Case Study Of Electrical Vehicles

The world produces around 85 million barrels of oil each day. About a quarter of that percentage goes to the United States of America, which is used up mostly by means of transportations. Most people get around from place to place using a car, a car that is powered by fuel. Everywhere one goes driving, they will eventually run into a gas station but not a charging station for electric cars. Regular cars, burn off fuel that produce emissions (carbon, nitrogen, sulfur) that pollute and harm the environment. Although, there are some positives about switching there are also some problems that could appear but could be fixed. Electric cars have the potential to reduce the amount of pollution in the environment, boost the national economy and help

The second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States is related to transportation, the burning of oil to produce energy in a combustion motor. The combustion process inside of engines is what produces the carbon matter that is emitted into the air through the exhaust system on gas-powered vehicles. Gas-powered transportation is accountable for 24 percent of the global carbon emissions; this should not come as much of a surprise given the amount of urban sprawl that is being seen in the United States and across the globe. In the past decade, the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States government, and major car manufacturers have been working in conjunction to find ways to provide a “greener” form of transportation (EPA, 2011). This has included testing the use of hydropower, ethanol, natural gas, biodiesel, and electricity as a means of powering vehicles, which has led to the introduction of hybrid vehicles. Hybrid vehicles run on electricity and gasoline, the byproduct of oil that is generally used in the engine combustion process of vehicles (U.S. Department of

Every day, millions of Americans turn on the engines of their cars and drive to school or work. What these people do not realize is that the vehicles they operate greatly pollute the planet. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent website post, “Environmental Impacts from Automobiles”,

As western society has been aggressively expanding, the consumption of materials has followed suit. This leads to a negative effect on the environment. To curb the decay of the planet, it is important for humans to have a handle on how much we consume. One consequence of consumption is the emissions produced by our vehicles. It is crucial to develop a government policy that most effectively controls and reduces the amount of these emissions we give off. While the government has introduced many subsidization policies, the most efficient policy the government could enact is to raise the taxes on gas.

The Californian Air Resource Board (CARB) was enacted by the Californian legislation in 2002 to achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG’s from California’s motorcycle. CARB has proposed new near-term standards to be phased in from 2009 through 2012, and mid-term standards to be phased in from 2013 through 2016. The GHG emission standards will be incorporated directly into the current low emission vehicle (LEV) programs, along with other light-and medium-duty automotive emission standards. The LEV program applies to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles weighing 8,500 to 10,000 pounds, and it establishes exhaust emission standards. Accordingly, there would be a GHG emission fleet-average requirement

Cars and truck account for 20% of all U.S. global warming emissions, where more than 24 pounds per gallon of carbon dioxide and other global warming gases come right out of the car’s tailpipe (“Union of Concerned scientists”). This frightening statistic is part of the reason why the federal government has put in place many policies and incentives such as the Clean Air Act, The National Program for greenhouse gas emissions, Catalytic Converter Federal Laws, and incentives of $12,000 in California to get people to upgrade to more fuel-efficient cars. With such programs and incentives put in places, it is also important that car companies such as Toyota and Ford also take action to further cut pollution rates. They have done so by

In fact, the average fuel efficiency of new passenger vehicles steadily declined from the 1980’s until 2004. This was due to the loopholes which car manufacturers found in the CAFE standards. CAFE treated “light trucks” much more leniently than cars, and allowed them to have considerably less fuel efficiency than cars. This caught the attention of car manufacturers, who then looked at how CAFE defined a light truck. They

Even if a vehicle can realistically maintain the doubled MPG standard, it is touted to save 2 million oil barrels per day or 84 million gallons per day. However, this only accounts for only a conservative 25% of the total 8.774 million barrels or 368 million gallons of gasoline consumed per day (USDOE). At the heart of this law is the cutting of 6 billion metric tons of harmful greenhouse gases over the lifetime of the program. Some may state that any decrease in greenhouse gases is a step forward. Either way, the typical passenger vehicle emits 4.7 million metric tons of harmful greenhouse gases per year (Greenhouse gas emissions). Considering the overall benefit of cutting out 6 billion metric tons, it is equivalent to taking 1,276 passenger vehicles off of the road. According to the USDOT, there were 253,639,386 registered vehicles on the road in 2012, which would reduce the amount of vehicles on the road by .0004% by the end of this

While new trucks and cars emit about 90 percent fewer pollutants than they did 30 years ago total annual vehicle miles driven have increased by more than 140 percent since 1970 and are expected to increase another 25 percent by 2010. The emission reductions from individual vehicles have not adequately kept pace with the increase in miles driven. As a result cars and trucks are still the largest single

greenhouse gas emission regulations on cars. It is important to act now and help save the

Statistics from the Department of Transportation’s CARS Report to Congress show that 677,842 vehicles were turned in under the CARS program. $2.85 Billion was paid out in rebates for these vehicles and $2.8 Billion in fuel savings based on the early retirement of less efficient vehicles. Thus the program did have a few successes; however, the successes are seen diminutively compared the failures; furthermore, the successes were seen by those who were wealthier. The program, many believe, was implemented not only ineffectually but also

Electrical vehicles technology has been present for a while and is a proven technology that need only reshaping to meet the global need. Though, in the past, the technology had failed to compete with the internal combustion engine due to initial cost, the technology has done well in the past few years. Electric vehicle ability to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon and carbon dioxide and the advantages it enjoys such as low maintenance and running cost can enhance it market competitiveness. However, as experts try to make its charging system more efficient and its ability to store charge more long lasting, the global need continue to rise. The research proposal, therefore, aim at addressing an issue like government involvement can enhance improved use of EV, development of better EV batteries, energy management system and fast charging can help enhance the use of Electrical Vehicles and how electric vehicle drive train and the battery can be redesigned to make it affordable.

In fact, depending on where the electricity that is being put into the vehicle originates and the type of vehicle, electric cars are not all great. Due to the nature of batteries used, electric cars have a limited range, around eighty to a hundred miles, long charging times, and disastrously high costs (Berman). The Tesla Model S for example, costs roughly 70,000 dollars; even the Chevy Volt is 38,000 dollars (Perlow). Average families simply do not have the money to pay for such expensive vehicles even if they are cheaper to run. In accordance with high costs, EVs are not practical long-distance travelers because they have a limited range before the batteries run out of electricity and you are left stranded in the middle of nowhere. Furthermore, when it does come time to charge, the average is one hour for twenty to twenty-five miles of range if you can actually find a charging port. Do the math and that adds up to four hours for only one hundred miles of driving. Some Volkswagen Passat TDIs that run on biodiesel average 600 miles on one tank that can be filled in less than ten minutes (Perlow). But perhaps most importantly, the electricity that is primarily being used to charge these new cars comes from a power plant that may or may not be polluting the earth. Sixty-four percent of United States residents obtain their electricity from either a coal or natural gas power plant which put thousands of

There are a total of 1,000 throughout the country. The government limits the number of

 There is a serious problem facing the world right now.  It is air pollution.  The number one contributor to this epidemic is automobile emissions.  We have all heard of the issues that are involved with air pollution including the depletion of the o-zone layer, the green house effect, and acid rain.  The problem has been scoped from every imaginable angle, and now it is time to solve the problem.  I propose that each of the ‘Big Three’ (Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler) car manufacturers be required to have 10% of their product line as EV’s By the year 2010.  I propose this because it will be the start of cleaner air, EV advancement, and awareness of EV’s and how they work.