Subaru too green to go all electric?

[jeramifrost]

I have been reading up on the new tesla s sedan. I must say I love it. I think focusing on all electri is smarter than worrying about building new engines that get 3 or 4 mpg better than the last. Gas prices are rising too quick to offset those gains.

So my question is does Subaru try to be too green to incorporate large quantities of batteries into their cars due to the environmental impact of making them? They could have a better awd system, lower cog, more interior space and save a fortune in fuel costs. I have no clue which is cleaner in the end though. But I like the idea. Thoughts?

[fatabbot]

Too green? LOL, no way. Too small? Yep.

Subaru is in growth mode. No matter what pundit says otherwise, there's no huge near term profit in electric vehicles. Subaru doesn't have the R&D or acquisition budgets in order to secure the necessary technology. They will, however, have the resources to do so in 10 years if their growth continues.

Mitsubishi has cancelled the Evo and other vehicles to focus on electric. It might work for them, but then again it has to. They were twirling around waiting to go down the drain for the last 15 years. Can't hurt to take another direction.

[subiesailor]

Actually Subaru was one of the first auto makers in Japan to offer an all electric. Their US line up doesn't work for this and their US reputation doesn't support it either.

However as they shift their line up forward legacy bigger - impreza bigger and sleeker, then offer a new small 2wd platform then there will be room for an all electric and will complete their line up. Right now they have too many holes and only have so many resources to get the core business updated and formatted for the new CVT and more efficient engines.

[HawkWagon]

Gasoline in the States has been underpriced for years, at least in comparison to other parts of the world. In that light, rising gas prices could be seen as a "market correction". Even if you don't buy that analysis, the reality is that petrol is an expensive commodity, and that's unlikely to change in the near future, if ever.

The reason I bring this up is that economics, not concern for the environment, is the primary motivation for the development and use of "alternative fuel" vehicles (including electric vehicles) right now. So "green" is not necessarily the issue. (In my opinion, it should be. But realistically, I think we as a society are still more interested in economics, which is a pity.)

That said, electric cars are not really a green solution. First, as you point out, there are the environmental costs of manufacturing (and later disposing of) huge numbers of batteries. Then there's the fact that a battery is just a storage device; the electricity still has to come from somewhere. And right now, where it's coming from mostly is coal. Nuclear generation has stalled and, in light of recent events in Japan, is unlikely to gain traction here in the States, even apart from concerns about long-term storage of nuclear waste. Wind and solar generation are increasing somewhat, and in some regions there is hydroelectric generation (which has its own environmental costs), but at present and for the foreseeable future, this country is very coal-dependent—and, "clean coal" messaging notwithstanding, both the mining and the burning of coal are environmentally destructive. So on balance, electric cars are no improvement over petrol-burners, and may be worse in some respects.

(Ethanol is another disaster from both economic and environmental standpoints, but that's an argument for another time.)

I'm glad to see that Subaru has not jumped on the electric bandwagon, as it's likely to prove a loser both economically and environmentally. As for Mitsubishi, of course it can hurt to take another direction: circling the drain is better than running straight down. They had better have other plans, and not count on electric cars as their last, best hope. I don't see much future there...

[dakboy]

Originally Posted by fatabbot

Subaru doesn't have the R&D or acquisition budgets in order to secure the necessary technology. They will, however, have the resources to do so in 10 years if their growth continues.

You're forgetting that Toyota owns 16.5% of FHI & produces Camrys at SIA. Toyota has done huge R&D on hybrids (obviously) and those are a stepping stone to full electrics. The direct R&D costs for Subaru to implement hybrids could be limited to getting Toyota's tech into Subaru bodies/drivetrains. They don't need to wait 10 years.

Full electrics in the US, regardless of manufacturer, are far off. We simply do not have the infrastructure (charging stations) to support it, not to mention the vast distances of summer vacations.

[fatabbot]

Originally Posted by dakboy

You're forgetting that Toyota owns 16.5% of FHI & produces Camrys at SIA. Toyota has done huge R&D on hybrids (obviously) and those are a stepping stone to full electrics. The direct R&D costs for Subaru to implement hybrids could be limited to getting Toyota's tech into Subaru bodies/drivetrains. They don't need to wait 10 years.

No, I'm not forgetting that. Any trickle down from Toyota will likely be many years away. Just because Toyota owns a minority stake in FHI doesn't mean that Subaru a) will have ready access to Toyota R&D or b) wish to quickly adopt technologies that Toyota develops.

Again, Subaru is a small manufacturer. Any financial gain for Toyota by sharing their electric drive systems with Subaru would be minimal at best and would likely dilute profits as it creates internal competition.

We'll see, I guess. It just doesn't seem like Subaru is interested in cutting edge anything, much less revolutionary drivetrain systems.

[subiesailor]

Charging stations all over the Bay Area for the week day commuter and more being installed. The rest of the country yes nearly zero stations.

Then again CA pushed for no lead in gas long before anyone else. There is a reason why most of the auto makers have design centers based in CA.

[Subaduu]

I hope this trickles down to the US market.

Subaru begins testing final-spec Stella electric vehicle in Japan — Autoblog Green

[notwen]

First I agree with HawkWagon's comments. My wife is Japanese, we get the Japaneses version of PBS it is called NHK. Japan is heavily leaning toward electric vehicles, some cities in Europe ban petrol fueled vehicles in the city. What do they have we don't? A large, functional mass transit system (rail, subway). An electric vehicle from the house to a station, plugin the charger, ride the train into the city. Repeat as needed. In the US our streetcars (remember them) bus lines and Amtrack are limited in coverage. Take an electric car from Maryland to Nebraska, as has been discussed no charging stations. An electric vehicle gets ~50 miles+/- per charge, the recharge takes 3 or more hours (I don't know). Now if everyone switched to electric and the power grid is not improved with more capacity, we trade rolling emissions from gas vehicles for rolling blackouts and power plant pollution (coal or other fossil fuels). There ain't no free lunch. Do we need to get away from fossil, yes. Is electric possible, yes but I think it is with another fuel (fossil, fuel cell). But last point, just as fossil fuels are getting harder to economically find and refine, so too are the rare metals needed for new generation batteries (Lithium etc). No free lunch. So use electric to mass transit hubs and petrol based vehicles for interstate and intrastate commerce.

[Wagondude]

If they would just give us a deisel, we could all burn peanut oil.