Talk:Electric car

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Electric car:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do: Stub all the redlinks. More hard data on intial costs in comparison section. Get missing costs and numbers produced into the "Selected production vehicles" table. FAC reviewer wants more sources sections without any refs: Outside the US (has ext. links); Acceleration performance; Replacing; Safety; Hobbyists, conversions, and racing (has ext. links); List of recent prototypes (has ext. links); Controversy; and both arguments. consider converting anchored external links to refs; wikilinks probably have good refs in them, too someone else suggested at least one per paragraph! That would be about 80. Put it through peer review again, asking in particular for copyediting help. Add MPG calculated by the DoE/EPA to the site somewhere: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/byfueltypeNF.shtml

	Cars Portal This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents 1 MPG calculations 2 "criticism" of the way the pollution is being explained 3 "criticism" of the way the mpg is calculated is sneakily unsupported. 4 new article from wired on ZAP, the scam EV company 5 Quiet cars cause safety issues 6 Patent controversy needs serious proof 7 Removed material 8 Nuclear 9 Chevy Volt 10 Definition of "Electric Car" 11 Too many CO2 references 12 Think 13 Remote emission vehicle 14 Misleading Information 15 Pollution 16 Currency units... 17 MPG is stupid measurement for electric

[edit] MPG calculations

If someone has the time, I'd like to see the MPG calculated by the DoE/EPA added to the site somewhere, they can be found at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/byfueltypeNF.shtml by clicking on electric for any year the car was made.--Uruhara k (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "criticism" of the way the pollution is being explained

Similar to my complaint of MPG, I have a problem with the explination of polution but I'm unsure of how to rectify the situation, so if someone can find a way, I'd be very happy. When pollution is mentioned, there is talk of the pollution of the electric factory, and how net pollution for the electric car will still be high while we have dirty energy plants. While at it's face value, this is true, I feel it ignores the fact that it's not an equal pollution comparison to the car emmisions of gas cars. We never see gas car pollution figures include the pollution of the generation, collection, and delivery of gasoline. It should be equal. EV car making no pollution vs Car's emmisions, or average pollution of electric generating plants vs average car's emmisions, tanker and ship transport emmisions, refinery, and diging site pollution ect ect. As the later is so hard to calculate, i feel the former is the best comparison.--Uruhara k (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A recent revamp of pollution stated "As in the analysis of carbon dioxide emissions, the relative pollution depends on the sources of electricity." this is a false statement as per above. If pollution is going to talked about in this manner, one must compare something like total carbon footprint of 1gallon of gas at pump + ICE emmissions, to carbon footprint of 1gallon gasoline electricity at plug equivilent. --Uruhara k (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "criticism" of the way the mpg is calculated is sneakily unsupported.

The criticism states that the MPGe is wrong because its assuming 100% efficient power generation at the coal plant, that coal plants only have ~30% effiency, then cite the rest of the formulas used to show very low MPGe numbers. If that were true, one would then be assuming that gasoline MPG is also "wrong" because it is assuming the generation, collection, and delivery of gasoline is also free. Citation used to support the initial conjecture, actually did not support it it all, stating that MPe "MAY" be reported using the battery to wheels power instead of the plug to wheels power, which was unfair to use vs the pump to wheels power. In this case, the loss of power from charging the battery with AC is being ignored. I'm too lazy to find a citation, so I'm not adding this, but feel free to look for it : I saw an article on slashdot like 3 years ago about new technology in charging batteries with a nanocoating to serverely limit loss during charging, allowing you to recarge batteries 90% within 60 seconds, giving must greater charging efficiency making this all a moot point. Also, someone care to mention the charging efficiency of supercapacitors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uruhara k (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your criticism of gasoline mpg, it would be better to use a well to wheel figure. I disagree with your support for the mpge figure, it is a very poor piece of work, for much the same reason, and by a factor of 3 instead of 1.1 . I can generally live with 10% errors, 200% not so much. So I think a rational comment on the mpge calcl is fair, or else use well/mine to wheel calculations for both types of vehicle. Greg Locock (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That was not my source, it was the source the previous writer used to wrongly justify his conclusions. I mearly attempted to sum up the correct statement his source was making, I'd have removed it entirely myself, but I thought someone might find a reasonable way of explaining it after seeing the poor way. --Uruhara k (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel the DoE/EPA MPG ratings are the best source as it involves a reliable source, and no work on my part. I've included a link in the above discussion.--Uruhara k (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new article from wired on ZAP, the scam EV company

http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-04/ff_zapped —Preceding unsigned comment added by Womulee (talk • contribs) 11:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quiet cars cause safety issues

Pedestrians are less aware of quiet vehicles, and are more likely to collide with them.

I call Bull Shit on that statement. By the time you hear the car, it's kinda too late to be looking for it. I'm not even sure how this makes sense. Are you in danger because you're going to cross the street WITHOUT LOOKING? I'm not sure how this problem is related to noise instead of common sense.

I'd going to go ahead and remove it. It's completely irrational. See Jaywalking for more information. --Can Not 06:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What about blind people? In a quiet parking lot, I think people don't bother looking if they can normally hear a car coming. A pedestrian can react instantly to the noise of a car, they can just stop walking and start looking. Daniel.Cardenas 15:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if people aren't smart enough to look both ways to cross the street, what's the point of blaming quiet cars? You've made it clear enough that the pedestrians are putting themselves at fault. Also, we seem to be ignoring the driving side of the issue. Drivers actually hit a small fraction of the pedestrians that they could have hit. Pedestrians make almost no noise at all, but drivers still hit close to none of them. The only remotely logical risk is when a blind man walks alone between columns of cars, and the blind man is in the car's blind spot. The fatal flaw, however, is that the blind man should not be walking around without a seeing-eye pet or a friend, and the blind man can't drive cars so he would almost never have a need to be in a parking lot without someone else to drive. Blind people walking alone in itself is a problem. I will not let electric cars be a scapegoat for problems related to human error and disabled people.--Can Not 13:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rply: I agree with you. I'm hearing impaired and I ALWAYS look both ways before crossing a street. One day, I was in my car driving along the highway parallel to a train track. The scariest thing is that I had no idea that a train was on the tracks behind my vehicle. My windows were up and and I did not hear the train on the tracks. Needless to say, it scared the crap out of me when I saw a train chugging along beside me. The use of a radio has nothing to do with it. Deaf people drive all the time. They observe their surroundings with their eyes. So it doesn't matter if vehicles are loud or quiet...LOOK both ways. A seeing eye dog does and is trained to follow certain procedures when crossing roads with its charge in the first place.Thank you kindly.68.217.204.11 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)((Tammy Hutchison 04/10/2008))

With that line of thinking, cars shouldn't have seat belts. Also why bother with 15 mph school zones. Its the childrens fault anyways. They deserve to get run over if they don't watch out for cars. Daniel.Cardenas 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the driver would be held responsible for not watching the road. --Can Not 19:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright. You win. GMA has official decided to add loud huming speakers to the headlights and tail lights of their car. Source[1] --Can Not 23:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A very small speaker can be added to the front of the car and used as a noisemaker at low speeds, sort of like putting playing cards in the spokes of a bicycle wheel, but using less power. Simulate a Ferrari if you want. 199.125.109.31 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an important enough issue to be listed in the article. Here's a link to some information on this subject:

http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/blind-people-hybrid-cars-pose-hazard/n20071003012309990002 :

"Because hybrids make virtually no noise at slower speeds when they run solely on electric power, blind people say they pose a hazard to those who rely on their ears to determine whether it's safe to cross the street or walk through a parking lot."

"the president of the NFB's Maryland chapter planned to present written testimony asking for a minimum sound standard for hybrids to be included in the state's emissions regulations."

"Officials with two separate arms of the U.S. Department of Transportation - the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration - said they are aware of the problem but have not studied it."

BradMajors 20:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patent controversy needs serious proof

Where is the link to the patent? patents are publicly accessible.

how much were these large format nimhs? how much power could they hold compared to li-ion? all this needs to be shown and verified, it has to be more than a manufacturer claim. If this is a conspiracy and the reason why the electric car fails in the us, why does it not work over seas where the patent is apparently not applicable? that section seems to be based on the assumption the nimh's were the magic bullet for viability. this needs proof to be more than conspiratorial mumbo jumbo.

I'm just talking below. Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with anything.

>Where is the link to the patent?

I read a news story that chevron or some oil company threatened a lawsuit on Toyota because of the batteries in their hybrids. They settled out of court where Toyota agreed to keep their batteries small.

>how much power could they hold compared to li-ion?

Li-ion is better, but car manufacturers are very conservative with new technology. If you studied new technology trends in the auto industry you might see that it takes 5 years before the technology is in showrooms. Lots of safety concerns, durability concerns, and then time to mass produce. Right now they are concerned about cold weather power. Would be nice if they just started selling them to warm weather areas.

actually battery usage always has to be conservative with ev's. the fastest way to kill the battery is to use its full capacity on a regular basis. thats why the prius only uses a fraction of its capacity to prolong its life. this extends the life at the cost of vastly reducing efficiency in energy storage vs weight. if you put a new wiz bang battery into a car it has to last more than a few years, and it can't explode or burn or leak because it was left out in the sun or overheats or whatever. it has to be usable on a daily basis. one can do a lot of things if its a one time stunt, its much harder to build something that is truly viable in everyday use. right now they are concerned about longevity and cost as much as cold weather. its why the only viable ev is the tesla where money is no object and practicality is a low priority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Womulee (talk • contribs) 11:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

>why does it not work over seas where the patent is apparently not applicable?

Keep in mind that the U.S. is the worlds largest car market. You'd be surprised how many cards get sold in the U.S. compared to over seas. I've read that a manufacturer has to produce at least 40K cars per year in order to make it profitable.

Daniel.Cardenas 13:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

only 40k? because the markets in europe and japan are just simply huge as well. and they have plenty of cars models that we do not have. so simply not having an american market is not enough to sink a car at all. in fact some european car brands aren't even sold in the us;) think french/italian...

>why does it not work over seas where the patent is apparently not applicable?

Actually they claim worldwide patent rights. Daniel.Cardenas 22:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

actually there are limits to patent holders rights. it would seem to be a case where companies could sue over violation of antitrust laws. and in other countries i'm sure the laws against such stuff is even stronger.

and well i'm pretty sure the eu or japan have the power to basically ignore this patent limitation if they so choose. i do remember hearing about different patent laws over things like software in the eu, so its not all the same.

I see the discussion of pressure from Cheveron's NiMH patents has been completely removed. When it was in there, it looked like it was fairly well-documented. Could that be put back in, please? 75.18.201.56 06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed material

I removed some material from the article which claimed that the total cost of ownership was lower of an electric vehicle. The claim was unreferenced and almost certainly incorrect. For example, the GM EV1 costs $40,000 according to the article for a two-seater subcompact, which is about $25,000 more than a comparable ICE car and which would not be compensated for by fuel cost savings.

The claim could plausibly be true for countries with very high gasoline taxes, or with vehicles (like the Tesla Roadster) that are intended to compete against cars that get very poor gas mileage. Twerges (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The costs are pretty speculative. In theory an electric car is a lot cheaper to make than a gasoline car because it has fewer parts. Gasoline prices are now determined by supply and demand and not by taxes - if you added a $2 tax gas would still cost $4/gallon, not $6, because of supply and demand. My guess is that gasoline will reach $20/gallon before the end of the decade (but a lot less in Euros). The EV1 was not mass produced and if it had been mass produced who knows what it would have cost. Theoretically it would have cost less (purchase price would be less) than a comparable ICE car, making total cost hugely less because electricity is like buying gas for $0.60/gallon. Notice that GM thought the EV1 so evil that it had to round them all up and destroy them all (quote is from "Who killed the electric car").199.125.109.89 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear

It is highly disputed that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases, and there is no point in having someone from France add that electricity can be made in a nuclear reactor to this article. 199.125.109.42 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference about nuclear power emitting greenhouses gases? Do you have something against the French people? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an edit war in progress over the inclusion of references to nuclear energy as a potential energy source for electric cars in this article. To me, it seems that including nuclear energy as a source of electric power for such vehicles is a pertinent and important subject that is critically related to the content of this article. However, I shall stay away from the current edit war. Consider this a warning that, should this edit war continue, I will escalate the matter to admins on this notice board. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My apology for the comment on the nationality of the editor. However yes I can provide a reference that shows that nuclear is a huge emitter of greenhouse gases, both in the construction of the plant, making concrete is a huge greenhouse gas emitter, in the mining of Uranium, tons of CO2 emitted, in the decommisioning and waste storage as well. Adding nuclear to this article is just trolling and nothing else. Most people with electric cars also have solar panels and get their electricity from solar power. Only in France or in Illinois would anyone actually be getting a significant portion of the electricity to run the car from nuclear. It adds nothing to the article. There are a minority of nuclear nutheads running around Wikipedia adding nuclear to every article they can think of in the hopes of promoting nuclear as a solution to global warming, when nuclear is only like jumping from the stove to the frying pan and is not a solution to global warming and is projected to be gone completely within the century. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet I know that Daniel.Cardenas is anything but a "nuclear nuthead." Furthermore, significant increases in demand on the utility grid will increase the possibility of new nuclear plants coming on line to meet the increased demands. Recent plans for massive nuclear power buildup in China reinforce this prediction. Power generation sources for EVs will play an important role in any progress made in "mainstreaming" EVs. It is biased to include references to renewable power while deleting references to nuclear power. Note that I am personally scared to death by the possibility of a bunch of new nuke plants, but if we ignore that possibility, we risk allowing such plants to slip in "under the radar." Respectfully, Fbagatelleblack (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said adding it is simply trolling. Massive buildup in China? Don't even start on China. China is building two new coal plants a week. Nuclear fuel runs out in 20 years with the existing nuclear plants. There will never be a "massive buildup" anywhere in the world. One article points out that if 1500 new nuclear plants were built they would only reduce CO2 emissions by 20% (neglecting of course CO2 emitted by construction, transportation, mining, processing etc.) and the likelihood of a Chernobyl happening would be once every 5 years (1 in 10,000 reactor years). Nuclear is not relevant to electric cars and does not need to be mentioned in the article. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that as an engineer if I thought that the only source of energy available was nuclear energy I would still point out that this article is not the place to explain where energy comes from. Fortunately there is more solar energy available in a year than will ever be obtained from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear combined, forever. Whew. That is indeed a relief. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

to 199.125.109.89: You are going off the deep end by saying that the construction and mining emissions count as pollution. Solar panels large enough to replace a nuclear plant would have similar construction and mining emissions. These mining operations could be powered by electricity. If we make breeders legal again then we wouldn't need to mine or sequester. Solar is nice if you live in the SW USA, but what about the rest of the country? What about winter and night? To gather that solar energy in a year you are talking about would require a collector the size of England. Yes, I am an engineer too (ME), so what? Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 22:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss anything about nuclear. Suffice it to say that it is irrelevant to the article, and clearly trolling. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion of irrelevance does not suffice to dictate content on this article. Consensus of interested editors, on the other hand, will. You have not yet established a rationale as to why references to renewable resources are relevant, but references to nuclear energy are not. Please do so. BTW, I am also an engineer with several years experience in electric vehicle development, so do not be afraid to get technical. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A common but incorrect argument against electric cars is that you have to get the electricity from somewhere and in the US that means mostly from coal meaning that you still put the same amount of CO2 into the air. The most common response is, but you can get the electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind. That's all that needs to be said, although it can be added that even getting the electricity 100% from coal puts less CO2 into the air because of the efficiency advantage that electric cars have over ICEs. You have to admit that the argument is one of how do you improve the world and no one can argue that nuclear power is a step in that direction. I would really like to avoid the discussion by not even bringing it up, other than just the necessary points about efficiency and using renewable energy. 199.125.109.42 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is trivial, but since you guys are arguing I'll give my opinion. Nuclear energy is more practical than solar energy and thus should have a higher priority in the article. Arguments given against it need references, and I don't believe they are valid when considering apples to apples. I have references that counter the claims above for nuclear power. Near Phoenix Az, there is a large nuclear plant capable of powering the entire state, if it weren't for California purchasing much of the energy. 19% of the U.S. gets its electricity from nuclear. I haven't seen any projections of nuclear gone in 100 years and find the statement absurd. There is plenty of fuel for nuclear power to last a billion years[2]. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)--Uruhara k (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got a few engineering degrees, so I'll jump in as well. If you read everything 199.125.109.42 has said in this topic, you'll notice that interestingly he talks about sources he doesn't site, and then claims some "nuclear nuthead" have an extreme bias, noting that "when nuclear is only like jumping from the stove to the frying pan and is not a solution to global warming"

Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions. There is no reason not to say EV's are a paradigm shift, detaching the cost and pollution of power generation from the vehicle and placing it at electrical generation plants. Nuclear power is one such sited method of electrical generation that has the added bonus of an electrical corridor between generation and use of zero co2 emmision. If you clarify the point you are claiming, your arguement stands on legs. I'm not saying the building of the plant doesn't generate co2. If I did that, I could only fairly point out the pollution caused by building and maintaining the gasoline infrastructure. I'm far too lazy to calculate such an absurdity, so I'd rather compare where EV's are little to no polution in the energy chain vs ICE, it's easier to find supporting facts than to speculate and argue opinions.--Uruhara k (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chevy Volt

This is a plug in hybrid, not an electric car. It does not belong in this article. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrectly limiting the definition of an electric car to that of a battery electric vehicle. An electric vehicle is one in which some or all of the power required for motive force is provided via electricity. We should change the introduction of this article to reflect this correction, and we should allow reference to any vehicle which gets at least the majority of its energy and power via electricity. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you are incorrectly defining this article. The standard industry definition of "electric car" is "battery electric vehicle" and the common name is "electric car". The volt is a plug in hybrid, and we do have an article that describes plug-in hybrids. This isn't it. The only reason we have two articles about battery electric vehicles is to have a place to put BEVs that are not electric cars. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. HEV is an acronym for hybrid ELECTRIC vehicle. PHEV is an acronym for plug-in hybrid ELECTRIC vehicle. These vehicles are, by definition ELECTRIC cars. I restate my position that any vehicle that, at the very least, gets the majority of its energy and power via electricity should be eligible for referencing. Let's see how other editors feel about these definitions, and make edits according to the consensus view. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. You are not likely to find even one other editor who agrees with you. You are telling me that the Prius should really be in this article, and the Honda Insight? Not a chance. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If consensus is with your limited definition, I shall abide by it. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I for one disagree with the limited definition. If someone can not site multiple sources that reference BEV's PHEV's and HEV's seperately when talking about anything that is not a summation of electric vehicles, nor a discussion of specific fuel characteristics such as MPG, then editors should refuse to consider the limited defintion to be the "industry standard".--Uruhara k (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Volt is a hyrid and should go in on of the hybrid articles. We don't need multiple sources for simple definitions. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of "Electric Car"

Dictionary.com defines and electric car as "a car that is powered by electricity." Note that it does NOT say "...exclusively by electricity." See definition here. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the English language is that the sentence does in fact mean "exclusively" because otherwise it would have a further qualification, which does not appear. 199.125.109.42 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

When I say, "I eat pasta," I do not mean that I eat only pasta. I do not need further qualification to make that point clear, much though I do love pasta. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I can add my gas guzzler? It is an electric vehicle if I put it in first gear and crank the starter. However as is mentioned especially in the electric vehicle article there are many other types of storage other than batteries. I remember seeing an electric car that used flywheel storage about 20 years ago. What matters is, is the only way you get energy from electricity? If you get energy from two sources, you move from being an electric car to being a hybrid, and we have a separate article for those vehicles. Here is a question for you, should the Venturi Astrolab be here? It gets energy both from solar panels and from the grid. And what about the Venturi Eclectic - it not only has solar panels but also comes with a wind turbine that you can put up when parked. I would argue that solar panels are going to become a standard feature on all electric cars just as a way of extending their range. The Volt "range extender" is not exactly novel. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this for a definition: If you remove the ICE it is still fully operational within the limits of its battery. The Volt would fit this, the Prius would not. In my mind the Volt is an EV with a built in generator. Think of a BEV with a genset trailer - does it lose its EV status just because you attached the genset trailer? So now I mount the genset trailer in the trunk of a BEV - did it just loose its EV status? I don't think so. On the other hand, a Prius wont go over ~30 mph without its ICE, its complicated transmission and electronic controls might not work at all without the ICE attached, so it is not an EV. Bluetd

Modifications do not establish the definition. There are many converted electric cars on the road that started out as ICE cars. There is a company that produces electric cars by buying new ICE cars, and then stripping out the gas tank and motor and adding batteries, motor and controller. The definition of an electric car is "unmodified does it get all it's energy directly from electricity either from electrically charging it or from electricity produced from its own devices such as solar panels or built in wind turbine". If it gets all its energy from built in solar panels it is a solar car, but it is also an electric car, although it is very different from the plug in electric cars. There are no production solar cars at this time, but there are a lot of solar race cars. This article does not include solar cars at the present time. 199.125.109.89 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cite the source for your definition of an electric car. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I made it up. 199.125.109.42 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to dictate content for an article using definitions you create on your own. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your original work. It is an encyclopedia in which the popular usage of a term such as electric cars should dictate content. See the referenced definition I posted earlier for an explanation of what the term "electric car" means in popular usage.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article I suggest it mean, exclusively electric. Otherwise we have other articles that are more appropriate such as hybrid electric. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This is bantering over nothing. The term "electric car" is by nature a colloquial rather than technical term, and therefore its meaning can vary. So, how about we have an article titled "Electric Car" that covers all the possible categories that the term covers, with links to specific articles that describe the individual types (such as BEVs, PHEVs, and dual-drive hybrids like the Prius) in greater detail. Sounds like common sense to me. That's probably why it is already what's been done. Jorkusmalorkus (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone can not site multiple sources that reference BEV's PHEV's and HEV's seperately when talking about anything that is not a summation of types electric vehicles, nor a discussion of specific fuel characteristics such as MPG, then editors should refuse to consider the limited defintion to be the "industry standard" or any other such nonsense. Any layman would consider all forms of EV's to be EV's, and would hope to find information about them on the EV page of wikipedia. As Jorkusmalorkus kindly pointed out, this is probably why the page was originally structured this way.--Uruhara k (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many CO2 references

The article is about electric cars, and the CO2 references are too abundant and are heavily biased towards treating CO2 as a pollutant. Even if all the facts about the CO2 emissions are correct, their presence serves to support the point of view that CO2 is a bad thing. I certainly am opposed to that point of view, and so are many others. I don't mean to debate global warming here, but to point out that the article serves one side of that debate. I added some language to the article to make it a bit more neutral, but much more needs to be done.

I only see one paragraph and its accompanying table. This info was added because of intense debate by editors about the facts of CO2 emissions. You should be more specific in the individual references you think should be removed and present facts for why they should be removed and not just state that you don't like them.

How about "A 55% to 99.9% improvement in CO2 emissions". I dispute the term "improvement" because as I see it, it's not an improvement. It's a "decrease". "Improvement" is biased. I believe I corrected that before, but someone changed it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.224.12 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Think

Since this is an article about electric cars, how come Think isnt mentioned? Its pretty much the cream of the crop of electric cars, and the first electric car mass produced as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.55.60.110 (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remote emission vehicle

Since the page is liable to be deleted, how about a discussion on this one? The green nazis don't want to talk about how this will pump the demand for coal (which is the #1 fuel at powerplants), with a contingent jump in deaths from mining & moving coal, & the environmental damage from acid rain. Nor do they want to talk about the huge increase in attendant toxic waste from the batteries in these cars (which will wear out); this seems to be transformed into something non-toxic by the same "green magic wand" that makes wind power practical, or terrestrial solar viable & eco-friendly (never mind solar panels will place hectares of land into permanent shadow, which is hardly eco-friendly). Nor will they admit the battery pack will have to be replaced every five years or so; how many drivers like the idea of changing the engine on a regular basis? I might also wonder where all the material for the millions & millions {sagans?} of batteries will come from...) Trekphiler (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourced information about how pollution might be moved around is fine; probably it should be done by someone with a less extreme POV, but I'm sure if you start we can work it toward neutral and encyclopedic. Starting with terms based on your POV is more likely to just earn you a revert, however. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Points to consider:

1. 50% of the country doesn't use coal. So your coal argument is irrelevant to half the country.
2. It is easier to clean up a relative few coal plants than it is to clean millions of cars.
3. Batteries are li-ion which aren't toxic to environment.
4. Five year replacement of batteries is crystal balling which isn't encyclopedic. Toyota warranties their hybrid batteries for 10 years in California.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The simple solution would be to find references for the REV page, then it won't get deleted. I didn't find any good ones. BTW Toyota may well warrant their batteries for 10 years in the people's rebublic of california, but I suspect that is because powertrains have to be warranted for 10 years there. Therefore it doesn't cost them anything extra and they might get away with it. Your comment about cleaning up coal plants is a bit of a distortion. Plot the pollution from cars over the last 30 years. Now do the same for coal plants. Cars have got a lot cleaner, coal plants, not so much. Greg Locock (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

5yr or 10, it's still a major replacement cost not being mentioned; that Explorer or Suburban's V8 will last a great deal longer. "50% of the country doesn't use coal." So "50% of the country" spiking CO₂ & acid rain is OK with you? I bet is isn't for the bordering states. Or Canada. Spiking the deaths from producing coal is OK? I'll bet it's not for the families of the people dying. And I'll bet even the powerplants not using coal are pretty dirty. Now, if you want to endorse (true ZE) Solar power satellites or OTEC to produce the power... Trekphiler (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Its still crystal balling. Electric cars won't be popular until they are cheaper than gas cars. People will factor in all costs. You'll be buying one too and forgetting your arguments when gas reaches $10 a gallon. I'm all for clean up of coal plants if people find them unhealthy or alternative power generation methods. Hopefully the majority has similar thinking. Keep in mind that li-ion batteries will drop in price significantly when they are mass produced. The major elements are cheap. Perhaps the costs will be more like replacing a fuel tank than replacing an engine in 10 years. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're a lot more likely to be taken seriously if you stop being so needlessly venomous. Phrases like "green nazis" and the "people's rebublic of California" aren't going to do much except make you appear to be a mouth-foaming ideologue. You honestly sound like you have something to contribute, but wikipedia is neither an editorial page to share your opinion or a journal to publish your work, so you have to do more than just state arguments and opinions. You have to be able to back them up. If you can't find sources that back up your position in general, what would probably be best would be to take your core argument and cite sources to support its major points. Your argument appears to be that widespread adoption of electric vehicles presents its own set of problems that will have to be addressed. This definitely is true and deserves a place in the article. It seems important to you, so why not try to implement it in the article instead of ranting and raving on the talk page? Jorkusmalorkus (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple. No good sources to hand. And this is a talk page. "Raving" is allowed. Trekphiler (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say raving wasn't allowed; I implied that applying your effort to actually changing what you're complaining about would be much more useful. You could, say, do a Google search for "electric car implementation problems" and come up with two articles backing up your position. Or just keep whining and doing nothing; nobody's stopping you from doing that I guess.Jorkusmalorkus (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, an article backing up your position!

Too bad there's no good sources to hand, oh well.

If you want to complain about green nazis go look at the global warming article. That article is a crock of shhh_t in my opinion. For example: for references that back up their claim of global warming they use references that talk about "climate change" and infer that to mean global warming. Even though climate change doesn't mean anything and can mean global cooling. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Information

There are many misleading/wildly inaccurate "facts" in this article. I intent to rectify this. I will do so in two stages: First I will insert a section entitled "The Hype" which will outline some of the controversies and misinformation that have appeared with the modern electric car. All the facts in it will be backed up by references and shouldn't cause anyone undue complaint. The second stage however will be to wait for approximately one week after posting my additions at which point I will delete every piece of information in the article that I feel is suspect or untrue. If there are any unverified facts on this page I invite anyone who wants them to stay in to find reputable sources for them before I get there. If you cannot find evidence that these facts are true they DO NOT BELONG HERE as this is an encyclopedia not an advertising website for the electric car industry.

Note: If a fact is claimed by a manufacturer of a certain vehicle it needs to be independently verified. Advertising material is not fact and does not constitute a reliable source. Anyone who believes advertising is fact is welcome to invest in my own personal electric car project where I hope to make 100,000,000 electric cars at a cost of $1 per unit and retail them for $10 at 1000% profit, these cars will run forever on a 30 second charge giving a fuel economy of 1 googol miles per gallon. Please contact me at guilliblefool@gmail.com for investment opportunities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkenduncan (talk • contribs) 03:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the way wiki works. First a section called The Hype would be unacceptable, even if accurate, and not OR. Usualy you will get away with a section called Disadvantages, or Technical Criticism. Secondly the way to correct statements is to add ^{[citation needed]} after each contentious statement. This gives users the opportunity to add references. Although I agree with your basic concerns, if you proceed with your plan as stated it is doomed to failure.Greg Locock (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So the way wiki works is that people make outrageous claims and then get to take as long as they like in verifying them even though someone else can prove that they are false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkenduncan (talk • contribs) 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. If you have a WP:RS that directly contradicts the article then you should correct the statement and add your reference. Typically I'd allow a month for a ^{[citation needed]} to go unreferenced before deleting the statement. You don't need to attack me over this, as I said, I agree that this article is poor. Greg Locock (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean it to come across as an attack on you. To change all the references in the article with respect to my sources would basically require a total re-write, and not only do I not have the time for this I doubt it would be accepted by every other user as there is a lot of emotion involved with this topic. I would basically be starting an editing war where theings got changed back and forth and would eventually require action from the admins to resolve. This doesnt help anyone. I feel that the points I have made in the article are valid and constitute a reasonable opposing point of view. This gives other readers a chance to do the maths/research for themsleves and make an informed decision. Once the article is tidied up so that the parts I didn't write are impartial and accurate my part can be removed. Until then it is an important source for people who do have the time and inclination to tidy this article up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkenduncan (talk • contribs) 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pollution

Pollution is more than CO2 emission. I don't mean to minimize the global warming problem, but at this moment air pollution in cities is a MUCH bigger direct health hazard for the population worldwide. Think of Mexico City, Beijing and a million other cities. Electric cars produce zero emissions and the effect that a switch to electric cars would have on the global health is enormous. CO2 comparisons on the other hand will show only a small effect, as long as we get a large part of electricity from fossil fuels. Piet | Talk 10:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the main pollutants of interest are sulphur compounds and nitrogen oxides. These are overwhelmingly produced by coal fired power stations in the USA. Both have a continental wide impact (acid rain, albedo effects, ozone layer). EVs produce zero emissions at the tailpipe, they none-the-less add significantly to atmospheric sulphur and NOx, compared with IC vehicles. I have pointed this out in the pollution section, it needs more work. In general this article reads as if it was a manifesto for promoting EVs, I shall spend a fair bit of effort pulling it back into some objective form. It may need restructuring. Greg Locock (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your information is wrong and theoretical and wp:crystal. The use case for electric cars is charging at night were more hydro power and nuclear is used.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale cost for hydro power is around 80 cents per kwh, for nuclear it is $1.33 per kwh. For coal it is $2.33, and for natural gas it is $4+. Electric cars will likely be charged when energy is the cheapest. I got this info from Palo Verde Nuclear article.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You would need proof of that. Why wouldn't other people use want to use that cheap electricity? (Clue: they do). The contribution of EVs to pollution should be established on the basis of the marginal plant that has to be started to supply the extra electricity, not the base load plant. Greg Locock (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As stated numerous times in this discussion page, why do people feel the need to lump the pollution of the electrical generation onto the shoulders of EV?

Because it is a real effect. If everyone plugs their EVs in then power stations will emit more pollution.

When talking about the pollution of an ICE do you factor in the pollution of the extraction, refinine, and transportation of the gasoline to the pump for the ICE to use? If we were going to claim the pollution of burning coal as pollution of the EV's, then why not the pollution of strip mining the coal? Why not the pollution caused by the ICE bulldozers that are mining the coal, and then the cost of the gasoline infrastructure that powers the vehicles that mine the coal that power the plant that power the EV? Dont forget the pollution of the people transportation vehicles that bring people to drive the bulldozers that mine the coal. I mean thats rational, yeah?

Yes, that is rational if you really want to do a proper comparison.

When you look at it that way its easy to see how ICE is much more eco friendly.

Have I clearly pointed out the absurdity yet? -- Uruhara K

Looks more like throwing a tantrum from over here. No, you haven't made it look absurd becasue it is the correct approach for an apples to apples comparison. SO, you have two choices. Either find good references that support the claim that an EV produces less pollution when you take the inefficiency of the supply chain into consideration, or retract the claim. 07:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason for me to find such a reference. I am not posting on the wiki that EV's are less polluting. I am refuting the claims of others that claim EV+supply chain vs ICE shows EV's to be of equal pollution. To say that if everyone plugs in their EVs then power stations will emit more pollution is just more of the same illogical nonsense. If everyone stops using gas, the gas infrastructute usage will be lessened. It is the burden of the one making a claim to reference their claim, and to make sure it is a logical claim. --98.217.72.35 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

See Off peak, another reference: http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204 "...the study presumes that drivers would charge up overnight when demand for electricity is much lower."

Why wouldn't other people use want to use that cheap electricity?

Because you don't need to use the AC as much during the night. In the winter people turn down their thermostats. Business operate mostly from 8-5 and don't use as much electricity at 2am.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Greg: "EVs add significantly to atmospheric sulphur and NOx". Huh? Do American Power plants emit sulphur and NOx? Don't they clean their waste gases? If they don't, they should. You cannot blame EVs for environmentally unfriendly power plants. CO2 is different because there is currently no capacity for producing all energy in a CO2 neutral way, but sulphur and NOx emissions from power plants can be reduced to almost zero. That's a major advantage of electricity: production is centralized, more efficient and cleaner (compared to driving half a billion individual power plants throughout the US). But even if the plants are polluting, at least those emissions are not in the city centers. And that is the main advantage of electricity, and the main benefit for the human population. Piet | Talk 07:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, once half a city has electric cars there will be referendums by the non smoking car owners to get those stinky, smoking, polluting cars off the roads.   :-) Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Very amusing boys. "Huh? Do American Power plants emit sulphur and NOx? Don't they clean their waste gases? If they don't, they should. ". Well they do. Live with it. As the reference I put in to the article said, electrical power generation in the USA is responsible for more than 80% of all sulphur and NOx emissions in the USA. EVs will use some of that power, ipso facto they will be generating pollution. Well, now to start a bit of rational editing... 09:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Very amusing boys. Do not use such words, be polite and stick to rational reasoning. Belgian power plants do NOT emit sulphur or NOx. Technology to clean this has been available for years and it is applied in Belgium because it is required by our environmental laws. In my country, cars are responsible for more than 2/3 of sulphur and NOx pollution and for power plants, this is close to zero. I am very surprised this is not so in the USA. But of course USA has been stuck for 8 years with a president who is not interested in the environment, and is not doing anything. But in my opinion, sulphur and NOx emissions of power plants are not a consequence of the use of electricity but a consequence of unwillingness to apply clean technology. This should not be counted as debet for electric cars, because there is absolutely no reason why electricity production should cause sulphur or NOx emissions. Piet | Talk 11:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tedious facts: more than 70%^[1] of the electrical energy in the USA is made by burning fossil fuel, and the well to wall-socket efficiency of the electrical generating system is only 52%^[2] at best (actually less on average). "While coal combustion accounts for only 44 percent of electricity on the continent, it is responsible for 86 percent of total sulfur dioxide emissions from electricity and 90 percent of nitrogen oxides."^[3] So stop being surprised. Those are facts. Deal with them. Greg Locock (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not very polite and not listening.

1) SOx and NOx emission reduction is a simple political decision, not related to electricity consumption.

2) Emissions from power plants are outside the city and therefore health risks are smaller when using electrical cars.

Piet | Talk 12:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I should also mention this: "USA" is not equal to "world". Piet | Talk 12:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant facts per references already supplied. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple more references about off-peak electricity characteristics:

1. http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/vault/utilities.htm

   Vehicles give utilities added markets for electricity and natural gas, the opportunity to use excess off-peak electricity that is now wasted, and long-term opportunities to capture electricity from vehicles (V2G) when electricity is in peak demand.

2. http://www.lcra.org/newsstory/2007/peakerfacility.html You can find plenty of references that show that natural gas is used to satisfy peak electricity demand. In other words, its not used during off-peak times.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your message. EVs don't use peak electricity, so they use fossil fuels (dirty) instead of gas (cleaner)? Is that what you mean?

Anyway, while these are facts and sources, they all share one big problem: they only deal with the American situation. See my previous remark. There really are many many people outside the USA. Using these references to draw conclusions about electric vehicles, means that the assessment is based on the current status of American electricity production. Two problems: (1) this situation will change. Electricity production will become cleaner in the future (really :-) ). (2) Other countries produce electricity in different ways. This makes the assessment so complex that in fact it's better to explain this rather than making calculations. Whether EVs are clean or not depends on the method used to produce electricity.

But two basic points always remain:

1) Combustion cars pollute city centers and power plants do not (public health advantage).

2) Centralized power production emissions are easier to control (environmental advantage).

Hence, electric cars are much cleaner.

This does not mean they do no damage: there is currently no capacity for CO2-neutral electricity production. Therefore electric cars will contribute to global warming in a quite similar way as combustion cars. Piet | Talk 14:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My comments were intended as a response to Greg's comments. Hopefully they don't conflict with anything you are saying. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My experience is that anyone who has an electric car also has solar panels on their house and/or a wind turbine, so I would say that it may be closer to most than none the proportion of electricity that is coming from CO2-zero electricity production (which is quite different from CO2-neutral). The most recent solar challenge on the Washington mall required building a solar house that also provided enough electricity to power an electric car. 199.125.109.42 (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"My experience is that anyone who has an electric car also has solar panels on their house and/or a wind turbine" -Well I'm sure you'll be able to find a reliable source for that amazing fact. You lot are describing the world as you would like it to be, I am describing the world as it is. Which is more appropriate for an encyclopaedia? I realise that the whole world is not the USA, that was just the easiest to get data for. The same is roughly true for Oz - our base load electricity (what you are calling off peak) is from coal fired power stations. If you recharge your EV overnight in Oz then you are using coal. Incidentally I rather imagine that the oh so clean Belgian generating grid also uses German and Polish electricity, you might want to check out how wonderfully non-polluting Polish power stations are.

According to http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf fig 2 fossil fuels are used for 67% of global electricity production. Nukes and coal form most base load generation. So, from a global perspective it would be a reasonable guess to say that if you plug your EV into the grid you are burning 67% coal, oil or gas. The grid is what 40% efficient at extracting power from ossil fuel and getting it to the plug. Your charger may be 90% efficient. For comparison an IC engine is perhaps 20% efficient and the well to bowser efficiency is 87%. A modern ICE car typically uses 4 times more energy per mile than an EV, but generates virtually no pollution other than CO2 and water vapour. Coal fired power station create far more CO2 per unit of energy, AND sulphur dioxide AND nitrogen oxides. Greg Locock (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No its not a reasonable guess because the reference stated above says that electricity is wasted at night. In other words plugging in at night adds no extra load to the power grid. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not so sure that in this case it's helpful to describe the world as it is. You're making projections about an increased use of electric cars, and you draw conclusions based on current electricity production methods. First of all there's Daniel's remark, which says that electricity production does not need to increase if we will charge the vehicles at night. Second there is my remark that electricity production methods will change in the future. Which is an uncertainty, but it only matters when electric vehicles will be used more, which is also an uncertainty. Either way we're dealing with the future here. Current use of electric cars is too low to make a difference.

Concerning Eastern Europe: In 2004, SO2 intensity of thermal and electricity production in the 25 EU member states (that includes Poland etc.) went down to 20% of the level of 1990, NOx to 40% [3]. Also check [4] and note reductions also occur in Eastern Europe. And the situation is far from ideal, most power plants are not using best available technologies. But there's no denying that it is possible to produce energy with a much lower emission level than today. While there's no indication that ICE cars will significantly lower their emissions.

A modern ICE car generates virtually no pollution other than CO2 and water vapour.

This here says that in 2000, the transportation sector was responsible for 49% of nitrogen oxide emissions in Ca/USA.

Here it says that nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO), account for 58%, 50% and 75% respectively of all such emissions.

Here it says transport accounts for 42% of nitrogen oxide emissions in the UK in 2005.

So don't present it as if an electric car will pollute MORE than an ICE car. It's much easier to clean emissions from one centralized utility than from a million separate engines. It's just common sense, and if it wasn't for the power of car and oil industry we would have been doing it for years now. Piet | Talk 11:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"No its not a reasonable guess because the reference stated above says that electricity is wasted at night. In other words plugging in at night adds no extra load to the power grid" Which reference says that Daniel? (Later edit - ok, I found the quote.) It is wrong. "You're making projections about an increased use of electric cars" Never said that. Where have I said that the number of EVs will increase? "But there's no denying that it is possible to produce energy with a much lower emission level than today." more futurology. "A modern ICE car generates virtually no pollution other than CO2 and water vapour.This here says that in 2000, the transportation sector was responsible for 49% of nitrogen oxide emissions in Ca/USA." Yup because that includes diesel trucks and trains. Learn to read. I said ICE cars. So, I will start treating you with respect when you start being honest and stop engaging in futurology. Greg Locock (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Modern ICE cars cause no nitrogen oxide emissions. And no VOC or hydrocarbons or particulate matter. Okay Greg, you win. Piet | Talk 13:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Currency units...

I think that including euros in the table of vehicle prices isn't accurate... The prices listed are the price at the economic conditions of the day the vehicle was available, NOT the equivalent 2008 price. I don't think that a meaningful correlation can be made between the "then dollar" and "today euro" price... speaking as a Brit, there were about $5 to £1 back in the days of the Baker and Detroit Electric vehicles, so converting it to £'s at today's exchange rates is meaningless. I propose that in an article covering history, such as this one, it would be more accurate to list prices in the units of their domestic market (i.e. French cars in francs, US cars in dollars, British cars in pounds etc. etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.182.109 (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MPG is stupid measurement for electric

MPG is not the correct unit of measurement for electricity. Measurement should be Miles per KwH or cents per mile or both is preferable. Cents per mile depends on off peak electric rates in your area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.30.10 (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)