95% Of Trips Can Be Made In A Electric Vehicle

would you expect any less drivel from a leftist nazi university?

how about 95% of the MILES driven?

In other news, water is wet.

Why would I buy a car that can only do 95% of what I want it to do?

Yea, right, does not work for me. My daily round trip is 72 miles on hills getting into Seattle. Plus my daily side trips to run errands and get other things done. So how does a vehicle that covers 95% or in my case much less of my driving make sense?

I would love to have an electric vehicle, but it has to have a commen sense 150 mile range.

Hey Columbia, did you really ask detailed questions or just the moron question of how far is your commute from home to work and back?

Yes most people could use electric auto's if that is all they did, but MOST people do many other things besides just driving to and from work.

McFly Time to Wake up!!!

it said the research was by grad students. basically they fit whatever data they can manufacture to fit their own point of view.

100% of trips can be made in a Chevy Volt with 95% of them being electric only.

What Olds said. The range-extended electric is the way to go.

If you want an electric car, the Volt is the way to go for that very reason.

But I sure don't want an electric car.

If you want an electric car, the Volt is the way to go for that very reason.

But I sure don't want an electric car.

yet...

If you want an electric car, the Volt is the way to go for that very reason.

But I sure don't want an electric car.

yet...

Ever

Have you ever driven a Tesla roadster? A Tesla Model S? One of those 600hp AWD mini coopers?

Have you ever driven a Tesla roadster? A Tesla Model S? One of those 600hp AWD mini coopers?

No, and I really don't have any desire to.

It's about more than just performance for me, I "click" with ICEs, and enjoy working on them. Electric motors are quite boring by comparison and have no appeal of that sort for me. No visceral sound from the exhaust, no fascinating mechanical structure...

Caveman enjoyed the visceral sound of banging rocks together too.

it said the research was by grad students. basically they fit whatever data they can manufacture to fit their own point of view.

If they did that, then they would have failed their course.

Of course, since Columbia is a 'leftist nazi' institution of immense pedigree, the school was totally willing to turn such a horribly skewed result into propaganda so they can socially engineer us into 'leftist nazi' sympathizers!!

You're a genius!!

it said the research was by grad students. basically they fit whatever data they can manufacture to fit their own point of view.

If they did that, then they would have failed their course.

Of course, since Columbia is a 'leftist nazi' institution of immense pedigree, the school was totally willing to turn such a horribly skewed result into propaganda so they can socially engineer us into 'leftist nazi' sympathizers!!

You're retarded!!

Fixed, I know it was sarcasm but for comment as asinine as that I feel parties involved may take "genius" seriously.

Caveman enjoyed the visceral sound of banging rocks together too.

it said the research was by grad students. basically they fit whatever data they can manufacture to fit their own point of view.

If they did that, then they would have failed their course.

Of course, since Columbia is a 'leftist nazi' institution of immense pedigree, the school was totally willing to turn such a horribly skewed result into propaganda so they can socially engineer us into 'leftist nazi' sympathizers!!

You're a genius!!

I thought Nazis were rightists more than leftists.....it's pretty moronic to throw the work 'nazi' around so lightly. I know several people that are Columbia grads, it's a fine school..

And as a former grad student myself, you don't make up data...that's not how the scientific process works...there are ethical conduct standards to adhere to..

The only thing wrong with their findings is that it tells us what we already know and was a waste of their time, but its certainly correct. Most people's daily commutes are less than the range of a modern electric vehicle. With that said, a plug-in hybrid like teh Volt or Fusion Energi would be ideal, since you'd use it in electric mode 05% of the time, but when you wanted to go on a tril, simply fill it with gas and go.

Personally, I'ms till waiting for Hydrogen powered vehicles to take off. That would truely be ideal.

Personally, I'ms till waiting for Hydrogen powered vehicles to take off. That would truely be ideal.

Yes, yes it would.

Hydrogen-powered ICEs would make me most happy.

No batteries!

How about nuclear fusion power?

Ugh then you have to plug its sorry ass in and fire up those coal-fired power plants.

I would convert my house to solar power if I had the money, but I am another that will NEV VER want a stupid, uninvolving electric appliance for a vehicle. To me they are the antithesis of what an automobile should be.

And thankfully, the world auto market agrees with me, despite the hype.

i am fine with electric for one of my vehicles if i can 'fill it' in 3 minutes like a gas car, and it's cheaper to operate, and gives me all the same range and features and benefits.

I like eAssist, I like hybrid if its cost effective. I really don't like the notion of remembering to plug in my car every day like my phone......

true electric cars have potential to open the door to new packaging paradigms, which is what intrigues me the most.

Personally, I'ms till waiting for Hydrogen powered vehicles to take off. That would truely be ideal.

Yes, yes it would.

Hydrogen-powered ICEs would make me most happy.

No batteries!

Hydrogen powered ICEs are a waste of fuel because of all of the mechanical inefficiency of the turning engine.

The way to take the most advantage of hydrogen is to put it into a fuel cell to run an electric motor instead of burning it in an ICE. Thus regenerative braking can actually re-charge the fuel cell partially. A fuel cell is just a battery that consumes the chemical used to generate the electricity. In a hydrogen fuel cell, the process can be reversed to create more stored hydrogen.

Personally, I'ms till waiting for Hydrogen powered vehicles to take off. That would truely be ideal.

Yes, yes it would. Hydrogen-powered ICEs would make me most happy. No batteries!

Hydrogen powered ICEs are a waste of fuel because of all of the mechanical inefficiency of the turning engine. The way to take the most advantage of hydrogen is to put it into a fuel cell to run an electric motor instead of burning it in an ICE. Thus regenerative braking can actually re-charge the fuel cell partially. A fuel cell is just a battery that consumes the chemical used to generate the electricity. In a hydrogen fuel cell, the process can be reversed to create more stored hydrogen.

"Wasting" hydrogen is almost an absurdity by definition. With a hydrogen-fueled ICE, all we need is a fuel production and supply (and on-board storage) are the only real needs to make it work. A Fuel-cell vehicle needs all of that along with fuel cell development, and electic propulsion development. ICE conversions are far simpler and less expensive with a much closer time to production and even a retro-fit of existing cars and trucks being viable. Gaseous-fueled ICEs are the best of both worlds in my view. And we can have them sooner.

The only way we have to generate hydrogen in any great number today is by.... burning fossil fuels. So, yes, you CAN waste hydrogen. The only way around that currently is to generate hydrogen via solar, wind, or other renewable means.... and last I checked, you poo pooed those too.

Yes, there are those algae that fart hydrogen, but that is still a scientific curiosty right now.

Burning hydrogen with no mechanism for regeneration is, indeed, wasteful.

FAIL I commute over 100 miles round trip each day which hills and mountains. Find me an electric car other then the RR EV concept that can easily handle this. I am not opposed to the EV concept I just need one that handles my commute and cost a lot less.

I'm amazed by the opposition to electric cars. The whole idea of innovation and advancement is to become more efficient. ICE's have efficiencies of about 20% - that's woeful in today's world.

FAIL I commute over 100 miles round trip each day which hills and mountains. Find me an electric car other then the RR EV concept that can easily handle this. I am not opposed to the EV concept I just need one that handles my commute and cost a lot less.

Because that car doesn't exist yet. But in ten years, it probably will.

I'm amazed by the opposition to electric cars. The whole idea of innovation and advancement is to become more efficient. ICE's have efficiencies of about 20% - that's woeful in today's world.

Many people are against innovation and advancement and efficiency..they can be called 'luddites' or 'conservatives'....(j/k).

I'm not necessarily a fan of electric cars, but I do like forward advancement of technology..it is interesting...electrics are usable for many use cases, but range is definitely an area for improvement....

FAIL I commute over 100 miles round trip each day which hills and mountains. Find me an electric car other then the RR EV concept that can easily handle this. I am not opposed to the EV concept I just need one that handles my commute and cost a lot less.

Nissan Leaf? 100 mile range.

Step 1. Drive 50 miles to work

Step 2. Plug in and recharge, even a partial charge on 110v for 8.5 hours (a typical work day) will leave you with well over 50 miles range. Closer to 75 miles range

Step 3. Drive 50 miles home.

The hills don't matter too much. What goes up must come down and regenerative braking negates 60% to 75% of the extra power needed to get up the hills.

A Leaf on perfectly flat land actually has a range of 138 miles.

So I guess we can put you down for one?

My big problem with them is if I want to go on vacation. I could see myself in a Volt, but not a Leaf.

My 800 km (500 mi) one-day trip to Quebec City from Toronto last spring would have taken a whole heck of a lot longer in a non-range-extended EV.

Fossil fuels won out a hundred years ago over electric and steam for a reason. Long live gasoline and diesel fuel!

*taps fingers on desk waiting for down votes but I don't give a rat's ass*

Fossil fuels won out a hundred years ago over electric and steam for a reason. Long live gasoline and diesel fuel!

Well, that was a hundred years ago...technology has evolved since then. It doesn't stay stuck at a particular point in time...

"Technology" is continuing to evolve on the ICE front, as well.

The only way we have to generate hydrogen in any great number today is by.... burning fossil fuels. So, yes, you CAN waste hydrogen. The only way around that currently is to generate hydrogen via solar, wind, or other renewable means.... and last I checked, you poo pooed those too.

Yes, there are those algae that fart hydrogen, but that is still a scientific curiosty right now.

Burning hydrogen with no mechanism for regeneration is, indeed, wasteful.

I never poo pooed those renewables - far from it.

And my position on hydrogen is dependent upon generation via a method that is efficient (the algae farts are). Otherwise why bother with hydrogen?

Once that is achieved, hydrogen is a limitless resource - thus the comment about wasting it being absurd.

We only differ on how to use it - I want to use it directly in ICEs.

It would be wonderful - no more shrinking cars and shrinking horsepower, no more emissions woes, no more foreign oil.

Cars powered by ICEs could be soooo much nicer again.

I want that, whether or not electric cars are also around.

95% eh? So if the average person makes 3 trips a day, the average person would have to bum a ride or rent a car once a week. Yeah... I ain't doing that.

Personally, I'ms till waiting for Hydrogen powered vehicles to take off. That would truely be ideal.

It would be ideal, but hydrogen is not a good fit for the usual internal combustion engine. From my reading, hydrogen engines produce a lot of heat, and burning it in a Wankel, which has more surface area for the heat to soak into, makes more sense. Apparently, one of the problems with Wankels over the years has been that they are hard to keep warm enough to properly burn gasoline.

It seems like most hydrogen powered concepts I've seen lately are all fuel cells... which is a technology I am not sold on. Its a technology a relative of mine worked alot on while getting his doctorate.

Fossil fuels won out a hundred years ago over electric and steam for a reason. Long live gasoline and diesel fuel!

Well, that was a hundred years ago...technology has evolved since then. It doesn't stay stuck at a particular point in time...

Uh, no the technology has NOT evolved to the point to replace fossil fuels yet. Fossil fuels still have the most convenence and BTUs per dollar. Technology has caught up, but as I posted in a previous post, your technology still has not bypassed using wood yet. Give it another 25 years or wait until we get closer to the edge and fossil fuels become more expensive.

True, it don't stay stuck at a particular point in time for eternity, but it can be slow at times. We used wood for what, 100,000 years? Gasoline is a flash in the pan compared to that.