Chrysler descended on the Washington Auto Show in the nation's capitol Tuesday (Feb. 3, 2009) with its fleet of electric vehicles developed by the company's ENVI. Any doubt the company is serious about putting consumers behind the wheel of these great fuel-efficient vehicles? Please take 2:15 and watch the above video.
For highlights of Chrysler's news conference and media activities, please take a look at the video below.
It is absolutely untrue that these vehicles are "zero fuel consumption" -- what they burn in most parts of the US is coal, filthier than oil. Coal is where the electricity comes from -- so there may be no tail-pipe emissions, but there's plenty of damage to the air nonetheless.
Who said anything about "zero fuel consumption"? The Dodge Circuit EV has zero gas consumption and zero tailpipe emissions - yes, it does recharge from electricity, boasting a range of 150 to 200 miles. But many utilities are offering green alternatives. For example, in Michigan, DTE Energy offers Green Currents, electricity from renewable sources. So both Chrysler and utilities are becoming part of the solution to a cleaner environment.
Naptown22 - Blame the Jane Fonda's and other environmental nutcases who campaigned against nuclear energy for the last 40 years. More people have been killed by coal mine collapses and explosions related to coal dust at power plants than have ever died as a result of a nuclear power plant accident. The simple fact is that nuclear power is much cleaner than coal, and if government regulations weren't so convoluted (the approval process can take a decade and cost tens of millions) nuclear power would be relatively cost effective since plants wouldn't have to be custom built. Like any industry, there are efficiency of scale opportunities. If common reactor and plant designs are used, which can be scaled up and down as needed, then the costs to build nuclear plants can be greatly decreased. Nuclear energy is not the entire solution, but it is a major part of any plan to modernize the US power generation system. Coal must be phased out, and there are currently no renewable resources that can fill the void given the scale.
Your site https://www.chryslerllc.com/en/innovation/envi/specs/jeep_vehicles_patriot.php claims "zero fuel consumption." The same for the description of the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited EV and the Chrylser Town and Country EV -- just click on the Plug into the world of ENVI graphic a little to the north of this blog.
naptown22 - I'm just curious, are you pointing the same things out to Toyota, Honda, GM, Ford, and every other manufacturer that is talking about bringing out an EV and putting an end to "fuel consumption"? Are you writing to politicians, heads of power companies, the director of the EPA, and every American who uses electricity? Seriously, I could understand your first comment, but the second one is just petty.
Yes, coal is 'filthier' than oil. But, you also have to look at the efficiency of a gasoline engine powered car vs. electric. A typical gasoline engine powered car achieves about 25% to 30% peak efficiency when a in motion, and 0% when idled, for a typical combined overall efficiency of about 20%. So, about 80% of the total energy contained in the gasoline is wasted through various losses (heat, friction, etc.). A high-power electric motor is usually 90+% efficient, and typical current battery technology is between 75% and 90% (depending on battery type) with no further loss at idle. So, a combined electric system (battery & motor) will be (conservatively) 67% efficient. So yes, the coal burned to produce the electricity may be dirtier than oil, but you'll need 70% less energy input to the vehicle. I'm not sure what the generating efficiency of coal is as compared to gasoline refining, but I suspect the net carbon effect will be at least neutral. And, don't forget that although 49% of US electricity is generated from 'filthy' coal, the other 51% is from cleaner alternatives (23% natural gas, 19% nuclear, & 6% hydro). The big issue with wide-spread acceptance of plug-in electric vehicles will be power generating and distribution grid capacity, not the environmental impact.
@Car_Guy - good points. In addition, there's the issue of energy independence, which is also a big draw for electric drive.
Yes, coal is 'filthier' than oil. But, you also have to look at the efficiency of a gasoline engine powered car vs. electric. A typical gasoline engine powered car achieves about 25% to 30% peak efficiency when a in motion, and 0% when idled, for a typical combined overall efficiency of about 20%. So, about 80% of the total energy contained in the gasoline is wasted through various losses (heat, friction, etc.). A high-power electric motor is usually 90+% efficient, and typical current battery technology is between 75% and 90% (depending on battery type) with no further loss at idle. So, a combined electric system (battery & motor) will be (conservatively) 67% efficient. So yes, the coal burned to produce the electricity may be dirtier than oil, but you'll need 70% less energy input to the vehicle. I'm not sure what the generating efficiency of coal is as compared to gasoline refining, but I suspect the net carbon effect will be at least neutral. And, don't forget that although 49% of US electricity is generated from 'filthy' coal, the other 51% is from cleaner alternatives (23% natural gas, 19% nuclear, & 6% hydro). The big issue with wide-spread acceptance of plug-in electric vehicles will be power generating and distribution grid capacity, not the environmental impact.
Yes, coal is 'filthier' than oil. But, you also have to look at the efficiency of a gasoline engine powered car vs. electric. A typical gasoline engine powered car achieves about 25% to 30% peak efficiency when a in motion, and 0% when idled, for a typical combined overall efficiency of about 20%. So, about 80% of the total energy contained in the gasoline is wasted through various losses (heat, friction, etc.). A high-power electric motor is usually 90+% efficient, and typical current battery technology is between 75% and 90% (depending on battery type) with no further loss at idle. So, a combined electric system (battery & motor) will be (conservatively) 67% efficient. So yes, the coal burned to produce the electricity may be dirtier than oil, but you'll need 70% less energy input to the vehicle. I'm not sure what the generating efficiency of coal is as compared to gasoline refining, but I suspect the net carbon effect will be at least neutral. And, don't forget that although 49% of US electricity is generated from 'filthy' coal, the other 51% is from cleaner alternatives (23% natural gas, 19% nuclear, & 6% hydro). The big issue with wide-spread acceptance of plug-in electric vehicles will be power generating and distribution grid capacity, not the environmental impact.
I just wanted to point out, with the failing economy, and the increasingly poor sales of minivans, SUVs, and trucks, and while everyone is concerned with fuel consumption, why not look back at ideas like the (2006) "Rampage" concept? In this vehicle, there is a compartment under the bed, behind the rear bumper, that would be the perfect place for batteries and electronic gear. Team a battery up with a smaller V-6 or I-6 engine, and/or a 4 cylinder deisel, and put the thing on the market! It's clearly been designed for those who want aggressive styling while maxing out comfort for passengers! With the front-wheel-drive that safety-concious individuals want, with (maybe) an electric-driven AWD or 4WD drive option, and you have a cool looking vehicle that you can take to the job site, haul groceries, or comfortably transport the kids to soccer practice in all weather conditions, with a minimum of fuel used... And still have your balls intact. Just take out the dual skylight things, and stop trying to make the interior look like a luxury car... Nobody who'd buy something like this REALLY wants that. A fixed passenger seat would cut some costs (and give designers more room for essentials, add a rear DVD system, a typical sunroof/moonroof, and it covers all the bases. I've owned 3 Dodge Dakotas, from 1994, to now, (I could never justify a RAM) and THIS thing is what I really NEED. So, instead of showing us how SMART the designers are, why can't Chrysler's executives do the same, and give us what we WANT AND NEED? You don't want to make another hybrid? I'm fine with that. Offer the 3.7, 4.7, and the 5.7, close the floor in the passenger seat, and get to building! I'd hate to have to buy a Honda Ridgeline in 5 years, when there's something better sitting in mothballs over there.
Can't wait for these vehicles to come out but, Mike no one has answered how far these vehicles will go on a charge with all the accessory running like radio, heat, headlights, air.
@TheEmissary - This is as close as they've gotten to announcing specifics on that...."Specifics of our electric vehicle powertrian systems in a production model have not been released. However, running electric accessories, especially electric air conditioning pumps, will reduce overall vehicle range."
