Skip to comments.New Electrification Coalition Calls for 75% EV Proliferation by 2040
Posted on 11/29/2009 2:52:11 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
In brief: This new coalition of members of the electric vehicle community, infrastructure, and more proclaim that the U.S. needs to have 75% of its light-duty vehicle miles go electric by 2040.
They officially released their report titled Electrification Roadmap, which outlines a vision for the deployment of EVs and infrastructure on a national scale.
Members of the coalition include GridPoint, INc., Coda Automotive, Nissan Motor Company, Johnson Controls, FedEx, and A123 Systems. Everyone in the coalition produces vehicles, infrastructure, or components for the EV industry.
That 75% goal would mean 200 million cars being replaced by electrics in only 30 years.
So the Coalition calls upon federal initiatives to mandate and fund this massive altering of the infrastructure and highway usage.
The self-interest of the coalition is obvious, but there is a question that should also be asked:
Why is government always the answer?
(Excerpt) Read more at futurecars.com ...
Let’s know something... The EV pushers obviously think their tech is superior to EVERY OTHER ALTERNATIVE to require 75 percent market saturation in 30 years, right?
Does anyone but myself realize the arrogance and intolerance of some advocates of ‘Alternative Energy’, especially in regards to other so-called ‘Environmentally-Friendly’ options?
These guys have not only an agenda to push, but a buck to make. Pure and simple. Yet, they will damn the ‘evil oil companies’ for doing the same damn thing.
These people merely want the government to pick them as the winner instead of competing on their own accord.
If they have a viable transportation alternative, compete with it out in the free market.
well, they will need 75% nuclear power to achieve the goal
The only weakness of an electric motor versus internal combustion is the power source. Assuming lightweight, fast charging, longlife, high capacity storage technology is available, I'm not sure I know of a light duty vehicle usage scenario where an internal combustion engine is superior to an electric motor.
There are at least 2 much better answers to better fuel mileage out there right now. Hydraulic hybrids and fuel cells that burn pretty much anything. Hopefully, they get to market and the public’s attention before some politician shuts down competition with an idiotic mandate.
Nobody mandated the internal combustion engine achieve a certain market saturation over the horse and buggy.
There were no “coalitions” to advocate for the internal combustion engine.
Yet somehow, things worked out.
And to my dying breath, I'll always have fond memories of growing up in the era of "REAL" autos, especially, "muscle" cars and when men were "men" (and not metro sexual girly-guys) and cars were called "irons," cuz that is what they were made of and the rest of the tiny "sh*t boxes"--such as these proposed "golf carts with pseudo-engines--were referred to as "sleds!"
The Big Boys were the best. Always have been my favorite.
I’ve seen six of the eight preserved 4000s. The only two I haven’t seen in person are in Dallas and Green Bay.
I’ve shot video, made audio recordings and/or have ridden behind all the “big” excursion steam in the last 20 years including UP 844+3985, N&W 611+1218, SP 4449+2472, Frisco 1522, SSW 819, MLW 261, C&O 614 etc.
Assuming that Star Trek type teleportation technology is available we could all live wherever we wanted and travel wherever we wanted instantaneously.
I may have seen your videos, do you post them?
This isn't about which technology you or I think is superior, more economical or whatever... This is about what should happen in our free-market system.
If that was the point, I didn't miss it.
fso301, look at post #3. This is what ultimately matters. No real conservative has anything against technology, we just want it to compete on a level playing field without government intervention.
This is where I think you are missing the point. The playing field as it currently exists is not level. Government intervention is required to clear the regulatory path.
As another poster suggested, they would need 75% nuclear power to achieve this ridiculous goal.
This is where you miss the point again. The only reason the goal may seem ridiculous is because of the myriad government regulations preventing expansion of power production capacity; nuclear or conventional. The government has to get involved to clear the regulatory path it.
My argument wasn't from the perspective of a proponent of a specific technology. My argument was as a proponent of the free market.
The point you miss is that the electric utilities do not operate in a free market. This may be the most regulated industry our nation has.
fso301, you need to understand base Freeper instincts before you comment.
I think I've been around here long enough to understand those sort of things.
And your point is???
For all we know the transporters will be available before the storage devices, making any investment in that system wasteful.
Are you aware of the progress being made in the field of electric storage technology?. Who said government investment is necessary? All the government needs to do is clear the regulatory roadblocks preventing this technology from being widely adopted for use in hybrid-electrics and EV's.