Anonymous asked in EnvironmentAlternative Fuel Vehicles · 9 years ago

why don't use electric cars instead of all the ideas?

I just got down reading the newspaper and it just really amazed me how much these people want to spend on trying to change the climate. Mirrors in space, pumping iron into the ocean, putting sulfate in the upper atmosphere just to reflect sunlight and to get rid of CO2. Now its obvious these would be expensive (maybe not the iron in the ocean), but wouldn't it be just as easy to put electric car production into full swing. Even probably not going to happen handing them out free. With this I would bet there would be a drastic reduction CO2 and most wouldn't be against it because at this moment even if my electricity bill went up it still wouldn't compare to 4$ a gallon that I spend now (80$ full tank). Yes there would be a loss of jobs, but sorry about being insensitive I really don't care about gas companies they deserve everything that comes to them for milking us like cash cows.


Yes. But if you throw a couple million electric cars into the U.S in places that are overloaded with cars you would see some change and electric motors are becoming more effective they can go 80mph for 4 hours straight at this moment. Yes we do use things like coal to produce electricity, but all in all they don't put out that much I herd it was like 20% with some other minor percentages, but the majority of it still comes from the massive number of cars that we have.

Update 2:

Instead of totally shooting down the idea of electric cars why don't you guys come up with something then? Its more practical than most of the ideas being brought out seriously whats the point of replying when you can't offer a solution.

Update 3:

YES AND FULLY READ MY COMMENT! The only people who didn't skim through it was the last 3 fellows.

10 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Best Answer

    Tom, It is an excellent idea and one that I believe is part of the solution that is being implemented. The problem is that it requires a change in our approach of simply adding something to what we already have. Some feel that this presents unacceptable strangeness or difficulties. Those who express objections have perhaps not considered the evidence. Some of these are mentioned elsewhere here:

    --- Electric vehicles are too expensive: MYTH: The nissan leaf is offered for approximately 32,000. Tax incentives bring this to about 25,000 and Nissan has suggested that when these run out the price of the vehicle may be reduced accordingly. The battery is priced at around $9000. So the base vehicle is approximately 16,000. In California and other places with additional incentives this becomes $11,000. The cost of the battery amortized over the warranty period becomes $.09 per mile that when added to the fueling cost of $.04 is comparable with current fuel cost for an $11,000 to $16,000 vehicle getting approximately 22 miles to a gallon.

    --- Electric vehicles take too long to charge: PERSPECTIVE: You fill up a gas tank and it takes 10 to 15 minutes of your time. Charging a car is like putting clothes in the washing machine, but takes less time to start and stop the process. You don't waste time watching your clothes wash and you don't waste time watching your car fuel, unless you are using gasoline or diesel.

    --- The electric grid can't handle electric cars: MYTH (and MISLEADING) : If all existing cars were electric it would require about an additional 16% over our annual electrical usage. But cars will be charged at night encouraged by price incentives. At least 70% of the current fleet could be charged at night with no additional equipment. Some distribution equipment is old and in need of replacement/upgrading Electric vehicles would only provide additional revenue and an incentive to do what would have to be funded otherwise by rate hikes.

    --- An EV has limited storage/range: ALL VEHICLES HAVE LIMITED STORAGE / RANGE: Most Americans travel less than 40 miles / day. Most EV have ranges exceeding this. Any vehicle that operates with a stored energy capacity has a limited range. Petrol vehicles have a limited range. Petrol vehicles have an infrastructure that reasonably extends their range. An infrastructure of electrified roadways supporting electric vehicles would give unlimited range and may be a far cheaper way to charge what batteries are needed on an even cheaper vehicle (than public charging points.)

    --- "The largest source of electric power in the US is from coal." MISLEADING: The largest SINGLE source of electricity on average is Coal which has declined over 5% in the last 5 years to the present US mix of 45%. California only gets 16% of its energy from Coal. The coal plants were not built for an EV but for an industrial society. The EV will make the grid and the coal plants more efficient and less polluting, while at the same time moving the polluting petrol vehicles off the roadways.

    --- The pollution of petrol vehicles is insignificant: MISREPRESENTATION: The chart at has to be examined with an educated eye. Cars pollute from the tailpipe, from the trucks that deliver to the fuel stations, from the electric power supplied to the fueling stations, from the refining process, and from the electricity that is supplied to the refining process. (see that big red line from electric generation to refining... ) The oil industry also has its own category of "fugitive emissions 3.9% that feed directly into the industry. These must be added together. The chart can slice and dice so that the pieces look small but in the end vehicles are responsible for approximately 20% of greenhouse gases.

    The most pressing problem with Electric Vehicles is that demand is far exceeding supply.

    Source(s): Additional sources available upon request.
  • 4 years ago

    Wow your idea is EXACTLY what we do at the distribution center i work at, although with forklifts and power equiptment. This is a good idea, it works great at work. A lift can run a day and a half (12 hour shifts) before needing a battery change. We drop it off at maitenence, take a piss, hang around for 15 minutes, then we get a fresh battery. I like your idea just wanted to take the ooomph you had in your question. Lol im a jerk like that. Its been done already bro. In a factory setting though. But i must admit i never thought of using this in a car setting. It is good. The hard part is getting everybody on board with this idea. The car manufacturers and whatever company will do this have to collaborate to make the battery removeable. Also the station would have to own the batteries, you wouldnt be able to own your own.

  • 9 years ago

    Geoengineering (pumping sulfur into the atmosphere, giant mirrors in orbit, etc.) are only suggested as last-ditch desperation measures to avoid catastrophic climate change, if greenhouse gas emissions reductions first fail.

    Electric cars are part of the solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The problem right now is that the batteries are still expensive, and people expect cars to be able to go hundreds of miles and then refuel in a few minutes. Electric cars can't do that yet, and most people aren't willing to compromise.

    Electric cars can't solve the problem by themselves either, because transportation is only about 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions (about 20% in the USA). We also need to reduce emissions from energy production (mainly from burning coal), and take other steps.

  • Technically we are already driving electric cars! That's because it takes less electricity to directly power an electric car than to pump oil, refine it, transport it and use it in a fossil fueled car.

    It's these beliefs about range and stuff like that that are killing the electric cars. Most people only drive more than 100km (60 mi) from home two or three times a year. Especially now people are driving less long distance and flying more due to low cost airlines. But there is a bluntly obvious solution to long distance electric cars. Rent a generator and hook it up to your car. That would make your car less fuel efficient than a fossil fueled car, but it would solve the problem. If we can't figure out a fast way to charge electric cars in the future, we will just rent small trailers with hydrogen engines or something like that. That is the special power of electric cars: You can power them with anything energetic you can think of (even your hyperactive kids, but you would only be traveling at about 10km/h).

    Batteries? Recyclable. Next case.

    Power? Well any car is as powerful as you make it. NGVs are what are commonly thought of when people say electric cars, but NGVs are to put it nicely, pathetic. The Tesla on the other hand.... very powerful, quick acceleration, etc. You wouldn't expect a car with 30hp gasoline motor to be very powerful, then why do you expect the same electric car to be powerful?

    Price? Only because the market is not large enough yet.

    Charging? At home. Eventually public charging infrastructure will exist as well.

    These myths above are what is stopping people from buying electric cars. We need education on these topics. Also oil companies are stopping the advance. If I remember well, a very important battery manufacturer was bought out by an oil company. Automakers have their share in this as well, because electric cars are much more reliable than internal combustion powered vehicles, which means that the companies can make less money from spare parts, and ultimately people will keep their cars longer.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Nahum
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    I'm all for environmentalism, but electric cars have two major problems:

    1. Limited storage capacity - Battery technology has only recently made improvements in this area. Fuel still carries much more energy and fewer complications than a battery of equal weight.

    2. Source of power - The car itself may be emission-free, but the energy still has to come from somewhere. Many municipalities are still powered by coal.

    Despite all this, it should still be possible to investigate and implement any good idea that comes along. No need to toss out the dark matter reactor just because someone else is building a Dyson ring.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    The CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by vehicles is actually a small proportion of the entire amount.

    The CO2 emitted by electricity generation; the Haber process for creating fertilizers; Cement production; and the energy needs of mining and processing metals is much higher than automobile emissions.

    Therefore electric cars are not a solution to the problem as they would bring about insufficient decreases in emissions, especially as they rely on electricity produced in fossil fuel burning power stations. Even if the electricity came from 'clean' sources such as nuclear and wind, it would not be carbon neutral because of the huge emissions created in producing these stations [and mining uranium].

    Thus, we do need to look at a diverse range of solutions to reduce and capture emissions in all areas of human activity, and we cannot rely on just one solution.

    Source(s): I'm an economics undergraduate
  • 9 years ago

    Would our current electric grid support a large number of electric vehicles without modification? A home that doesn't use a lot of 240 volt items can run on a 100 amp main but you add a 240 volt 30 amp to the mix for the vehicle charger?

    80 MPH for 4 hours would require a range of 320 miles plus it takes more power to go 80 MPH then it takes to go 55 MPH.

    How often does the average person run their electric clothes drier for 8 hours straight and never mind the idea of doing it every night?

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    1. Electric cars aren't affordable.

    2. Electric cars have a very limited range. Its less than 100 miles.

    3. Electric cars have long charge times.

    4. Electric grid is already strained in the summer time. Adding even a few cars to it would crash it.

    5. The largest source of electric power in the US is from coal.

  • GABY
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Sorry, Tom, but cars only produce about 6-8% of all the CO2 produced by man. Even if you put in a few million (A tiny percent of all cars) electric cars and each of them achieved the 20% reduction you used, it would have very little, if any significant effect on the overall CO2 level.

    See the chart in the source. Only 9.9% of CO2 comes from all road vehicles. Once you remove trucks, I am estimating about 7% from cars.

    The only real solution to significantly reduce CO2 is primarily Nuclear Power plants, with Solar, Wind, and Geo supplementing it in a few areas where they might come close to being cost effective.

  • J.
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    Why are you not driving one? Set the example.

    What you are bucking against is an industry valued at roughly 60 to 70 trillion dollars. What better way to give them heck than by you getting an electric car.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.