Comments on: Zap introduces zero-emissions, all-electric van

The mini-van, which can hold five people, is meant to replace small shuttle vans with its 30-mile per-charge range.

[i8246i]

I really don't see how this is anything new....there's been electric people movers for quite a long time now, filling the role of short-distance commute

And its not like this van gets good mileage: 30 flippin' miles for a charge? And I'm guessing that's under optimal use, not under the wear and tear that will come from people of all shapes and sizes fitting in with their luggage, running around in non-optimal temperatures and non-optimal traction conditions (ice, snow, and rain).

Seriously? 30 miles? And it takes 6 H O U R S to charge? How PATHETIC! The Tesla has more horsepower, charges in 3.5 hours with 220 volts of electricity, and has a rage of hundreds of miles! It also doesn't look ugly as sin! Now, I won't buy one of these machines, because the idea of using an electric-only vehicle is not intelligent in my books, and I'm not going to drop $100,000 on anything that isn't life-saving....but you mean to say this is the best that this company can do for under 100 grand?

I'm very sure any company that uses these machines for any real work will hit these vehicles' 30 mile range rather quickly....unless they bought the vehicles in bulk and....ooooh, NOW I get it! You HAVE to pay for a whole fleet in order to get any REAL work done, as you're constantly swapping out dead vehicles for fresh ones (and you'll need a fleet, as 6 hours of charge time is quite a dent in productivity!). I wouldn't be surprised if these hunks of junk come with a battery that's only good for a few dozen charges before you start using the limited warranty that comes with them...if they have any warranty that covers the battery *checks website*

@%^#$^%$^%$^$!!!!! 90 day warranty? 7 days to return it with full refund?

WHAT?

I also like how the author of this article decided not to post the fact that that charging time is the OPTIMAL charging time, as the website states

Charging time: 12 hour max charging

12.

hours.


...I think I've used up enough of the "comment" space here...and I no longer wish to read about this "innovation"

[Joe Real]

The MAJOR DRAWBACK of ZAP vehciles is that their maximum speed is 35 MPH. This is totally usually for commuting where most people will often have to use portion of the road with posted speed limits of 45-55 mph in big cities. This vehicle is only good for a gated senior community village.

What surprised me is that some people do buy them, and they are a pain to deal with on the road when they are driving well below the posted speed limit. I drove one of the ZAP cars, borrowed it for a week, and feel like I am living in a prison because there's not much choices to roam around. The most it can do for me is to bring kids to school that is half a mile away and the posted speed limit is 25 mph. I can't go buy grocery as I will drive it climbing over a bridge with a posted speed limit of 35 mph, and before that bridge is posted speed limit of 40 mph. The ramp is steep, so I might end up doing max speed of 10 mph climbing it, and the normal traffic speed is 40 mph (you know, many Californians drive 5 mph above the posted limit). So I didn't dare. I can't bring it to work, the normal freeway speed is 70 mph.

I like some of the shape of ZAP vehicles, but it is the speed limitations that is a major show-stopper, making it impractical. This is just basically a lead-acid golf cart.

There is hope though, the ZAP cars should start talking to companies that offer lead-carbon acid batteries, and they perform as good as lithium ion batteries, for less than half the cost. These lead-carbon batteries can endure 10 times life cycle charging than what ZAP is doing, can be quickly recharged, and deliver quicker power too, comparable to the most advanced Lithium batteries. The drawback is still the weight, which is the same as the original lead acid batteries, only that it is packed with more power. But the weight problem is mitigated if you have regenerative braking.

Here's some nice info, from Sandia laboratories, about lead carbon batteries that ZAP should look into:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/115257-lead-carbon-a-game-changer-for-alternative-energy-storage

[RainCaster]

The major drawback of ZAP is that they have never shipped anything but press releases. Way too many failed dealerships around the country due to their inability to ship the products promised. Look for the article in Wired's March 2008 issue for details. I really want to see the electric car market succeed, but ZAP is giving a bad name to all the good companies who are trying to get off the ground.

[pjk0]

PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES ARE NOT "ZERO EMISSIONS"!!!

Let's just get that out of the way right at the outset.

This is a very dangerous trend, promoting vehicles like this as "environmentally friendly", when all you are doing is shifting the pollution source from your tailpipe to your regional electrical powerplant.

If you're like most people in the USA, that powerplant is burning coal - not exactly "environmentally friendly". The other problem is that clearly almost no one is addressing the important question of where all this additional electrical capacity to power all these new plug-in devices is going to come from. We already have a real problem in the USA with lack of electrical generating and transmission capacity. Guess what happens when everyone in the neighborhood starts plugging-in their shiny new "green" electrical vehicles: MORE ELECTRIC POWERPLANTS NEED TO BE BUILT to handle all that extra load.

Duh.

Plug-in electric vehicles do not solve pollution problems unless you completely revamp the electrical grid that supplies electricity in this country. That isn't going to happen anytime soon, certainly not within the lifespan of that overpriced new plug-in toy you just bought. Just what we need in California is another electrical capacity crisis, catalyzed by a million Californians plugging in their new "zero emissions" electrical vehicles every day to recharge..

[Joe Real]

That is why Californians are heavily investing in Solar. If you have a nice house with nice roof, going full solar will give you some freedom from fluctuations of electricity prices. With the introduction of EV either pure BEV or EREV, will surely cause speculations amongst the electricity brokers driving those kilowatt hours sky high. The smart thing to do is invest in Solar whenever you can. The prices have come down significantly, more so if you install them yourself.

I plan to purchase some type of EV, maybe the Volt, Aptera, Th!nk, iMiEV, or others that are capable of freeway speeds and at reasonable prices. So I will be investing in Solar PV. I am currently working on how to get rebates even if I install it myself (with the help of licensed electrician). My, the solar PV installers are charging $35,000 to a $750 job! Imagine the savings if you can install it yourself. Even without the rebates, it is going to make more sense.

But anyway, on a massive scale, California is building Gigawatts of power capacity based on Solar. There are many companies doing it right now and they have secured funding.

[pjk0]

That's great that some people and some states (California is almost completely unique here) are building a large proportion of "green" electrical generating capacity.

But the simple fact is that the vast majority of people that buy these vehicles are just fooling themselves to think that they are doing much to address pollution or global warming, because the electrical grid in most of the country is powered by coal.

Regarding pollution and/or greenhouse gas mitigation, even the much-maligned hybrid vehicles are better than plug-in electrics that are charged via the grid in most places, because they focus on energy efficiency and generate their electrical power via a high-efficiency internal combustion engine, and recycling of braking force and/or downhill momentum. It may not be "zero emissions", but you know exactly what you're getting with them, rather than just passing-the-buck to the grid and forgetting about it.

Anyone in the press who continues to describe plug-in electrical vehicles as "zero emissions" is doing a shameful disservice to the public, unless they make it quite clear that the only way that could be even remotely true is if you generate your own electricity to charge the vehicle using completely emission-free means (ie wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc), or plug-in to a grid where that is 100% of the generating capacity. (no municipal, county or state grid in the USA that I am aware of meets that standard)

And while some might describe nuclear power as "zero emissions", one can hardly with a clear conscience suggest that nuclear is "environmentally friendly" at this point in time.

[acampbell333]

Zero emission is the the definition California gave to certain kinds of vehicles including electric cars. Studies show that electricity from the grid can be 60 to 90 percent cleaner than an ICE, including the emissions to generate the electricity. Electricity from renewables can achieve even greater efficiencies and emissions reductions.