hot or cold with ambient temperature and lower the life of them and range. You'll still take a distance hit in a tesla, but a smaller one compared to the trash heaps of most electric cars that are ONLY made for compliance and sold in california.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about and, since I actually own an EV, I'm pretty sure my observations should have a bit more weight than your theorycrafting.

My eGolf isn't even 10 months old. What I wrote has nothing to do with battery degradation, it has to do with environmental factors that will impose increased draw on the traction battery. Here is the first google link regarding Tesla + highway speeds + AC What is the range of a Model S, 85kw, when driven at 70 - 80 mph? | Tesla Motors

Not much different than what I am experiencing in my eGolf. Yet, like them, I didn't say no one should get an EV. I said if you are living in a place like Texas where you are going to experience temperatures that require climate control (either AC or a heater) and have to drive long distances (and presumably at higher than surface street speeds--it's not like 75 is some ridiculous speed since the speed limit is 70) then you should be aware that you aren't going to get the range on the sticker and plan accordingly.

Especially since he was talking about a Chevy Bolt and not a freaking Tesla! I can guarantee he isn't going to get 200 miles in a Bolt while driving at freeway speeds with the A/C on. But nice shitpost! Calling a MkVII Golf a "trash heap" must have given you that liberating feeling of emptying a colostomy bag.
 
mope54 said:
I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about and, since I actually own an EV, I'm pretty sure my observations should have a bit more weight than your theorycrafting.

My eGolf isn't even 10 months old. What I wrote has nothing to do with battery degradation, it has to do with environmental factors that will impose increased draw on the traction battery. Here is the first google link regarding Tesla + highway speeds + AC What is the range of a Model S, 85kw, when driven at 70 - 80 mph? | Tesla Motors

Not much different than what I am experiencing in my eGolf. Yet, like them, I didn't say no one should get an EV. I said if you are living in a place like Texas where you are going to experience temperatures that require climate control (either AC or a heater) and have to drive long distances (and presumably at higher than surface street speeds--it's not like 75 is some ridiculous speed since the speed limit is 70) then you should be aware that you aren't going to get the range on the sticker and plan accordingly.

Especially since he was talking about a Chevy Bolt and not a freaking Tesla! I can guarantee he isn't going to get 200 miles in a Bolt while driving at freeway speeds with the A/C on. But nice shitpost! Calling a MkVII Golf a "trash heap" must have given you that liberating feeling of emptying a colostomy bag.
Click to expand...


Maybe your e-golf was better engineered than the leaf

DailyTech - Nissan Leaf Battery Can't Take Arizona Heat, Dealerships Knocking $5,000 Off Price

But those were certainly not, could not keep the batteries properly cooled in Arizona, and it had a negative impact on both battery degradation and lifespan, and range.


And I never suggested the Model S would not take a range hit with the AC on or traveling at faster highway speeds. The same occurs in gasoline cars as well.

As for the trash heap comment, VW are nicely made cars, but 50k on any car to me ought to lead to it looking stellar, like the model 3, like an attractive car design. ALL non tesla cars that are pure electrics DO look like trash heaps in the styling department to me. No offense. Many people like the econobox looking hatch shapes, I'm not one of them. Chalk this up to personal taste. Same goes for the bolt, up to 200 miles, and still given a hatch body shape that a gasoline car might share for sub 20k.

The ONLY car company making PURE electrics that does not relegate the design to the marginal "functional" toaster box crowd, is Tesla.

This LOOKS like it costs over 30k

650x366


No econobox looking hatch ever has. If we polled a THOUSAND people, the vast majority would tip the styling preference to the Tesla pure electrics, because they don't go out of their way to make the pure electrics less attractive. They WANT them to look just as good as the best gas cars, if not better, they are not playing, they are not slapping it on a ford focus but leaving it off a much better styled ford fusion. Slapping it on a bolt and leaving off the new malibu.
 
Extra-Titanian said:
And that's why so many of us support alternative/renewable fuels. The infrastructure is there.
Click to expand...
Really? Name one alternative/renewable fuel that has an existing infrastructure and is ready to go now?

But instead of getting even the slightest acknowledgement, the EV crowd behaves like the first gen Prius crowd and acts like shit to everyone not jumping in their pool. We're not "luddites" or whatever buzzword you can can come up with, we're not "slaves to big oil" or whatever, we're realists.
Click to expand...
Slightest acknowledgement... why do I have a feeling this is another "molten sodium" type nuclear argument, or some other fringe tech that in no way does have an infrastructure in place to go. It's funny you say the EV crowd is the bad guys, because every single electric powered car article that has been here has been mostly people bitching about how it doesn't work for them, so hence is stupid. Those people sound like "luddites" because they put forth requirements that currently are unrealistic with any non-gas powered car.

Because half measures are worse than doing nothing. Why should we invest BILLIONS of dollars in something that's not going to ultimately fix the problem? Why should we have two broken ass systems across the country? It's not any different from the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray debacle. Remember what a headache that was? Electric cars are fun for scooting around town or whatever, but mainstream America needs a real solution, and calling 200 miles on a single charge a victory isn't it.
Click to expand...
We invest billions? Ok here's a technology that is working, one with a real infrastructure (power lines), issues are battery storage and energy stability due to environmental issues (heat/cold). Now lets just scrap something that works, with ... (still waiting for ANYONE to produce to actually fill this gap, and hint, a car that gets 70+MPG isn't exactly nirvana you can get that with economy/compact cars if you strip out a lot of safety and emission features).

A quick little internet search shows that only 8% of commuters commute for more than 35 miles one way, so yeah a 200 mile charge should be fine, even if you halve that amount due to whatever. Charge at work, then come home and you're fine and dandy. While yes 8% is a few million people, it's along the same lines of people in "rural" areas complaining about not having high speed internet available to them. You're a minority, deal with it, and do what you can to deal with it, which in your case would be continue to drive a gasoline powered car, and stop attacking every battery powered solution out there because you don't believe that it will fit your lifestyle.
 
Most electric cars are highly niche items that exist only due to massive subsidies (subsidies going towards rich people's third or fourth car), that are NOT necessary to advance the technology.

Hybrids are very much viable vehicles, and also use the exact same battery technology and can organically mature into more and more electric motivated and less reliant on the gas engine or generator as the technology progresses.

Remove all subsidies from electric vehicles, or at least for any owner who makes more than $75K a year, and give perks to vehicles that get more than say 50mpg, which will almost exclusively be hybrid cars, like let them drive on the HOV lanes in cities or have a good part of parking in cities available only to cars that get over 50mpg with a different color inspection sticker or whatever for qualifying vehicles so they are easy for a layman to identify.
 
Ducman69 said:
Most electric cars are highly niche items that exist only due to massive subsidies (subsidies going towards rich people's third or fourth car), that are NOT necessary to advance the technology.

Hybrids are very much viable vehicles, and also use the exact same battery technology and can organically mature into more and more electric motivated and less reliant on the gas engine or generator as the technology progresses.

Remove all subsidies from electric vehicles, or at least for any owner who makes more than $75K a year, and give perks to vehicles that get more than say 50mpg, which will almost exclusively be hybrid cars, like let them drive on the HOV lanes in cities or have a good part of parking in cities available only to cars that get over 50mpg with a different color inspection sticker or whatever for qualifying vehicles so they are easy for a layman to identify.
Click to expand...


You are calling $75k a year rich? Shit in most places that isn't enough to be able to afford a house payment / rent, car payment and other normal bills. If you can afford a hybrid, my guess is that you are making over $75K a year. That said, looking at hybrids I am not seeing anything really over the point you have set for their reported MPG. Most I am seeing are around the 40-45 mpg mark (a few only in the 30s, a very select few at 50). My last gas only car normally got me that type of mpg. So no, we don't need to give anything special like your list to hybrid drivers.
 
Wait a minute, don't leave me behind....I fly RC electric helicopters and want some long lasting batteries! damm it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top