Posting in Education
CODA Automotive CEO says a Cash-for-Clunkers-type rebate would do wonders for electric vehicle sales.
CODA Automotive is producing an all-electric, zero emissions sedan that is expected to be on the showroom floor in the fourth quarter of this year. The car will be able to reach speeds of 80 miles per hour with an average range of 100 miles per charge, and it comes with satellite-ready radio, MP3/USB connectivity, iPod dock and a Bluetooth system with an embedded microphone. It is powered by a 333-volt lithium ion battery that will be under warranty for eight years or 100,000 miles. Full charging takes about six hours from a 220-volt outlet (like your drier). The company is based in Southern California, but cars are assembled overseas.
If you wanted to see and feel one of CODA’s vehicles at the Washington Auto Show last week, you were out of luck. Apparently they didn’t have enough display cars to set up at the show. So instead of showing off vehicles, CODA CEO Kevin Czinger spent a good part of the week lobbying. He sat on a panel at the Green Car Summit on Capitol Hill and later talked to me about the most important things the federal government can do to facilitate future sales of electric vehicles. Here’s his top three.
1. The number one step the government can take to promote the electric vehicle is changing the existing $7,500 tax credit to an instant cash rebate, like Cash for Clunkers. I believe the vehicle price is low enough [$40,000] that $7,500 makes all the difference in the world. That $7,500 can have a huge impact because initially, I think you can sell tens of thousands of cars at that price point. When you have that introduction, people buy, the price is driven down, performance improves and the market takes over. An instant cash rebate is clear, and people understand that they can immediately deduct it from the price. That $7,500 a car can provide tremendous leverage for expanding the market and is the single biggest leverage point to drive adoption of all EV.
2. When people buy the car, they will need to install an outlet in their house. It’ll be like charging your cell phone. You’ll drive home and plug in your car at night and plug in your cell phone and iPod, which will both charge with the car. But customers will need to pay for that outlet. I’d recommend [the government] supporting people putting in that infrastructure—giving them a $500 cash rebate. With a charger kit, it could be $400 to $1,500. In California, we’re looking at about $500 because in their houses they already have the capacity to add another 220 line. We’re using Sears Kenmore network to come in and install it.
3. The CODA is the only affordable safe electric car company 100 percent independent of the oil industry. We all know our destiny does not have to be tied to oil. In order to move away from an oil-based transportation regime, we need safe and reliable cars and safe and reliable battery systems. But we also should be clear and transparent on what the real risks are of depending on oil. From an economic and national security standpoint we are really at risk. In the ‘70s we saw prices skyrocket, and supply fell off, and the U.S. was at the mercy of OPEC. Jimmy Carter said this was the biggest national security issue the U.S. faces, and we were depending on foreign oil for 40 percent of our supply. We tripled our volume since then, and today, Senator Hatch said 70 percent of our oil comes from foreign sources. Does the average American understand that? There should be more education [from the government] so people understand what we’re facing.
Jan 31, 2010
Moving the emissions from tailpipe to smokestack yields a net reduction AND provides opportunities to use renewables in a way that can't be done in a vehicle. The BIG stumbling block is batteries (modular changeouts won't work - too much opportunity for fraud and resulting lack of confidence in the system, not to mention the insanity of requiring all manufacturers to use the same form factors.) Until there's a reliable and FAST recharging infrastructure in place EVs will be restricted to short runs. Personally I don't see that as a problem (I'd hire another vehicle for the occasional long trip, just as I hire a van now for bulky transportation) but far too many people spec their vehicles for the 1% cases and ignore where 99% of their costs are.
Most people would be able to do their daily commute and errands with a car with 100 mile range. If you're one of the exceptions, don't buy one. And honestly... if you're really driving 150 or 200 miles a day to get to work, the most environmentally responsible thing you could do is MOVE! Find a home closer to your work or a job closer to home.
Simple and easy. The American taxpayer cannot afford a subsity for the electric car. and second, it just does not go far enough yet. I sometimes drive 150 miles for my job. This technology just would not work for me and i'm sure I am not the only person who drives this much for the job. It is not the governments job to favor one technology over another, it is the job of American business to figure out a way to make this feasable. Electric cars are a long way away. the infrastructure has to be built. if we are going to build an infrastructure why not build one that supports Natural Gas. This will give us the bridge we need intil the electric car is ready.
1. Install a solar panel on the roof. While it wouldn't charge the battery fully in a day, it would certainly help. And every hour of daylight would extend the battery, regardless if You drive or not. 2. Park the car on a windy place, pull up the "propeller charger/windspoiler" and go to work. When You come back the battery will probably be fully charged. 3. What do You need charging stations for? Just place the ordinary powerpoles alongside the road and they will charge the car through coils in the roof. 4. Nothing says You have to drive full throttle all the time. Smart driving also extends the battery capacity. 5. How about linking together a few cars when necessary? 6. And what's wrong with having a small and simple gaspowered emergency engine? In an emergency without battery power, anything is better than nothing. So You have to drive slow for a while, it's no big deal. I have an electric kickbike in my gaspowered car, so I can park for free outside the city limits and then zoom to work with my kickbike. And these are ideas I came up with in less that two minutes. There are probably lots more if You really put Your mind to it. The only real problem in my country is that the government places a 100% tax on all new cars, regardless of what type they are. That means: a 40000$ car for You is an 80000$ car for me.
All of this is for naught if there aren't roadside charging stations. The political will/funds to get this accomplished should be impossible/astronomical based on the political clout of special interests and local/state/national government's lack of funds and subsequent unwillingness to invest in infrastructure.
We have to convert all electrical generation to zero-emission sources, obviously, if electric cars are to be truly zero-emission - and we're moving in that direction. Even without that, though, electric power is vastly more efficient for powering vehicles than internal-combustion engines; the pollution is moved to the power plant, and massively reduced.
With the exception of the farmer with the wind turbine, most of us don't have a clean fuel source for that "Zero Emission" car. My pollution moves from the tailpipe to the local generating plant. Now if I put photovoltaics on my roof, then were getting somewhere (but another $30K) for the PV panels. PropellerHead_NJ
With a range of 100 miles there better be charging posts at the malls. restraunts, theatres and any place people stop for over 1 hour or so. Of course a charge of less than the cost of fuel to get there. I still can't understand why the Saturn and Pontiac can't be torn apart and electrafied. Something the working man can afford.
"How far would Henry Ford have gotten with the Model T if there had been rules in place forcing his vehicle to a very slow speed limit or driven only when horses were not present. Putting artificial barriers in place is no way to develop a new industry." Actually, that's exactly what happened. And it didn't hold back the automotive industry for long.
@trybble1 - Not large, and we're quite close to the city. My commute is 22 miles each way, so a 100 mile range would be just fine. The two downsides that might make me hesitate would be the unavailability of the electric car for longer trips in a pinch, and having to deal with a different mechanic than my current one of 21 years. But I'm open to being an early adopter. I was using personal computers in 1978. ;-) I just need a good ROI...
My suggestion is to let the marketplace take care of things. For example: If the U.S. Navy is providing escort/protection for oil tankers bringing home oil from places like Saudi Arabia, the shipping companies should be billed for said escort and protection, and those who use the most gasoline/ Diesel fuel/ jet fuel per year, should bear the burden instead of the American taxpayers as a whole. If we drill for oil in Alaska, the government should not subsidize such activity in any way. On the contrary, oil companies should be forced to bear the full cost of insurance, in case of an Exxon Valdez-type oil spill. I cannot emphasize enough, that if there is a problem with carbon dioxide buildup in our world-wide atmosphere, and if there is indeed a problem owing to nations like Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, etc making billions of dollars each year from their oil resources, then the issue is NOT that our cars are too big per se. Its that the average American consumes too many gallons of petroleum products per year. Higher fuel prices would undoubtedly incentivize us to use less, by whatever means is most convenient for any given individual or family. Whether or not electric cars come into widespread use, I favor taxation of coal as soon as it comes out of the ground. Coal is a major offender with regard to carbon dioxide buildup in our atmosphere.
There's a 4th thing government could do - change the speed laws for NEV (neighborhood electric vehicles) to a maximum of 45 mph from the current 25 mph. In most cities throughout the US, very few streets have speed limits higher than 45 mph, the net effect of which would be to distribute the traffic, smoothing it between high speed gas vehicles and medium speed electrics. This would likely require some additional safety features and design changes for all weather driving in the NEVs, thus raising costs, as would an option for lithium batteries. These vehicles currently sell for about $8,000. Assuming the required changes would raise the price to $15,000, a rebate of $7,500, lowering the price to $7,500 "out the door" for a commuter vehicle, would see such vehicles sold and put into use very quickly by the millions. Further, the batteries could be modular. If you only commute 10 miles, maybe you only need 1 battery. If you drive twice as far, you buy a second battery, and so forth. Let people decide what they need and how much to spend, not a corporation which builds "one size fits all users and all uses" vehicles. In other words, remove the restrictive laws, level the playing field, and small electric commuter vehicles will compete fairly for the American dollar, not to mention provide us something to export. How far would Henry Ford have gotten with the Model T if there had been rules in place forcing his vehicle to a very slow speed limit or driven only when horses were not present. Putting artificial barriers in place is no way to develop a new industry.
I mean an electric car with a power generator on board make it so the power generator can be anything as in IC engine, disel, etk. this way as the technology progress you can just replace the power plant on the car and go... just plug in is not fisible most of the time as if you are taking a trip that is more then the range of the car...
The Federal Government is bankrupt. Over the period of my lifetime politicians have reduced the wealthiest nation on the planet to the world's biggest debtor nation. The federal government should cease picking winners and losers via subsidies and let the free market choose. More Earth friendly fuels and cars must compete on their own merits with older technologies if the economy is to recover and prosper. Ethanol gives 20% less miles per gallon, diverts food to fuel, and the subsidy per gallon is outrageous. A 100 mile range between fill-ups is very poor compared to conventional cars, infrastructure for interstate travel does not exist and 6 hours to recharge is outrageous. America has natural gas and coal in abundance and can eliminate dependence on foreign oil and does not need to send billions to countries that sponsor terrorism. I challenge Washington to keep money, technology and jobs in the US by reducing trade imbalance. It is estimated that every billion in trade deficit equals 13,000 jobs lost
My daily roundtrip drive is 110 miles. So I would need to charge at work. No 220v outlets anywhere to be seen. And who pays to charge the car at wrok?
Our Texas ranch house is powered entirely by wind energy (on average - we obviously share the distribution network with other energy providers). So a fully electric car would generate no significant air pollution for us to operate, same as my electric lawn mower. Government assistance to kick start some volume in the electric vehicle sector wouldn't be a bad investment in economics *or* national security!
Wait a minute, how is the electricity being generated to charge the car? Is the power generated at a coal or oil power plant? I don't think it is true to say that electric cars are zero emission vehicles, low emission yes but zero no. CF
We have been living in Montana for the past 5 years and I am not suprisexy shopto find it #3 on the "worst" list. Considering asexshopmove to Idaho to escapthe high cost of living a low income in MT. There may not be a sales tax here but they get you if you own property!
Where does Idaho rank? We have been living in Montana for the past 5 years and I am not suprisexy shopto find it #3 on the "worst" list. Considering asexshopmove to Idaho to escapthe high cost of living a low income in MT. There may not be a sales tax here but they get you if you own property!