Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation United States

8 US States Pushing For 3.3 Million Electric Cars 327

Posted by Soulskill
from the free-of-charge dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A coalition of eight U.S. states, including New York and California, have announced a plan to get 3.3 million zero-emission electric vehicles onto their roads by 2025. 'The states, which represent more than a quarter of the national car market, said they would seek to develop charging stations that all took the same form of payment, simplify rules for installing chargers and set building codes and other regulations to require the stations at workplaces, multifamily residences and at other places.' An editorial in Quartz says that while the initiative itself is fine, the states should really take cues from Tesla if they want to plan out an infrastructure that will convince people to switch. ' For longer distances, [Tesla drivers] can stop at "Supercharger" stations strategically placed along highways that let them add 150 miles of range in as little as 20 minutes. Currently, [government] money is being spent on installing much-slower chargers at stores, shopping malls and other urban locations in the hope that drivers will use them. Tesla says it will blanket the US with its Superchargers for a fraction of the cost, because it studies the driving patterms of its customers and installs charging stations only where they tend to travel. This isn't hard; most other electric cars also record their drivers' habits. If privacy concerns could be addressed and automakers would be willing to share that data with government transportation planners, the rollout of public charging stations could be more targeted and cash-efficient.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

8 US States Pushing For 3.3 Million Electric Cars

Comments Filter:
  • by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Saturday October 26, 2013 @04:47PM (#45247121)

    You can be sure that Texas is not one of those eight states.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      I skimmed TFA, Illinois wasn't on the list, either, despite this: [nbcchicago.com]

      Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has signed two bills into law that aim to increase the use of electric vehicles around the state.

      The governor signed the documents Saturday in front of a Walgreens store near downtown Chicago that has a charging station for electric vehicles.

      TFA is fluff, but I still expect to read some interesting comments.

  • What a load of crap. There is no reason at all to share any personal data with the government. Lets ignore that NSA already has it all, if they want to know where people drive, well, they already have good road usage statistics for most roads. They certainly don't need data on where current electric car drivers are driving now, they "need" data on where they would be driving their over priced toys if they could drive there and get back, and the current data will not tell them that. To meet their idiotic goa
  • For this too work at least 100 million cars with compatible charging units would have to be on the road in those states by 2025. In addition every unit of power would have to be subsidized by either the state or federal government. Plus think of the strain this puts on an aging power producing infrastructure. Electric prices will soar. Unless we switch to nuclear power or solar become MUCH cheaper this plan can't be sustainable.
    • by Zobeid (314469)

      I don't understand your maths. The article says they are aiming for 3.3 million vehicles. How did you arrive at 100 million?? That would be roughly a third of the cars in the USA! Nobody is expecting EVs to be adopted on that scale within that time frame.

      As for the strain on the electrical grid... It may lead to some regional problems as the usage patterns change, but electric cars should not drastically increase the total national demand for electricity. Gasoline consumption will be reduced, and it t

  • I wonder if these states adopt Tesla's supercharger stations then will Tesla be able to charge $$$ or get royalties from licensing the technology etc...

    If so then that could lead them down the path towards being a monopoly, since they'd own all the supercharging stations...

  • Right now even the cheapest hybrid cars tend to cost double what a cheap gas powered economical car costs. This means you can go through like 100,000 miles of gasoline before you break even.

    Some company should try and make a bare bones economical car with electromagnetic return braking. Aim for a short range if you have to 20-40 miles, and have a or a hybrid gas/electric drive. Basically you'd charge at home, so most of your commute is near-free.

    A car like this would empower a lot of low income fami
    • by 0123456 (636235)

      Companies don't build such cars because people don't want to buy them when they can buy a Civic for the same price or less.

      Sure, in theory you could build a $5,000 electric car, but by the time you've redesigned it to meet global auto construction rules it will cost several times as much.

  • Citing diminishment of of revenues from gas taxes, due to the influence of electric cars, 8 states are working to impose a per-mile road tax.

  • I hate that term as it is inaccurate. While the vehicle may not emit pollutants one is just shifting the emissions to the coal/natural gas fired electricity generation plant. If the cars were not charging the plants would not be emitting as much. It is less emissions that an internal combustion engine but it is non-zero. Sure, you can hook your car up to you PV array or wind turbine but if you are using grid energy it is not zero emission. If the source of the electricity is not zero emission then calling

    • by Zobeid (314469)

      You can hate that term all you want, but it's been widely used for decades, and the rest of us aren't going to change our terminology because you posted a comment on Slashdot. Better get used to it.

      As for the whole "long tailpipe" argument against EVs, that's so ten years ago. Come back when you get caught up with the debate.

    • by Kneo24 (688412)
      Do our current offering of combustion vehicles have the capability of being zero emission? No. Do our electric vehicles have the capability of being zero emission? Yes. If the possibility is easily there, then I don't see a reason why the term shouldn't stay.
  • by EmperorOfCanada (1332175) on Saturday October 26, 2013 @10:28PM (#45248853)
    A lesser known fact involving the economics of electric cars is that by using electricity you typically are using a locally generated energy source. If this is combined with renewable energy sources such as solar panels on your house the economics become even more interesting. The key to all this being that money normally spent "fueling" traditional vehicles often leaves the country or even the continent completely. By switching to a more local source of energy this money is freed to be potentially spent on local goods. While this sucks for the oil producing areas and countries it really works for the vast majority of countries that import massive amounts of vehicle fuel.

    The above only applies to those areas that are able to source their energy locally.

    Why this economic fact is important is that it must be taken into consideration when looking at the cost of improving the grid or even putting solar on people's houses. The benefits of not exporting your money can easily outweigh a fairly sizable margin in the cost of fueling the vehicles.

    Some small countries with bounties of sun and no fossil fuels will really win when the combination of cheaper batteries and better solar cells become available.

    I have a sneaking suspicion that the concept of an oil war will be gone in 20 years.

"A mind is a terrible thing to have leaking out your ears." -- The League of Sadistic Telepaths

Working...