I would like everyone to know that the electric vehicle can come with many options, like a 2-4 or even a 6 passenger capactiy, heaters, security systems, and even DVD'S.. Also, the dealership in Stoughton has sold the utilites version of the vehicles to utility companies, and police departments, and they have been saving a substantial amount of money. these utility SUV'S can be used for tire marking, meter reading and a variety of city applications. Special grants can be available for purchases of these eco friendly electric vehicles. Please do not rule out the electric NEV as your second vehicle for transportation. Many senior residents are happy with these alternate means of traveling as they are on fixed incomes, (no gas), have a smaller garage, and just don't want to spend alot of time and money to maintain their transportation means. Please go to our website at www.ozeecars.com and many of your questions and concerns can be answered with click!

Whatever happened to the Segway?

I am always amused when something new like this comes along and the wild-eyed nay-sayers predict some kind of societal calamity as a result.

Like anybody is going to put up with being stuck behind one of these things doing 35 mph. I predict massive road-rage.

Like I said. This is meant to be a "secondary" vehicle for most people. Not for soccer mom and a family taxi. 90% of the roads - both main and side streets in Janesville are 35 mph or under, thus this vehicle would be just fine.

The other problem is the people who do not think the speed limits apply to them, and yes in that case these vehicles would get in their way but hey, that's too bad; obey the limits, slow down and smell the roses.

good points turtlecreek guy and joeflint. wisconsin heat I need bigger because I could not fit my family in that car and I would like to travel on the main roads. If I am purchasing a car i would like to go from point a to b, you can't go too far on side streets. The car I spoke of in my post looks a little safer, used compressed air for power which also filters the air and goes if I remember correctly i'm not sure though about 65mph.

What if electric cars become more popular in foreign countries where they are not so strict in regulating nuclear power and imposing environmental restrictions on companies that convert energy? Could we possibly see a decrease in the worldwide demand for oil?

Cars are powered by internal combustion engines which burn fossil fuels directly to make their power. These engines make alot of heat which wastes energy and they don't burn the fuel completely. They convert linear motion to rotational motion and back to linear motion through mechanical means which also consumes energy. Electrical power plants that burn fossil fuels do much the same thing, waste alot of energy. They also loose alot of energy in transmission wires from the plant to the outlet at your house. This is why most people do not heat their homes electrically, it costs too much. So electric cars simply pass the fuel burning on to the power plants, creating still more pollution there.
Some say that we should build more nuclear power plants. We can't even build more refineries without activists marching and filing lawsuits and condeming anyone who would dare suggest such a thing.Nuclear power? Not likely.
So, if you want to help the environment, get a stationary bicycle with a generator and start pedaling.

While I support the development and use of alternatives such as the Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, joeflint does raise an interesting question: more electricity is generated by burning coal than by any other fuel and represents our largest source of green house gases. However, we are seeing a shift to other methods of electrical generation, such as wind power, that address this as well as successful efforts to reduce consumption through energy saving techniques.

There is another issue here, though, and that is our use of fossil fuels for our transportation needs. Over the next ten years India and China are going to dramatically increase their demand for oil and oil products such as gasoline. The Saudis, for one, have expressed no interest in increasing production (why should they), which means we will face ever escalating prices and stagnant or shrinking supplies. If we are to maintain our current standard of living it will mean shifting our source of fuel away from oil. Electricity will be one answer since we can generate it with coal, natural gas, wind, etc., all sourced on this continent.

Even if personally we aren't willing to embrace new ideas such as this, we can't afford to stand in their way.

joeflint - thanks.

Well, for one thing an all-electric car can also (with improved technology) be powered with solar panels on the roof as well as plugged in on cloudy days. Existing hybrids use some of the heat generated during braking to recharge the battery -- in typical cars the alternator takes rotational energy to recharge the battery (which is not used to actual power the drive wheels in conventional vehicles). Coal indeed remains the primary source of electricity [ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_di... ] however that will continue to change as nuclear (fission), geothermal, wind, and solar continue to become more important, particularly the latter two as have been discussed in recent Gazette articles. Also, there are a number of projects, particularly the ITER [ http://www.iter.org/ ] that are working towards providing nuclear (fusion) energy. Then of course are ethanol and literally dozens of other possible future fuel and energy sources. The bottom line, however, is that electric vehicles are by far more efficient. Gasoline engines are only able convert 15-20% of the energy created by combustion are generate rotation at the wheels. There are friction, heat, and noise losses within the engine itself; there are frictional and rotational losses at the transmission (which transmits power from the engine to the driveshaft) and then there are further such losses at the axle(s). Electric engines +could+ be (though they are not necessarily) located directly at the drive wheels in order to maximize efficiency.

I want to clarify my earlier post if it was considered to be anti electric car. I really don't know much about these and I was just asking a question (as the Gazette tells me is a good use of these forums). What is there to gain by moving this direction? I know we'd burn less gas, but I'm pretty sure this means we'd burn more coal. If it's concern about the environment that leads people to want electric cars I think this is a valid question.

Real solutions to environmental problems probably mean designing cities so that cars are less of a 'necessity.' This means not only increased use of public transportation but also planning future development so that residential and retail areas allow for walking.

Rather than charging the car's batteries with bicycle generator, why not put the pedals in the car? And instead of whistling the theme from Gilligan's Island, you could whistle any song you like and save more energy by not needing a cd player. Of course, you may get into trouble with the RIAA.

Rather than plugging these things into a wall socket, they could be supplied with a generator mounted on a stationary bicycle. To drive the car for 1/2 hour,you'd have to ride the cycle 1/2 hour while whistling the theme song from Gilligan's Island.

Why does everyone need "bigger and faster"? This is meant to be a secondary vehicle. Slow down and smell the roses.

I agree with joeflint only I would like to see them just a little bigger and faster before I would buy one. I saw a show on future cars which were air powered they were bigger and faster in addition they filtered the air. I would love to have one of them. If anyone has heard of them and know the specks I would like more info on them.

And in a few years, GM will be making the Volt [ http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/ ]. I'd rather see GM take the lead on this than any other company. I'd even go so far as to argue that we are near "peak oil"... even President Bush was unable a few weeks ago to convince the Saudis to increase oil production.

It's funny how many people have commented here and around down that they are worried about the cost of electricity going up if these electric vehicles were to supplant gasoline-powered vehicles. I'm pretty darn certain that all those new mega shopping centers, particularly on the northeast side of town, are +wasting+ far more energy with outdoor lighting than could otherwise be used to charge up these electric vehicles... but I see no complaints about the rising cost of electricity. It seems to me that driving behind one of these electric cars would be no different than getting behind a bicyclist, moped, or just a plain, slow driver. Folks, what is with the unfocused, irrational rage? If you don't like it, don't buy it.

I believe these cars would be nothing but a safety hazard and should not be allowed.

Although I am aware that the vehicles that are being considered are nothing like the Tesla Roadster, I would like to also point out that we certainly do not want vehicles on city streets that can accelerate from 0-60 mph in 4 seconds and reach top speeds of 125 mph.

How much do these things cost? If you then add in the cost to keep it charged, plus you must have to insure it and there will be other unknown costs. You will still need a second car to travel out of town. How far do you have drive this before it actually starts to save you money. Just buy the small car instead, it will be something you could really use.

I would like to point out that we do not have an unlimited supply of electricity in this country. I am concerned that if this mode of transportation proliferates, we will see the price of electricity increase dramatically, as did the price of corn with the opening of so many ethanol plants. Anything that can help to limit our dependence on foreign oil should be considered but we should always keep in mind that there is no such thing as a free lunch. In fact, if you don't check the prices, lunch can be very expensive.

fmrjvlres, you have a point there. These cars would draw a huge ammount of electricity to charge them.

liberte - you are absolutely against allowing this, hmm, ironic.

What is the reason behind promoting electric cars? Is it environmental? If everybody went electric wouldn't we burn more coal? The story points out that they are quiet, is that why? Is it just the cool factor?

It is true that the Tesla can go from 0-60 in under 4 seconds and has a top speed of 125mph but it also costs about $100,000. That money could buy you a fleet of these little buggies. Neighborhood electric vehicles are safer and more comfortable than mopeds or bicycles which are already allowed on these very same thoroughfares. I just don't see what the problem is. Pass the ordinance and let the public decide if there is a market for the product.

BTW: The Beloit City Council enacted an ordinance permitting these last year.

If they would not be allowed on Milton Avenue and other major throughofares that have a higher speed limit, what is the point? Scooting around residential neigborhoods, the proponents say. I'm sure most, if not almost all of us, travel on roads that go faster than 35 to get work, shopping and entertainment venues. I think it's a great idea, but as it stands now, is more dangerous than beneficial.

I'd be interested to see how anyone would navigate one of those glorified Rascal scooters in wintertime. Also: It's one of the most ugly cars I have ever seen. You won't see me having one.

Don't see much difference between these and mopeds (which aren't restricted). Seems like a great solution for commuting to work or running errands within the city.

They are almost like golf carts. There are different gears that you can put in golf carts that will make them go to almost 60 mph. Some one with the knolwage can change these too. I hope they do pass the ordinance. We need to have something else to fall back on because soon gas is going to cost to much.

snerd. If you would read the article it says the ordinance would only allow these vehicles on roads with a 35MPH limit or less, which excludes milton ave past the post office where it is 40.

I don't see a problem with them scooting around the residential streets, they already allow the slow electric scooters...

Note that it's top speed is 25 mph - 15 mph slower than the traffic on Milton Avenue where it would be allowed.

I wholeheartedly agree with liberte - these "cars" (converted golf carts)
should only be allowed on streets where real cars are not allowed, like
retirement communities / neighborhoods. If you allow slow electric cars on the
streets, how can you object to slow, gas-powered vehicles. Their only virtue is
that they are safer (for their drivers) than motor scooters, which should be
banned too - or be required to run in bike lanes.

I love it! This is a great idea. What is the problem with it? Does it need to go from 0-60 in 4 seconds? Does it need to reach top speeds of 125 MPH? The ordinance being considered clearly states they are considering streets with speed limits(That would be MAXIMUM SPEED) of 35 MPH or lower. GO For It!

There's no reason why those cars can't be made to go faster, just look at the Tesla car. It's 100% electric, and can go from 0-60 MPH in under 4 seconds, with a top speed of 125 MPH and it goes 220 miles per charge. It would be irresponsible to allow those slow cars on streets. I'm absolutely against allowing this.