We are always on the lookout for non-petroleum based means of transportation so its no wonder that the stylish Vectrix electric motorbike caught our attention. If you are going to live life in the fast lane, this sleek, all-electric, zero-emission motorbike might just be your best green solution for reducing fossil fuel consumption and emissions while riding around town. It runs clean, super far per charge and extremely fast, making it a smart alternative to four-wheeled city travels. See just how fast the Vectrix gets around in the video after the jump.
The Vectrix ZEV is fast, as in 0-50mph in seven seconds fast. It has a top speed of 62 mph which makes it ideal for use within a city. It has a range of around 50 miles before it needs to be recharged, depending on the speed at which you are driving it, and is equipped with a nickel-metal hydride battery. It is a plug-in, so it can easily be recharged pretty much anywhere that has an electrical outlet. And, of course, it is mostly emissions free (not counting the emissions from the power plant).
Changing the mindset from a car-centered society to one which uses all modes of transportation will surely take some time but creating a desirable all-electric motorbike is definitely a rev in the right direction. Needless to say, we think that the Vectrix ZEV is very sexy.
Though no official announcement has been made, a source close to Toyota has stated that the company will manufacture a hybrid with a lithium-ion battery
They state in the article that the “zero emissions” claim does not include the emissions from the power plant to produce the electricity.
While it is true that these emissions should be included, electric vehicles offer some advantages in terms of emissions and grid stability.
First is the mixture of energy sources feeding the grid. Typically in most places coal will provide the bulk of electicity, which is bad, but also in the mix are “less bad” fossil fuels such as natural gas, and renewables such as hydro, solar and wind. If we just shift our reliance on gasoline to a reliance on coal-derived electricity for transportation, we will actually increase emissions and air pollution. However, if you choose to buy power from a green producer then you can drive your electric vehicle with a clean conscience, while supporting the growth of the renewable energy sector.
Second, even if we use fossil fuels to generate the electricity to drive our vehicles, we have shifted the emissions from distributed sources within the city, to point-sources outside of areas where people live. Within cities, this would deminish athsma-causing particulates, ground-level ozone and nitrogen-oxides, and smog-forming pollution. Having stationary point-sources of emissions from power plants would allow us to capture and deal with the emissions. Also, a single large power plant running at constant speed is far more efficient than the multitude of individual vehicle engines.
Finally, the electical demand on the grid fluctuates widely during the day. Having all of these batteries attached to the grid would act like a giant shock absorber allowing electicity production (and price) to be much more stable.
I have read an article in the “science et vie” revue explaning how electric vehicules generate more co2 emission than a conventionnal vehicule, due to the number transformation of the electricity. It is true, enven in France where most of the electricity come from nuclear power plans.
Nevertheless, some of your arguments are interesting
WBrooke, you are incorrect. Only a small percentage of the energy contained in petroleum is transferred to the wheels in a conventional ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicle. Electrical vehicles are much more efficient in transferring chemical energy from its batteries to the wheels and driving the car forward.
It is much easier to control emissions from a few dozen power plants, rather than millions of individual tailpipes. Power plants are also usually located away from high density city centres, unlike private vehicles, so air pollutuon is less of an immediate concern, especially given that an all-electrical fleet would consume fewer fossil fuel resources due to better efficiency.
To really take advantage of the ‘shock absorber’ effect of electrical vehicles, smart grid and charging systems must be implemeted. Otherwise millions of electrical vehicles charging during peak hour for the commute home might increase grid volatility.
$12000 for a scooter with a 50 mile range is SAD, SAD, SAD, and will not provide enough incentive for people to get off of oil. it sounds like oil companies are paying the inventors of these electric vehicles to produce disenchanting results. The electric vehicles up until today either have low driving range, low power, or are not with in competitive price ranges. electric vehicles have been in development for about 100 years and this all we have to show for it. I want at least an electric scooter that is in the $3000 – $4500 range, and a 220 mile range. And a Tesla roadster that I can afford.
It’s kinda expensive but it is fast. Having a speed of 62 mph is definitely ideal transportation within the city. Well I found this side-by-side videos featuring the bike sounds in clash, they featured the Aprilia rsv 1000 r and Kawasaki ZX9. If you happened to see it, which sound do you prefer in your ride?
Cut that $12000 price tag in half and I’ll take one.
[...] Via Inhabitat [...]
Electric vehicules are !!!NOT!!! zero emission vehicules, from where do you think the electricity come from???
Allez salut.
Empi, I think the article covered your concerns in the second to last paragraph…
To Empi,
They state in the article that the “zero emissions” claim does not include the emissions from the power plant to produce the electricity.
While it is true that these emissions should be included, electric vehicles offer some advantages in terms of emissions and grid stability.
First is the mixture of energy sources feeding the grid. Typically in most places coal will provide the bulk of electicity, which is bad, but also in the mix are “less bad” fossil fuels such as natural gas, and renewables such as hydro, solar and wind. If we just shift our reliance on gasoline to a reliance on coal-derived electricity for transportation, we will actually increase emissions and air pollution. However, if you choose to buy power from a green producer then you can drive your electric vehicle with a clean conscience, while supporting the growth of the renewable energy sector.
Second, even if we use fossil fuels to generate the electricity to drive our vehicles, we have shifted the emissions from distributed sources within the city, to point-sources outside of areas where people live. Within cities, this would deminish athsma-causing particulates, ground-level ozone and nitrogen-oxides, and smog-forming pollution. Having stationary point-sources of emissions from power plants would allow us to capture and deal with the emissions. Also, a single large power plant running at constant speed is far more efficient than the multitude of individual vehicle engines.
Finally, the electical demand on the grid fluctuates widely during the day. Having all of these batteries attached to the grid would act like a giant shock absorber allowing electicity production (and price) to be much more stable.
I think electric vehicles are a great idea.
Call it delocalized emission vehicule than!
I have read an article in the “science et vie” revue explaning how electric vehicules generate more co2 emission than a conventionnal vehicule, due to the number transformation of the electricity. It is true, enven in France where most of the electricity come from nuclear power plans.
Nevertheless, some of your arguments are interesting
I think public transportation is a great idéa
…sorry for my bad english
WBrooke, you are incorrect. Only a small percentage of the energy contained in petroleum is transferred to the wheels in a conventional ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicle. Electrical vehicles are much more efficient in transferring chemical energy from its batteries to the wheels and driving the car forward.
It is much easier to control emissions from a few dozen power plants, rather than millions of individual tailpipes. Power plants are also usually located away from high density city centres, unlike private vehicles, so air pollutuon is less of an immediate concern, especially given that an all-electrical fleet would consume fewer fossil fuel resources due to better efficiency.
To really take advantage of the ‘shock absorber’ effect of electrical vehicles, smart grid and charging systems must be implemeted. Otherwise millions of electrical vehicles charging during peak hour for the commute home might increase grid volatility.
$12000 for a scooter with a 50 mile range is SAD, SAD, SAD, and will not provide enough incentive for people to get off of oil. it sounds like oil companies are paying the inventors of these electric vehicles to produce disenchanting results. The electric vehicles up until today either have low driving range, low power, or are not with in competitive price ranges. electric vehicles have been in development for about 100 years and this all we have to show for it. I want at least an electric scooter that is in the $3000 – $4500 range, and a 220 mile range. And a Tesla roadster that I can afford.
It’s kinda expensive but it is fast. Having a speed of 62 mph is definitely ideal transportation within the city. Well I found this side-by-side videos featuring the bike sounds in clash, they featured the Aprilia rsv 1000 r and Kawasaki ZX9. If you happened to see it, which sound do you prefer in your ride?
Honda Losing Faith in Electric Cars…
I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…