• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nissan sell its 100,000th electric car

100,000 coal burning cars, the most anti-green fuel there is. There is no such thing as zero emission cars. That's be like arguing no gun has ever killed anyone, because it wasn't the gun, but the bullet. Electric cars are the dirtiest of all because of how the electricity to charge them is obtained.

Not all electricity comes from coal, and none of it truly has to. You don't really think any of us "greenies" are suggesting we burn more coal, are you?
 
I use to be on the domestic drilling bandwagon but after 9/11 I began an intensive study on middle eastern sociology and discovered 9/11 was motivated by and funded by American oil addiction involving a geopolitical region that is very volitile and has major anti-Americanism in the popular mindset. Then I actually became even more supportive of domestic drilling falling for the false notion that if we drilled domestically, it would replace our use of petroleum from middle eastern suppliers. However, shortly after that, I discovered just how far advanced electric cars had come and disturbingly, there were concerted efforts that had been made to suppress their development by those who stood to lose trillions of dollars if oil had any significant completion. Meanwhile courageous Americans were being killed and having their limbs blown off in order to preserve the status quo and the insanely wealthy's gravy train. Not long after that, I learned about the oil futures market and how there is no such thing as our own oil, as its sold on the global market. If a US refinery is willing to pay 100 a barrel and China is willing to pay 110 a barrel, it will be sold to China regardless if came from the Gulf of Mexico, Venezuela or or Iran.

All that needs to happen, in my humble opinion, is for the pumped to be primed on electric cars. The drop in the bucket tax credit people get for buying a plug-in is nothing compared to the costs of the War on Terror, where sadly we are funded BOTH our side and the enemy because of oil and in some cases direct funding. There's no secret the Pakistani Military was protecting Osama Bin Laden. Guess who funds the Pakistsni Military? Look on your check stub the next time you get paid; its you.

A monopoly having absolute control over a vital American commodity is not healthy in the best of circumstances. Oil holds a monopoly over American personal transportation. And it's not in the best of circumstances. An international anti-trust cartel engages in what would be criminal activity if OPEC were in America. Even though most of our oil now comes from Canada (it actually fluctuates between Canada, the Mid East, etc. depending on who is cheapest at the moment), OPEC sets the global price including what Canada charges. Oil is funding brutal dictatorships. Oil is funding nuclear proliferation. Oil is indirectly responsible for North Korea's nuclear program. The oil futures market allows wealthy investors to buy oil worldwide before its pumped out of the ground then resells it to the refineries at a greater mark up than what even OPEC charges, taking even more money out of the budgets of American families struggling to make ends meet. Electric cars, by the way cost the equivalent of $1 a gallon to recharge seen on your electric bill.

I know electric cars are not as cost effective to operate as gasoline cars but its only temporary. The first cell phones costs way more than they do now too. Once on the market, every years model is better than the previous. Meanwhile market forces continually drive research to bring down costs and improve the product.

I have nothing against elec cars, I just don't get the exuberance expressed by green types since they are actually more polluting than gas cars.
 
It's called making the rights steps in the right direction. Might not be 100% perfect yet, but at least it's something.

Anything we can do to gain energy independence is the right direction to go.

Think of it this way - before man could walk on the moon, what had to happen first?

More pollution is the right direction? As far as independence we are finding more oil in America all the time and then there is NG which we have in huge amounts.
 
Not all electricity comes from coal, and none of it truly has to. You don't really think any of us "greenies" are suggesting we burn more coal, are you?

OK so 37% of elec cars will be coal cars, happy? :lol:

In 2012, the United States generated about 4,054 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 37% attributed from coal.

Energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation in 2012 were:

•Coal 37%
•Natural Gas 30%
•Nuclear 19%
•Hydropower 7%
•Other Renewable 5%
•Biomass 1.42%
•Geothermal 0.41%
•Solar 0.11%
•Wind 3.46%
•Petroleum 1%
•Other Gases < 1
 
I have nothing against elec cars, I just don't get the exuberance expressed by green types since they are actually more polluting than gas cars.

Do you take a position on the funding of anti-American propaganda in the Middle East, the terrorism it motivates, the funding of homicidal dictatorships, nuclear proliferation in the hands of the most dangerous people on earth, OPEC dictator control over the American family budget, even if we "drilled our own oil" and fool ourselves into thinking that would replace middle east oil all that would do is force the middle east into dangerous alliances with Russia and China and gasoline having a monopoly on personal transportation?
 
Do you take a position on the funding of anti-American propaganda in the Middle East, the terrorism it motivates, the funding of homicidal dictatorships, nuclear proliferation in the hands of the most dangerous people on earth, OPEC dictator control over the American family budget, even if we "drilled our own oil" and fool ourselves into thinking that would replace middle east oil all that would do is force the middle east into dangerous alliances with Russia and China and gasoline having a monopoly on personal transportation?[/QUOTE]

If you think not buying mid east oil would drive them into the arms of Russia and China why do you want elec cars? Your position on this evades me, on the one hand you say we fund terrorist when we buy oil then you say not buying it will drive them into our enemies camp.
 
As far as independence we are finding more oil in America all the time and then there is NG which we have in huge amounts.

Ummmmmmm....see the quote below......from first page of this thread.

For me - the hybrid design seems FAR more "real-world" friendly, but I am glad the all-electric is moving forward.

A hybrid natural gas/electric design would be super cool.
 
I have nothing against elec cars, I just don't get the exuberance expressed by green types since they are actually more polluting than gas cars.
Of course, to make that point stick the people pushing it have to limit an electric car to a ~60k mile lifespan (IIRC), instead of the usual 100k they and most other cars will easily last.

But we wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of the discussion.
 
Of course, to make that point stick the people pushing it have to limit an electric car to a ~60k mile lifespan (IIRC), instead of the usual 100k they and most other cars will easily last.

But we wouldn't want to let facts get in the way of the discussion.

Where did you get that figure?
 
Hybrid vehicles still fall to the fundamental inefficiencies of internal combustion engines. All-electric is the way of the future. Just need to get those pesky batteries worked out better.

I'll get onboard when they cost what a gasoline vehicle does, and are as powerful, and as long-running. Until then, give me the gasoline.
 
Where did you get that figure?
From one of the articles posted by one of you guys in a previous thread on electric cars. In that study they had to assume the electric would only be driven (I believe) 60k miles, though it's been awhile since I read it so I could be wrong on that figure. I know it was well under the standard 100k miles cars are generally given for first owner.


But you could simply substantiate your claim, instead, by citing where you got your (mis) information. I'll read anything about electric cars.
 
I'll get onboard when they cost what a gasoline vehicle does, and are as powerful, and as long-running. Until then, give me the gasoline.
At a 250-300 mile range the Tesla Model S is enough for most people.

I haven't used my daily driver for long trips for years.
 
And the price?
Same as other cars in it's class and with similar horsepower and torque.

The Tesla Raodster was the same, equal or better than other cars in it's class, except for top end speed, which was only ~140 MPH.
 
In it's class. Starting price is above 60 grand. No thanks. I'll take my gas guzzling 15k car.
I'm still driving mine, too. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to seeing all electric on the highways some day.


But don't forget to add in the cost of gas compared to the cost of electricity. When you can "fill up" your gasoline car for less than $10 you let me know. ;)
 
I'm still driving mine, too. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to seeing all electric on the highways some day.


But don't forget to add in the cost of gas compared to the cost of electricity. When you can "fill up" your gasoline car for less than $10 you let me know. ;)

I'm not against electric cars either. I'm just not going to try to force alternative energy on people like some want to do until it is an economically viable option.
 
Electric cars run on coal and none of them exist without government subsidy. In other words, they aren't clean and tax payers have to foot the bill so that some people can feel cool.
 
From one of the articles posted by one of you guys in a previous thread on electric cars. In that study they had to assume the electric would only be driven (I believe) 60k miles, though it's been awhile since I read it so I could be wrong on that figure. I know it was well under the standard 100k miles cars are generally given for first owner.


But you could simply substantiate your claim, instead, by citing where you got your (mis) information. I'll read anything about electric cars.

Links I gave said nothing about the 60K figure so your comment needs substantiated not mine. The only reason I can think why 60K might be figured into the equation is if that is the estimated life of the batteries. Replacing them is so expensive it could be equated to rebuilding the motor in a little 4 banger.

EDIT: I was mistaken, the batteries go farther than I thought but cost more than I thought to replace. 10 K for new batteries, YIKES. This can never compete with a little gas car that can go 200k without major engine work.


The Lifecycle of an Electric Car Battery


"How long will an electric car battery last? The lithium-ion battery pack in the Tesla Roadster is projected to have a lifespan of about 5 years or 100,000 miles. At the end of that time the pack will need to be replaced, at a cost of approximately $10,000. Sure, that's expensive, but the Roadster itself will cost almost $100,000, which makes the cost of the battery pack seem affordable. Many, perhaps most, owners will no doubt prefer to replace the battery pack rather than buy a brand new Roadster."
 
Last edited:
I'll get onboard when they cost what a gasoline vehicle does, and are as powerful, and as long-running. Until then, give me the gasoline.

I think elec cars will someday be the better alternative to gas cars but I don't think making gas artificially high in order to hasten that day is the right course and that is what Obama and his followers are trying to do.
 
Last edited:
I think elec cars will someday be the better alternative to gas cars but I don't think making gas artificially high in order to hasten that day is the right course and that is what Obama and his followers are trying to do.

I agree 100%
 
Two Cents per Mile: Home

Who Killed the Electric Car? on Vimeo

Check this one out too. Not exactly an answer to who is responsible for suppression but a comprehensive overview of the oil problem. It's a 5 part series. Here's part 1. Biggest influencer That changed my mind on domestic drilling to alternatives was this documentary.

Addicted To Oil Part 1 - YouTube

I'll go through those, but it's going to take some time. Still wondering why the hell GM would sell the patent rights on the battery packs to Texaco, unless the technology wasn't all that it was cracked up to be.

The two cents per mile page says the Rav-4's are still going strong, and that their "fortunate owners" haven't spent a dime on gasoline in the past 12 years. Since the RAV4 EV sales price was more than double its gasoline-powered counterpart, and the cost to replace the battery was well over its original MSRP (of $42,000), a top speed of 78 mph, max range of 120 miles, and charging time of 5 hours, I'm not buying the sales pitch on your first link. None of that sounds like the technology you mentioned that was on the horizon.

Not to mention, if they ever catch on, we'll be well behind the 8-ball on electricity generation unless we start building some power plants. California seems to be moving in the opposite direction on that one...
 
Links I gave said nothing about the 60K figure so your comment needs substantiated not mine. The only reason I can think why 60K might be figured into the equation is if that is the estimated life of the batteries. Replacing them is so expensive it could be equated to rebuilding the motor in a little 4 banger.
Your link had no original information unless I missed one. But, tracking down the links of links I got to this:

Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle.
(160,000 km = 100,000 miles)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/abstract


The analysis by the National Research Counsel had no choice but to assume battery technology would not improve dramatically from 2005 to 2035, which is a highly unlikely occurrence given how far we've come in the 8 years since the data for the study was assembled. They counted 20% of the manufacture "cost" for the battery, a number which I'm sure has already changed with lithium-ion battery usage ala Tesla. Even with that huge inclusion, the results they got between gas and electric were virtually the same. Also, as cars try to get more fuel efficient, they will be forced to use the same light-weight composites as electrics use now. This will increase their cost of manufacture to much the same as electrics as far as the chassis and body are concerned.

Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use



EDIT: I was mistaken, the batteries go farther than I thought but cost more than I thought to replace. 10 K for new batteries, YIKES. This can never compete with a little gas car that can go 200k without major engine work.

The Lifecycle of an Electric Car Battery

"How long will an electric car battery last? The lithium-ion battery pack in the Tesla Roadster is projected to have a lifespan of about 5 years or 100,000 miles. At the end of that time the pack will need to be replaced, at a cost of approximately $10,000. Sure, that's expensive, but the Roadster itself will cost almost $100,000, which makes the cost of the battery pack seem affordable. Many, perhaps most, owners will no doubt prefer to replace the battery pack rather than buy a brand new Roadster."
Assuming 35 MPH, which you'll never get all the time, and gasoline prices holding at $3.50/gal, the battery for the electric would be the same price as all the gasoline you would use. Factor in the actual price of gas and the actual MPH of gas cars and the price of electricity you'll get nearly the same dollar amount for both gas and electric for 100k miles.

Next, you'll add maintenance for the gas car over 100k miles. Electrics have no transmission to maintain, no oil changes, no plugs, no EFI or fuel pump, or anything else mechanical that will go wrong in the first 100k miles (and probably a hell of a lot more miles than that since electric motors are extremely reliable). Compared to common IC drive-trains, electrics have no maintenance to speak of.
 
I'll go through those, but it's going to take some time. Still wondering why the hell GM would sell the patent rights on the battery packs to Texaco, unless the technology wasn't all that it was cracked up to be.


I could be wrong but I think electric cars were thought to be threatening to their 1990s business model. Although the car companies don't sell oil, cars that need petroleum derived gasoline require more maintenance than electric cars and need to be replaced more often. At the time, GM reportedly made 40% of their profits from replacement parts, something electric cars could not generate. All of this under a what they don't know, won't hurt mentality.

Less sure about the Rav 4 except that only a very small number were ever built on THAT platform, so few that many were unaware of the superior efficiency.
 
Back
Top Bottom