"In a car where all power is supplied by a battery pack you can see where this would be a problem. The batteries don't produce as much power so the car has less power. The batteries also have to work harder so the effective range of the car is also significantly reduced. Charge time will also be longer. Cold has a negative impact on all aspects of battery operation."And if the power grid goes dark, like during the recent snow storms which pounded the U.S. East coast , these vehicles cannot be recharged. FYI.
"Alongside the negative impact on the batteries cold also has a negative impact on the driver as well. Drivers need to be warm to operate the vehicle effectively so on top of the reduced range and power of the batteries just from the temperature they also must operate the car heater to keep you warm. This will further reduce the range of the car."
Besides, that electricity has to come from someplace.
Despite these facts, coupled with the limited battery range (40-90 miles), even under the best of conditions; limited recharging options on the road; expensive recharging options at home; the pricey purchase price tag ($35-40k) when compared to traditional gasoline models ($20k); expensive battery replacement costs ($15k); and fizzling U.S. sales (down 5.8% from previous year; poor sales figures hold true for S. Korea and other Asian nations, as well. Japan was the exception.), during his recent SOTU address to Congress, Obama set a target of putting one meeelllion electric vehicles on U.S. roads by 2015.
(is "target" allowed in the new civility?)
No doubt advances in technology will bolster battery efficiency, and improved production processes will lower unit costs, but instead of allowing market forces to determine the efficacy of this new technology, the Obama administration will use - you guessed it - your tax dollars.
For instance: $300 million for GSA's purchase of 3,100 hybrids in 2009; $2.4 billion in grants awarded during 2009 for advanced battery and vehicle manufacturing; personal tax credits of up $7500 for the purchase of new EVs, which Congressional Democrats are already proposing to expand (naturally); increasing the White House vehicle research budget to $590 million (you did know the W.H. has a vehicle research budget. Of course you did); a competitive grant program offering up to $10 million apiece to 30 communities to build public recharging infrastructure for EVs; etc.
Vice President Joe Biden was on the road last week talking up this massive tax dollar give away for electric vehicle technology (me thinks V.P. Biden was conveyed about by petroleum fueled planes and cars to tout the need for electric vehicles, but I could be wrong).
"We have to create whole new industries in the 21st century," Biden told a crowd of workers, company officials and politicians at Ener1's car battery plant about 25 miles east of Indianapolis."
Naturally, "We" means "your tax dollars."
Ener1's received $119 million grant from the Feds in 2009.
I like electric / alternative technology. I really do. But not when an entire nation is being demonized by the federal government for killing the planet, and arm twisted to park this fledgling, nearly impractical EV technology in our driveways, or instructed as to what light bulb we can use in our house, or how much corn liquor is in our gasoline, or how much salt is on my french fries. I'm fed up with this smug bunch in D.C. informing me about their superior way for me to live my life, and then demanding I pay more for the privilege.
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them, because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." - Sen. Barack Obama, Jan. 2008
Something tells me this smug bunch hasn't thought this through very well.