New study recommends mass adoption of electric vehicles

A report released Sept. 10,  called "Electric Drive By" outlines policies that would promote the transition to electric vehicles in the state of California, such as the Prius pictured above.
Faith Buchanan/Staff
A report released Sept. 10, called "Electric Drive By" outlines policies that would promote the transition to electric vehicles in the state of California, such as the Prius pictured above.

In the next decade, California freeways may be occupied by more cars without a tail pipe if policy recommendations from a recently released report authored by a UC Berkeley climate change policy fellow are followed.

“Electric Drive by ’25,” which was released Sept. 10 and is 10th in a series of reports on climate change sponsored by Bank of America, outlines policies that could be adopted by different sectors of the electric vehicle industry to promote a widespread transition to electric vehicles in the state by 2025. The mass adoption of electric vehicles would clean California’s air and boost the economy, the report argues.

“Electric vehicles are important to our environmental concerns, public health, quality of life and national security,” said Ethan Elkind, the Bank of America climate policy associate for UC Berkeley and UCLA’s law schools. “They are important to the economy because you would have a domestic source of fuel instead of having to import foreign oil.”

The report, which was written after a workshop between representatives from different sectors related to electric vehicles, argues that a mass adoption of electric vehicles, which use cleaner sources of energy, such as natural gases, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state — roughly 40 percent of which come from California’s transportation sector.

A larger electric vehicle market could also mean savings for the state in health care costs as well as savings for citizens on the cost of gas because electricity is cheaper per mile than gasoline, the report argues. It also argues that a growing electric vehicle industry could stimulate state economic growth by increasing the number of California-based electric vehicle automakers.

“It would have huge domestic economic benefits, and I think it’s fair to say that this is gonna be the industry of the future for cars,” Elkind said.

The price and lack of charging infrastructures are the main challenges preventing widespread electric vehicle adoption, according to the report. The Nissan Leaf, which is all electric, costs roughly $35,000, and long-distance travel with the Leaf can be difficult due to the scarcity of charging stations.

Electric cars are more expensive than regular cars because the price of the battery can add $5,000 to $10,000 onto the price of the car, said Steven Weissman, director of the Energy Program, Center for Law, Energy & the Environment and the facilitator of the workshop. In response to this, the report recommends that federal and state leaders increase funding for battery research and find alternatives besides taxing gas to fund infrastructure developments.

Policy leaders play a crucial role incentivizing the purchase of electric cars. The report recommends that state leaders extend AB 118, which provides a maximum rebate of $2,500 to electric vehicle users and is set to expire in 2015. If extended, it could also help state leaders meet environmental standards set by AB 32, which mandates that California reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020.

The extension of AB 118 has been met with contention.

“Why should average vehicle owners have to bear the cost of establishing energy-efficient programs to get these cars on the road?” said David Wolfe, legislative director of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

According to Wolfe, many of the provisions of the bill provide no benefit to regular car drivers who should consequently not have to bear additional taxes.

Even though the report is geared toward California, the widespread use of electric vehicles has national applicability, Weissman said.

“What happens here in California can certainly set the market for the rest of the country and certainly for the world,” Elkind said.

Still, the magnitude of environmental benefits is not the same in all states because it depends on which energy source is used to generate electricity. In states like West Virginia electricity is produced by coal as opposed to cleaner energies used in California, said Weismann.

“Even the people in West Virginia are going to be experiencing a net environmental benefit to driving with coal fired electricity than compared with oil,” Elkind said. “The bottom line is that it’s a benefit for everyone — the question is how big of a benefit.”

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • RealityBitesU

    Why doesn’t GM dust off the plans they had for the EV-1 they made in 1996? It got 125 miles per charge, see the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car?” or Ford dust off the plans they had for the Ecostar which got 225 miles per charge in 1996? or the plans for the Solectria Sunrse which got 375 miles per charge in 1996. These are all true records for the NESEA American Tour de Sol EV competition in 1996. And if you want electricity to charge your vehicle why not coat them with thin-film PV? Especially the one made by Aleo Solar? It charges in indirect light.

  • RealityBitesU

    In 1996 in the NESEA American Tour de Sol, the Solectria Sunrise got 375 miles per charge, Ford’s Ecostar got 227 miles per charge, GM’s EV-1 got 125 miles per charge. Nearly 20 years later they’ve
    actually regressed!?! ! Why? What industry has an interest adverse to the electric car industry? The same
    international oil and gas industry who have a chokehold on US. It would be easy to make an EV (electric vehicle) that is: Coated with Thin-Film PV so it is always trickle charging the batteries and
    ultracapacitors, anytime any light, direct or indirect, is present, (Aleo Solar thinfilm PV, developed by Dr.
    Vivian Alberts of Univ. of Johannisberg S.A., works equally well off of indirect light because it operates off of
    infrared, it pays back for itself in 2-3 years and lasts 17 years (for 15 years of free power) and the active elements are fully recoverable recyclable for re-use.) This EV would also have Generators
    placed in certain wheels so that according to the generators configuration either or both the batteries or the ultracapacitors are charged anytime the wheels move, (the free moving wheels containing generators (high efficiency DC permanent magnet dynamo generator) are rolling along with the large already moving mass of the vehicle propelled as a means of transport); (UQM is a leader in high efficient motors and generators); Regenerative Braking (AC magnetic field induced braking low efficiency generator) would also recapture energy and also feed electricity back into the onboard recharging system; The Solectria Sunrise’s power saving system and light weight ideas could be approximated or used; and Power Saving Ultracapacitors i.e., Maxwell Technologies’, would also be employed during acceleration greatly extending the battery charge up to 15 times and of course further extending the range. You could also use the Altairnano Nanosafe batteries which already provide +240 miles per charge in Phoenix Motorcars and Lightening vehicles, charge in 10 minutes, operate in extreme temperatures, do not overheat and last over 15,000 recharges. This EV would rarely need recharging by an outlet because it is almost always trickle recharging through these other
    means, especially the PV. Economically: Think of the world-wide market for such a vehicle replacing most existing vehicles and the money and wealth it would put into the hands of consumers and
    the worldwide economy because they are not paying for gas or much electricity. And, of course, the effect it would have on reducing climate change and air pollution. Think of all the jobs it would create in making all these vehicles. Even conversion companies would start up more jobs. I wish the President, on our behalf, as we are the shareholders due to the bailout and he is our elected Representative order GM to make a prototype immediately, say within the next 60 days. They could. Or perhaps he could put out a request to several companies or open it up to come up with such a model ASAP. I repeat, 1996 they had cars that could get up to 375 miles per charge and the lowest got 125 at the NESEA American Tour de Sol.

  • RealityBitesU

    In
    1996 in the NESEA American Tour de Sol,
    the Solectria Sunrise got 375 miles per charge, Ford’s Ecostar got 227 miles
    per charge, GM’s EV-1 got 125 miles per charge. Nearly 20 years later they’ve
    actually regressed!?! ! Why? What industry has an interest adverse
    to the electric car industry? The same
    international oil and gas industry who have a chokehold on US. It would be easy
    to make an EV (electric vehicle) that is: Coated
    with Thin-Film PV so it is always trickle charging the batteries and
    ultracapacitors, anytime any light,
    direct or indirect, is present, (Aleo Solar thinfilm PV, developed by Dr.
    Vivian Alberts of Univ. of Johannisberg S.A., works equally well off of indirect light because it operates off of
    infrared, it pays back for itself in 2-3 years and lasts 17 years (for 15 years
    of free power) and the active elements are fully recoverable recyclable for
    re-use.) This EV would also have Generators
    placed in certain wheels so that according to the generators configuration
    either or both the batteries or the ultracapacitors are charged anytime the
    wheels move, (the free moving wheels containing generators (high efficiency DC
    permanent magnet dynamo generator) are rolling
    along with the large already moving mass of the vehicle propelled as a means of
    transport); (UQM is a leader in high efficient motors and generators); Regenerative Braking (AC magnetic field
    induced braking low efficiency generator) would also recapture energy and also
    feed electricity back into the onboard recharging system; The Solectria Sunrise’s power saving system and light weight ideas
    could be approximated or used; and Power
    Saving Ultracapacitors i.e., Maxwell Technologies’, would also be employed
    during acceleration greatly extending the battery charge up to 15 times
    and of course further extending the range. You could also use the Altairnano Nanosafe batteries which
    already provide +240 miles per charge in Phoenix Motorcars and Lightening
    vehicles, charge in 10 minutes, operate in extreme temperatures, do not
    overheat and last over 15,000 recharges. This EV would rarely need recharging
    by an outlet because it is almost always trickle recharging through these other
    means, especially the PV. Economically:
    Think of the world-wide market for such a vehicle replacing most existing
    vehicles and the money and wealth it would put into the hands of consumers and
    the worldwide economy because they are not paying for gas or much electricity.
    And, of course, the effect it would have on reducing climate change and air
    pollution. Think of all the jobs it would create in making all these vehicles.
    Even conversion companies would start up more jobs. I wish the President, on
    our behalf, as we are the shareholders due to the bailout and he is our elected
    Representative order GM to make a prototype immediately, say within the next 60
    days. They could. Or perhaps he could put out a request to several companies or
    open it up to come up with such a model ASAP.

    • Calipenguin

      The exotic batteries and ultracapacitors you mentioned could one day make EVs practical. However, we must judge the decisions and trade-offs of existing EV makers, and so far an affordable, safe, and practical design has not been found.

      • RealityBitesU

        You are a paid Republican Troll propagandist aren’t you? The “mellow” one who sounds “reasonable”. The battery and ultracapacitors I mentioned have been in use commercially in many forms for several years. AEI is using the batteries to handle megawatt fluctuations in high power transmission lines, and of course I gave two car companies that are using them, in addition the U.S. Navy is using them to replace the back up diesel generators for the electrical system on various warships. The ultracapacitors are not “exotic” either, they have been used in many commercial applications for power saving purposes. IF you think 1996 technology that made electric cars far better than they are being produced today is “exotic”, I don’t know what can help you. It is nothing but corruption. EV’s were quite practical and are easily attainable today, and ones that require little in the way of plugin recharging are quite attainable as well. Climate change is destroying this planet and all your masters can think about is some frigging money?

        • Stan De San Diego

          > You are a paid Republican Troll propagandist aren’t you?

          Unlike you, he sounds like someone who understands the underlying economics of so-called “alternative energy”.

          > Climate change is destroying this planet and all your
          > masters can think about is some frigging money?

          Parroting the same old nonsense, I see. Liberal want a cracker?

  • RealityBitesU

    Regarding the letters attacking
    herein: These letters in the internet today attacking are mostly actually done
    by paid stooges. It is all part of a massive well-orchestrated massive lobbying
    and propaganda effort by the interested companies..Don’t you realize that there
    are experienced coordinated business moneyed interests fighting the adoption of
    progressive innovative progress here in America because it threatens their
    moneyed interests in keeping things going the same. In the 1950’s such a
    coordinated effort was made by certain business interests and they actually
    stopped the adoption of a single payer national health care system here in
    America. They hired Ronald Reagan to take part in this with records speaking
    about the evils of good cheap healthcare for all Americans. They had
    neighborhood “parties” thrown to get people organized against it. They had
    letter writing campaigns to the newspapers, etc. What we see here is just the
    continuation of the old letter writing campaigns, this includes the diversion
    letters, the crazy letters, the outright lie letters, etc. Industry will not
    move off an easy profitable established business even if those businesses are
    self-destructive and are destroying the climate, the earth and your own
    children’s future and health. They spent a lot of money claiming global
    warming wasn’t happening, then it wasn’t caused by humans, now it is to take another
    election. Oil companies don’t want to lose their business.

    • anon

      What r u some kind of conspiracy nut? Next u’ll b telling us GM killed LA’s light rail system in favor of diesel busses! (haha). Potiticians to the highest bidder! Greed rules! Yay!

      • RealityBitesU

        Not enough people know about that! It was actually mass transit street trolleys. L.A. had the best in the world, no pollution either.

        • anon

          I have a picure of about 50 stacked for scrap. There was pullution – minimal (the power came from somewhere, right?)

        • Stan De San Diego

          The problem is that most of LA abandoned the standard gauge Red Cars (Pacific Electric) and narrow-gauge Yellow Cars (Los Angeles Railways) after WWII in favor of freeways and private automobiles. Unlike the ill-informed conspiracy blather that most of you bed-wetters latch on to and repeat without question, the fact of the matter is that for better or worse, the working people of LA during the late 1940’s and 1950’s voted for automobiles both at the polls (with bond measures to build freeways) as well as with their pocketbooks. National Coach Lines (which purchased and/or was given operating authority by various cities and municipalities) pushed rubber tires and buses to replace well-worn electric rail equipment in order to (a) take advantage of the new freeways, and (b) provide more operating flexibility as traffic patterns changed. Seriously now, you need to find more credible sources than “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”…

          • anon

            You would describe LA’s trans system as “advantageous” and “flexible”? Everyone else says “carmegaddon”. It must be nice to argue without the need of facts, meaning, or critical thought. Enjoy your ‘safe’ little mental cage.

    • Calipenguin

      So how does Solyndra figure into all this? Obama makes a personal pitch for a well-connected unproven solar energy company that ends up going bankrupt, taking with it $500 million of taxpayer funds. Just like that. All those oil company conspiracies you mentioned must have backfired if they couldn’t keep the most powerful man in the world from making a pitch for an energy company that doesn’t involve those oil companies.

      • RealityBitesU

        Another paid Republican propagandist troll.

        • Stan De San Diego

          I see you couldn’t address the point, idiot. Figured that much the first time I read your drivel.

          • anon

            And who would know more abour drivel than u? Your a master of meaningless cliche and empty baseless ‘judgement’. Try harder!

  • Free love for all

    Berkeley is a pedestrian city! Get the wheels out man!

    • I_h8_disqus

      I have to admit that I am glad that I have not had to own a car while I have lived here.

  • loverpoint

    The most likely reason auto makers are charging up the wa-zoo for electric vehicles is because unlike internal combustion engines, there is minimal part replacement, none of the belts,plugs,oils, filters, etc. etc.. There was a study that showed that a $25,000.00 brand new car if kept by the original owner for 10 years would cost that person an additional $25,000.00 in upkeep- that’s including gasoline.

    There is a cleaner form of nuclear energy called Thorium- The inventor of the Light Water Reactor ( Solid Fuel ) Alvin Weinberg also invented the Molten Salt Reactor ( Fluid Fuel )- Molten Salt reactors do not explode like the reactors in Japan which are LIght Water Reactors. Thorium is found in Monosite Sands- It produces 90x more energy than uranium and is as common as lead- the USA has the 3rd largest deposits of Thorium in the world. The reason Thorium research was canceled by President Richard Nixon was because 1) G.E. and Westinghouse owned all the patents in Light Water Reactors 2) Lots of money to be made in Uranium Mining. 3) Thorium reactor don’t produce weapons grade material which the US military wanted.

    SInce the USA won’t endorse Thorium- Bill Gates and other investors are doing research in China- soon China will lead the way in this new form of energy.

    • libsrclowns

      Who in the USA won’t endorse Thorium?

      • anon

        me

    • guest

      Bullshit. Electric cars cost more because they are more expensive to make. Why in god’s name would car companies care about how much maintenance costs? They don’t see any of that money. Electric cars will not last much more than 10 years, anyway — big power electronics and batteries don’t last that long, and electronic assemblies can’t be rebuilt by third parties like most mechanical parts are.

    • anon

      Your 90x number is wrong. It’s 1x, minus ‘activation’ energy. Crack a book, once, please.

  • Calipenguin

    There are several issues I must point out. First of all, the photo is of a hybrid vehicle, not an all-electric vehicle, which just goes to show that Leafs and Teslas are so impractical and rare that the staff photographer couldn’t find one for this article. No mention was made of California’s lack of transmission grid capacity. We already suffer brownouts every summer, and adding millions of electric cars and trucks would collapse the grid. This is different from the charging station infrastructure problem. New sources of electricity for California would have to come from new natural gas generation plants since wind and solar sources are not enough to keep up with demand, and new nuclear powerplants are out of the question. Natural gas is a non-renewable fossil fuel which contributes greenhouse gasses to the environment, which seems to defeat the whole purpose of the climate change policy report. Batteries are a hidden long term problem. Despite what the article says, a replacement battery for a Nissan Leaf would cost $18,000 (as of 2010) which is the price of a new Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla. Most EV manufacturers only guarantee 80% battery capacity after 5 years so the driving range of a Nissan Leaf drops from 73 miles down to 58 miles, which is enough to go from Berkeley to San Francisco and back but not enough to visit Palo Alto, and don’t even dream of going to Lake Tahoe or Disneyland. When the warranty on the battery is almost up (8 years) the cars will have very little resale value since no one wants to take a risk on an aging 8-year-old battery that has been recharged over a thousand times. The price of a replacement battery for a Tesla Roadster has been estimated at $40,000 and the cost for a high capacity battery for the Tesla S has been estimated at $60,000, but Tesla won’t confirm those numbers. The warranty does not cover batteries that have been completely discharged due to owner negligence. Such batteries cannot be revived, as anyone with a dead laptop computer battery knows.

    • anon

      Who would want to visit palo alto?

      • Calipenguin

        To steal the Axe, of course.

      • Stan De San Diego

        I see you really have nothing to contribute.

  • alum

    Lol, and where does our energy come from for electricity? Oh yeah, that’s right, ~45% from burning of coal. ~24% from burning natural gas.

    Those batteries? How much pollution is generated in building those? How many caustic substances are created?

    …and when those vehicles are retired, how do we recycle those batteries? Oh wait, unlike your standard AAA, we don’t know how to fully recycle those batteries.

    These vehicle “studies” are so poorly thought out. Sponsored by BofA? Probably because they’re just excited to finance more vehicle loans.

    • anon

      You have a lot of questions (and guesses)… Maybe you should work on some answers.

      • Stan De San Diego

        Why don’t YOU work on answers yourself? Or perhaps you’re one of those liberal arts/humanities majors who think that all technological advancements come as the result of political protest.

        • anon

          i JUST SAID THAT!! ,,, copycat…loser…

          • Stan De San Diego

            You weren’t responding to me child, you were responding to someone else… and BTW, I am working on solutions in the area of biofuels production. I gather your petulant little answer was tacit admission that you’re not doing much yourself but pissing and moaning while demanding others do the work.

          • anon

            Yay, biofuels to the rescue! Corn Ethanol can drive up food prices and starvation while we condemn our future EVEN FASTER! Thanks stan diego! (oh, and enjoy your public subsidies)

          • Stan De San Diego

            I’m not working with ethanol from corn, so take your silly accusations and shove them.

    • Ethan

      All the national lab and major organization studies indicate that getting fuel from electricity production is significantly cleaner than oil. That’s true even if it’s coal-based electricity, although the benefits are obviously less in those areas (as the article states). On the subject of battery production, life cycle studies indicate that pollution from the production process, at least in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, is negligible compared to the pollution from fossil fuel burning. As for retiring the vehicle batteries, the batteries still have 80% capacity and can be stacked and used for utility grid-scale applications. The DOE and other labs are looking into this possibility now via testing and research. This market is very new and just getting going, and there are some promising options for battery research and reuse as the market grows.

      • Stan De San Diego

        “All the national lab and major organization studies indicate that
        getting fuel from electricity production is significantly cleaner than
        oil.”

        And once again, where do you get the electricity from, unless it’s fossil fuels or nukes? Personally, I’m not opposed to nuclear power, but there are enough anti-nuclear bedwetter types to ensure that California isn’t going to be doing any large-scale expansion of nuclear power any time soon.

        • SteveEV

          I charge my EV with electricity generated by my solar collectors. If they are not generating, the local electric utility provides me with hydroelectric power. SDG&E sends you a report of their power mix with your monthly bill or on their web site in case you are interested.

          In any case my EV will take me 24 miles on the electricity used to refine a gallon of gas. I don’t see any reason to burn gas and create a less efficient and more toxic process.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

            [In any case my EV will take me 24 miles on the electricity used to refine a gallon of gas.]

            My Ford Ranger with a 2.3L 4-cylinder gas engine does nearly the same. Why would I want to scrap a good vehicle and generate another 10-12 tons of pollutants (the environmental impact of manufacturing a new electric vehicle) merely to APPEAR “green”?

          • SteveEV

            Perhaps you responded too quickly. Please consider all the materials and processes required to propel a gas vehicle. I noted that only one, the electrons used to convert oil into one gallon of gasoline at a refinery, is sufficient to drive my 1999 Ford Ranger Electric 24 miles. I do not need the well, pipeline, tankers, refinery, gas stations or toxic tailpipe emissions.

            And I was glad to have its predecessor towed away to benefit a charity and save me an absurd repair bill.

            I am a great fan of the Ford Ranger. It is the most reliable vehicle I have ever owned.

    • RealityBitesU

      YU R Wurking 4 D Oil Companys Rnt U?

    • RealityBitesU

      In 1996 in the NESEA American Tour de Sol, the Solectria Sunrise got 375
      miles per charge, Ford’s Ecostar got 227 miles per charge, GM’s EV-1
      got 125 miles per charge. Nearly 20 years later they’ve
      actually regressed!?! ! Why? What industry has an interest adverse to the electric car industry? The same
      international
      oil and gas industry who have a chokehold on US. It would be easy to
      make an EV (electric vehicle) that is: Coated with Thin-Film PV so it is
      always trickle charging the batteries and
      ultracapacitors, anytime any light, direct or indirect, is present, (Aleo Solar thinfilm PV, developed by Dr.
      Vivian Alberts of Univ. of Johannisberg S.A., works equally well off of indirect light because it operates off of
      infrared,
      it pays back for itself in 2-3 years and lasts 17 years (for 15 years
      of free power) and the active elements are fully recoverable recyclable
      for re-use.) This EV would also have Generators
      placed in certain
      wheels so that according to the generators configuration either or both
      the batteries or the ultracapacitors are charged anytime the wheels
      move, (the free moving wheels containing generators (high efficiency DC
      permanent magnet dynamo generator) are rolling along with the large
      already moving mass of the vehicle propelled as a means of transport);
      (UQM is a leader in high efficient motors and generators); Regenerative
      Braking (AC magnetic field induced braking low efficiency generator)
      would also recapture energy and also feed electricity back into the
      onboard recharging system; The Solectria Sunrise’s power saving system
      and light weight ideas could be approximated or used; and Power Saving
      Ultracapacitors i.e., Maxwell Technologies’, would also be employed
      during acceleration greatly extending the battery charge up to 15 times
      and of course further extending the range. You could also use the
      Altairnano Nanosafe batteries which already provide +240 miles per
      charge in Phoenix Motorcars and Lightening vehicles, charge in 10
      minutes, operate in extreme temperatures, do not overheat and last over
      15,000 recharges. This EV would rarely need recharging by an outlet
      because it is almost always trickle recharging through these other
      means,
      especially the PV. Economically: Think of the world-wide market for
      such a vehicle replacing most existing vehicles and the money and wealth
      it would put into the hands of consumers and
      the worldwide economy
      because they are not paying for gas or much electricity. And, of course,
      the effect it would have on reducing climate change and air pollution.
      Think of all the jobs it would create in making all these vehicles. Even
      conversion companies would start up more jobs. I wish the President, on
      our behalf, as we are the shareholders due to the bailout and he is our
      elected Representative order GM to make a prototype immediately, say
      within the next 60 days. They could. Or perhaps he could put out a
      request to several companies or open it up to come up with such a model
      ASAP. I repeat, 1996 they had cars that could get up to 375 miles per
      charge and the lowest got 125 at the NESEA American Tour de Sol.

  • Stan De San Diego

    Do any of the cretins have a clue that not only will all-electric cars be expensive, but for practical purposes USELESS without cheap electric power to charge them?

    • anon

      Electric power IS cheap, stan… and renewable. And stop disparaging the people of Crete… not cool

      • Stan De San Diego

        Earth to Clueless: California doesn’t have the electrical generation capacity to power millions of electric vehicles, and if you think that’s going to be addressed by solar and/or wind generation, you don’t have a clue. What it comes down to is that all these electric vehicles are going to require either more fossil fuel burning plants or nukes, neither of which are likely to meet your approval. Once again, enviro-utopian goo-goos refuse to deal with reality.

        • anon

          i LOVE nukes, stan.

          • libsrclowns

            I do too but the wacko Libtards don’t.

          • anon

            Good thing your snuggled in tight BEHIND those ‘wacko libtards’. You sure you love nukes?

        • anon

          And our grid is pretty good when we’re not getting humped by enron or duke…

          • Stan De San Diego

            Enron and Duke aren’t the problem.

        • Norm Rhett

          Let’s assume an EV uses .3 kW-hrs / mile times 12,000 miles / year times 1,000,000 EVs = 3600 GWh.

          According to the CPUC, “California uses 265,000 Gigawatt-hours of electricity per year. Consumption is growing at a rate of two percent annually.”

          So a million EVs will consume less than one year’s growth in electricity usage.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Scott/1322599804 Paul Scott

          Stan, I’ve been driving my EV AND running my house on solar energy for ten years. I have several friends who have been doing the same thing for that long and longer. Today, 39% of LEAF drivers power their cars from solar. It’s easy to do and very cost effective. Solar is so cheap now you can buy a system for under $10,000 that will generate enough energy to drive your EV for 12,000 miles per year, and it’ll last for 40-50 years. That’s a great investment!

          • Calipenguin

            Paul, what do those 39% do for a living? Since solar energy does not exist at night, do those friends stay home during daylight hours to recharge their Leafs? If so, that’s not helpful for most people who go to work or go to school during daylight hours. If they use a secondary battery to store energy so that the Leafs can recharge at night, then we must calculate the cost of THAT massive battery array into the equation.

          • lib

            Wow, Paul Scott’s getting ganged up on by four conservatives.

          • I_h8_disqus

            I am just thinking about the future. I want to know where he got a system so I can look into getting one someday. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that conservatives don’t like solar. The truth is that we just want to make sure that the options are sensible. It does people no good to tell everyone to get an electric car, if there isn’t a benefit to the electric car for society. It all comes down to critical thinking. You don’t do things like invest billions in solar companies that are run so poorly that they go belly up after having spent all your money just because solar sounds cool.

          • Calipenguin

            Solar is free energy and I don’t know of any conservative or liberal who doesn’t like free energy. What I object to is the “throw out the oil companies” mentality. Oil and coal powered the industrial revolution and until alternative energy sources come down in price without government subsidies we should not be so hasty to give up on oil and coal.

          • I_h8_disqus

            I would look to the oil companies to be partners in the change to alternative power. Just like Toyota and other automakers are the ones who are bringing electric powered cars to the market, it will be the oil companies who most likely will bring us solar power. They are the only ones with the resources, money and knowledge to do it on a large scale.

          • anon

            Did u expect neo-cons to be fair?

          • I_h8_disqus

            What are you seeing as unfair?

          • Stan De San Diego

            “Stan, I’ve been driving my EV AND running my house on solar energy for ten years.”

            You’re one person out of 30 million living in California, and residential lighting isn’t the only form of power consumption in this state.

          • I_h8_disqus

            Where did you get your solar system?

          • anon

            Solar system, as in Mercury, Venus, etc?

          • I_h8_disqus

            Very good! Though I don’t think I will ever be able to afford that kind of solar system, but if my plan for world domination works, who knows.

          • libsrclowns

            What’s your payback period for your EV and solar investments?

      • Aristophanes

        He did say cretins, not Cretans.

        • anon

          I’m sure a Cretan would appreciate the difference…

          • Nunya Beeswax

            If he’s minimally literate, he ought to.