Coming to America - Mitsubishi's All Electric Car

By Michael Kanellos

The electric car phenomenon rolls on. Mitsubishi (MMTOF.PK) announced Thursday that it will bring its i MiEV all-electric car to the U.S. The car will likely appear in Oregon first: the state of Oregon along with utility Portland General Electric are helping Mitsubishi by agreeing to build charging stations.

Mitsubishi did not put deadlines on when it will bring the cars to the states, but it could be sooner rather than later. It will start releasing the cars in Japan in July. Shipping in July will mean that Mitsubishi will become the first company to ship a “practical” electric car.

The company has a point there. Right now, you can buy a cheap electric car from Zenn that tops out at around 25 miles per hour or a $109,000 Tesla Roadster, but there’s not a lot of options in between.

Mitsubishi is focusing on mid-range cars like Nissan, but it also has high-end sporty prototypes like the cars from Tesla Motors and Fisker Automotive. (Fisker is a plug-in hybrid but mostly runs on electricity.) And, like Nissan (NSANY), it will initially sell to government agencies and fleet car buyers. These sort of cars don’t leave town much on road trips so the limited range of electric cars are less of a problem.

The i MiEV runs on a lithium-ion battery pack that can be charged in seven or so hours on a 240-volt line. High-speed charging could accomplish this task in less time, but good luck finding an outlet.

Comments

[a. palmer jr.:]

Yeah, that's the problem, finding someplace to charge it along the road. I certainly hope that when they come up with charging stations that the automobile makers all agree on a standard form of charging station rather than one type for Nissan, another type for Ford, etc.

Apr 12 08:46 AM

[whisperonth...:]

Why can't they use part of the energy produced by the wheel rotation to charge an extra battery? Then we could just transfer 'cables' and keep on moving.

Apr 12 09:12 AM

[Longinvestor:]

The other part of these Green solution, no carbon dioxide emission cars is the electrical generating power plant. The power plant can't be allowed to burn coal, natural gas or other carbon based fuel because that would produce even more carbon dioxide emissions. So you will have to have the country convert all of its power generation to be by wind, solar, and geothermal first...then buy the car.

Apr 12 09:25 AM

[Mac'em X:]

@whisperonthewind: Hmm, a perpetual motion machine! What a concept! : )

Apr 12 09:37 AM

[Dirk Sterling:]

Yeah right, perpetual motion would solve the whole energy problem. You have made one of the most ignorant suggestions I have ever heard. Take a physics course.


On Apr 12 09:12 AM whisperonthewind wrote:

> Why can't they use part of the energy produced by the wheel rotation
> to charge an extra battery? Then we could just transfer 'cables'
> and keep on moving.

Apr 12 10:56 AM

[William Taylor:]

Electric cars powered by conventional batteries are not only too expensive but have a high carbon footprint. The answer is the EESTOR solution which, I am afraid, is not going to happen anytime soon. The simple fact is that a small car with a tiny fuel efficient engine that gets 100 miles per gallon will be the way to go.

Apr 12 11:02 AM

[Conan the B...:]

Battery is definitely the bottleneck.

Whisperonthewind's suggestion bears merit. Too bad some inane comment linked it to perpetual motion.

Since when does "perpetual" motion involve a secondary device. Two, that's 2 batteries, per car, one charges as the other runs. Cable switching, Unnecessary, just automate contact switching.

Uniform charging stations or adjustable cables or something else...Solar panels like those proposed by Toyota can also extend Battery life.

$700 Billion in infrastructure spending, Imbed old fashioned Trolly Car tech into the nation's highways. Need a charge, get one on the move.

All sorts of things can be done until someone comes up with a better Battery.

Will anything be done?, highly unlikely. Every state will have its own agenda. So, it will be back in the hands of the Private sector.

The Manhattan Project worked because the Government kept it secret and out of the hands of the Pencil Pushers.

But this Government wants to dismantle those that have the wherewithal to fund multiple research projects. We are screwed.

Just a personal opinion

Apr 12 12:51 PM

[fireofenergy:]

Batteries not good enough? Well they are twice as good now than just 10 years ago. NiMH are half the weight of lead acid and are half the price of lithium. They handle much more abuse than either, and last longer than both too. Maybe it's time to mass produce "car sized" ones! Infact, there are already electric cars that have passed the 100,000 miles mark with NiMH.
As for power, concentrated solar thermal with heat storage (CSP) is quite unlimited if enviro's make sure that the deserts aren't bulldozed over. Nobody could be against Billions of mirrors that are post driven! The only problem I have with all of this is: Will America get any jobs out of the deal!

Apr 12 03:53 PM

[brokerinbir...:]

Whisperonthewind does have a good idea. I have a better idea. Teleportation machines. Why is the administration wasting it's time on electric cars and green energy and global warming when he should be focusing on teleportation devices, faster than light travel, and weather-control satellites. I mean, why wast time on perpetual motion? If a device produces energy at a rate that exceeds it's own rate of consumption, it fits in with perpetual motion. that is what whisper suggested. Make a car that charges itself as it runs...why not make a gas powered car that uses it's own exhaust to burn. Or BP should come up with a fuel that makes petrol as you drive. Oh wait, that;s like a fission reactor. Why don't we have cars propelled by fission reactors? We could go on and on. Or we could deal with reality and address the facts such as the hoax of glabal warming, the hoax of "taxing the rich produces propserity for all", the hoax of spending my child's yet-to-be-earned tax revenue is good, the hoax that killing domestic oil exploration is beneficial beause its somehow beneficial to moose in Alaska, etc.

Apr 12 10:45 PM

[brokerinbir...:]

Perpetual motion, conan, is the idea here. What is proposed is a machine that produces more energy than it consumes, in a closed system, of it's own accord or through its own power. that is a fantasy.

Apr 12 10:47 PM

[lefty37:]

We really need to quit trying to sail the electric car dreamship.
IT DON'T Work!
Just go on to nat gas and let it morph into hydrogen produced from water by natural sources. Hydroelectric, wind, solar, waves, currents, and the list goes on.

Apr 13 08:12 AM

[TinyTim:]

This article is missing the two most important data points. What's the range? What's it cost?

If it takes 7 hrs to charge LI-Ion on 240V, it must be a large pack with a lot of range. So what's the need for charging stations outside the home? Something is wrong here.

If it has no IC engine like a hybrid, the cost should be a lot lower, comparable to an economy car. The main cost is the battery pack.

Apr 13 05:09 PM

[fireofenergy:]

Why is hydrogen better than batteries? Tesla Motors proved it (even though quite expensive) Thus it is obvious that all you naysayers are flat out WRONG! Ha Ha. (Something's wrong with me, that felt good) Now if only the price of batteries would come down too! (Then I wouldn't be "wrong" either) `~'

Bty, battery tech is about twice as efficient than the old dream of electrolysis. (The science is here to prove it, I mean on the search engine). Its place, though, may be found in the storage of on site energy produced by non base load power sources. CPV is twice that of CSP yet does not store as CSP, therefore, it is up to all you experts out there to determine which is the best and cheapest longterm option.

Largescale clean energy is expensive only because of all the nimby's and enviro retrocats out there, (don't they know about mass manufacturing techniques as in "robotic"?), Are not even the Saudi's looking into solar with storage??? It will definitely be cheaper than fossil fuels in ten-twenty years!

Apr 14 03:45 AM