Chrysler EVs: Not a one trick pony
Chrysler's first electric vehicle?While many believe that Chrysler won't be around in a couple of years, Chrysler is moving ahead with plans to electrify the automobile. And, in a CNN piece, Chrysler took a poke at the Chevy Volt and claimed that it wouldn't be a one trick pony, or "one electric vehicle company."
Thus, Chrysler's big EV plans are to forgo aerodynamics, weight and fancy designs. Instead, Chrysler will begin its EV program by converting traditional Chrysler vehicles into electric vehicles, while achieving the same kinds of performance as a Volt - all at a cheaper cost to the automaker and to consumers.
So, why didn't GM think of that?
Because, at least initially, it doesn't seem to make sense. For instance, the Volt will use a 16 kwh battery pack - the most critical and expensive component of the Volt. Chrysler's Jeep EV, on the other hand, will use a 27 kwh battery. Yet, somehow, Chrysler's EVs will be more cost-effective?
In the future, however, Chrysler's plans make a bit more sense. New EV production will be coordinated with conventional vehicle production. Thus, every Chrysler auto made can be either a gasoline-powered car, or an EV. Hence, Chrysler will be able to react quickly to market demand if it switches from gas to EV and back to gas again, for instance. Still, that program won't begin until at least 2012, and it seems a little perfect world.
Nonetheless, it's good to see Chrysler developing sophisticated EV plans, even if they are more about bailout bribery than reality. Still, do such plans really make Chrysler any more viable in the next 10 years?
Labels: Chevy Volt electric vehicle concept, chrysler, electric cars
posted by Dahcredyns at
8:59 AM
4 Comments:
I feel like the electric car movement is overlooking one very important factor: Where are we going to get all this extra electricity needed to charge electric cars? America's electrical grids are already stressed and to date we have not developed clean, affordable electrical power plants on a large scale. If we use coal fired power plants to charge our electric cars; what have we achieved?
Our organization looks at energy from the standpoint of its impact on water resources. Currently the nations 550 power plants use 214 billion gallons of water each day for cooling purposes. In addition these plants pollute water resources with lead and mercury. If the electrical demand is significantly increased the need for and pollution of water resources will also increase. Electrical cars are a great ideas; but their charging sources must come from wind or solar energy. www.nv-oc.org
"America's electrical grids are already stressed"
But they're stressed only during peak hours. There is vast unused capacity at night. To get people to recharge only at night we'll have a two tiered pricing system just like I have on my solar powered house.
And the coal question has pretty much been answered. An electric car using coal sourced electricity is more energy efficient and carbon friendly than an ICE car, while the grid, over time, is getting cleaner.
Having said that, though, I completely agree with you regarding the shift to green energy. The sooner the better, and water (mis)use is one of the reasons why.
Excellent points, Brandy. Scary stats on the water pollution.
Still, there many thinking about this issue, which is one of the reasons many are talking about a super, smart grid - sounds funny.
A smart grid would help manage electrical load, so less new electricity would need to be generated and it would strengthen our dilapidated grid.
Still, we'll need new electricity, especially from wind and solar, and such a grid could bring these new sources of electricity on line.
Yet, such a project will no doubt cost at least a trillion, probably more.
Likewise, how long would it take to get the grid up and running?
Is there the political will power to make such a long term investment when most Americans only think today when it comes to money?
Obama has talked a lot about this issue, but considering all the money currently flying out of washington, is such a super grid even financially possible any time soon?
We'll see, but a focus on the supergrid is probably more important than a focus on EVs.
Likewise, I've argued that hybrid cars make more sense right now. They help reduce fuel use, while helping develop battery technology and scaling down the costs of many EV components. Plus, you can make about 10 hybrids for every EV. And, when battery technology matures, those hybrids could be easily converted into plug-in hybrids.
The other thing people don't talk about when it comes to EVs is transportation taxes. If we tax gas to pay for roads, bridges, public transportation, etc., where will the money come from when the gas tax is gone?
I'd guess EVs won't be as economical compared to gas vehicles when that is factored into the equation because electricity used for transportation will have to be taxed to recover the gas tax.
that excess grid capacity, however, is not always in the right place at the right time, and substations in the grid are susceptible to overload because of this problem.
al gore is promoting the supergrid, for one thing, because current outages, based on today's usage, result in tens of billions of dollars of lost productivity every year because the grid itself isn't reliable.
during the summer in socal, where i live, blackouts have occurred both at night and on weekends because of excess AC use in residential neighborhoods, even though businesses are closed, for instance.
adding millions of EVs to the Socal grid would lead to blackouts in the summer without doubt using today's grid even when charging at night.
Post a Comment
<< Home