[confluence]

Perhaps - I'm willing to concede.

However the facts of the matter are such:

Gasoline is only ~15% efficient. Gasoline is assumed to be past peak oil - hence prices must rise with time (look at your local petrol station). Battery tech on the other hand falls in cost by 5% per year. Electric engines are 92% efficient - batteries fall in cost 4x over next decade - EV cost/range parity will occur by 2018.

Give it 5 years and they'll be electric Toyota Corolla's rolling around with middle class drivers behind the wheel.

[sliverstorm]

It's less the cost that I'm thinking of, but the weight and the recharge times. Of course these can be accepted as trade-offs, but they fly in the face of your apparent idea that electric power is equal or better in all ways aside from cost and thus complicate matters.

Don't forget, by the way, we have to power electric vehicles with something. I expect as gasoline rises in cost, electricity is going to as well, offsetting some of this differential.

It doesn't have to be that way, but what with our fear of nuclear power...

Anyway, I am completely in favor of electric vehicles for many reasons, but to call them inevitable within the near future, I think is unrealistic. Unless we come up with capacitors of wildly improved energy density (on the order of 1,000x) at which point I hope and expect the gasoline automobile market will fold overnight.

[siphor]

not really offsetting, (according to this car review site anyway http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1208_2012_te...) at the end it has a little breakdown...

"During our drive, we used 78.2 kW-hrs of electricity (93 percent of the battery's rated capacity). What does that mean? It's the energy equivalent of 2.32 gasoline gallons, or 100.7 mpg-e before charging losses. That BMW 528i following us (powered by a very fuel-efficient, turbocharged, direct-injected 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine) consumed 7.9 gallons of gas for a rate of 30.1 mpg. The Tesla's electrical energy cost for the trip was $10.17 (at California's average electrical rate); the BMW's drive cost $34.55. The 528i emitted 152 lbs of CO2; the Model S, 52 -- from the state's power plants."

[sliverstorm]

No, not completely offset- partially. I don't mean I expect it will cost an electric car just as much to drive as a gas car; I mean that the falling costs of electricity storage cannot be taken in isolation against the rising cost of gasoline. Let's not forget as well that if everyone is suddenly driving electric cars, electricity demand will explode and prices will rise. I expect the result is simply that it will draw out the "crossing point".

Really, that's all I'm arguing, is that we are not twenty-four months away from the electric car takeover. It's probably more than a decade out.

[confluence]

We agree then - that's what I said - one decade to mainstream.

[confluence]

We'll power it with rooftop/plant-scale solar PV and nuclear fusion.

Recharge times are about as much an issue as they are for smart phones. Humans need to rest ~12 hours a day. During that time they charge their tablets, phones and wait for it - also their cars. Charging is not an issue if you need to sleep.

Long car trips are not relevant for the vast majority of people for the most time. iPod succeeded because it's what people needed - not what they thought they wanted.

[sliverstorm]

Good luck with that. Solar equipment still isn't cheap, and while I wish it was otherwise, the voting public is incredibly averse to anything with the word "nuclear".

Smart phones have 1000mAh batteries. A Nissan Leaf can mostly charge in a 12 hour period, and get 80 miles on that charge. What about if you want 200 miles, or if you've got an SUV? The grid is not prepared for that kind of power draw.

Agreed, but there is no clean solution yet for that remaining 5%, which will keep many people from buying one.

[kbenson]

Tesla's supercharger stations are designed specifically to address this 5%. He quotes studies about driving that show that most people stop for approximately 30-60 minutes every 200 miles or so. The Supercharger stations are supposed to be able to charge to 160 miles of usage in 30 minutes, enough time to get a bite to eat.

The specs for the Model S (options section of the site, actually) state the single plug charger replenished 31 miles of ranger per hour of charge, and the optional dual plug charger replenishes 62 miles of ranger per hour of charge.

That doesn't address power grid problems if there is a large influx of demand because of electric vehicles, but at least it's at night, when there's less demand on the system from other sources. Ideally, that would spur more power grid development, but I'm not going to make predictions on such sparse and tenuous assumptions (even if they come from myself).

[anamax]

> Tesla's supercharger stations are designed specifically to address this 5%. He quotes studies about driving that show that most people stop for approximately 30-60 minutes every 200 miles or so. The Supercharger stations are supposed to be able to charge to 160 miles of usage in 30 minutes, enough time to get a bite to eat.

I've driven cross-country many times and we never stopped for 30 minutes every 200 miles. We might be off the freeway for 15 minutes every 300 miles, but less than 10 minutes of that time is available for charging. (Pulling off the road and getting somewhere to do something takes time.)

And no, eating within walking distance of the only charging station in Elko, Winnemucca, or Battle Mountain isn't enough.

[yskchu]

Have you seen the Renault-Nissan's QuickDrop battery swap?

Solves your problem of charging for cross-country drives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-Azrt_wUkc

And we even have some running in Israel already:

http://www.just-auto.com/the-just-auto-blog/israels-quick-dr...

[confluence]

You sure about that? See here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4568396