Comments on: Cost of converting entire U.S. to electric cars? Zero. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electric-cars-zero/ A posting every day; an interesting idea every three months... Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:50:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Sandy Toksvig http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electric-cars-zero/comment-page-2/#comment-86683 Sandy Toksvig Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:00:58 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electri#comment-86683 Well said Bill. I've never understood why electric cars are so expensive. An electric motor should cost much less to build than the equivalent I.C.E.. It will also take up much less space than an internal combusion engine - probably a quarter of the space. It won't have anywhere near as many parts as an I.C.E., and the parts that make up an I.C.E. all have to be precision engineered down to thousandths of an inch, and require constant lubrication. The I.C.E. also requires tuning, and over time piston rings will wear, spark plugs will wear, oil will need changing, water will need changing, the coolant system will need maintaining, etc.etc. Just look at your yearly garage bill for repairs on a conventional car that's over 5 years old. An electric car should have the motors in the hubs of the wheels, and use regenerative braking only - no brake pads. You then have four electric motors in the wheels, taking up no extra space whatsoever, compared to a gas car. The car's engine space can then be used for batteries, and if necessary, a highly efficient 150cc diesel engine can be kept in order to charge up the batteries for longer journeys - the diesel engine would of course run at ONE speed, the optimum speed, unlike the engine of a normal car. So we have an electric car that no longer requires expensive servicing every year, (I'm guessing here, but I would expect that the average car probably cost $250 a year to service - that's only going from my experience though), that has no engine parts which wear out, unlike an internal combustion engine, and will require new batteries once every five years, or something like that. (Again, I am guessing here.) So how can it possibly cost so much MORE to build what is obviously a much SIMPLER car? A bunch of batteries, an electric 'box' to control it (I don't know what is involved, but I doubt it costs much to make), a hub electric motor built into each wheel, no brakes to wear out, no expensive engine parts to wear out, etc. So what's the total cost? We see a similar phenomonen with electric bicycles - I found a website in the UK selling electric bicycles from £1300 to £1600! Now, a bicycle frame can only hold a light battery, so the battery can't have cost more than £50. The motor can't have cost more than £50 (that's being very generous, probably £15), and the electronics can't have cost more than £20. So why are they £1500? Then we have the ludicrous UK laws which say that an electric bike motor can only be up to 250w, and I think the top speed is 15mph. Now, the top speed is just fine, I rarely go that fast on the flat, but why not allow us to have a 500w motor, and just limit the top speed to 15mph? A 250w motor isn't going to pull me up a hill faster than walking speed, and if I'm on the flat but facing a 20mph headwind, I'm not going to be able to go 15mph. It seems that the government is so stupid and out of touch with reality (i.e. they've never ridden a bike in their lives!) that they think that it's okay for a 20 stone man to ride a bike at 30mph down a steep hill (which is, of course, perfectly legal), but it isn't okay for a 10 stone 70 year old woman to ride an electric bike at 15mph up a hill! In other words, the technology is being crippled and the very people who would otherwise buy such a bike will not buy it, because it won't get them where they want to go, quickly enough, so instead they stick to using a car. And in typical fashion, these laws were made without any democratic vote - i.e. if the majority of the population were shown an electric bike with a 500w motor, and a limited top speed (from the motor) of 15mph, I'm sure they'd have no objections to it. Well said Bill. I’ve never understood why electric cars are so expensive.
An electric motor should cost much less to build than the equivalent I.C.E.. It will also take up much less space than an internal combusion engine – probably a quarter of the space. It won’t have anywhere near as many parts as an I.C.E., and the parts that make up an I.C.E. all have to be precision engineered down to thousandths of an inch, and require constant lubrication. The I.C.E. also requires tuning, and over time piston rings will wear, spark plugs will wear, oil will need changing, water will need changing, the coolant system will need maintaining, etc.etc. Just look at your yearly garage bill for repairs on a conventional car that’s over 5 years old.
An electric car should have the motors in the hubs of the wheels, and use regenerative braking only – no brake pads. You then have four electric motors in the wheels, taking up no extra space whatsoever, compared to a gas car. The car’s engine space can then be used for batteries, and if necessary, a highly efficient 150cc diesel engine can be kept in order to charge up the batteries for longer journeys – the diesel engine would of course run at ONE speed, the optimum speed, unlike the engine of a normal car.

So we have an electric car that no longer requires expensive servicing every year, (I’m guessing here, but I would expect that the average car probably cost $250 a year to service – that’s only going from my experience though), that has no engine parts which wear out, unlike an internal combustion engine, and will require new batteries once every five years, or something like that. (Again, I am guessing here.)
So how can it possibly cost so much MORE to build what is obviously a much SIMPLER car? A bunch of batteries, an electric ‘box’ to control it (I don’t know what is involved, but I doubt it costs much to make), a hub electric motor built into each wheel, no brakes to wear out, no expensive engine parts to wear out, etc. So what’s the total cost?

We see a similar phenomonen with electric bicycles – I found a website in the UK selling electric bicycles from £1300 to £1600! Now, a bicycle frame can only hold a light battery, so the battery can’t have cost more than £50. The motor can’t have cost more than £50 (that’s being very generous, probably £15), and the electronics can’t have cost more than £20. So why are they £1500?

Then we have the ludicrous UK laws which say that an electric bike motor can only be up to 250w, and I think the top speed is 15mph. Now, the top speed is just fine, I rarely go that fast on the flat, but why not allow us to have a 500w motor, and just limit the top speed to 15mph? A 250w motor isn’t going to pull me up a hill faster than walking speed, and if I’m on the flat but facing a 20mph headwind, I’m not going to be able to go 15mph. It seems that the government is so stupid and out of touch with reality (i.e. they’ve never ridden a bike in their lives!) that they think that it’s okay for a 20 stone man to ride a bike at 30mph down a steep hill (which is, of course, perfectly legal), but it isn’t okay for a 10 stone 70 year old woman to ride an electric bike at 15mph up a hill! In other words, the technology is being crippled and the very people who would otherwise buy such a bike will not buy it, because it won’t get them where they want to go, quickly enough, so instead they stick to using a car.

And in typical fashion, these laws were made without any democratic vote – i.e. if the majority of the population were shown an electric bike with a 500w motor, and a limited top speed (from the motor) of 15mph, I’m sure they’d have no objections to it.

]]> By: bill kushner http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electric-cars-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-86170 bill kushner Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:59:47 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electri#comment-86170 Phillip- Only one mistake in your assesment. If all cars were electric, the costs would continue to come down way below $20000. Thats the little secret that the car companies dont want to let out. Remember the DVD player? When cars are all electric, no engine (no engine parts to cast out of steel etc) the car becomes not a car, but a piece of consumer electronics. Eventually, cars will be made in a factory just like a DVD player. Body, battery pack, and electric motor snapped together like a lego. Let me tell you, these guys are terrified that the day will come that you can go to Best Buy and get a two seater for $ 6000, and let me tell you, that day is coming .... Bill Phillip- Only one mistake in your assesment. If all cars were electric, the costs would continue to come down way below $20000. Thats the little secret that the car companies dont want to let out. Remember the DVD player? When cars are all electric, no engine (no engine parts to cast out of steel etc) the car becomes not a car, but a piece of consumer electronics. Eventually, cars will be made in a factory just like a DVD player. Body, battery pack, and electric motor
snapped together like a lego.

Let me tell you, these guys are terrified that the day will come that you can go to Best Buy and get a two seater for $ 6000, and let me tell you, that day is coming ….

Bill

]]> By: Brian http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electric-cars-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-83877 Brian Sat, 19 Jul 2008 05:27:10 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electri#comment-83877 kerry bradshaw wrote: "No viable electric car could be built for $20,000. In fact you couldn’t build one at any price, since they don’t exist. " Uh, excuse me? http://www.teslamotors.com Range: 250 MILES Time to charge: 3.5 Hours Max Speed: 125 MPH Acceleration: 0-60 in 3.9 seconds Where have you been lately Kerry???? This car is currently in production. Price is $100,000. The company is American but the first model of Tesla Roadster is being built in England. Tesla intends to build a 5 passenger electric car next, with a 200 mile range, and they will build it in the USA. The price will be $50,000. kerry bradshaw wrote:

“No viable electric car could be built for $20,000. In fact you couldn’t build one at any price, since they don’t exist. ”

Uh, excuse me?

http://www.teslamotors.com

Range: 250 MILES
Time to charge: 3.5 Hours
Max Speed: 125 MPH
Acceleration: 0-60 in 3.9 seconds

Where have you been lately Kerry????

This car is currently in production. Price is $100,000. The company is American but the first model of Tesla Roadster is being built in England.

Tesla intends to build a 5 passenger electric car next, with a 200 mile range, and they will build it in the USA. The price will be $50,000.

]]> By: me2 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electric-cars-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-83491 me2 Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:35:10 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electri#comment-83491 I really love when people do these types of thought experiments. I would very much like to see at least one economist and or scientist consider this type of calculation in gory detail to see if the estimations by bloggers are truly 'in the ballpark' and hit upon upkeep calculations as well (this was done to a small extent in the Stern report in 2006, but also took into account oil going from $50/barrel to 30, not 130). So far all that I've seen indicates that even a percent or so of GDP were shifted into actual production and implementation US energy production via solar/wind/geothermal/etc... is not only feasible but not anymore expensive (although there is certainly a window of time where we would have to spend building the initial infrastructure which is still problematic). Now if we could only tackle the "inconvenience" argument it would be a slam dunk. One last point: Even though it is still in it's infancy stage and has yet to suffer through the "technology death valley" I find it interesting to read about solar paints which it is estimated to produce electricity at ~$1/watt which would bring part of the calculation down by a factor of 10 (5 if the estimation is off by 100%!) I really love when people do these types of thought experiments. I would very much like to see at least one economist and or scientist consider this type of calculation in gory detail to see if the estimations by bloggers are truly ‘in the ballpark’ and hit upon upkeep calculations as well (this was done to a small extent in the Stern report in 2006, but also took into account oil going from $50/barrel to 30, not 130).

So far all that I’ve seen indicates that even a percent or so of GDP were shifted into actual production and implementation US energy production via solar/wind/geothermal/etc… is not only feasible but not anymore expensive (although there is certainly a window of time where we would have to spend building the initial infrastructure which is still problematic). Now if we could only tackle the “inconvenience” argument it would be a slam dunk.

One last point: Even though it is still in it’s infancy stage and has yet to suffer through the “technology death valley” I find it interesting to read about solar paints which it is estimated to produce electricity at ~$1/watt which would bring part of the calculation down by a factor of 10 (5 if the estimation is off by 100%!)

]]> By: philg http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electric-cars-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-82164 philg Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:57:50 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electri#comment-82164 Alex: "capabilities equivalent to a 10mpg SUV and 100 mile range"? If you include "hauling 7000 lbs. behind you as you drive to work by yourself", I think we do have to count electrics out. Supposedly, however, the GM EV1, introduced in 1990, had a 160-mile range (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 ). If you had a 50-mile commute to work you would need only a 50-mile range in any case. With the $400 billion that we spend per year on oil for cars we could buy a few extension cords to run out to employee parking lots. According to http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/Story?id=485098&page=1the average American commute was 16 miles in 2005. As the population continues to expand here in the U.S. and congestion pricing is rejected, one can only assume that many of these 16 miles will be spent stuck in traffic. The SUV's capabilities, which cannot be matched by the electric car, include burning gas and putting out a lot of pollution at idle while sitting in a traffic jam. Alex: “capabilities equivalent to a 10mpg SUV and 100 mile range”? If you include “hauling 7000 lbs. behind you as you drive to work by yourself”, I think we do have to count electrics out. Supposedly, however, the GM EV1, introduced in 1990, had a 160-mile range (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 ). If you had a 50-mile commute to work you would need only a 50-mile range in any case. With the $400 billion that we spend per year on oil for cars we could buy a few extension cords to run out to employee parking lots.

According to http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/Story?id=485098&page=1the average American commute was 16 miles in 2005. As the population continues to expand here in the U.S. and congestion pricing is rejected, one can only assume that many of these 16 miles will be spent stuck in traffic. The SUV’s capabilities, which cannot be matched by the electric car, include burning gas and putting out a lot of pollution at idle while sitting in a traffic jam.

]]> By: Alex http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electric-cars-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-82147 Alex Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:36:54 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electri#comment-82147 A recent IEEE Spectrum article pointed out, amongst other things, that the way Americans typically measure fuel efficiency (miles per gallon) skews our opinions of various technologies, such as plug-in hybrids or electric cars. The correct way, as the article argues, is to think in terms of fuel consumer per unit of distance traveled. For example, given a 100-mile round trip daily commute: A 10mpg SUV will consume 10 gallons of fuel. A 20mpg hybrid SUV will consume 5 gallons of fuel. A 50mpg Prius will consume 2 gallons of fuel. A 100mpg plug-in Prius will consume 1 gallon of fuel. A pure electric vehicle will consume zero gallons of fuel. I would claim there is no existing technology that would make possible an electric vehicle with capabilities equivalent to a 10mpg SUV and 100 mile range. There does exist gas-electric hybrid technology that makes a 20-mpg SUV possible. The greatest reduction in petroleum consumption by personal transportation will occur by focusing on the worst offenders first, but it seems like all the focus is on the other end of the scale. The other issue is the distribution of types of vehicles with average driving distances and habits, would seem to make the situation even worse. I'm certainly interested in a pure electric vehicle, but I drive a 30mpg car and have a daily commute of about ten miles, so my energy footprint is pretty low already compared to many in my current hometown of Houston, TX. Your average SUV-driving, 100-mile-a-day commuting suburbanite doesn't seem to care about energy footprint and I think nothing short of the complete unavailability of gasoline at any price will make them limit their lifestyle in the name of reduced energy use. Bottom line - increasing the fuel efficiency of gas-guzzlers will be more effective in the near term at reducing national oil consumption than developing PHEVs or EVs. A recent IEEE Spectrum article pointed out, amongst other things, that the way Americans typically measure fuel efficiency (miles per gallon) skews our opinions of various technologies, such as plug-in hybrids or electric cars. The correct way, as the article argues, is to think in terms of fuel consumer per unit of distance traveled. For example, given a 100-mile round trip daily commute:

A 10mpg SUV will consume 10 gallons of fuel.
A 20mpg hybrid SUV will consume 5 gallons of fuel.
A 50mpg Prius will consume 2 gallons of fuel.
A 100mpg plug-in Prius will consume 1 gallon of fuel.
A pure electric vehicle will consume zero gallons of fuel.

I would claim there is no existing technology that would make possible an electric vehicle with capabilities equivalent to a 10mpg SUV and 100 mile range. There does exist gas-electric hybrid technology that makes a 20-mpg SUV possible. The greatest reduction in petroleum consumption by personal transportation will occur by focusing on the worst offenders first, but it seems like all the focus is on the other end of the scale.

The other issue is the distribution of types of vehicles with average driving distances and habits, would seem to make the situation even worse. I’m certainly interested in a pure electric vehicle, but I drive a 30mpg car and have a daily commute of about ten miles, so my energy footprint is pretty low already compared to many in my current hometown of Houston, TX. Your average SUV-driving, 100-mile-a-day commuting suburbanite doesn’t seem to care about energy footprint and I think nothing short of the complete unavailability of gasoline at any price will make them limit their lifestyle in the name of reduced energy use.

Bottom line – increasing the fuel efficiency of gas-guzzlers will be more effective in the near term at reducing national oil consumption than developing PHEVs or EVs.

]]> By: philg http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electric-cars-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-81978 philg Thu, 29 May 2008 18:05:25 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electri#comment-81978 Joe: Thank you for grasping my point, which is that we are currently spending so much on oil that almost any formerly too-wild-to-consider-scheme is now feasible. I think I'm going to do another post soon on how oil is so expensive that GDP growth has become uncorrelated with a rising standard of living (because most of the rise in GDP will simply go to pay for more oil). Joe: Thank you for grasping my point, which is that we are currently spending so much on oil that almost any formerly too-wild-to-consider-scheme is now feasible. I think I’m going to do another post soon on how oil is so expensive that GDP growth has become uncorrelated with a rising standard of living (because most of the rise in GDP will simply go to pay for more oil).

]]> By: Joe http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electric-cars-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-81976 Joe Thu, 29 May 2008 17:12:12 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electri#comment-81976 Very interesting idea. The real value in this post is not trying to convert this into an exact policy, but using this to help us understand that this could be possible. Obviously a $8T loan is not an easy thing to produce, nor is totally undermining the embedded oil interests of this country (where do you think the $3T loan is motivated by). This instead is a proof of what is possible--a preemptive counter-argument for all the counter-arguments--to act as a guide as we push for real policy to aid the phase in of an electric fleet and a phasing out of oil. At first it will be cities like San Fransisco and states like California that pay attention to these numbers, but gradually these facts will become more and more clear to the masses, enough to overcome special interests and inertia. Very interesting idea. The real value in this post is not trying to convert this into an exact policy, but using this to help us understand that this could be possible. Obviously a $8T loan is not an easy thing to produce, nor is totally undermining the embedded oil interests of this country (where do you think the $3T loan is motivated by). This instead is a proof of what is possible–a preemptive counter-argument for all the counter-arguments–to act as a guide as we push for real policy to aid the phase in of an electric fleet and a phasing out of oil.

At first it will be cities like San Fransisco and states like California that pay attention to these numbers, but gradually these facts will become more and more clear to the masses, enough to overcome special interests and inertia.

]]> By: Jim Worthey http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electric-cars-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-81975 Jim Worthey Thu, 29 May 2008 15:46:55 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electri#comment-81975 Electricity can also replace petroleum through electrification of railroads. In the early 1970s, I worked at the GE company's locomotive factory in Erie. They had an effort to promote electrification of railroads. Most of the sales at that time were for passenger trains in Amtrak's northeast corridor, but the sales goal was to electrify much more. As I recall, it was economic then, depending on your assumptions about future fuel cost and cost of capital. The railroads didn't want to front the huge capital for the wires and transformers, and little has happened. Railroads can be electrified without needing about batteries, and the job can be done incrementally. If the tracks over the Rockies are electrified, the trains going downhill can use regenerative braking and feed back power to help the ones going up. The diesel locomotives that you see every day have electrical dynamic braking, but the power is dumped to resistor banks on top, cooled by the same airflow as the engine radiator. To return that power to an overhead wire, you need fancy electronics to make power at the right voltage and frequency, but that technology was being invented in the 1970s and is used in subways and elsewhere. Trolley buses and trolley cars are other charming technologies. I don't challenge the merit of electric and hybrid cars, but only offer some additional opportunities for electrifying things. The boundless possibilities may be limited mainly by the supply of copper. Electricity can also replace petroleum through electrification of railroads. In the early 1970s, I worked at the GE company’s locomotive factory in Erie. They had an effort to promote electrification of railroads. Most of the sales at that time were for passenger trains in Amtrak’s northeast corridor, but the sales goal was to electrify much more. As I recall, it was economic then, depending on your assumptions about future fuel cost and cost of capital. The railroads didn’t want to front the huge capital for the wires and transformers, and little has happened.

Railroads can be electrified without needing about batteries, and the job can be done incrementally. If the tracks over the Rockies are electrified, the trains going downhill can use regenerative braking and feed back power to help the ones going up. The diesel locomotives that you see every day have electrical dynamic braking, but the power is dumped to resistor banks on top, cooled by the same airflow as the engine radiator. To return that power to an overhead wire, you need fancy electronics to make power at the right voltage and frequency, but that technology was being invented in the 1970s and is used in subways and elsewhere.

Trolley buses and trolley cars are other charming technologies. I don’t challenge the merit of electric and hybrid cars, but only offer some additional opportunities for electrifying things. The boundless possibilities may be limited mainly by the supply of copper.

]]> By: philg http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electric-cars-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-81974 philg Thu, 29 May 2008 15:38:33 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electri#comment-81974 Brad: As I noted in the original posting, with the trillions of dollars that we wouldn't be spending on oil, we would have a lot of options for how to get the energy needed to run passenger cars. The first option is to do almost nothing, if the calculation that we need only 5 percent more electricity than we are currently generating. "Almost nothing" probably includes mining a bit more coal out of our current supply (the lowest estimates that I've heard on the extent of our coal supply are that we have 500 to 1000 years worth left in the ground right here in the USA. How could it be better for the Earth to give money to a West Virginia coal miner than a Saudi Arabian? It probably isn't. Could it be better for us? No West Virginia coal miner has ever been discovered using the money that we sent him to wage war against Americans. If we don't want to continue burning coal, the money saved from not buying oil could be used to build solar, wind, or nuclear powerplants. As for your range argument, McDonald's would be bankrupt if people frequently drove their cars even 100 miles without stopping. Quite a few battery technologies can take a significant charge in 15 minutes. Maybe the solution is to put recharging plugs in the parking spaces of fast food restaurants. Gas-powered cars are not perfect. They pollute our cities. They are noisy. They require a lot of mechanical tinkering as they get older. They burn gas and pollute the air even when stopped in a traffic jam (and an ever larger percentage of our time will be spent in traffic jams because we can't seem to get organized with congestion pricing). Neither will an electric car be perfect and one of its disadvantages may be that you have to sit down at Burger King for 15 minutes instead of using the drive-thru. Brad: As I noted in the original posting, with the trillions of dollars that we wouldn’t be spending on oil, we would have a lot of options for how to get the energy needed to run passenger cars. The first option is to do almost nothing, if the calculation that we need only 5 percent more electricity than we are currently generating. “Almost nothing” probably includes mining a bit more coal out of our current supply (the lowest estimates that I’ve heard on the extent of our coal supply are that we have 500 to 1000 years worth left in the ground right here in the USA. How could it be better for the Earth to give money to a West Virginia coal miner than a Saudi Arabian? It probably isn’t. Could it be better for us? No West Virginia coal miner has ever been discovered using the money that we sent him to wage war against Americans.

If we don’t want to continue burning coal, the money saved from not buying oil could be used to build solar, wind, or nuclear powerplants.

As for your range argument, McDonald’s would be bankrupt if people frequently drove their cars even 100 miles without stopping. Quite a few battery technologies can take a significant charge in 15 minutes. Maybe the solution is to put recharging plugs in the parking spaces of fast food restaurants.

Gas-powered cars are not perfect. They pollute our cities. They are noisy. They require a lot of mechanical tinkering as they get older. They burn gas and pollute the air even when stopped in a traffic jam (and an ever larger percentage of our time will be spent in traffic jams because we can’t seem to get organized with congestion pricing).

Neither will an electric car be perfect and one of its disadvantages may be that you have to sit down at Burger King for 15 minutes instead of using the drive-thru.

]]>