# Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9



## Darell (Jan 8, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The new Part 9 is right here, folks.  Continued from Part 8

To start it off, you've got to see this official GM page on their new "Electric car."
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

Of course it is NOT an electric car, but a serial hybrid. And of course it is only a concept at this point. But the most amazing part is all the virtues of EVs that they extoll here! It wasn't just a few short months ago when Lutz and Co. were still spewing all the garbage about how nobody wants EVs. About how 100 miles of range is too short. Now suddenly 40 miles is plenty, and EVs are GREAT! Just boggles the mind. This release is so eerily similar to the EV1 release that I just have to set and shake my head in wonder.


----------



## Darell (Jan 8, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Is there anybody who doesn't think that the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" had a profound effect on the auto industry? Here's a VERY recent picture of Chris Pain, the director of the film, holding a copy of today's Detroit Free Press. GM's stock is even finally going up a bit. Amazing. EVs are "good" again. Just like that.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 8, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I'm just not a fan of serial hybrids. They are very tricky to optomize. I predict that the VOLT will undergo a lot of changes before it hits the streets.

The biggest problem is the energy deficit when you have a 120KW motor and a 53kw generator. There should be about a 10% loss in storing the power in the batteries. This would indicate that the electric motor can drain the batteries faster than the generator can replenish them. While this would be a rare occasion, it might make cross country trips a challange when mountain ranges are encountered.

I forsee a trip where you drive 40 miles to the foot of the mountian leading to your favorite ski resort. You arrive at the foot of the mountian with the battery depleted. Then you spend 2 hours climbing 7000 feet. Uphill at speed will often require more than 53 KW in a midsized family car. Do this long enough and the battery will drain.

They may need to increase the engine+generator to make sure the battery is not depleted when you need it. 

The sad part is that for 90% or more of the population, this will never be an issue. Unfortunately, there will be a cloud over the technology if even 1% have a problem with climbing mountains.

It's interesting that they are predicting a modest 50 MPG when running on gas. That's roughly what we have now. The claimed 150 MPG is 100 miles on battery and 50 miles on gas.

Daniel


----------



## Brock (Jan 8, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I finally have to disagree with you Daniel. I think serial is the way to go. Don't forget that when pulling 53kw or less the batteries are essentially out of the loop so you have no loss and the engine is turning at its most efficient RPM the entire time. The generator is basically direct driving the electric motor. The only time I could imagine using more then 53 KW is going 70+ up mountains or pulling a big box trailer. Yes it is possible, but if you can cruise at 80 mph on flat terrain (guessing about 50kw) that should be more then enough for 99 people. And remember you should be able to run 40 miles up that hill before you loose the 100 kw mark, or start the engine right away and run 150 miles up that same hill.

Maybe make two versions, one with a 40KW sipper version and a 100kw speed / pulling version.

But getting back to serial or parallel, serial seems so much less cumbersome. Yes I understand there is actually more loss driving a genset which in turn drives the wheels vs. driving the wheels directly. But the big advantage is you can run the ICE at optimum RMP and loading to get the most efficiency out of it where if it were somehow physically linked to the drive train it can vary thus falling out of the perfect efficiency range even with a CVT like the Prius uses. I think because of this you could get better overall efficiency with a serial setup. It is also a lot more straight forward to repair or trouble shoot and it would be quite easy to swap out either the electric drive motors or ICE for a larger or smaller unit, unlike the Prius that built almost as a single unit.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 8, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

In Thread #8, one of the last posts was about gasoline and hybrid cars never achieving their EPA ratings.

One of the odd things about diesels is that they not only achieve their ratings, but actually exceed them.

My '03 VW Golf is EPA rated at 49 mpg highway. I can actually get 49 mpg at 70 mph highway driving with the air conditioning on, summer hot weather and the car loaded to the gills with people and luggage. I've done it a number of times. On the VW diesel forum (Fred's TDI), there's folks that are getting over 50 mpg as their lifetime mileage.

I wonder what is different about the diesel's ability to hit its EPA rating when the gasoline and hybrids don't?


----------



## ikendu (Jan 8, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*




Darell said:


> The new Part 9 is right here, folks.
> 
> To start it off, you've got to see this official GM page on their new "Electric car."
> http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/



Well, it SAYS they will support E85 and biodiesel too. 

At least they've gotten smart on the message. When I interviewed a GM engineer last fall on the specific question of whether they'd make an E85 Hybrid like Ford said they would do with the Escape Hybrid, the guy basically snorted and acted like Ford would never actually make one [and neither would GM].

So... we'll see. GM desparately needs something to drive show room traffic and sales. I hate to see all of my old friends at GM out of work and with no retirement (one of my friends at my old division just told me he had been informed "not to count on" getting any retirement; after over 30 years).


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 8, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Hi Brock, 

I'd like to start by saying disagreement is healthy. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just airing my views....

My take on the serial hybrid is based on 4 years in the Prius. Mine has the 70 HP (53 KW) gas engine. I have driven it everywhere; mountain, deset, city and mountain. 

During this 4 years I have noticed that there are many times when the gas engine is not enough. When accelerating or climbing inclines it needs a boost from the battery pack. Luckily, the periods when it needs to do that are less than 50% of the time, even on long climbs through the mountains. Since the Prius is designed to keep the battery charged, it tries to top off the battery every time the road levels out even a little. That makes it available for the next incline. 

If a serial hybrid is not designed to keep the battery charged, it will deplete the battery and have to run on the power from the generator alone. If the Prius needs to supplement the 53 KW gas engine to climb hills, I imagine the VOLT will also have to. This implies that it will not be able to climb a hill or accellerate if the battery is already exhausted.

I could, of course, be all wet. 

As for simpler or not.... I can see a serial hybrid having MORE parts (and bigger) than a hybrid built using Toyota's design. The electric motors have to be sized to drive the car full time in the serial. The motor(s) has to be big enough to provide 100% of the power required under worst case conditions. The battery pack is bigger and heavier (10 times the current Prius size). The only thing being dropped is the CVT, and in the Toyota design that's been a pretty trouble free, low overhead component.

In either case, you still need the gas tank and emissions control. You still need the heavy duty electronics. You need the aux subsystems of AC, heating , power steering and brakes.

Again, I could be all wrong, but that's my take on the stumbling blocks GM may encounter.

Daniel


----------



## Brock (Jan 8, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Yes disagreement was meant tongue and cheek  But I see what your saying about it trying to charge the batteries or allowing them to get low before you hit the bottom of the hill, then trying to charge and run uphill at the same time. Point taken. How close does the ICE stay to optimum in the Prius while running? Does it sit at some efficient level and vary the CVT or does it change more with real speed? I have only driven my uncles Prius once and at that time I didn't know as much about the car as I do now.

My EPA numbers are 42-49, my worst ever mileage in my TDI was 45.69, that was in winter doing some towing, about 120 miles and a snow storm right after that. I have no idea how I could hit 42 mpg, maybe towing a 2500lb trailer the whole time? One person towed an SUV from Florida to Texas and got upper 30’s for the trip. My best mileage was 62.28 this last summer with lifetime right now at 54.40. Well above EPA estimates. It does appear to be true that the 99-03 TDI’s at least meet or exceed their EPA ratings, even when driven like they were stolen. It seems vary rare they are below EPA ratings unless something is physically wrong with the car.


----------



## Darell (Jan 8, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Brock... I practically earn my living disagreeing with Daniel. Here you've got two people on the same page disagreeing - I agree that's healthy. 

Having enough power from what GM *says* they'll provide this car with shouldn't be a problem at all. When the APU comes on, it can charge the batteries at 50 kW. That doesn't mean you can't exceed 50kW of power from the electric motor. Same with the ACP Long Ranger trailer. Your *average* power is limited by the output of the APU, but the *peak* power is the same as always. So, you can't go 90 miles per hour for miles on end, and you could concoct some artificial situations that would limit your available power, but under all usual circumstances, you have the same power available from the electric motor whether the APU is running or not. The APU keeps running when you're going down hill, when you are stopped in traffic, etc., so it usually has plenty of opportunity to catch up. Also, the software will no doubt allow some cushion below the SOC point where the APU starts, to provide for short spells right after the APU starts where the instantaneous demand exceeds the APU output. 

To illustrate the point, if the RAV4 EV used 50 kW (peak rating of the motor) constantly, it would be out of juice in about half an hour. (28 kWh battery capacity, using about 833 Wh per minute.) We know that's not reality, unless you drive 80 mph against the wind the whole time. Reality is that you can normally drive the RAV4 EV for about two hours. At a constant 60 mph, the RAV4 EV uses only about 22 kW, 220 Wh per minute/mile. The Long Ranger, at 20kW, can sustain this operation, because there are usually coasting periods, downhills, etc., that keep the average consumption down over time.

It still seems to me that 50kW is plenty, and won't cause a performance problem under any usual circumstances


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The usual circumstances won't be a problem. It's the unusual circumstances that start the rumor mill running. If the Volt falls short in any aspect it will reflect badly on all EVs.

It's ironic that Darrel quoted that particular scenario. Last month I drove to San Diego on I-5. The speed limit was 75 MPH. The last 30 miles leading to the grapevine I was fighting a wicked headwind. That was an instance where I traveled for several hundred miles at 75 mph, fighting headwinds along the way, and then had to climb a mountain range. That's pretty close to the scenario Darell listed.

Now I must admit that it's only twice in 15 years that I recall hitting that exact scenario on that trip. The point is that it does happen once in a while.

Please don't get me wrong. I believe that it's possible to make serial hybrids work. I'm just questioning the specs they've published. 

It's funny that concept cars are taken seriously when they are seldom working models or even test beds. It looks to me like the Volt is a mock-up and a set of ideas. The actual engineering still needs to be developed.

I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing how they do it.

Daniel


----------



## ViReN (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I havent been following this thread of all 9 parts... only this part got my attention.... now my question is... why cant one build a 'farm' based fuels... veg. oils or something similar.

instead of investing in batteries, hydrogen etc.....

wont it solve a problem once and for all of 'bio' fuels / oil powered cars are produced. (we can grow plants as much as we want)... and wont have to worry about the "fossil" fuels getting extinct any more.


----------



## James S (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I think the biggest reason we dont grow more farm grown fuels is that the companies and people that make and distribute fuels dont need to yet, and dont know how even if they wanted to. And the people that own and operate farms dont know anything about the gas business.

You can't really just make connections in your head and instantly translate that into whole industries. This takes time and experimentation and motivation. 

This is happening here, just slowly. There are test farms and ethanol plants going up, and people growing oil plants to make into bio diesel. It's not that we can't do it, it's that we can't do it overnight.

The other thing that is often funny to me is that once a company becomes large enough that they are capable of creating a whole industry like that, they are also so large and beaurocratically constipated that the upper brass is completely disconnected from the rapidly changing reality. This is extremely obvious in the car companies. They have no connection with us who buy regular cars at all. That is why you see really great concepts coming out of their labs, but once the committee has had their way with it it looks and performs almost exactly like the last car they sold that did well. They dont know what we want so they treat it like voodoo. Repeat the same steps and expect the same results. It's very hard or big companies to do really new things. It frightens them  Only when their old voodoo spells stop working for long enough that they realize that they suck do they start to get interested in doing anything new.

All arguments of the real viability of farm raised fuels will be resolved as people actually TRY to make them and we see how their small companies do. When they can prove that they can do it, and that people will buy it and use it in real life. The companies that are unable to think new things will latch on or buy them out.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



ViReN said:


> ...we can grow plants as much as we want...



The problem is with yield.

If we took every existing acre of corn and made ethanol, we might replace 15% of our gasoline. If we took every acre of soy beans and made biodiesel, we might replace 6% of our diesel. You can see even if we doubled existing production (and the land is not there to do it), we'd still be far away from replacing existing petroleum fuel usage.

The beauty of electric drive miles is that the electricity can come from a very wide variety of sources including renewables like solar and wind with are pretty much inexhaustable. Since solar and wind are intermittant (sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow), we should be developing come good ways to store electricity so we can make it when we can and use it when we need it.

Existing ways of storing electricity include compressed air in old caverns or mines and pumping water uphill into reservoirs and then letting the water or air drive turbines. Vehicles that can be charged could be part of the solution too. You charge'em at night and plug them into the grid during the day to give some back when needed.

Having Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) with an all-electric range of 20 miles would allow us to reduce liquid fuel needs by about half.


----------



## Darell (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> It's funny that concept cars are taken seriously when they are seldom working models or even test beds. It looks to me like the Volt is a mock-up and a set of ideas. The actual engineering still needs to be developed.


So True!

And don't forget the 108mpg GM Precept. How would you like that? Fuel cell or Hybrid? That was 7 years ago at the Detroit Auto show. While it seems to make a lot of sense for GM to take a leadership role with a serial Hybrid such as the Volt, history suggests it's unlikely to produce. It would be a welcome surprise though. 

We can debate the specs until the cows come home. But it would be just as valid for me to say, "Hey guys, I'm gonna build a $20k car that has 500 hp, and will go 300 miles on battery power before the 100mpg bioD genset kicks in." Nobody can complain about that, right?


----------



## Darell (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

And here's GM's "eye popping" entry to the auto show circuit in 1999. Sound familiar?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_11_179/ai_58038328


----------



## Darell (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> The usual circumstances won't be a problem. It's the unusual circumstances that start the rumor mill running. If the Volt falls short in any aspect it will reflect badly on all EVs.


I realize that you're speaking of the thoughts of the unwashed masses, and you risk falling into the "every vehicle must be capable of everything" mentality. A concept that I don't want to foster.

Will this fancy new EV be able to pull my boat? Can I seat nine adults in it? Can it drive through waist-high mud? Can it park in motorcycle parking areas? Split lanes? There are plenty of things the car won't be able to do. The current design parameters make it an amazingly capable vehicle (a bit TOO capable, if you know what I mean). We already have popular gasoline cars on the road that would have great difficulty in achieving the scenario you relate. I wouldn't be able to do it in my Rav4EV, of course, and it is our main vehicle. I've never felt that the Rav is under-powered, though my modern standards it certainly is - just like the gasoline version is (was).

Dunno. Tough nut for me to swallow. There are always extreme scenarios that we can imagine - scenarios in which our CURRENT gasoline vehicles can't even compete. Best to think of what the tehnology is capable of, not its limits. Reminds me of what many were saying about the Prius 1 when it came out actually. There were those who headed up huge hills with the pedal on the floor to use up all the battery charge, and then were all too happy to demonstrate that the Prius was no good because once the battery was used up, it would only go about 60mph max.


----------



## Josey (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Solar faces the same issue: People say it's not an important energy source because it can't provide all of our energy needs all by itself. If we would just start investing in these technologies, all sorts of solutions would present themselves. 

The one thing that always always surprises me about electric or plug-in hybrids or even hybrids is that solar cells are not built into the frame. Although solar wouldn't be enough to power a large car by itself, it should give a pretty good increase in mileage.


----------



## Bright Scouter (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

That headwind scenario can cause problems for many vehicles as was stated. In college, two of us took our college's panel van from Michigan to Iowa to pick up some lighting gear the auditorium bought. We were fighting a bad headwind on the way out west. I don't remember if it was a 4 or 5 speed. But in OD, it didn't have enough power to keep the speed up. You had to down shift a gear and then at highway speeds, the engine was running way too high of an rpm. But, there was no other way. 

I just want a car, ev, pluggable hybrid, whatever that will do most of what I want. I will have a fossil fuel vehicle for the foreseeable future to do most everything else. What that can't do, I really don't need, or can rent something that will do it.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I remember my dad once saying that his car was a Rolls_Hardly. It rolls down one hill and hardly makes it up the next. Then he bought a volkswagen (back in the 1960s) and by golly, it really worked like that! We lived in the Santa Cruz mountains, so it was a really inappropriate car. Under 50 HP as I recall. It got great gas mileage. 

But back on topic.....

Part of folstering new technologies is to manage expectations. If GM is billing the car as an EV with unlimited range, it will need to perform properly on the freeway. That's the only place where unlimited range is needed. If there are limitations, it's better for GM to make that obvious up front or engineer around the limitation. Of note is the fact that the Prius battery can no longer be depleted by a long uphill run. Not in my experience and I climb a lot of mountains/hills/ranges.

When you say you have a new car (as GM is proposing) with a 120 kw electric motor and fast 1/4 mile times, you are appealing to the crowd that will drive fast. They will expect to be able to drive all day at 80 MPH, head wind or not. They will complain bitterly if the car fails to meet their expectations.

I would not mind a car that is plug in capable with a freeway mode that keeps the battery at a reasonable state of charge. I have to stop at the Starbucks at the base of the Grapevine anyway, so I'd give it an extra 15 minutes of charge. 

With the availability of cheap GPS chips it would make sense for a "smart hybrid" to prepare for the upcoming terrain. The GPS only needs to know of the few hundred areas where it's going to encounter a sustained climb and keep the battery charged in those areas. By the same token, if you are headed towards the place you park every day, it should shut down the engine, knowing that you'll be either plugging in or warming up the next day. Now that's what I call a concept!

Daniel


----------



## Josey (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

A hybrid motor can be used to increase mileage or horsepower or some combination. The Japanese went primarily with mileage and Detroit went primarily with horsepower. Given the environmental crisis we face, Detroit once again went the wrong direction. Most people live in cities and need a daily commuter. The first priority of the auto makers should be to build a light, economical EV/hybrid for that scenario and a plug-in hybrid for the rest of us. I see GM making the same mistake over and over: selling sex appeal rather than function.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Josey said:


> Most people live in cities and need a daily commuter. The first priority of the auto makers should be to build a light, economical EV/hybrid for that scenario and a plug-in hybrid for the rest of us. I see GM making the same mistake over and over: selling sex appeal rather than function.


Yep, it would be nice if marketing pushed the American people to think of cars more as tools to get from point A and point B instead of status symbols. It would ultimately mean cars designed for real-world driving, not unrealistic scenarios like getting to 60 mph in 5 or 6 seconds. And GM would do well to have an option of a larger battery/no engine. This would especially appeal to city dwellers who rarely if ever have need for more than 200 miles range as well as fleet owners like taxis, police, fire department. Maybe if some of the larger cities like NY passed zero emission requirements for anything operated within their borders GM might take the risk knowing they have a ready market.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Josey said:


> A hybrid motor can be used to increase mileage or horsepower or some combination.



There are two other uses that come to mind.

1) it can be used to increase range of an EV.
2) It can be used to minimize polution.

The series hybrid is often a BEV with a range extending onboard generator. 

The mild hybrid essentially reduces pollution by killing the gas motor at stop lights and/or providing an electric 'turbo' for an otherwise underpowered engine.

I have to agree that recent hybrid designs are optomizing power where they could be minimizing the environmental impact.

In stop and go driving the mild hybrid can be amazingly effective. No movement during gridlock means no gas burned either. In slow and go the serial or parallel hybrid can do better. 

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

ikendu, I did a search one day for bio fuel when I got the diesel benz and found woodfin fuels sells it, but for commercial use/fleet. Its at one of those self sevice stations that the cops, city and other commercial cstomers use with the special key to work the pumps. I doubt 17 gallons a month would be a drop in the bucket for me to use their fuel, get an account, etc.


----------



## Darell (Jan 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Some great comments, Josey. Thanks!

I will respond to this one with what I know...



Josey said:


> The one thing that always always surprises me about electric or plug-in hybrids or even hybrids is that solar cells are not built into the frame. Although solar wouldn't be enough to power a large car by itself, it should give a pretty good increase in mileage.



The fact is, if you covered all horizontal surfaces of a standard-sized automobile (let's take my Rav as an example) with PV panels, you'd in crease the cost, the weight and air drag of the vehicle. And in the very best conditions, you'd make enough power for about three miles/day. The panels are almost never oriented optimally. If you park in a garage or in the shade, you get nothing. If you are driving between buildings or in bad weather or in winter, you get very little. The bottom line is that the best place for PV panels is on the roof of your garage or carport or house. They can be oriented correctly at all times, and aren't shaded. When the sun is out, they're making power, no matter where the car is. When the car comes back home, you use the power you've been generating all day to charge. This is what I do!

It is a neat concept to install panels directly on the car, and eventually we'll have panels that are efficient enough to make sense in this application. Currently it is just a waste of money and resources to put expensive panels on a vehicle that will waste most of the panels' potential.


----------



## ViReN (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

LED's have increased their brightness through continual research and development...and it's continuing... 
Batteries are also going the same way.... 
Motors & Electrical are also continually evolving... getting more powerful and smaller... 

But, I could not get more information in yet underutilized solar cell potential ... as of now, what i know is they are still not very efficient...

Bow about increasing efficiency of Solar Cells? (is there any thing working in background? no revolution on this front yet?)

A good EV+Alt Fuel Vehicle would run with Solar Cells + Alt Fuel + Batteries & Motor + Alt Fuel IC Engine. So when in parking, highly efficient Solar Cells would keep charging the batteries... during drive... when extra horse power is required IC engine could kick in(to provide extra current)..... or IC would run optimally (at best efficiency) to charging batteries automatically...


----------



## turbodog (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Hello!

Did someone call my name?

This sounds like traveling I-40 from Memphis to Albuquerque. We were running about 78-80 with the cruise on. Then we hit the mountains. The cruise, in overdrive, kept shifting all the time. We went out of OD and ran fine for 300-400 miles. Now granted, the tach stayed at about 3500 rpm, but we didn't lose speed on the hills anymore, and the transmission stayed in the same gear the whole time.

I don't expect an economy car to be a race car. However, I don't expect a $30k+ car, as any hybrid costs, to be a turd either. My expectation would be that any car should be able to maintain 70-80 on the highway and still have some reserve. If you don't have that much power what are you doing on the highway?




gadget_lover said:


> When you say you have a new car (as GM is proposing) with a 120 kw electric motor and fast 1/4 mile times, you are appealing to the crowd that will drive fast. They will expect to be able to drive all day at 80 MPH, head wind or not. They will complain bitterly if the car fails to meet their expectations.


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



ikendu said:


> The problem is with yield.
> 
> If we took every existing acre of corn and made ethanol, we might replace 15% of our gasoline. If we took every acre of soy beans and made biodiesel, we might replace 6% of our diesel. You can see even if we doubled existing production (and the land is not there to do it), we'd still be far away from replacing existing petroleum fuel usage.



I don't know about your region, but ethanol is the new gas addative in most Texas cities, displacing MTBE or whatever the foul-smelling, somewhat-toxic one was. All the pumps around here are clearly labeled "contains up to 10% ethanol."

Hmm, I wonder where all the ethanol will be going in a few years' time?


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The Volt concept is interesting - the strong serial hybrid with more than enough range for electric commuting for the average driver. I just might buy my first GM vehicle in spite of my dislike for them should they pull this concept off.

I happen to drive an underpowered vehicle myself that has some trouble with highway speeds should nasty headwinds or inclines present themselves _(surprisingly, almost everyone has heard of both the manufacturer and the model, and this fact has done its "brand image" little apparent damage)_ - it's an older Ford Ranger with a 4-cylinder engine. I guess that the 4-banger model is only considered "underpowered." I'm thankful that it has a manual transmission and do work the gearbox a bit when I'm not traversing the flatlands.

The serial hybrid vs parallel hybrid debate is endless. In theory, parallel hybrids offer better _fuel_ economy, but the serial hybrid offers better economy when it's operating from stored energy from the grid. Engines are not terribly efficient (especially when they have to be compact and affordable) - unlike motors - and typically have much narrower powerbands. So - what to optimize for in a pluggable hybrid? Fuel economy or electric economy? I'd say that you need only make fuel economy acceptably high since most of the mileage put on these vehicles will probably be electric. I can easily see myself filling up this vehicle perhaps once a month and only for long trips or should I forget to recharge.

More details will need to come out (read: prototypes and a commitment to production) before the concept can really be judged.


----------



## Josey (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> ...The fact is, if you covered all horizontal surfaces of a standard-sized automobile (let's take my Rav as an example) with PV panels, you'd in crease the cost, the weight and air drag of the vehicle. And in the very best conditions, you'd make enough power for about three miles/day. The panels are almost never oriented optimally. If you park in a garage or in the shade, you get nothing. If you are driving between buildings or in bad weather or in winter, you get very little. The bottom line is that the best place for PV panels is on the roof of your garage or carport or house. They can be oriented correctly at all times, and aren't shaded. When the sun is out, they're making power, no matter where the car is. When the car comes back home, you use the power you've been generating all day to charge. This is what I do!
> 
> It is a neat concept to install panels directly on the car, and eventually we'll have panels that are efficient enough to make sense in this application. Currently it is just a waste of money and resources to put expensive panels on a vehicle that will waste most of the panels' potential.



Those are good points, Darell. Plus, to further weaken my case, when you mount solar panels on a car you are mounting 50-year generators on a 10- or 15-year platform. But I still like the idea. Thin film panels are only 6 percent efficient, but than can be form fitted to indented roof/hood/deck surfaces with no loss of aerodynamics. I'm guessing that a Rav-sized rig could hold 200 - 300 watts of panels at an additional cost of maybe $1000 -- say $4 an installed watt. So maybe, as you say, you get only 3 miles of power a day at best, but that's still 3 miles. Multiply that by millions of cars and suddenly you have a small, but meaningful contribution to energy policy. Plus, you give a huge incentive to the solar industry. (If the government paid for every one of those solar panels, it would still amount to a smaller subsidy than what is already going into the gas tank.) And I'd still cover every roof with solar panels, but maybe with single-crystal panels that are 20 percent efficient, as well as tracking panels that are 35 percent efficient. A lot of little things start to add up. When I set out to make my cabin energy efficient, I found the best approach was to make dozens and dozen of small improvements, rather than looking for that one big silver bullet.

FYI: There is a story in Solar Today about a Calif. couple with 6K of solar panels on their roof that pays for all their heat, light and other electrical needs and powers their all-electric Rav4. It's not like we don't have lots of smart choices if we really get motivated.


----------



## ViReN (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

hey... how about going space technology.... i mean the foldable solar panels like the ones that are spent out to space.... attached to satellites and the Space Station...

Darell.... if the 'flexible' panels are 'painted' over a normal hybrid... it would reduce the drag as opposed to using flat solar panels (am i missing something)

on the Farming front


> The problem is with yield.
> 
> If we took every existing acre of corn and made ethanol, we might replace 15% of our gasoline. If we took every acre of soy beans and made biodiesel, we might replace 6% of our diesel. You can see even if we doubled existing production (and the land is not there to do it), we'd still be far away from replacing existing petroleum fuel usage.



the bi-products of these can be effectively utilized in steam based generators (electricity) (thus further reducing the need of another fossil fuel coal).... planting more plants will help in reducing CO2 levels to .. isnt it?


----------



## ViReN (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Worm Deleted & Canned


----------



## ViReN (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



ViReN said:


> ...the bi-products of these [biofuels] can be effectively utilized in steam based generators (electricity) (thus further reducing the need of another fossil fuel coal).... planting more plants will help in reducing CO2 levels to .. isnt it?



Yes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally for developing biofuels. It is just that corn ethanol and soy biodiesel will only get us a small part of the way. We will need to look to biomass like diverse prairie plantings and algae farming to generate significantly more biofuels. I believe in the end, we must convert a large part of our miles to electric drive.

Here is an article about the prairie plantings:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061207161136.htm

Anyone seen the video from GM about eFlex? If they really believe it, it is an amazing turn around in corporate direction.

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=1166


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



ViReN said:


> But, I could not get more information in yet underutilized solar cell potential ... as of now, what i know is they are still not very efficient...
> 
> Bow about increasing efficiency of Solar Cells? (is there any thing working in background? no revolution on this front yet?)


Many breakthroughs announced, none of them commercialized. IMO, the next big thing to be commercialized will be *cheaper* panels, not more efficient. And that's good. You just cover a bit more realestate (roof of your house) with cheaper panels for more energy per dollar invested. Next will come efficiency.


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Josey said:


> Those are good points, Darell. Plus, to further weaken my case, when you mount solar panels on a car you are mounting 50-year generators on a 10- or 15-year platform.


Ah. Great point that I hadn't considered!



> you get only 3 miles of power a day at best, but that's still 3 miles. Multiply that by millions of cars and suddenly you have a small, but meaningful contribution to energy policy.


Yes... on average it would likely be close to ONE mile/day per vehicle. And if that same money instead goes into panels for the roof of a home, the panels would displace 10 or 20 miles (or equivalent). So the bang for the buck is largely against putting them on the car. If we're going to pay for PV with public funds, let's use them where they do the most good.



> FYI: There is a story in Solar Today about a Calif. couple with 6K of solar panels on their roof that pays for all their heat, light and other electrical needs and powers their all-electric Rav4. It's not like we don't have lots of smart choices if we really get motivated.


You can always read where I do the same thing with my 2.5k system...
http://evnut.com/solar.htm

And look in my Rav Owners gallery for a picture of the people profiled in the solar story.


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

comments about cans and worms removed for less confusion.


----------



## ViReN (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Worm Deleted & Canned


----------



## Josey (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> Yes... on average it would likely be close to ONE mile/day per vehicle. And if that same money instead goes into panels for the roof of a home, the panels would displace 10 or 20 miles (or equivalent). So the bang for the buck is largely against putting them on the car. If we're going to pay for PV with public funds, let's use them where they do the most good.



I agree with you on that. I also think that once we ramp up production to plant solar panels on those zillion acres of prime roof space, the cost of solar will have come down enough so that adding them to vehicles for more marginal gains will also be cost effective.

And I do appreciate your solar work and advocacy and use.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Nanosolar...

http://www.nanosolar.com/

...claims to have developed nano materials that can simply be printed on a flexible substrate. This will be similar in efficiency but one tenth the cost.

If it works... that will be all good.


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



turbodog said:


> Hello!
> 
> Did someone call my name?


Um, no. We were looking for the normall-aspirated cat, actually. 

:wave:


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

OK, this was too good not to pass along:

First a snip from an article in Automotive News, Jan 7, 2007



> *DETROIT --* No one knows whether there's much of a market for plug-in hybrids, which qualify for niche-within-a-niche status.
> 
> No plug-in hybrids are on the market yet. But eco-geeks who want more pure electric power from hybrids are pressuring automakers to build them.



And then a letter to the editor from my friend Mr. Gage, President of AC Propulsion:

Dear Editor,

Re: "Airstream shows Ford's plug-in technology"

Although I am not personally offended by the term eco-geek as used by Richard Truett to describe those who want to substitute electricity for gasoline as a fuel for their cars, I do feel its use reveals a disimissive attitude toward a real problem. The term marginalizes and diminishes those who understand that our excessive gasoline consumption in the United States is causing economic, environmental, and political problems around the world. "Eco-geeks" does have a nice ring to it, so maybe Mr. Truett just likes the way it sounds. If so, here are some snappy names he could use to describe other groups of people. He could cleverly call anyone who buys a big heavy truck and then uses it to commute and run local errands a "terrorist's tool". And it would be hilarious when he writes about journalists, politicians, and auto executives who ignore, hide the truth about, and encourage our hideous appetite for gasoline if he called them "OPEC *** kissers".

You may print this letter.

Sincerely,

Tom Gage
President
AC Propulsion, Inc.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I am not an expert on solar power, but I have observed that a solar panel that is not pointed directly at the sun will lose efficiency. It loses a lot of it's efficiency if it's off by 20 degrees. Since an aerodynamic car will need to be made up of curves, you are almost guaranteed that car mounted panels it will not collect anywhere near it's optimum levels of light.

Reggie mentioned Electric scooters a few posts back. 

There are many electric scooters available right now. There are several styles, ranging from a moped looking thing to a vespa look-alike and I've seen one that looked like a standard motorcyle with a squarish engine.

The prices are not that bad.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> I am not an expert on solar power, but I have observed that a solar panel that is not pointed directly at the sun will lose efficiency. It loses a lot of it's efficiency if it's off by 20 degrees. Since an aerodynamic car will need to be made up of curves, you are almost guaranteed that car mounted panels it will not collect anywhere near it's optimum levels of light.


That was one of the points I was attempting to make. When mounted on the roof, you choose the best average angle, or use trackers. On a car, you lose efficiency because of angle, because of shade, because all kinds of stuff.



> There are many electric scooters available right now. There are several styles, ranging from a moped looking thing to a vespa look-alike and I've seen one that looked like a standard motorcyle with a squarish engine.


The Vectrix is poised to be the cream of the crop (and price).
http://www.vectrix.com/default.aspx?portal=1&page=1


----------



## raggie33 (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

cool info on scooter .id love a decent scooter.but i still want litium batts


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



raggie33 said:


> cool info on scooter .id love a decent scooter.but i still want litium batts


That's exactly what the Vectrix has.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

For some scooters that are available now...

http://www.electric-bikes.com/motor/index.html


I liked the looks of the EVT, since it looks like any other scooter.

Some of the bikes are detuned to lower speeds in order to qualify as a moped in certain areas. It looks like California is one of those areas.

Daniel


----------



## Brock (Jan 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



> I don't expect an economy car to be a race car. However, I don't expect a $30k+ car, as any hybrid costs, to be a turd either. My expectation would be that any car should be able to maintain 70-80 on the highway and still have some reserve. If you don't have that much power what are you doing on the highway?


You mean like Semi’s? They travel more miles then just about anything else on the road, they have horrible 0-60 times and can barely maintain speed on hills yet they still make them this way on purpose, for fuel mileage. Sure they could put 1600 hp engines in them so they still have plenty of power pulling up hill, but they don’t. Why is it we _need_ this for our cars? I am not saying that it shouldn’t be made with an optional larger ICE size, but why start there? Right now everyone has the option to buy an SUV to move 2 people at 120 mph getting 4 mpg, but we don’t have an option to move 6 people at 75 mph getting any better then 25 mpg. It’s just goofy if you ask me.


> I can easily see myself filling up this vehicle perhaps once a month and only for long trips or should I forget to recharge.


Ok, just me ribbing, but I filled up 17 times last year, or just about every 3 weeks and traveled just over 15000 miles, or just over 882 miles per fill  with an average mpg of 57.64 over the whole year in my 3200 lb TDI wagon, often moving 5 people, granted three were kids in the back.


----------



## Darell (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Brock said:


> You mean like Semi’s? They travel more miles then just about anything else on the road, they have horrible 0-60 times and can barely maintain speed on hills yet they still make them this way on purpose, for fuel mileage. Sure they could put 1600 hp engines in them so they still have plenty of power pulling up hill, but they don’t. Why is it we _need_ this for our cars? I am not saying that it shouldn’t be made with an optional larger ICE size, but why start there? Right now everyone has the option to buy an SUV to move 2 people at 120 mph getting 4 mpg, but we don’t have an option to move 6 people at 75 mph getting any better then 25 mpg. It’s just goofy if you ask me.


Man, that's good, Brock! (only thing I would have improved on is quoting what you're commenting on from WAYYYY up there) I'll bet you didn't refresh before replying. 



> Ok, just me ribbing, but I filled up 17 times last year, or just about every 3 weeks and traveled just over 15000 miles, or just over 882 miles per fill  with an average mpg of 57.64 over the whole year in my 3200 lb TDI wagon, often moving 5 people, granted three were kids in the back.


I didn't dump any fuel into the Rav EVER last year. Let's see... I only managed 11k miles in it though, so you got me there.  Seriously though - your numbers are truly awesome. I won't touch that with the Prius, certainly. I'm holding steady at just about 50mpg lifetime on that car. Of course I often carry all kinds of stuff on the roof which destroys the mileage. And sometimes I'm forced into the short trips, which sucks as well. [gripe]Why do I have to burn liquid fuel when I need to take a short car trip!? [/gripe]


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Brock said:


> You mean like Semi’s? They travel more miles then just about anything else on the road, they have horrible 0-60 times and can barely maintain speed on hills yet they still make them this way on purpose, for fuel mileage. Sure they could put 1600 hp engines in them so they still have plenty of power pulling up hill, but they don’t. Why is it we _need_ this for our cars?


I wonder about that one as well. After all, a semi with a full load weighs 80,000 pounds. It takes something like a minute to 60 from a dead stop yet somehow it manages to keep up with traffic just fine. Also, most of our Interstate Highway system was purposely laid out with 3% maximum grades expressly so that semis and buses could keep up with traffic on hills. These are vehicles with a power-to-weight ratio in the 20 HP/ton area yet they do just fine. This kind of tells me we could make 40 HP, 2-ton sedans which would do equally fine. A hybrid with energy storage kind of lets you have your cake and eat it as well. You have the small engine for maximum economy but short bursts of power for the times you may need it. That further makes the case that 20 HP/ton installed power is all we really need.

As for having a reserve at 75-80, maybe if we stopped making things shaped like boxes then some of that aforementioned 40 HP which would otherwise be needed to hold speed at 80 mph could be reserve for acceleration or hills. Of all the things automobile manufacturers do stupidly (and there are plenty) I'd say the single biggest one is not designing every single vehicle for the best possible aerodynamics and the minimum possible frontal area constrained by whatever function the vehicle needs to perform. Of course, a truck will still be larger than an economy sedan but it will still slip through the air as well as possible. Needless to say, I feel leaving "stylists" out of the picture, at least for having any say about exterior shape, would be a great thing. The lesson here is simple-if you want or need to go faster make whatever it is more streamlined rather than installing more power.


----------



## Darell (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



jtr1962 said:


> This kind of tells me we could make 40 HP, 2-ton sedans which would do equally fine.


Indeed. When folks look at the 0-60 times for my Rav, they giggle and feel sorry for me. I have something like 50HP (a bit more torque than that would normally imply, but still not much compared to modern gassers). And you know what? I never find myself needing more power. Not for safety. Not for convenience. Not for climbing hills. The only thing I'd need more power for is being the FASTEST on the onramp. Like I used to be in the EV1. . Less power just isn't sexy. That's the bottom line, I'm afraid. Unsexy doesn't sell cars.



> The lesson here is simple-if you want or need to go faster make whatever it is more streamlined rather than installing more power.


Quit it now! You're just talking crazy. Make something more efficient to give it more *effective* power instead of taking the brute force approach? How's that gonna keep us tied to foreign oil? Where's the sex in efficiency?

And on that note, I was VERY displeased to see Toyota doing everything it its power to show MORE HORSEPOWER and less efficiency in every line of vehicles it was showing at Detroit last week.


----------



## turbodog (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Before everyone rails on aerodynamics don't forget about drivetrain losses. Ok?

So anyway... is this where I interject about having the freedom to enjoy what you are able to afford?


----------



## turbodog (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

On another note: why did you sell the Ranger?


----------



## Darell (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



> Before everyone rails on aerodynamics don't forget about drivetrain losses. Ok?


The losses to air friction rule supreme if we're talking about a truck doing 80mph.



turbodog said:


> On another note: why did you sell the Ranger?


The aerodynamics sucked even though there were very minimal drivetrain losses. 


(also: It was build to typical "Ford quality" standards. Oh... and nobody...and I mean NOBODY could even find the special lubricant for the exotic rear axel - the stuff that is supposed to be changed every six months. And if that's not enough... I just don't need three cars, and the pickup couldn't replace either of the other ones. I also didn't have a place to park it. The better question is why did I even buy it?!)


----------



## Darell (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

OK, so I guess I'm just in one of those moods to actually take this on. I also know that you don't *really* mean this, but feel compelled to go there for grins anyway. We already know how this will go, but there's a bit I've never actually said. I'll say it here. Sort of.



turbodog said:


> So anyway... is this where I interject about having the freedom to enjoy what you are able to afford?


No. But thanks for asking just the same. Do you suppose that's how somebody like a young carpenter from a couple thousands of years ago would have chosen what to drive? Exclusively for selfish reasons?

If the world is all about YOU, then knock yourself out and don't look back. Suck the resources dry, and leave your trash for the next generation to deal with.

But if there's more to life than only what you can squeeze out of it for your own enjoyment, then we should maybe at least give a nod to what might be best for the whole gang.

Your "freedom" to burn more gasoline lowers MY national security. It lowers the quality of everybody's air and water. In increases the cost of heath care. In increases federal taxes. It causes money to leave our economy for good. It causes people to die. So if you can afford to do all that both financially and morally, then go at it, and don't let my tree-hugging notions slow you up.

Yeah, yeah. I'm being dramatic. I'm also not making any of this up. It is important to me. And while I appreciate your "right" to do what you can afford. I also ask that you look at the costs beyond the window sticker and the gasoline pump. The costs that really matter aren't paid at the retail level.

Man. That was even a little too deep for ME! Obviously past by bed time.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



> is this where I interject about having the freedom to enjoy what you are able to afford?



I guess I'll jump in too.


I DO enjoy what I'm able to afford. I dare say most of the population thinks they enjoy what they can afford.

Now there are things I can't afford, but that's not the question. Ther are things I would not be allowed to do if I did have the notion, but I don't run up against those things in my daily life. It's probably a good thing that I've never been abllowed to play with explosives, no matter how intrigued I was by all the movie mayhem when I was a kid.

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



turbodog said:


> So anyway... is this where I interject about having the freedom to enjoy what you are able to afford?



Heck... I see people jumped on this one before I even had a chance to read the thread!

I gotta agree with Darell on this one.

If I can afford a lead smelter in my back yard because I feel like it is the _only_ way to get the pure stuff for shell reloading I do as a hobby... I doubt if you'd feel ok with that if it meant that you as my neighbor were downwind or downstream of my smelting mess.

So... whether I can afford something or not clearly is not the whole story.

Our addiction to imported petroleum harms things that we all share in common; our air, our environment, our water, our economy and our national security. Anyone of these alone might be enough to make the "I can afford it argument" not wash on the basis of personal freedom. Put them all together and I think they make a pretty compelling case. 

I'm a great believer in freedom and independence. It is one of the reasons I am for locally produced, renewable energy. It increases our freedom. Less imported oil = more freedom.


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Just filled my Dodge up with biodiesel. My biodiesel came from Sequential Biofuels, and was made in part from the oil used by Kettle Chips to fry their potato chips. I stopped at a store on the way home and am now enjoying a bag of Kettle chips. I love how this system works. 

:buddies:


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



jtr1962 said:


> a semi with a full load weighs 80,000 pounds. It takes something like a minute to 60 from a dead stop yet somehow it manages to keep up with traffic just fine.



If a regular car is too fast and rear-ends a semi, too bad for the car.
The semi may not even be damaged.

The semi is also visible a long way off, and everyone knows they're slow uphill.

The same does not apply to a car, especially a very small car, travelling at slow speed on the highway.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

It's not difficult to set up roads so that trucks reach the speed limit before they reach the end of the on-ramp. You can lengthen the on-ramp or lower the speed limit. That may be necessary if the energy crunch gets really bad.

The idea that we have drivers that can't spot a small, slow moving car at freeway speeds is scary.

Daniel


----------



## DM51 (Jan 12, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> Yeah, yeah. I'm being dramatic. I'm also not making any of this up. It is important to me.


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 12, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



DM51 said:


> Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.



Ah... while we blissfully sleep... there are those with money to be made that do things we don't see, but end up impacting our lives.

Sleep is a wonderful thing. Making money is a good thing too. It helps us all buy our daily bread and keep the roof over our heads. I have come to believe that we don't have to live in an "either or" world. We can still make money, have a robust economy and still protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the security of our neighbors. That "either or" thing is a false choice. We can have both. Having both, means we must pay attention to our world and only sleep at night when we need rest. The rest of the time, we need to be paying attention.


----------



## Darell (Jan 12, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



DM51 said:


> Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


Please feel free to contribute something of substance at any time. If you are trying to make a point, you are being too subtle. If you just need some quiet time, please step away from the computer before passing out.


----------



## Darell (Jan 14, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Come see the Chevy Volt in action. Anybody posted this link yet?

http://www.autospies.com/news/DETROIT-AUTO...n-Action-11478/

From this clip I've learned that electric propulsion is both loud and slow. Oh... And that even women can handle the technology. 

What was the part about how with a whopping 40 miles of range that some folks won't be burning any gasoline? That because of this 40 miles of range that we'll have to remind drivers to fire the ICE every six months so the gas doesn't go bad??? Wasn't 100 miles not enough range not too long ago? I think I'm losing my mind.

Watch for Lutz even mentioning that maybe... just maybe... they could make one that is PURE ELECTRIC. Dunno. Sounds too sci-fi to me! Who'd want something with 300 miles of EV range when they could have one with 40?

Gets my vote just for the neat interior LED lighting if nothing else!


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 14, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

"first and foremost, it's a great looking car" That was Lutz, right?

HUH? Foremost is the looks?

Daniel


----------



## Josey (Jan 14, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

It looks to me as though GM is not really serious about promoting the Volt. No real marketing clip for a new product is that bad. Nothing about the Volt appeals to me. That intitial slow and noisy test drive really is bizarre, although the noise could have been an artifact of the poor video quality. They did say that the total range with the ICE was closer to 600 miles, but I didn't hear them say what that mileage would be. After seeing that clip, I remain convinced that GM is not interested in building an EV or decent plug-in hybrid.


----------



## Darell (Jan 16, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I am timidly going to post this... with a caveat. I want folks to read this, and realize that it is from a military site. Lots of politics involved, and as long as we can discuss this without heading straight for the gutter (your party sucks because here's some quotes from YOUR politician that proves it!) then that's great. We've managed to get this far without any real issues. The policy of CPF is to just not go there, and I hope we can continue to respect that so I don't have to make version ten of this thread so soon after V9! 

Now that I've made such a huge deal out of it, here's the link:
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,122205,00.html


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I didn't see anything that controversial. The article is not trying to claim that any of this is the brainchild of the administration. It is saying that we need to have more options for fueling our cars. 

I can't argue with the ideas. I just hope that they use a reasonable means of implementing it. There's a tendency to dictate solutions based on politics instead of science. 

Let's all keep our fingers crossed.

Daniel


----------



## Brock (Jan 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Darell I finally watched that video. LOL, so what I get from that video is that it's loud and if you speed around the block at 7 mph you have to go home and plug it in again 


> Since you own an ipod you have to have a vehicle that can sync up to it, that’s really important and all vehicles should be able to do this.


 LOL...ummmm.... OMG I hope they never show that to the general public.

But seriously I think it is a good idea and hope someone makes a true hybrid, heck even 20 miles on batteries.


----------



## Darell (Jan 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Brock said:


> Darell I finally watched that video. LOL, so what I get from that video is that it's loud and if you speed around the block at 7 mph you have to go home and plug it in again  LOL...ummmm.... OMG I hope they never show that to the general public.


Astonishingly underwhelming, eh? When she eased down the driveway, I thought she was just being careful not to bang anything on the curb. But then I realized she was at top speed the whole time. Kept checking to see if I had the player stuck in slo-mo.

Yes, many good nuggest like the iPod comment. And 40 miles EV range being "more than enough" for most commuters. And how an "all electric" car could be possible in the future.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jan 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I have a hard time envisining a sea change while I'm still alive... but I guess we can hope...

It would be bitchin' cool to have something like Darells EV for our weekly trip of 55 miles or so, as well as for SOME other situations we have.

But for my work, there doesn't seem to be anything better out there than my RAM 2500 Cummins. I'm hanging out at about 20.3 lifetime. This in a 4 ton not exactly aerodynamic vehicle that can and does tow nearly 3 tons often, and sometimes more.

And since I HAVE to carry drums, machines etc. pretty often, it would make NO SENSE to have a seperate service vehicle.

Anyway, from what I've read so far about the Volt...

I sincerly hope something more like the EV1 shows up rather than that!


----------



## Josey (Jan 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I saw an interesting talk by a Calif. energy commission chair. He said that without the energy-efficiency regulations (car and home and business) enacted as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, we'd be spending $700 billion more each year on energy.

The average mileage of today's passenger vehicles (including SUVs) is just 21 mpg.

Imagine what we could do if we got serious about energy efficiency.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

From Darell's link:

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,122205,00.html

"Help retool the U.S. automotive fleet on an accelerated basis, replacing gas-guzzling vehicles with new FFVs, hybrids and plug-in hybrids. Do it not just out of self-interest. Do it for your country."

How come we only see such sentiments out of left-wing, tree-hugging, anti-capitalist sites like this one? >tongue-in-cheek<

Anyone willing to take the pledge?

"I will purchase no new car until I can buy a new PHEV that is biofueled"

...and I will tell that to my dealers now.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

From Darell's link:

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,122205,00.html

"Help retool the U.S. automotive fleet on an accelerated basis, replacing gas-guzzling vehicles with new FFVs, hybrids and plug-in hybrids. Do it not just out of self-interest. Do it for your country."

How come we only see such sentiments out of left-wing, tree-hugging, anti-capitalist sites like this one? >tongue-in-cheek<

Anyone willing to take the pledge?

"I will purchase no new car until I can buy a new PHEV that is biofueled"

...and I will tell that to my dealers now.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

There is a nice article on EVWorld about new nano technology lithium rechargeable batteries.

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=1174


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I noted thet they are pushing flex fuel capable cars, but not high mileage units. There is no mention of conservation, only replacing one type of fuel with another.

Imagine if the standards were changed to require every vehicle to get at least 40 pMPG. That's passenger miles per gallon.

A van that gets 10 MPG would be subject to getting a ticket if it carried less than 4 people. A car that gets 30 MPG would have to have two people. A car that gets 45 mpg would be OK with only one person.

That rule would push us toward more efficient cars. It would push people into car pooling if they can't afford to buy a more efficient car. People would offer to take a neighbor with them to the store rather than risk a ticket. 

The only times I car pool is when I go to the dump in my pickup truck. I contact my neighbors to see if they want to add to my load.

They could phase in such a rule over time, giving people time to adjust.

If they were really serious, they could offer random rewards to cars that exceed 100 pMPG. That would be 3 people in a Civic, 12 people in a Hummer. 

Daniel

(pipe dreaming, I know)


----------



## BB (Jan 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> Imagine if the standards were changed to require every vehicle to get at least 40 pMPG. That's passenger miles per gallon.
> 
> A van that gets 10 MPG would be subject to getting a ticket if it carried less than 4 people. A car that gets 30 MPG would have to have two people. A car that gets 45 mpg would be OK with only one person.
> 
> That rule would push us toward more efficient cars. It would push people into car pooling if they can't afford to buy a more efficient car. People would offer to take a neighbor with them to the store rather than risk a ticket.



I have problems with the above--in our area, that just means that folks going to work put the kids in the car and take them to a day care center near work.

And on the other side, if somebody drives to work carpooling then drives home at a different time from their carpoolers (or needs to drive during the day), you got the cops out there just trying to write more tickets catching these folks.

Now if I could get the cops to write tickets for all of those 80 passenger articulated buses in our area that only seem to have the driver and 3 passengers--I could buy into that!

Perhaps it would save fuel in the long term--but the law of unintended consequences seems to cause more issues when the government tries this types of laws (and reduces our rights).

-Bill


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Perhaps my next hybrid will be a hybrid between electric and pedal power.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

You mean like the Twike?







http://www.twike.us/


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The Twike sounded great up until the point where I saw the price. I almost choked. That thing costs as much as two econoboxes. Now if they could sell it for maybe $2500 US there might be a big market for it.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



jtr1962 said:


> The Twike sounded great up until the point where I saw the price. I almost choked. That thing costs as much as two econoboxes. Now if they could sell it for maybe $2500 US there might be a big market for it.



Ah... the power of mass production.

It is a chicken and the egg situation. If the price was right you could spend all of the capital to design, engineer mass production, market, sell and warranty a mass produced product that could compete on price with all of the other mass produced products. That's why there is such a "barrier to entry" in our car market. It costs a lot to bring a new vehicle to mass production status.

I'm not sure the Twike would ever reach high enough volumes to make it work. It is a really cool idea though. You get all your exercise while commuting with a little help from your electric drive to get you there dry, unrumpled and on-time. Wouldn't it be nice if our infrastructure and our society were set up so that lots of folks chose this mode of transportation and there were 10 such vehicles to choose from?


----------



## Darell (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



ikendu said:


> Anyone willing to take the pledge?
> 
> "I will purchase no new car until I can buy a new PHEV that is biofueled"
> 
> ...and I will tell that to my dealers now.


----------



## Darell (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> Imagine if the standards were changed to require every vehicle to get at least 40 pMPG. That's passenger miles per gallon


I'm all for fleet numbers that are higher than the pathetic numbers we have today.... and I do agree about the *unintended* consequences of such a pMPG proposal. Better, I think, is a carbon tax (or whatever you want to call it). Charge closer to the actual cost of using various fuels (unlike now) and let the market do what it does best. Fuel would simply get more expensive if we paid what it was worth. (oh, we still pay what it costs as a society, we just don't pay it individually at the pump or meter.) Yes, even coal-powered electricity would be more expensive. Imagine - a financial incentive to use less of the dirty energy, and to invest more in clean energy. People could driver their single-occupant monstrosities if they wanted to keep filling up for $800. We put so much effort into how to keep the price of gas down (and how to keep burning our huge stores of coal), but that certainly isn't the answer (except for politicians, of course). Would be political suicide to suggest raising the "at the pump" cost of carbon energy. How do we get over THAT little hurdle?


----------



## BB (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The problem with unintended circumstances; for example, we (US) are moving all of our manufacturing overseas to China--and other places.

US Transportation produces about 27% of our CO2 (greenhouse gasses) or about 1,900 metric tons (2003) (another source estimates that the US produces about 1,000 metric tons from gasoline alone).

The US, around about 1980 finally put out all of its coal seam fires--but in China, it is estimated that their coal fires (underground) currently output around 360 Metric Tons of CO2 per year (2002).

By making rules in the US that are not supported by equivalent rules in other nations (like Kyoto treaty which did not apply to China and India), all we have done is export the problems (from US to China as an example) and made those problems worse (for the world as a whole) as US environmental laws (and US money) is not not even applicable to the problem (unless we implement severely restrictive trade practices).

-Bill


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Sometimes the "unintended consequences" are out weighed by the benefits.

Instead of risking a ticket, folks would flock towards smaller cars. more people would car pool. More people would find work closer to home.

The idea is to create a paradigm shift.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> Sometimes the "unintended consequences" are out weighed by the benefits.
> 
> Instead of risking a ticket, folks would flock towards smaller cars. more people would car pool. More people would find work closer to home.
> 
> ...


Yes, I understand the benefits. The enforcement would be hell.

Do you think your suggested approach is a better idea than just pricing the fuels in line with their actual cost to society? The carbon tax idea has problems too, of course. But enforcement isn't one of them. And there are no "unintended consequences" of just charging what something actually costs. The unintended consequences of artificially reducing the cost of fuel is the problem we're trying to fix. Why allow fuel to be artificially cheap, but force people to fix the problem in only one way?


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Darrell wrote....
And there are no "unintended consequences" of just charging what something actually costs.


There are always unintended consequences.

If the carbon tax were imposed, the existing taxes that support the infrastructure will not go away. The tax money will simply be spent on other pork-barrel projects.

The burden of paying the carbon tax will be enough to drive poor people off the highhways, but the prices for public transit will go up significantly. People who are well off will continue to spend what they need to in order to drive where they want.

Then there is the major impact to the economy. Some areas would die if it were not for commuters and cheap fuel.

There are ALWAYS unintended consequences. Quantifying them is the problem.

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

gadget_lover wrote:

If the carbon tax were imposed, the existing taxes that support the infrastructure will not go away. The tax money will simply be spent on other pork-barrel projects.

The burden of paying the carbon tax will be enough to drive poor people off the highhways, but the prices for public transit will go up significantly. People who are well off will continue to spend what they need to in order to drive where they want.

Daniel

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Would you be for a carbon tax if there were no increase in overall taxes?

Let say that we eliminated Federal income taxes entirely below some level. Let's pick $250,000/yr for discussion. Then, we calculate how much tax revenue that represents for the government. 

We charge a tax for the carbon that various energy produces; coal, gasoline, natural gas. 

We could even encourage conservation by exempting certain levels of consumption. The average American home consumes 900 kilowatt hours per month. If your monthly bill was below 500 KWH ...no carbon tax for your house (that much more is just added on carbon above that level).

Utilities that get some of their electricity from renewable sources would charge less carbon surtax. 

Or... we could simply write a rebate check to people below a certain income level. They'd pay the carbon tax, but then get it back in the rebate. If they conserve and don't consume carbon fuels, then they come out ahead.

So... basic idea:

Just shift Federal taxes from income to carbon. No new tax amount in total.

In one stroke, you'd focus everyone's attention on conserving energy and elimnating carbon based fuels. If your income is less than the cutoff ($250,000?) you'd just file a simple post card once/year to register your income.


----------



## Darell (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> Darrell wrote....
> And there are no "unintended consequences" of just charging what something actually costs.
> 
> 
> ...


I lost you somewhere. I only call it a carbon tax so we all know what we're talking about. Let's call it "charge what it costs." From that there can be no "unintended consequences" as the consequences for paying for what something costs should all be *intended.*

Your position is that we should be paying less for our fuel than what it costs us as a society? My feeling is that once we level the playing field by actually paying for what we use, THEN we can see where the chips fall and clean up the details later. By keeping dirty fuel cheap, how are we improving the situation? As has been mentioned, I'm speaking here of a "neurtral tax." The same amount is going to be paid. It will simply be paid more directly by those who consume.

And if we're worried about "pork barrels" and such, should we not be MORE worried about all the money that leaves our economy for oil? I'd rather it say in the country and be wasted than be used very efficiently by nations that hate us.


----------



## BB (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



ikendu said:


> gadget_lover wrote:
> 
> If the carbon tax were imposed, the existing taxes that support the infrastructure will not go away. The tax money will simply be spent on other pork-barrel projects.
> ...
> ...


I would vote NO for this... I believe much more in the flat tax. The problem is if 50% + 1 of the people are getting "free government services" then they have no interest in conserving the use of "government services"--which distorts the effects of the additional taxes (poor people won't work because they get much of their things for free--rich people won't work because they pay 90%+ for income taxe rates or move out of the state/country).

In California, we used to only have taxes on "manufactured" goods--services were not taxed. So what happened, we turned into a service economy. Now the state has added service taxes too.

I already posted above how China is already burning more coal in the ground ("wild fires"), producing CO2, than we could save today in the US with new and draconian CAFE fuel efficiency standards.

And, guess who are the ones profiting from the $15 USD +/- per metric ton of CO2 emissions:

China, Thailand, and Traders (2006):


> He says the opportunity to sell excess carbon credits is giving incentives to companies in developing economies – such as Thailand, Latin America and China – to use cleaner production techniques to generate their energy.
> ...
> “Developed countries will find it increasingly tough to meet the targets so companies are warehousing extra credits from emerging economies to sell on,” says Urch.
> 
> A wave of businesses has been set up to trade carbon credits between companies, run carbon exchanges or to build cleaner energy projects in emerging economies to sell the emissions credits they earn. It is these companies that Urch invests in on behalf of his fund.


Pollution from China's Coal Casts a Global Shadow (2006):


> Already, China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined. And it has increased coal consumption 14 percent in each of the past two years in the broadest industrialization ever. Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China that is big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego. To make matters worse, India is right behind China in stepping up its construction of coal-fired power plants — and has a population expected to outstrip China's by 2030.
> 
> Aware of the country's growing reliance on coal and of the dangers from burning so much of it, China's leaders have vowed to improve the nation's energy efficiency. No one thinks that effort will be enough. To make a big improvement in emissions of global-warming gases and other pollutants, the country must install the most modern equipment — equipment that for the time being must come from other nations.
> 
> ...



Taxing ourselves and trading credits isn't going to change a thing. Trusting other governments to do the right thing for the US and the rest of the world isn't realistic.

We can make fuel as expensive as gold here in the US--All it is going to do is export our "jobs" somewhere else where the government does not believe in this policy.

If the World Trade Organization was really useful--it would clamp on exit tariffs to account for "subsidized" energy, poor labor standards, low environmental standards, etc.... However, in reality, China (and many other nations) is thriving right now because of their government's specific polices to "arbitrage" their "strengths" (low cost production) in a market where others have chosen different strategies.

If WTO was to "harmonize" the effects of low standards in China and other places, China would stop exporting and there would be huge inflation in the 1st and 2nd world countries.

I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I do recognize the problems that have been caused by many of these poorly thought out / implemented policies to date.

-Bill


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> I lost you somewhere. I only call it a carbon tax so we all know what we're talking about. Let's call it "charge what it costs." From that there can be no "unintended consequences" as the consequences for paying for what something costs should all be *intended.*



Let me reiterate...

Whenever you shift the tax liability through restructuring the basis of the taxation, you also change all the past incentives as well as future ones. Some investment decsions that have been made no longer make business sense. You should not underestimate the impact of tax credits and other tax based incentives.

The single most visible impact; the housing industry. If the income tax were repealed (per ikendu's post) then the deduction for intrest on mortgages goes away. That means the monthly house payment goes up by 10 to 35 percent. Suddenly it makes more sense to rent rather than own. Big houses that take a lot of heat will then have a double whammy (expensive to pay for and expensive to heat). Mortgage defaults rise and houses go unsold. This depresses prices, which cause more forclosures.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Even if it was as simple as a 10% decrease in taxes and a 500% increase in fuel costs, there will be thousands and thousands of low income people with modest commutes who will be forced to change jobs because the tax decrease will not offset their heating and fuel costs.

If I don't commute at all, and I'm currently making only $20K a year, my tax burden is not that high to begin with. My budget is more likely to be month to month with no cushion. Increase the bill for my gas and electricity by 500% and I'm bankrupt. We saw that during the 2000 energy crises.

Personally, I'd rather see mandates to car share than risk totally blowing the economy with an upset in taxation. There are many ways to clean up the environment. Taxation is one way, legislating proper activities is another.

At some point, we will be forced to embrace high mileage, multi passenger vehiclesdue to fuel scarcity. At some point it will become socially unacceptable to commute more than a few miles. At some point there will not be enough to continue as we are. I'm just advocating that we get a jump on it now.

Daniel
(Please note that *I* will not eagerly give up my freedon to hop in the car and go whereever I like whenever I like.)


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> At some point, we will be forced to embrace high mileage, multi passenger vehiclesdue to fuel scarcity. At some point it will become socially unacceptable to commute more than a few miles. At some point there will not be enough to continue as we are. I'm just advocating that we get a jump on it now.
> 
> (Please note that *I* will not eagerly give up my freedon to hop in the car and go whereever I like whenever I like.)


Your last sentence is the crux of the real problem we face. While we can debate carbon taxes versus fining for not meeting some minimum PMPG (incidentally a nice but probably unenforceable idea) the real problem is that in the last 50 years Americans have more and more adopted a lifestyle requiring private transportation. As a result we are now so spread out that for many the real solutions (walking, biking, public transportation) can never be a viable option. We've put all our eggs in one basket (the personal auto). Long term this will hurt us compared to places where most people don't even own a car. Extensive personal auto ownership means a large portion of our GNP is spent on transportation which could otherwise be spent on other things. It also means the same money people spend on their private cars is money they don't spend on public transportation. The result of this is that public transportation, where it even exists, is usually substandard.

The real irony is that public transportation is really the answer. Just as the cost of goods per unit declines substantially with mass production, the cost per passenger-mile using mass transit would be less simple because the vehicles are more efficiently utilized. From a purely financial perspective, a private car is a very poor use of a very expensive piece of capital. It sits idle for 20 hours or more out of every 24 in most cases. If a railroad or an airline utilized their equipment at that rate they would be bankrupt. I would personally never own a car simply because the total cost of ownership versus any advantages represents a very bad deal. And present-day ICE vehicles are like inkjets in their demand for consumables. Maybe an EV which lasts a million miles, costs $10,000, goes 300 miles on 20 kW-hr of energy, and only needs tires every 100,000 miles, might make some economic sense but the gas-engined finicky, noisy behemoths clogging the roads today make even less economic sense than environmental sense.

The _real_ poor aren't those who would be forced off the highways by a carbon tax. Rather, they are those who can't afford a car at all even with no carbon tax, and rely instead only on substandard public transportation. If a carbon tax forced everyone except the rich off the highways it would be a _good_ thing, not a bad one. It would mean unprecendented demand for public transportation. It would mean public transportation with trip times probably better than auto in many cases. OK, so it wouldn't be door-to-door but then again auto often isn't anyway if you can't park nearby. It would mean an end to the pointless annual carnage on our highways. It would mean a long-term switch to living in communities where more walking and biking are possible. This is really what national policy should be trying to accomplish. Cars are not just costly in terms of ownership. They are dangerous. The deaths and injuries they cause (and not just the pollution-related ones) cost the country dearly. The reductions in quality of life from the congestion/confusion caused by autos, especially near population centers, costs us yet again. Cars as a mode of everyday transport are probably best suited to very rural farming communities where by definition settlements must be spread out. They really make no sense anywhere else, and neither does living in communities designed solely for automobile transport.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Any massive price increase will impose greatest hardship on the poor.
Every year a sickeningly large number of elderly poor people freeze to
death because they cannot afford enough heating fuel -- at current prices.
The only way they can save energy is by turning off the heat (or by having
it turned off by the utility when they can't pay). They cannot install insulation
or more efficient heating plants in their rented apartments, and their
landlords have no incentive to do so either.

Of course many are losing their apartments anyway, due to the staggering
increase in rents and real estate prices in recent years, particularly in the city.
Many are being forced far out into the suburbs, and being forced into long
commutes, often in old, gas-guzzling clunkermobiles.

Those who can afford to live close to work may still find it difficult to do.
Work doesn't stay put, jobs change or offices move an average of every
2 or 3 years per employe, and most households have at least 2 people 
working. Jobs are no longer so abundant as to allow limiting one's search
to a small area, and it is unlikely that they ever will be again.

Often, everything close to work is industrial parks. Even if you wanted to
live there (yuck), it isn't zoned for that.

Cramming Americans into mega-cities isn't going to work anyway.
Most of our ancestors came to this country to escape from crowded cities.
We just aren't city people.

The answer is a blend of public transportation, bicycles, and
(bringing this back on topic) ELECTRIC CARS.

Bicycles and even short-range EVs can greatly extend the reach of
public transport, and allow it to serve much lower densities.


----------



## James S (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

and the other thing about taxes, is that once installed the government will keep that money. actual reduction in the amount of money they take from us is a rare and wonderful and often temporary thing when it happens. If you allow a "tax" on carbon the government will actually spent that money, and not on just paying for the environmental impact of using the carbon.

So what happens to the government when people finally have options that allow them to stop using so much of it? The revenue's drop off and the government has to find something else to tax at which point it wont be the people using SUV's to dropp tommy off at soccer practice that will be paying for it, but everyone else. So I can't support that 

Much better would be for a representative to show up in Detroit with an ultimatum. Tell those guys that the days of incrementally tweaking last years design are over. If they can't get something on the road like the volt within the next 3 years, then the government will provide 5 or 6 billion dollar company startup loans at 0% interest for 20 years to the first 5 or 6 new companies that want to get into that market. See how fast they move then.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> We can make fuel as expensive as gold here in the US--All it is going to do is export our "jobs" somewhere else where the government does not believe in this policy.
> 
> -Bill



Bill, all of our jobs are already being exported elsewhere. You may have noticed that you can no longer buy almost anything that is not "Made in China". At least if we switch to locally produced, renewable energy that will improve our balance of trade for all the billions we send overseas for imported oil (60% imported now). We are literally "draining" away the wealth of the U.S. with our thirst for oil.

At least if we are using ethanol, biodiesel, solar energy, wind energy, biomass, etc., most of that will come right from the US of A. Those all represent great jobs for Americans as operators, managers, engineers, adminstrators, etc.

What really got people's attention in the last few years is higher prices for energy. Until it hits people in the wallet, they just aren't that interested. You can see this at work in forum posts all over CPF. You will see post after post like "...until it is actually cheaper, I don't see any reason to shift away from gasoline". Or... "As long as I can afford it, why change?"

There are a 100 ways to help move this switch along, the carbon tax idea simply cuts through the chatter with one bold move that will work. It certainly may have unintended consequences ...which then need to be monitored and dealt with. Most of what we do as humans is like this. We do something new and then correct course as we learn.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



James S said:


> Much better would be for a representative to show up in Detroit with an ultimatum. Tell those guys that the days of incrementally tweaking last years design are over. If they can't get something on the road like the volt within the next 3 years, then the government will provide 5 or 6 billion dollar company startup loans at 0% interest for 20 years to the first 5 or 6 new companies that want to get into that market. See how fast they move then.



I'm afraid very little is likely to "move the guys in Detroit". I hate to see it, but the decline of the U.S. auto industry has been in the works for 40 years and simply continues its slide downward.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Does anyone else remember the 1970's? The average US car was the muscle car. Even Grandma's car was expected to have a decent 1/4 mile time.

The oil embargo caused an almost immediate shift from very large, heavy muscle cars to econoboxes. Detroit was declared dead or dying when the Japanese car manufacturers started to sell their small cars here. They already had assembly lines putting out small cars for other countries.

Detroit responded with the Pinto, the Gremlin, the Pacer. They partnered with Mitusbishi and others to provide the Arrow, the Horizon and the small pickups. The big three did not die, but they did suck up the smaller companies. 

My point being that the US big three are a few years behind, but they can catch up. They could use mild hybrids as a stopgap. Mild hybrids are simple to implement. Just add extra batteries and substitute a flywheel/generator combo for the existing flywheel and starter. Change the control unit programing so that instead of idle the engine stops. The biggest problem being to find room for the battery packs. I could do the engineering for that!

Lets hope they get on the ball soon.

Wouldn't it be neat if they just revived the EV1 with current components?



Daniel


----------



## Josey (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I think the issue is clearly drawn if you ask youself why our response to the 1973 energy crisis was so tepid. We could easily have cars averaging double the current mileage standards, homes that produce as much power as they use, energy demand falling as energy efficiency rises, vast portions of our energy coming from solar, wind, thermal, wave, tide and other sources.....etc.

We didn't take that productive and intelligent route because we elected politicians who took us down a darker fork in the road. They did that because the dark fork is more profitable to some.

Follow the money.


----------



## James S (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

interesting article here at the WSJ online

The most interesting part is this:



> Fresh data from the International Energy Agency show oil consumption in the 30 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development fell 0.6% in 2006. Though the decline appears small, it marks the first annual drop in more than 20 years among the OECD countries.



So between their super high prices and the rise in availability of even partially alternatives like the hybrids are already making an impact. As long as the car companies dont decide thats a mistake and pull all the prius's in for crushing I think we're on the road...


----------



## BB (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Since I spent my life in the Electronics Industry, I have seen everything move overseas (China and others)--So, yes I have seen the effect.

If you noticed, I was arguing that we should not be exporting our jobs overseas as this just makes pollution and waste of fuels even worst (hence, my reason for posting that China is simply leaving its coal fires burn by their governmental polices to keep fuel pricing low). In fact, one of China's policies is to make fuel cheap there so that they can compete and export cheap items to US.

I believe that we will have to change our environmental foot print some day--if for no other reason than just simply because it becomes more and more difficult to find / mine / pump the raw feed stocks for our industrial society.

My concern still is that adding a tax just simply distorts the market and gives the government more money to keep themselves in power (generally, by giving more money away to their political supporters). That carbon tax will simply export more jobs to China where they will not implement a carbon tax--but, the Chinese, instead will simply sell imaginary carbon credits on the world market to subsidize their own trade balance.

One reason today we have fewer and fewer jobs in the US today is because "honest" work is taxed more heavily than investing (1.2% Medical, ~15% Social Security Taxes--currently limited to about $90k/year--talk in congress about increasing to $250,000 of income--a ~40% tax increase on labor).

With taxes, people spend more time figuring out how to avoid paying them than they do about solving real problems.

For the short term, the only real solution is going to be nuclear power--Yes there are issues about nuclear waste, weapons proliferations, and such--but what other options are out there that will be acceptable?

Iran is floating on a sea of oil and natural gas (Iran, by the way, is also sitting on major reserves of Uranium too), yet they are working on nuclear power (and weapons--I am sure). And they are suffering huge energy shortages this winter.

Regarding the dollar per kg costs of Uranium:



> One important fact that must be understood is that, unlike the gas and oil, the cost of the uranium ore is a negligible fraction of the cost of nuclear power (with almost all of nuclear power cost being in the form of value added by domestic labor). Specifically, at today's price of ~$40/kG of uranium, the ore costs amount to only ~0.1 cents/kW-hr (i.e., only ~2-3% of nuclear’s total power cost). The ore cost could increase by a factor of 10 (to ~$400/kg) and nuclear's power cost would only increase by ~1 cent. Thus, whereas gas and oil applications are extremely sensitive to the cost of fuel, and can be rendered uneconomical by even a small increase in fuel price, nuclear power is almost immune to ore price increases. Thus, the maximum price for uranium ore, above which nuclear power would become uneconomical, is extremely high indeed.



Back to the topic of this thread--Electric Vehicles:

Yes, electric vehicles are more efficient than oil/gas/diesel based vehicles (excluding, or even possibly including, generating and distribution costs). The real "glow" to electric vehicles is that they are multi-fuel ready right from the get go today! I don't need a 4500,000-$1,000,000 hydrogen fuel cell to drive 20 miles to work and back.

I can plug and charge a car and use hydro, natural gas, coal, solar (from my own roof), bio-fuels, or nuclear reactors--with no change/costs to the owner of the vehicle... Plus, because much of the power is centrally generated, pollution and such can be managed (hopefully) better (controlling/improving emissions from a "few" large plants is better than trying to control/manage 10 million cars with 8 million owners).

At this point, I am concerned that governments the world over are, generally, causing more problems rather than solving them. Right now, governments the world over are 100% reliant on a population Ponzi Scheme (look at the concerns over population decline by the western countries--to the point that they are encouraging huge amounts of immigration--frequently supporting "illegal immigrants" against their own laws to ensure that their populations continue to increase). I would have thought that population decline to a more sustainable level would have been a good thing. But since government policies (like the US Social Security Retirement Insurance) is funded only with current spending--there are no reserves and planning for a smaller population in the future (where the retired population increases relative to the working population).

Are people willing to change themselves, their governments, and live with those changes--does not seem so (read about the huge environmental desasters that are happening in China now--just due to coal mining and burning and the people still prefer electricity/car over the huge environmental/health problems that are killing them in there own homes right now--I was there twenty plus years ago, and the pollution from coal burning was already kind of scary in the large cities--I cannot begin to imagine was it is is like now.)

-Bill


----------



## Josey (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The issue with electric cars is where and how the electricity is generated. Global warming is real, and we have a moral and practical responsiblity to address it. More central coal plants are not the answer because of the incredible pollution and the gross inefficiency of central, one-way distribution of power lines. Distributed systems (solar panels) shorten the travel distance and are more efficient. 

Bill, you're upset because wealthy people may have to pay SS taxes at the same rate as we poorer citizens. But you advocate energy solutions that require massive taxpayer subsidies to corporate fat cats. Nuclear power could not even exist without massive government subsidies. As one example, taxpayers pay for castrophe insurance for every nuke. Three Mile Island came within 30 minutes of taking out a huge chuck of the East Coast, at a cost that would have been in the trillions. Let ConEd pay for the insurance policies on its plants and see how they stay in business. The pollution from coal plants is a tax on our children. Yet Big Coal gets massive subsidies of all kinds. For example, large corporations get billions for spraying diesel oil or corn starch on coal and calling it synfuel. Solar gets almost no subsidies. In fact, the government's massive subsidies of coal and nukes makes it almost impossible for solar to compete. Wind subsidies are also small, and the government renews them on only sporadically, so that investors are reluctant to build new wind generators and when they do they require a large return on investment, driving up wind-energy costs. The Dept. of Energy will not give a nickel to develop wave power or tide power, but will give huge subsidies to develop new technology for coal and nukes.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I am beginning to form the opinion that we should stop all research into more nuclear and simply put our money into electricity storage. There's plenting of no carbon solar power in the U.S. Southwest and plenty of wind energy in the midwest from Texas to North Dakota (not to mention the mountain ridges and off-shore possibilities). The issue that scares everybody about solar and wind is the lack of "dispatchable power".

Meaning... power that you can turn up and down when you need it.

To go 100% renewable will require electricity storage; either hydrogen or compressed air or pumped water reservoirs or... something that you can schedule on and off. 

We are at about 1% nationally for wind now. Denmark gets 20% of their energy from the wind so we have plenty of growth before this becomes a real issue. While we grow from 1% to 20% we could be doing real R&D on the storage issue. We are going to have to get off of fossil fuels someday anyway. It might has well be now and put the U.S. out in front of a technology that will be needed world-wide.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> We can make fuel as expensive as gold here in the US--All it is going to do is export our "jobs" somewhere else where the government does not believe in this policy.
> 
> -Bill



Your comment really has me thinking.

You know, my idea is not to increase any cost overall, just to shift it from income taxes to carbon based energy.

So... could we do this in a way that means the cost of goods doesn't change?

We (and our corporations) already pay out this money in taxes now. So... that cost is already built into the cost of goods and services. Shifting the cost to energy means that we'd really start putting our attention on reducing carbon based energy. If a company pays 50 million in taxes and started paying that same 50 million in carbon taxes ...no net increase in costs, but a lot of attention on reducing carbon based energy.

Something for me to think about.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



James S said:


> interesting article here at the WSJ online



Hmm... the article also had this interesting tidbit:

"Some analysts see larger, game-changing forces in motion. One is the rise of nonoil transport fuels. "Last year was a tipping point in a lot of ways," says Philip Verleger Jr., an oil economist who heads PK Verleger LLC. "Biofuels will take bigger and bigger bites out of petroleum demand," Mr. Verleger said, noting climate-change and security concerns relating to the supply and use of petroleum. "Alternate fuels will take up all the growth, leaving petroleum demand static in the next two or three years."

So... biofuels (that we have stimualated with regulation and incentives) are beginning to reduce demand for petroleum to the point where overall demand for petroleum is either reduced or stagnant; causing the price to go down.

Introducing a locally produced product that reduces demand for an imported product is lowering the cost for everyone. We might be subsidising the cost of biofuels but it is resulting in lower costs to our wallets for everyone.


----------



## BB (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Corporations do not pay taxes, customers and workers do... Sorry, I just don't want government to have paws in the money flow. They cannot be trusted.

Regarding Denmark getting 20% of their power from wind--in Northern California we are already getting about 32% from hydro and renewable resources.

PG&E produced around 80,000 GWhours (in 2005, caution, this is a PDF link) or about 25,600 GWhours from hydro/renewable. 5,536 GWhours were generated by wind in Denmark.

Denmark has a population of about 5.6 million people. PG&E servies about 15 million customers...

So, the amount of renewable power generated per million population between Denmark and California:

Denmark = 5,536/5.6 = 989 GWhrs/million people
PG&E/California = 25,600 / 15 = 1,707 GWhrs/million people

So, California is already "greener" than Denmark... There are issues with wind, there are issues with hydroelectric... I don't know which one is worse (although, hydro does create a fair amount of widespread issues in the physical environment).

Do we sit on our hands now--no.... Do I trust Government to do green thing every time--no...

Cape Wind Project (2007):



> But results from the historic November election were not all positive for Cape Wind supporters. The wave of Democratic victories last month swept out of office two moderate New England Republicans who were vocal advocates for the project on Capitol Hill, and the shift in control will also increase the power and influence of U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy and Cong. William Delahunt, two of the strongest Cape Wind opponents.
> ...
> Cape Wind wants to build 130 wind turbines on 24 square miles of Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound. Supporters say it would provide roughly three-quarters of the electricity needs of the Cape and Islands and serve as a symbolic step toward cleaner energy in this country, while opponents are concerned about aesthetic and navigation impacts, and also broader policy questions of a private developer using public land without paying for it. After five years of review, the project is still working its way through an environmental regulatory process, and the federal agency in charge of the permitting does not expect to make a final decision for at least another year. Even though elected officials have no direct say in the permits, supporters and opponents of the $1 billion project have long acknowledged that its ultimate fate will face heavy political influences from state and federal officials.



Cape Wind Project is planned to be much larger than the largest single off-shore wind project in Denmark. The largest single farm is Swedish/Denmark joint venture of 166 MW rating. Cape Wind project is rated at 468 MW (almost the amount of wind turbines in all of Denmark)...

Sure looks to me that government (or at least one Senator in National Government) is blocking this project--and Government Officials (in federal government don't even have any oversight in the process). Government does not take any issues seriously--it is only after power and votes. Any good that arises is probably by accident.

-Bill


----------



## ikendu (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> Corporations do not pay taxes, customers and workers do... Sorry, I just don't want government to have paws in the money flow.
> 
> -Bill



Saying this is like saying... Corporations don't pay for energy, customers do...

I can assure you, if a business could control its tax cost by switching away from carbon based fuels...they would. Even though customers pay for all expenses of a corporation in the end.

And... government already has its paws on the existing taxes, we are just talking about changing the tax basis.


----------



## BB (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



ikendu said:


> I can assure you, if a business could control its tax cost by switching away from carbon based fuels...they would. Even though customers pay for all expenses of a corporation in the end.



They do control their costs every day (darn MBA's)... That is why everything is moving overseas to low tax / low labor cost environments.

The more a company derives its cash flow from services and intellectual property--the easier it is for them to keep hopping from country to country to avoid taxes:

U2 / Bono moves corporation from Ireland to the Netherlands:



> "Preventing the poorest of the poor from selling their products while we sing the virtues of the free market … that's a justice issue," Bono said at a prayer breakfast attended by President Bush, Jordan's King Abdullah, and various members of Congress earlier this year. Preaching this sort of thing has made Bono a perennial candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. He continued:Holding children to ransom for the debts of their grandparents ... that's a justice issue. Withholding life-saving medicines out of deference to the Office of Patents ... that's a justice issue.
> ​And relocating your business offshore in order to avoid paying taxes to the Republic of Ireland, where poverty is higher than in almost any other developed nation? Bono's hypocrisy seems even more naked when you consider that Ireland is a tax haven for artists. In June 2005, Bono (who was born in Dublin) told the _Belfast Telegraph_:Our publishing, which is about one third of our income, we have tax breaks on, and that's great and that's encouraged us to stay in Ireland and if that changes, it's not going to affect anything for U2. ...
> ​Six months later, Ireland's finance minister announced a ceiling of $319,000 on tax-free incomes, and six months after that, U2 opened its Amsterdam office. The relocation of U2's music publishing will halve taxes on the band's songwriting royalties, which already reportedly total $286 million.



While Bono is sermonizing about raising taxes for spending to help the poor overseas--he and his company are doing what every other country out there is doing--changing business based on taxes (not tax fairness--the loop hole that Ireland was trying to fix--that first attracted Bona et.al. in the first plane).

I will stop this here--this is really not what the thread was intended for...

-Bill


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I did *try* to bring it back on-topic.


----------



## BB (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> Back to the topic of this thread--Electric Vehicles:
> 
> Yes, electric vehicles are more efficient than oil/gas/diesel based vehicles (excluding, or even possibly including, generating and distribution costs). The real "glow" to electric vehicles is that they are multi-fuel ready right from the get go today! I don't need a 4500,000-$1,000,000 hydrogen fuel cell to drive 20 miles to work and back.
> 
> I can plug and charge a car and use hydro, natural gas, coal, solar (from my own roof), bio-fuels, or nuclear reactors--with no change/costs to the owner of the vehicle... Plus, because much of the power is centrally generated, pollution and such can be managed (hopefully) better (controlling/improving emissions from a "few" large plants is better than trying to control/manage 10 million cars with 8 million owners).



So did I! 

-Bill


----------



## Josey (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

It is difficult to keep this technology thread on topic because the reason we don't have clean and efficient vehicles is not because of technology, but because of politics.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

While the thread is not about politics, it is a fact that there needs to be some change in the public policy to make EVs more attractive.

It is my understanding that the first commercially viable hybrids were a direct result of California's mandate for partial and zero emissions vehicles. So were many EVs. he fact that so-many of them stopped being produced after California recinded it's law speaks to the need for such encouragment.

More central to the subject....

If we wanted to convert 100% of the current US cars to BEV, would we havethe resources? That's a lot of lithium, nickel or lead. One post hinted that we woudl not have enough lithium to make BEVs with li-poly cells.

Any idea? Could we ever convert 100% with the current number of cars?

Daniel


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Josey said:


> It is difficult to keep this technology thread on topic because the reason we don't have clean and efficient vehicles is not because of technology, but because of politics.


Well, actually we do have such vehicles. They're called electric trains. They exist in many incarnations from small, light rail vehicles suited for short distances to subways and commuter rail for intermediate distances and high-speed rail suitable for hundreds, even over a thousand, miles. The problem is that most of the country is so spread out that they don't make economic sense. And of course politics is at fault here as well. Ever wonder why the US has no national high-speed rail system like Europe and Japan? The airline lobby is the primary reason. They already killed off several high-speed corridors which would have worked because the trains would have decimated the air shuttle service between those points. So long as it uses oil (makes the oil companies happy), is overly complex so it breaks down a lot (makes the parts department of the car companies happy), requires frequent routine maintenance (makes service stations and mechanics unions happy), and makes people sick with its pollution (makes the medical lobby happy) it's OK. Electric trains do none of those things so except in markets like the Northeast which would come to an absolute standstill without them they receive a tepid reception.

Ever wonder why GM bought and tore up the old trolley lines in the 1950s? Not because they were obsolete or ineffective. Quite the opposite. They served their function too well for those who sought to make money off them. Basically they provided transport while extracting far less money from society at large than the autos which followed. It's the same model now used with inkjets. Sell the printer at cost or less. You'll make up for it many times over with consumables compared to selling a laser printer needing nothing over its life for more. Using this analogy, ICE cars are inkjets, EVs are laser printers.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> More central to the subject....
> 
> If we wanted to convert 100% of the current US cars to BEV, would we havethe resources? That's a lot of lithium, nickel or lead. One post hinted that we woudl not have enough lithium to make BEVs with li-poly cells.
> 
> Any idea? Could we ever convert 100% with the current number of cars?


Yes, we could if we get over the idea that cars need to store more energy than they need for a few miles. You could use very small batteries in this case. The main way the cars would get their power would be from the grid via inductive pickup from AC cables buried under the roadway. In essence, they would get their power on the fly just like electric trains do now except there would be no direct electrical contact as electric trains use. This works well enough for electric trains. It would work even better since EVs, even on a crowded highway, would require lower power density than something like a heavily traveled subway. The battery would take the car over the inevitable dead spots as well as more remote spots where cabling may not be feasible. You could have the option of larger battery packs for places where you might need to drive 30 or 40 miles to get to roads with power. You could charge the batteries on the fly in all cases, eliminating the need for home charging entirely. Billing would be easy-each car could have a wattmeter which is read during the car's annual inspection. You would then be billed in monthly installments for the power used until your next inspection (or you could pay in full if you had the cash).

In the unlikely event that the grid couldn't handle the extra load you could always build a few nuclear power plants in very remote areas. I say unlikely because once we switch to 100% EV a lot of electricity used by refineries would be freed up. Further, with LED lighting coming on line probably before universal EVs it would free up the equivalent of a few dozen power plants. Conservation with other home appliances plus increased use of solar power would free up even more. You could even roof the roads over with solar panels if they dropped in cost enough to provide some power for the cars.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

It's even worse than you imagine, JTR.

The map for my town  on google shows a fairly typical urban pattern. Note that the neigborhoods are set up as a series of short streets. My dad said this had two causes; First was to follow the contours of the land. The second was to encourage traffic to stay on the main thoroughfares. 

An unintended side effect is that it's difficult to get full sized buses to go through the neighgborhoods. Too twisty, too many tight turns. The buses stay on the main roads. On the google map that's pretty much the big yellow roads. As a result I have a 1/2 mile walk to the nearest bus stop. 

They could use minibuses to good effect here. Minibuses are like the shuttle busses you see at the airport. They seat 15 to 20 people and can manuever residential streets easily.

Th point of this post is that I see a need to design for public transit just as we've designed for the automobile.

Daniel


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

That's more or less the point I was trying to make about 20 posts back, Daniel. We're obviously not set up for public transit in many places. That's why I see the EV as a good short to intermediate term solution even if I would much prefer to see private car ownership fall to under 1% eventually. For now that goal is just not realistic. For it to be, we would need public transportation which could take you within a few blocks at either end and do so at least as fast as best-case auto. We definitely need to design for that but I feel in the long term we would all be way better off if we did. The end result would be low-cost transportation available to all, not just those who could afford a car or who have a driver's license.

One thing I find interesting is that minors actually have more freedom to get around on their own in a place like NYC than they do in a typical American suburb thanks to a comprehensive transit system. This unburdens their parents from the chore of driving them around. I remember taking the train on my own to Manhattan whenever I felt like it when I was around 12 or 13. My 13-year old neice on Long Island can't go anywhere without an adult to chaffeur her around. It's very limiting for a developing young person to live like that.


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Josey said:


> The issue with electric cars is where and how the electricity is generated. Global warming is real, and we have a moral and practical responsiblity to address it. More central coal plants are not the answer because of the incredible pollution and the gross inefficiency of central, one-way distribution of power lines. Distributed systems (solar panels) shorten the travel distance and are more efficient.



I see this sort of reasoning used as an argument against EVs all the time: "Why buy an electric car if it's just going to be powered by *big dirty coal-fired power stations?*" The sad thing is that it's used by both EV opponents and would-be environmentalists. While it's predictable for the EV opponents, it's almost tragic that the environmentally-minded folks miss the point in their penny-wise pound-foolish quest for an instant/perfect solution.

Ask yourself this: _Does a BEV represent a step in the right direction that could *also* be part of a more-perfect solution to our nation's (and the world's) energy and pollution issues?_ I think the anwser is an overwhelming "yes," and if you can avoid your fixation with coal-fired power plants for a moment in favor of the fuel-independence of BEVs, I think you'll find that EVs can be a solid and enduring part of the solution you're looking for.

As interesting and informative as jtr1962's arguments are about the insanity and inefficiency of how suburban America is laid out, it is reality which cannot be swept away. Most of suburban America is sprawling, low-density, and would be devlishly difficult to serve with the kind of mass transit that exists in the Northeastern Corridor and Europe. As expensive and inefficient as private cars are to a resident of an area well served by mass tranist might seem to be, they're pretty much the only good solution to one living in most of the rest of the country.

The fact is that most people in America seem to prefer the concept of living in a single-family dwelling with some elbow room around them. Short of some energy crisis or other breakdown in society and the economy, that fact is likely going to continue for quite some time. Try working with that reality instead of against it.

Deal with the reality that presents itself. Your ideal solutions may not fit the actual problems.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The implication is that everyone should move into the city.
Lots of people are trying. The city is full.
When someone moves into the city, someone else had to move out.
Rents and real estate prices have gone through the roof.
New York City has about the highest in the country.
San Francisco is probably in second place.

Despite America's love affair with suburbs,
there is still a huge unmet demand for places to live in desirable cities.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Yes, we do sometimes let the "perfect be the enemy of the good".

When I talked to a friend about biodiesel 4 years ago, he was all focused on the fact that in the winter, you have to blend soy biodiesel with petroleum to keep it from gelling in cold temperatures.

He couldn't get past the idea that unless it was a 100% solution, it had no utility at all.

Since that time, I've cut my petroleum use by 75% using biodiesel. He has allowed the quest for the perfect 100% solution to distract from a perfectly viable 75% solution. In the meantime, he's continued to just keep on burning gasoline, day after day.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



idleprocess said:


> As interesting and informative as jtr1962's arguments are about the insanity and inefficiency of how suburban America is laid out, it is reality which cannot be swept away. Most of suburban America is sprawling, low-density, and would be devlishly difficult to serve with the kind of mass transit that exists in the Northeastern Corridor and Europe. As expensive and inefficient as private cars are to a resident of an area well served by mass tranist might seem to be, they're pretty much the only good solution to one living in most of the rest of the country.


You're 100% correct that the sprawl of middle America wouldn't support the type of mass transit model which exists in the NorthEast and Europe. However, there have been endless PRT (personal rapid transit) schemes devised which _would_ be viable. EVs under automated control operating as on demand taxis might well represent such a viable transit system. The only real obstacle to getting them built is the ingrained resistance of the powers that be. After all, if there was suddenly no need for 99% to own cars, the auto lobby would be pretty pissed off, as would be the big oil lobby.



> The fact is that most people in America seem to prefer the concept of living in a single-family dwelling with some elbow room around them. Short of some energy crisis or other breakdown in society and the economy, that fact is likely going to continue for quite some time. Try working with that reality instead of against it.


I wonder about that. I think the real reason is that most just can't afford to live in an attractive location in a city even if they wanted to so that's the reason they don't. AndyTiedye hit the nail on the head. City housing is currently just too expensive. We couldn't afford to live in the home we're in if we hadn't bought in 28 years ago. It now sells for roughly $575,000 compared to the $51,000 it was purchased at. Thankfully, it seems prices have plateaued, maybe even dropped a little. It'll still take years for salaries to catch up even if the prices remain the same. Speculators are to blame for a lot of it. They buy a few houses in a neighborhood, rent them all out, fix one or two up into McMansions, and then wait while that causes the prices of everything to rise. This doesn't benefit anybody except them. I feel renting single family homes shouldn't be allowed for this reason. It artificially reduces the housing stock. There are other reasons housing is high here, but that's the main one.

I've found people are infinitely malleble. They can be incented to prefer almost anything. There's nothing inherently better about very low density living. I know people need some space but this is just as easily provided with parks in a city as it is by having an acre of land around your house. I think a bigger part of the problem is when people think of city, they often think of _inner city_ with graffiti on store gates, drug addicts, people in roach-infested, small apartments, etc. thanks to the biased media. They may not think of an area with a mix of homes and apartment buildings with tree-lined streets, the convenience of having all sorts of shopping within walking distance, etc. You have many city dwellers who wouldn't move to a suburb if you paid them ten million dollars. I wonder how attractive a suburban lifestyle can be if you need to own an expensive, finicky piece of machinery to get virtually anywhere. Even worse, time you spend driving is time wasted as far as doing anything else. I tend to think upwards of 75% of suburban dwellers tired of traffic-clogged roads would jump at the chance to give up their cars if housing in the city was more affordable.

Now I can maybe understand the appeal of living in a very rural area mostly untouched by human hands since that can be very interesting. I can't for the life of me fathom the appeal of a suburb. They all look pretty much the same. They're all a 100% manmade, sterile, manicured environment. They go on for miles and miles in their endless monotony. I can ride my bike on Long Island for three hours and feel I haven't gone anywhere. They impose isolation on people by their very nature. Long term I feel the suburbs will gradually disappear as energy costs go up. Also, global warming will gradually reduce farmland. Already much valuable farmland has been paved over to make way for malls, parking lots, single family homes. As other farmland disappears the current suburbs will revert to their original incarnations-very sparsely populated farming communities. We'll have to have affordable housing in the cities when that happens. It could probably be done right now if we had the political will.



> Ask yourself this: Does a BEV represent a step in the right direction that could also be part of a more-perfect solution to our nation's (and the world's) energy and pollution issues? I think the anwser is an overwhelming "yes," and if you can avoid your fixation with coal-fired power plants for a moment in favor of the fuel-independence of BEVs, I think you'll find that EVs can be a solid and enduring part of the solution you're looking for.


Yes, EVs are a good short and intermediate term solution which is why I'm 100% behind them. They would make a place like NYC infinitely more pleasant even if they did nothing for the traffic congestion. I can't fathom the opposition of many people to them based solely on the fact the many will be powered by coal-fired plants. So what? At least the pollution is contained in a fairly remote area instead of being distributed in population centers where you least want it. And long term we'll be set up to accept any of a variety of other means to generate electricity. Not so with fossil fuel powered autos,


----------



## BB (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



jtr1962 said:


> I can't fathom the opposition of many people to them based solely on the fact the many will be powered by coal-fired plants. So what? At least the pollution is contained in a fairly remote area instead of being distributed in population centers where you least want it.



I don't think you quite intended to sound like this... These days, there is probably no such thing as "remote area(s)" were we should let pollution be generated and released to the environment ("contained" sites--dumps, cut and cover, and such--are going to be required for the foreseeable future).

Granted, building big ugly operations away from downtown is a practical design consideration... But turning rural areas into desolate waste lands is not an answer either. Heck, in California we are starting to have significant air level degradation from those remote plants in China (can't get much farther away from population centers than clear across the Pacific Ocean) where we have moved all of our "cheap" manufacturing too...

Myself, not being a huge fan of big cities--would in some ways--actually consider a requirement for the installation of those big, noisy, dirty (and dangerous) power facilities right smack dab in downtown... I don't think the "townies" always appreciate the downsides of their nice city lifestyles. Kind of puts conservation into a new light if you have a big coal fired power plant every 10 blocks (big water tanks/pump storage turbines for Russian Hill/Twin Peaks/Mt. Davidson/Lombard St., natural gas for the Marina, a couple of blocks of solar panels for down down, nuclear plant in Golden Gate park for powering the Avenue's, one wet garbage bio-digester/gas turbine next to each sewage plant--gray water lines for lawn watering, put city hall as the front lobby for ash and nuclear waste aggregation and transportation, etc.). Interestingly, we do have (or did have) the oldest natural gas power plant in Hunter's Point--the poor part of town.

I think you get the idea. Cities may be solutions for some problems, but there is a whole back office of suburban/rural infrastructure to support that life style.

-Bill


----------



## Josey (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Ikendu makes a great point about being so obsessed on finding a perfect solution that we don't take any action at all, even though we are presented with many options that are pretty darn good. And Jtr1962 has offered wonderful ideas about how to usefully distribute power.

However, the source of the power is still important. Global warming is real and it may already be too late to avoid a flush of disasters bearing down on us. And it's not like our only options are coal and nukes. Ocean waves have millions or billions of times more power in them than we consume from all our present energy sources combined. In my state -- Washington -- 10 square miles of wave-power generators several miles off shore could power the entire state. The Dept. of Energy will not fund research into wave power. Why? My guess is that wave power presents a credible challenge to dirty coal and oil and nukes, which are entrenched and powerful industries that spend enormous amounts of money on lobbying.

Transitioning to 100 percent clean power will be a challenge, but there is no shortage of clean power available if we get serious.

The Iraq war -- not to bring in politics, but just to make an economic point -- has so far cost the same amount as bringing more than 100 gigawatts of solar power generation on line. And if we spent that much on solar, costs would come down so fast that we could economically put solar everywhere.

If we got serious about clean energy the way we did with the interstate highway system, we'd be shutting down coal and nuke and natural gas plants. 

Maybe it seems idealistic, but I get excited about putting America's genius to work building a clean-powered society. I get depressed thinking about fighting the whole world for access to dwindling sources of dirty energy sources, destroying our environment and passing terrible problems on to our children.


----------



## BB (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Gathering electricity from low density sources (solar, wind, wave) etc. is neither easy, cheap, or free of impact to the environment...

Be that as it may, here is a list of ~20 companies in the US that would probably more than happy to take a few billion dollars from somebody and start building those wave powered generating stations:

Ocean Energy System Businesses in the US

Now, just to figure out where to put it (find out where Ted Kennedy sails and put it elsewhere?).

-Bill


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*




BB said:


> I don't think you quite intended to sound like this... These days, there is probably no such thing as "remote area(s)" were we should let pollution be generated and released to the environment ("contained" sites--dumps, cut and cover, and such--are going to be required for the foreseeable future).


Believe me, I'd rather the pollution not be released at all, anywhere. I'm just saying that if we HAVE to release it, better to do so a few hundred miles away from where most people live. It'll do far less overall damage that way. And while your ideas of putting the power infrastructure all in population centers are amusing, we don't do that for many reasons. Land cost is a big one. If a power company had to build a new plant in Manhattan they would have to charge $10 a kW-hr to make money. Nobody would buy power at that cost.

Also, not to start a city versus suburbs war but suburbanites dumping their problems on the city is as true as it the reverse. We often hear news stories about some garbage barge from NYC not being welcomed anywhere but never hear about city neighborhoods cut in half by highways which largely benefit only suburban commuters. A few years ago some idiots got the brainstorm to widen the LIE to make a HOV lane. This was done in the parts of the LIE outside city limits where maybe it made sense but thankfully stopped by concerned citizens within the city. The end result would have been people losing some or all of their front lawns so suburban commuters would save an average of 30 seconds (according to studies). And most of the cars which congest and pollute Manhattan during business hours are driven by suburbanites who have many other travel options open to them (including park-and-ride often only a few miles from where they live). I'll also mention the endless stream of trucks on the LIE six blocks from me delivering goods to Long Island. Let's not forget all those noisy jets which again largely benefit only a small percentage of the population on a regular basis. The majority of city dwellers fly infrequently, if at all. All these things I mentioned don't benefit me one single iota. So if the city wants or needs to locate its power plants elsewhere it's probably still getting the worse end of the deal. In fact, I'll gladly take a few coal-fired plants here with modern pollution controls if it means we'll shut down all the airports, and all the highways leading into the city.


----------



## BB (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Jtr,

I was not picking on you (that is why I used SF CA) as the local instead of elsewhere...

However, back to serious side of discussion. Distribution of power, losses are in the 25%-50% range. So local generation sources do make sense (on my bill, generation costs are only 1/3 of the bill at lower tiered rates--the majority is distribution costs).

People choosing where to live is a huge driver for the amount of energy that they use... Commuting costs, job, infrastructure costs, type/size/style/life-style/kids all drive energy usage.

Live in a city near your job/store/school/etc.... fewer costs associated with cars. Live in the country, more car costs, but probably don't need water/sewer/police and other services.

I live in a suburb and very lucky to have a a large enough lot that I can offset 100% of my electrical usage with solar panels on my home (and I still have some extra for a BEV--next purchase).

Live in a cold climate, need fuel. Live in a hot climate, need AC. Conservation and lifestyle choices will reduce some of the environmental costs--but not all...

In the end, quoting our fearless leader quoting himself:



Darell said:


> Darrell wrote....
> And there are no "unintended consequences" of just charging what something actually costs.



Isn't high land cost and "$10/kWhr" price of power generated in NYC just the result of "...charging what something actually costs."?

Exporting power generation for NYC/SF/etc. is not much different than exporting jobs to China, exporting hydroelectric power to Ontario Canada, or outsourcing oil/gas drilling to the Middle East/Russia/etc.

--No flaming intended--Just asking the question in a friendly discussion.

-Bill


----------



## Josey (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> Gathering electricity from low density sources (solar, wind, wave) etc. is neither easy, cheap, or free of impact to the environment...
> 
> -Bill



Bill, why do you say solar and wind are neither cheap nor easy, especially since you are one of my heros and use solar on your house? It's hard to imagine something easier than solar: stick the panels in the sun, run two wires to the inverter and run three wires from the inverter to your breaker box. Utility-scale solar is down to 5 to 8 cents per kwh.

Wind is proven to work at 3 to 5 cents per kwh. Wave energy is a little iffy, but only because we've invested so little effort. The system in Washington is expected to produce power for 3 or 4 cents per kwh.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I'm pretty sure that BB is seing the *cost* of generation at 1/3 of his bill.

The rest of the cost is not just distribution losses. Some of it's profit, some is taxes and some is paying off debt. Then there's the cost of installing and maintaining millions of miles of power lines. In some cases the cost of the right of ways exceed the cost of the infrastructure. In many cases, the utilities pay the munincipality for the right to install their lines.

On the subject of NIMBY....

There's a coal fired power plant just a mile outside of Laughlin, Nevada. It's a town built in the middle of no-where to support some casinos. I noticed it while driving around. A faint whiff of sulfer was the only noticable problem. 

While I would not want one next door, I was suprised that it was not belching clouds of black smoke, and feel it would not ruin my life if one was built in the vicinity.

On wind power....
I live a few miles from teh Altimont pass, the site of one of california's biggest wind farms. There are grass fires there every year, sparked by the power grid they have running through there. They are constantly fighting with the conservationists over the thousands of birds that fly into the windmills every year. Even so, It provides enough power for the city of Livermore, with a bit left over. There are downsides to everything, but I figure the wind power is the most benign.

Oh, did I mention the wind farm sued the water district? The water district built a reservoir that changed the wind patterns. 

Nothing is without consequenses.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> Isn't high land cost and "$10/kWhr" price of power generated in NYC just the result of "...charging what something actually costs."?
> 
> Exporting power generation for NYC/SF/etc. is not much different than exporting jobs to China, exporting hydroelectric power to Ontario Canada, or outsourcing oil/gas drilling to the Middle East/Russia/etc.
> 
> --No flaming intended--Just asking the question in a friendly discussion.


Interesting question with no definite answer. Part of capitalism is utilizing resources in the most efficient manner. In the final analysis it's probably very poor use of very expensive land to use it for something like farming or power generation when those things can be exported more cheaply. Efficiency is also one reason I find suburbs disconcerting. There is no inherent advantage to living so spread out which offsets the disadvantage of paving over rich farmland better suited to growing crops which can be sold for money. With increasing specialization the days when a community or an individual can be entirely self-sufficient are over. In fact, that's the very reason cities sprung it. Business could be conducted with greater efficiency by putting individuals in close proximity. This more than offset the disadvantage of needing to import food and more recently power.

That being said, I'm also for getting individuals more self sufficient. For example, we eventually want to generate most or all of our energy needs via solar. This isn't just for the environment. I don't wish to be dependent on a aging electrical grid. It is quite feasible for many city and suburban dwellers to generate much of their energy needs on site, regardless of which part of the country they live in. I think there are two main obstacles to wider acceptance of solar power. First, solar panels need to get cheaper and more efficient. Second, we need a better way to store the power than lead acid batteries. The latter is what's holding me back more. In order to be 100% independent of the grid I need to store power for times when the sun isn't shining. Lead-acid batteries which are expensive, and need to be replaced every so often, are not the answer. Probably supercapacitors will prove viable. Combined with cheap solar panels which can be installed to a capacity well in excess of our average usage we can be entirely self-sufficient electrically.


----------



## BB (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Josey,

Thank you for the compliment--but I am not a hero to anyone... I just looked at my situation, made some choices on investments (stripping my sheet rock to insulate, installing double pane windows, new energy start appliances, not using the dishwasher, installing CPFL's everywhere (even though the color is terrible), keep temperature low, no AC, adding an operating skylight for light and ventilation, choosing to live in a much smaller house--even though I could easily afford more, following the family around the house and turning off light switches, etc...

After that, then I looked at solar PV and decided that I could not trust the State of California for my electricity rates and grid stability (after the blackouts and $25,000,000,000 in loans for three months of overpriced/over-regulated electricity)--I decide to go solar and make all of other folks in California (and the US taxpayers as a whole) to pay for 1/3 of the cost of my system (if I did not say it before, thank you for your "donation" of $10,000 towards my lifestyle choices). It was also as a hedge for powering an electric vehicle--when the time comes.

If you cannot tell, I really am a pretty easy going guy and have a positive attitude about life and people--it is just dealing with government at all levels that has given me a dark attitude in that one area.

I have worked on a little bit of Oceanic Survey Ship/equipment as an engineer, my brother is a geologist, and such--I have seen the results of salt spray on equipment, the oil and hydraulic leaks, the changes in sediment flows/erosion patterns down the coastline by finger piers, dams on rivers that block sediment flows, eroding coastlines and such.

The studies about wind turbines tending to cool the surrounding ground around the wind farms (mixing high level breezes with relatively unmoving stationary air near the ground. Let alone the slicing and dicing of bird life.

Dams and Hydro-Power 50+ years ago was considered almost to be "magic" it terms of generating low cost power with no negative impacts--Today there are organizations trying to remove these same dams because of the environmental problems they create.

I do agree that solar PV is probably relatively benign compared to a coal fired plant--but I have also seen the chemical pollution all around San Jose from those "clean" chip and computer plants that was left behind.

I am not saying to not experiment and help where needed alternatives like wave power, wind power, solar, and other renewable technologies.

My one home (family of four) with 3,500 watts of solar panels seems to be pretty low impact. But when you are talking about supplying power (and other infrastructure) to 300,000,000 people in just the US alone, I cannot think of anything that would be environmentally benign. Just 3,000,000,000 breathing is probably no longer benign.

JTR,

I have the feeling that you are pretty focused on solar PV (electric) power... Just from an environmental point of view, at this time (assuming you have mostly reliable power interconnects), Grid Tied solar is probably the more environmentally friendly option (as opposed to batteries).

But, if you look at your entire "power bill", I assume that you have some heating component too (whether it is oil, natural gas, or electric heat) and solar thermal systems are substantially cheaper... If you assume a solar PV electric panel is $5.00 per watt, a solar thermal panel is probably closer to $0.50 per watt--or 1/10 the price (and probably 1/4 of the roof space required). And thermal energy is not too hard, dangerous, or expensive to store today (as opposed to batteries or super capacitors). And since you already have gas/oil/electric heating sources installed in your home, they still are available for use in poor weather.

In the end, whether you save $80 in electricity, or $80 in oil, you have still saved money--and with thermal solar, there is a good chance that you spent a lot less money to save it.

Being 100% independent from the Grid is probably not a practical solution for 95% of the population out there today in the US (and my not be environmentally be the best overall solution either). Making a goal of 100% Grid Independent or no change at all is that striving for perfection that stops people from moving forward.

There is no waiting perfection--there is only moving forward one step at a time. Can't do solar PV off grid, then try solar on grid. Can't do solar PV, then try solar thermal hot water. Can't do solar hot water, try solar hot air. Can't do solar, try bio-mass fuels. Can't do that, try to live a simpler life style. Can't do that, do conservation through insulation, energy star appliances, etc.

In reality, this is a multi-step process. And all of those steps will provide cumulative results that are greater than doing any one of those steps alone.

I am not always a fan of "best use" capitalism... That is how we got to outsourcing manufacturing to China, power generation to Canada, and oil from the middle east.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



AndyTiedye said:


> I did *try* to bring it back on-topic.


Aw heck. This thread is for all aspects of Alt energy. I just started with this title way back all those years ago since it is what *I* know about. All the policy and politics and all other energy situations are all tied up together. I see no problem in the topic drift.


----------



## Darell (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



ikendu said:


> Yes, we do sometimes let the "perfect be the enemy of the good".
> ....
> 
> He couldn't get past the idea that unless it was a 100% solution, it had no utility at all.


I've begun to use that phrase more and more, and have had similar discussions. When I present EVs as a move in the right direction, there are often folk who will tell me that gosh, it doesn't solve all our problems. Well, duh. My goal is to head in the right direction, not to solve every problem we've got. When people start telling me that the air pollution caused by the tire tread particles from my EV flying into the air means that my solar-powered EV is NOT truly clean, I think we have a problem with the whole "enemy of the good" situation!

I also hear peopl say that they'll buy an EV just as soon as they have 500 mile range, 5-minute recharge time, better acceleration than any gas car, and cost under $20k.

Yup. Perfect, or no good.


----------



## Darell (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> Isn't high land cost and "$10/kWhr" price of power generated in NYC just the result of "...charging what something actually costs."?
> 
> Exporting power generation for NYC/SF/etc. is not much different than exporting jobs to China, exporting hydroelectric power to Ontario Canada, or outsourcing oil/gas drilling to the Middle East/Russia/etc.
> 
> ...


No offense taken. I'm really enjoying the discussion, and thank everybody who's involved. We don't all agree on the details, but we all agree that something needs to be done. And that gives me great pleasure to see.

To answer your question.. "Uh, maybe." I'm not really sure what you are asking. My point was that we can't call anything an UNintended consequence if we charge what something costs us as a society. Those are INtended consequences of reality. If we pay - as a society through military, health, etc - $10 for each gallon of gasoline that we burn - would it not make more sense to charge that at the pump, so that the people/corporations that use more of it, PAY for more of it, instead of spreading it more evenly amonst those of us who may not use as much?


----------



## Darell (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> I do agree that solar PV is probably relatively benign compared to a coal fired plant--but I have also seen the chemical pollution all around San Jose from those "clean" chip and computer plants that was left behind.-Bill


Probably? OK... I just have to put this one to bed because I hear it so often - usually from MUCH less learned folks than you Bill! This goes back to the perfect being the enemy of the good....

Yes, producing PV causes pollution. No surprise there. But after you make them, they then produce 100% clean power for 30, 40, 50 years. No more energy inputs or pollution outputs.

Now take any other traditional power plant - coal in your example. First you build the power plant, right? Makes a huge enviro footprint just for the materials to build it - maybe as bad as PV panels, yes? Then what happens? For the rest of its life you mine and burn coal to make power for the next X number of years. Polluting the entire time.

There really is no comparison. There's no "probably" about it. Solar is WAY less costly to the environment - over the production lifetime - of any other traditional power source. Solar actually makes back the power it takes to create it - in just a few years. That NEVER happens for traditional generators that require (obviously) input of some fuel during every moment of generation.


----------



## Darell (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> Does anyone else remember the 1970's? The average US car was the muscle car. Even Grandma's car was expected to have a decent 1/4 mile time.


This got a chuckle out of me. I love this description. There were the times where every high school kid desperately wanted his grandma to quit diriving so he could have the Malibu or Duster or whatever - and be a major chick magnet. Ah yes, the heady days of the American Muscle car.



> Wouldn't it be neat if they just revived the EV1 with current components?
> Daniel


Don't you go getting me all excited! I dream of a Prius-quality EV just about every day I climb into that car. Just imagine what all of these companies could have accomplished by now if they EV program had continued at the same pace as the rest of the auto industry. We'd be on the third generation of these cars, and... oh hell, this just hurts to think about.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I am really hoping that the Tesla might be that car.
Really, the only question-mark with the Tesla concerns the batteries --
their safety, their longevity, and their replacement cost.

Those questions could best be answered by people at Tesla.
Do any CPF'ers know anyone who works there?
It would be interesting to get some people from Tesla on CPF.
They are building the biggest lithium-ion battery pack, and the biggest lithium-ion-powered device of any kind to date.

It would be instructive to us all to hear how they are solving the battery issues
that most of us face on a much smaller scale.

And there may be a few potential Tesla buyers on CPF as well.


----------



## ktronik (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

OT:

Here is a pic of me with my homemade E-bike...  Got rid of the car... trying to be part of the solution rather than the problem... Yes I know I am just shifting the problem away from the city to the coal powered station... but is a step in the right direction...







Ktronik

PS: Yes I ride my pedal bike & trailer most of the time, but sometimes It is nice to take a have a break after a long day in the saddle...


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

What kind of battery pack are you running?
Does it do regenerative braking?


----------



## ktronik (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



AndyTiedye said:


> What kind of battery pack are you running?
> Does it do regenerative braking?



OT:

Good old SLA (AGM) 48v 14A/hr...32km/hr max, 30-40km per charge...after modding the regen circuit, the watt meter shows 900w max regen while hard braking...only 70% of that goes back into the battery...freewheel regen starts @ 36km/hr...up to 16.6% extra distance on very hilly rides... err I would say they don't really like 900w back in... but what the hey...its still going strong... I built it for my wife... mine will be 72v lipo with a bigger dual winding motor (4011/408) using a 72v/20A dual controler... all good fun...

Ktronik


----------



## BB (Jan 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

When I was typing about the pollution in San Jose--it was more along the lines of the hidden pollution/consequences that we don't know about at the time (chip industry was held up as "clean" at the time--no stacks with black smoke puffing out of them).

The US chip industry is much cleaner now than it was back then... Of course we have now exported many of those plants and processes--are they as clean in other countries--probably not.

One thing that kind of gets me though is that (for my home) we are talking about 4,800 kWhrs over one year @0.115 / kWhr, or $552 per year (rates can very by 3-5 times more if a home uses a lot more energy).

Property taxes range (for the same home, just different years of ownership because of Prop. 13--tax revolt several decades ago) is from about $600 per year to $12,000 per year. Same home, just one was bought in 1978, vs 1995 vs 2007.

$50 of power per month or $50 to $1,000 in (mostly) state property taxes. If you are a new resident, sorry, and $50 in electricity isn't what is most important in your life right now.

Real example. Parent's older 3-4 bedroom home is going to my sibling (on their death), keep taxes at ~$50 per month instead of ~$500 per month if she were to buy the same house today while they still are alive. Spend tens of thousands of dollars to save $50-$100 a month of utility bill--Even though my sibling is much "greener" than I--guess what is getting the attention right now--how to make sure the tax breaks are done correctly--worth 10x the energy savings for much less cost.

I am sure that most states/non-urban areas have much lower tax rates (and values)... It seems that living in a city should be more efficient and less expensive--but our cities are increasing taxes and they going bankrupt at the same time (and many cities are depopulating even though the infrastructure is already in place and functioning--or at used to be functioning). Is the problem the idea of a city is more efficient than suburbia or the problem the government + corruption (i.e., people and society are the problem).

Our military expenditures, both as a portion of the federal budget and as a percentage of the US GDP is at a historic low right now (at least since WWI). So, does this mean that it is more cost effective to have wars with oil states than producing oil in the US)--silly rhetorical question for thought--not intended as a discussion starter.

I would like to have every nation be relatively self sufficient in all major areas (food, energy, manufacturing, disposal, births/deaths, etc.). This would let the folks that create the problems be responsible for cleaning up after the problems--San Jose chip companies pollute the water table--they get fined, local residence have increased taxes and poorer water quality and summer rationing (lawns die). Vote new public officials, new laws, new taxes to fix problem from happing again.

However, we seem to be going head-long in the opposite direction. The people responsible for the consumption (say US consumer buying Chinese built computers because companies found it cheaper to leave San Jose for China--waste? What-waste?, Chilean Grapes, and dumping hazardous waste in Africa) are not in anyway responsible (through government, taxes, degradation in living standards).

Maybe "one world government" is the way to go--but the UN, EU, and other new/big/world governments don't seem to be functioning any better at this time.

-Bill


----------



## Brock (Jan 22, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

You guys are typing way to fast for me. I just have to jump in on what Bill said.


> There is no waiting perfection--there is only moving forward one step at a time. Can't do solar PV off grid, then try solar on grid. Can't do solar PV, then try solar thermal hot water. Can't do solar hot water, try solar hot air. Can't do solar, try bio-mass fuels. Can't do that, try to live a simpler life style. Can't do that, do conservation through insulation, energy star appliances, etc.


 This is also the way I think and very similar to what Ikendu brought up as well. The solution doesn’t have to be perfect; it just needs to be a step in the right direction. Sort of like requiring all gasoline in the US to be 5% ethanol (just using it as an example), a small enough percentage to not effect any engine, but could reduce 5% of our imports and keep another 5% of the profit here. 5% of all consumed gasoline is a HUGE number, which is my point. I do all sorts of things to be efficient, air heat recovery ventilators, water heat recovery unit’s solar electric, passive solar, off peak, bio diesel and energy efficient appliances. When I look at someone off grid I see myself as not doing much, but I am doing something and just keep adding on to what I am doing.

And everyone please stop saying


> It is just shifting the problem away from the city to the coal powered station


 That’s not the case. If you could pull every ICE off the road and use EV’s powered by coal you would far less pollution. Coal plants are more then twice as efficient as ICE’s and are more then twice as clean, typically about 5 times as clean for the energy produced as an ICE. Heck even if the power plants burned gasoline we would be 4 times better off with EV’s compared to ICE's polution wise.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

There is a new Modern Marvels out this week:

Environmental Tech

I has a nice 15 minute segment on biodiesel from algae. It shows these big glass tubes hooked up the the CO2 output of a power plant bubbling CO2 up thru the algae. It has this nice shot of a guy dipping his hand into the oily goo of algae as they talk about how much oil is produced.

The company is Green Fuel Technologies.

http://www.greenfuelonline.com/technology.htm

There is a bunch of other stuff in this episode as well like carbon sequestration.


----------



## Darell (Jan 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Howdy folks. Thought I'd share with you that a good EV friend of mine has purchased one of the few "Long Ranger" trailers that Toyota commissioned many years ago, and is getting very close to having it fully operational.

I put the pictures at the bottom of my Long Ranger page here: http://evnut.com/rav_longranger.htm
It is a pretty amazing piece of engineering. SO many custom parts, and it is amazingly compact and all but unnoticeable to tow. In fact, we're going to put a locating beacon on it so the driver can actually see it behind the car - it is invisible now. The auto steering is truly a marvel. You just back the car up as if you had no trailer, and it tracks correctly and automatically. The whole package of Rav and trailer is still shorter than most full size SUVs on the road. And it is sure has heck a lot lighter!


----------



## Josey (Jan 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

That thing is so cool, Darell, I had to laugh. The thought of 20 guys standing around that rolling, intelligent, self-backing generator (backing up a back-up generator), looking at it and offering up comments just warms my heart. I can't stop laughing.


----------



## Darell (Jan 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The hardest part was keeping everybody OUT of my freaking pictures! Some of the folks (I'll just call them "state workers") were terrified of actually being caught on film, viewing this thing*, so there are a few pictures that I can't show.

*Imagine the nightmare of regulating something like this. There are rules for EVs. There are rules for hybrids. What the heck to do you do with something that can be either one at any given time? Can it park in EV spaces? Does it get a smog check? Can it drive in the HOV lane? Crazy stuff for the regulators! I don't envy them.


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Jan 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I'm really enjoying this thread. 

:buddies:


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Regulation is simple; Treat it as a hybrid. HOV OK if the milage when using the longranger is greater than 45 MPG, otherwise ride with the rest of the traffic. If it has the ranger, it does not need the charger, so leave the EV parking spaces for those that need the charger.

What was the polution figured for the longranger equiped Rav? Logic says A 20 kw motor cycle engine can be just as dirty as anything else that generates 20 KW of power. I see a small battery in the picture, so I assume it's auto start as needed and shuts off if not needed.

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (Jan 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

IMHO, this is a really great concept for the future of our transportation.

How many people after Katrina would have been really happy to have a portable, reasonably quiet, emisssions clean, outdoor capable generator that they could use in times of power failure? How many campers, outdoors people, contractors, etc. would love to have the same thing? 

If properly configured (with standards), you could definitely create a rental industry for these devices so that people wouldn't even have to own their own device. Heck, in the Katrina situation, if you had a whole region of U-Rent generators like this, they could all have been drawn into the disaster region to help.

Technology-wise... I'd like to see these use a fuel that is a lot safer than gasoline to transport in such a small, "out-there" package with no vehicle body wrapped around it for more protection from collisions.

Flash temperature for gasoline: -45 F (highly volatile and explosive)
Flash temperature for diesel: 125 F (much less dangerous)
Flash temperature for biodiesel: 300 F (much, much less dangerous)


----------



## BB (Jan 29, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



ikendu said:


> ...Denmark gets 20% of their energy from the wind so we have plenty of growth before this becomes a real issue...


Looking under the hood is always interesting... I posted an article that earlier confirmed that Denmark gets 20% of their energy (probably just electricity) from wind. But here is another article with somewhat different numbers:

Wind energy costly for consumers (note: 1 DKK = $0.18 USD):



> _*Overproduction and price guarantees for wind turbine owners add up to a costly electric bill for consumer*_--29.01.2007In order to promote construction of wind turbines, the government has agreed to purchase the electricity they generate at a minimum price. The guaranteed prices have had the desired effect: *some 5300 wind turbines dot the Danish countryside, producing 18.5 percent of all electricity generated.*
> 
> The practice has its downside, however. The guaranteed prices for wind power results in an overproduction that cost the state an excess DKK 21.6 billion between 2001 and 2005, according to figures from the National Audit Agency.
> 
> ...


I understand the desire and need to use non-fossil fuel power. As Ikendu said, we really need to figure out how to better store "electricity" (and/or how to produce more stable power from non-fossil fuel generators)... 

Right now, Denmark is actually exporting more Windpower than it is consuming in-country because of the difficulty of keeping the power grid up and stable while relying on wind.

At this point, very few people in Denmark are probably ready to only have lights and heat when it is windy... One possibility may be combining wind with interactive BEV's... Windy--crank up the BEV's charge rate--wind dies, send a signal to scale way back. Figure out how to fit the load to the source.

-Bill


----------



## Josey (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Combining all the green energies sources (solar, wind, bio, wave, tidal, etc) on a large scale could leave us with an overabundance of energy. With energy coming from enough different souces, the storeage problem becomes moot. And the excess can also be stored by conversion of electricity to hydrogen. Excess green energy is what makes hydrogen attractive.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

So their problem was too much wind power capacity?
What a nice problem to have!


----------



## BB (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Hydrogen, in general, is not very cheap (at this time) to produce with electricity and store--plus it requires an expensive infrastructure to store and distribute (high pressure, energy to compress, and stainless steel).

Battery and hydro are two technologies that are much more efficient "storage processes" for electricity.

And it is not that Denmark has "too much" electricity from wind--it is just so variable that it is cheaper for them to "sell it" to neighboring countries (at a loss) and use standard (fossil fueled?) power plants to supply stable power.

It will require a real paradigm shift to use solar/wind/tidal sources of power on the national grid. Generally, everyone uses power when they want. Some use either Time of Use, peak demand, or even load shedding to somewhat modify when power is consumed...

There is no way that solar/wind/tidal/other variable availability power will be able to supply 100% of our grid power today. We really have two options, one is to continue using the "demand" model of power distribution (grid/generators supply all demand required 24x7x52) or a new model where the source (generators) notify the loads (customers) of how much power is available and at what price.

Power cheap--turn on the battery chargers, heat pumps, water heaters, BEV chargers, AC, well pumps, pumped storage, hydrogen electrolizers/compressors, etc.

Power mid-priced--limit demand... turn off the chargers, pumps. Only heat for cooking, etc.

Power expensive--start drawing from batteries/alternative storage, use natural gas for heating/hot water/etc.

The problem is that, you may end up with 2-4x the generation and Grid capacity with variable demand/storage model than you have today (solar/wind/hydro is not always available, so you have to have about an equal amount of thermal power plants to fulfill the demand at any time, regardless of sun/wind/water. For Denmark, this means that 60% of grid capacity (in the form of wind turbines) can only supply 30% of the grid's in-country demand (as the grid is designed today).

As an example--I generate much of my solar in a peak 4 hour period.... So, if my load was constant, The Grid now has to take 5-6x my average load for 4 hours to store my power for later use.

Many of these issues can be resolved (time and money)--but it will neither be easy or cheap.

-Bill


----------



## ikendu (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I really agree that we should be working hard on storage technologies for energy.

And... I hope that we don't lose sight of the fact that in the U.S., we have a loooong way to go before the wind we would add now would start bumping up against some limit where the lack of storage is a problem.

I'm for a three pronged attack on energy.

1. Create the incentives to build out wind turbines like crazy.

We are at less than 1% wind now. We should be growing our wind industry just as fast as we can. The new Clipper Wind turbine factory in Iowa is already sold out for the next two years. Building more factory capacity requires a long term committment to wind in our government policies. Let's provide that long term committment. 

2. Create the incentives and policies for distributed generation and infrastructure

If the wind isn't blowing in Iowa, it might be in west Texas or in North Dakota. If the wind isn't blowing then the sun will likely be out over many rooftops across the grid all across the U.S. If the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing all across the U.S. then we could draw on many "Combined Heat and Power" (CHP) generators located at homes and businesses all across the country. With CHP, you use the "extra heat" from electricity generation to do something useful like heat your building or run your industrial processes. This alone can raise efficiency 30% points. Central generation usually simply throws this energy away.

Unfortunately, we don't have uniform policies across the U.S. to allow people to connect to the grid with their distributed generation. We need that. The electrical grid is an important piece of infrastructure that needs to be addressed. It needs to be reliable AND accessible. At the moment, your local utility can decide whether or not you can connect and under what circumstances. It would be like having a cop at every "freeway on ramp" that talks to each driver to decide if that driver should be allowed on or not.

3. Start putting R&D dollars into large scale electricity storage technology

At some point, we'll cross the line where a variety of intermittant energy sources leave us high and dry one day for the electricity needs we have. That day might be 10 years from now or 20 or whatever, but it would come at some point. Before that day, we need to have developed reliable, practical technologies to deal with this.

So... go full speed to develop solar, wind and distributed energy generation while energetically pursuing large scale electricity storage facilities. These could be compressed air caverns, water pumping reservoirs, hydrogen storage caverns or... something new we develop.

I'm more and more convinced that we should stop building coal plants now, today. The DOE has a contract out for a "FutureGen" coal plant to go into service by 2012. The idea is to prove out emission-less coal and carbon sequestration. Good. Let's prove that out. If it works, we can build more coal plants. Otherwise, let's stop building coal plants now and only resume once we see it working. A coal plant lasts 50 years. Why should we keep building ones with yesterday's technology?

If the U.S. needs more electricial capacity before 2012, we can be building wind and solar to fill the gap. Not to mention the huge amounts of electricity that better conservation would free up.


----------



## Darell (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> Regulation is simple; Treat it as a hybrid. HOV OK if the milage when using the longranger is greater than 45 MPG, otherwise ride with the rest of the traffic.


How about enforcement? If I tow it behind the Rav, I get 30mpg, if behind the EV1, I get 50mpg. The different combinations possible would be staggering. There would be no EPA number for mileage of a trailer like this because it would depend entirely on what it is charging. Now how about (as is done right now) it is being dragged behind the Rav, but isn't running? And if the trailer is dual-fuel, and is now running on CNG instead of gas? Regulation and enforcement is so far from "simple" that you can't even see simple from here!



> If it has the ranger, it does not need the charger, so leave the EV parking spaces for those that need the charger.


One would hope that common sense and personal responsibility would rule the world. And we know this doesn't happen. So it comes down to rules and laws. Do we regulate that if you have an ICE trailer, that you can't park in EV spaces ever? What if the generator is empty, or not functioning? What if you can get to your destination without burning any gasoline if you can just charge here for an hour? Do we want to force you to burn gas when you don't have to? I'm only hitting on some of the easy (simple?) stuff here. We've been hashing this stuff out for years. There are no easy answers.



> What was the polution figured for the longranger equiped Rav? Logic says A 20 kw motor cycle engine can be just as dirty as anything else that generates 20 KW of power. I see a small battery in the picture, so I assume it's auto start as needed and shuts off if not needed.


It isn't clean. When using the generator at freeway speeds, the steady state mileage is about 30mpg. In the grand scheme of things, it probably pollutes about as much as the *average* private car on the road today.... during those few times when the generator is actually used. Yes the driver controls start/stop. Everything else is automatic. Obviously it would be better to use a fuel other than gasoline, and a purpose-built ICE. But this is all that exists today, and even at this crude stage, the product was prohibitively expensive (to the tune of the cost of a new car!).


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I suggest that the regulation is simple. Regulating *FAIRLY* is the hard part. Most of the rules regarding EVs have to do with encouraging it's use and has nothing to dowith being fair. 

It's reasonable to assume that you will not be hauling the ranger around unless you are using it. It's therefore reasonable to say it's a hybrid when it's present. It may not be fair, but it's easy to regulate.

A small part of the Priuses are ever in a car pool lane, yet we have to have an ugly yellow sticker affixed to it 24x7 if we ever want to use the car pool lane. That's not fair, but it's very easy to enforce.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> A small part of the Priuses are ever in a car pool lane, yet we have to have an ugly yellow sticker affixed to it 24x7 if we ever want to use the car pool lane. That's not fair, but it's very easy to enforce.


Edit...
Still trying to figure out how to best put this without sounding like I'm beating on you.

I'm not looking for "fair." I'm looking for appropriate and effective - exactly what the yellow HOV stickers represent in the case of "clean air" vehicles. If you're put off by the yellow stickers, then just stay out of the HOV lane, or get a car pool. If neither of those options seems "fair," then I guess you'll have to make do being stuck in traffic with a relatively clean, high-mileage personal vehicle. :shrug: I'm baffled as to what isn't "fair" about having to put stickers on your car for this rare privilege that is completely optional and avoidable. Something that wasn't even available when your car was purchased, and was intended to inspire hybrid purchases.

And back to the real point: That sort of appropriate and effective decal is something that is all but impossible to do for a hybridizing trailer that has no consistent consumption numbers or usage pattern. I'm not talking just about HOV regulations here. I'm talking CAFE standards, pollution, charging, road taxes, vehicle registration... the list is almost endless. Some of the same problems will crop up with PHEVs very soon. So it is something we need to work on NOW.

The bottom line is that the EV community and those people tasked with setting this kind of regulation find it an imposing, if not impossible task. I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The stickers don't look half as ugly as the traffic on 101 at 5:30.

I was just out with some glue trying to keep my stickers from falling off.


----------



## Darell (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



AndyTiedye said:


> The stickers don't look half as ugly as the traffic on 101 at 5:30.


Good perspective!


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

No offense taken at all, Darell. I think that you missed the point about regulations; Most are arbitrary to some degree. Almost none are 100% fair. You can look at every thing from taxation to education and find regulations that fit 90% of the cases but which are extremely unfair to the last few percent.

As far as the ranger goes, the regulators simply need to decide if they want to promote it's use full time, occasionally, or only when needed. I would expect that people would not haul it around unless it's need was anticipated. As such, ownership of the ranger would not immediately change the class of the BEV but using it might.

The PHEV could be treated 100% like all other cars, and that would be perfectly fair and reasonable. I guess my point is that any special treatment is based on unfair and arbitrary decisions. It does not matter if it's free charging points, HOV access or tax incentives.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> I think that you missed the point about regulations; Most are arbitrary to some degree.


Yeah, I likely did swing a bit wide of the point.

A better point - the one that I intended to make - is that the regulators themselves are having a heck of a time with the whole PHEV idea that is not clear-cut. And it isn't just the worry of the 10% that fall through the cracks. It is every last one of them that will be sold. How do you come up with CAFE numbers for a PHEV that makes sense to *anybody*? You can't really treat a PHEV like other cars, because other cars' treatment is based on gas mileage. IF sometimes a PHEV has no gas mileage, how do you test it and treat it? If you treat it as if it always has an empty battery that screws every body - no incentive to make them if they don't help a car company, and then we're back to the whole EV problem.

I'd love to hear ideas on how to accomplish this regulation task, if we can just stipulate that there's no perfect answer, and that regulations are always a compromise.


----------



## Darell (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Volvo's PHEV:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/02/01/volvo-c30-plug-in-hybrid-concept/

This is a key paragraph:

Analysis: This development appears to encompass all the excitement of the innovative E-Flex plug-in electric platform, matched with the practicality of a highly efficient diesel engine. Plus, while the C30 is still a concept car, it looks closer to production than the radical Volt. Volvo and Ford might steal GM's thunder yet.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

There are many ways to handle PHEVs within the CAFE rating. The CAFE is, after all, a somewhat arbitrary standard. For example; 

1) You could use the projected usage for battery VS gas. If a reasonable estimate is 90/10, then calculate gasoline usage as if it's 1/10th the actual. This ignores the energy drawn from the grid. 

2) You could simply pick a number. 100 MPG is easy to use for calculations and would serve to incent the companies to build them.

3) You could use a rating that is equal to the amount of equivilent energy that's used. A 15 ton truck WILL use more energy than a 200 lb moped. 

4) You could pick the worst casei MPG and use that. A PHEV that is never plugged in and is driven short distances, for instance. There will be a significant number that are used that way too. They would still whomp on most other cars, CAFE wise.

As I recall, California established ratings when it mandated that all manufacturers produce low/zero polution cars. The ratings had little to do with reality or fairness. They were simply a tool to force a desired behaviour. I don't see a difference between then and now.

As I said before, it's only the notion of "fair" that makes it difficult.


Daniel


----------



## idleprocess (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Perhaps the challenge for PHEV "MPG" ratings could be unraveled by doing away with the unimaginitive MPG standard alltogether. How about miles per kilowatt-hour (or KWH per mile)? A gallon of gasoline has 33 or 36 KWH (depending on who you ask) of energy within it; diesel a bit more, ethanol a but less. Rate the vehicle for both pure-electric operation and with the APU running. Determine what the average mix is in the real world, and rate it as such, but include both numbers in any detailed explaination.

Gasoline vehicles will suddenly look to be rather inefficient by this standard.

I doubt it will ever be used, however. The American public does not seem to be so imaginitive as to think beyond MPG, and even the EV-advocates are struggling to devise "equivalent MPG" standards. Most of the "equivalent MPG" suggestions I've seen would suggest that the vehicles will travel 200-500 miles on a gallon of gas _with no other energy input_.


----------



## ikendu (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

How about two ratings to replace mpg?

Like we do with appliances...

1. Average energy cost for a year of operation

We'd figure out an average cycle of commuting and long distance travel, figure the average cost of electricity and liquid fuel consumed... then calculate the total, combined cost.

...and a new figure useful in the age of global warming concerns

2. Average carbon emitted for a year of operation

Same deal, we'd use the average mix of electricity generation and the average mix of gasoline sources (including Alberta Tar Sand gasoline that has double the carbon contribution) ...then publish the average for a year. 

The carbon contribution for a gallon of gasoline just keeps getting worse and worse every year. More time exploring, deeper drilling, farther out in deep water, refining poorer and poorer petroleum stocks as we use up all of the easy-to-find, easy-to-get and easy-to-refine crude oil.


----------



## ikendu (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> Volvo's PHEV:
> http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/02/01/volvo-c30-plug-in-hybrid-concept/



Thanks for this post! Man, I'd love to attend the "Challenge Bibendum international sustainable mobility event in Shanghai".

Darell, is there going to be any sort of similar event in the U.S. this year?

Edit:

I see there will be the 13th Alternative Fuels & Vehicles National Conference 
Anaheim,CA April 1-4. It is billed as "the largest alternative fuel and vehicle technology gathering in the world."

http://www.afvi.org/NationalConference2007/

Hmmm... seems to be oriented around "fleets".


----------



## Darell (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The Bibendum challenge is the biggie every year, certainly. And there is almost always a surprise showing of SOMETHING there. I can't believe that I missed the one that was held just 100 miles from here a couple of years back - I was out of town, of course!

By all reports, that Volvo is WAY closer to production than the Chevy Volt.


----------



## Darell (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Now that you've seen Volvo's... how about Saab's?
http://www.trollhattansaab.net/archives/2006/04/did_gm_screw_sa.html

You'll notice that GM made Saab hide the fact that it was a PHEV. Saab posted an online press release of the PLUG-IN version of this car, and that release was replaced after just a few hours with one that didn't mention the plug at all.

An... and here's that info:
http://www.trollhattansaab.net/archives/2006/04/the_smoking_gun.html


----------



## BB (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

From this story in der Spiegel:

China's Poison for the Planet



> Can the environment withstand China's growing economic might? As one of the planet's worst polluters, Beijing's ecological sins are creating problems on a global scale. Many countries are now feeling the consequences.



Pretty depressing article... Don't want those new EV/wind turbine/solar parts made in China--if you care for the environment.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> From this story in der Spiegel:
> 
> China's Poison for the Planet
> 
> ...


Agreed! Yet if they're going to be making *something* there and causing all the environmental damage - they might as well be making something that is the lesser of evils. I'd rather have them cranking out PV panels than, say, Hummers.


----------



## jch79 (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Ughh... depressing. 

It's sad that we're almost forced into the mantra of "the lesser of evils".


----------



## Darell (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



jch79 said:


> Ughh... depressing.
> 
> It's sad that we're almost forced into the mantra of "the lesser of evils".


Correct. But there is no "perfect." In fact, I find myself using the saying more and more: The perfect is the enemy of the good. Every day I hear arguments against renewables because they provide SOME negative impact. They might kill birds. The raw materials need to be mined. Oil workers will lose jobs. You've heard it all before. Every way we make energy will have some negative impact. There's no way around it. We just have to begin using the ones that are better than what we're using today. If we sit around doing NOTHING while we wait for the perfect source of energy - the one that has NO evils, then we're in big trouble. So in that sense, the lesser of a two evils is a valid goal.


----------



## jch79 (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

And that's what I get for posting in Darell's thread!  Just kidding.

I agree that there's no perfect solution ( besides biking  ) - I suppose the idealist in me and the realist in me at some point have to come to an agreement.

However, for the time being, I'm fine biking into work, and driving my 38mph Saturn when I have to! (which is as infrequently as I can!)

Thanks for the great threads Darell; it makes me  to read about this stuff and wonder why it's not the norm, but makes me  that there's other people out there who care about it!

john


----------



## BB (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> Agreed! Yet if they're going to be making *something* there and causing all the environmental damage - they might as well be making something that is the lesser of evils. I'd rather have them cranking out PV panels than, say, Hummers.



They are cranking out solar panels and wind turbines now. Imagine how much more pollution as China continues to crank up their high-tech, automotive and other heavy industries.

Wind turbines are, at this time, still a very poor choice for electric grid power generation... Utility companies still can only count on, as low as 2.6% (Texas--yes, an anti-wind power hit piece) of rated wind farm capacity during peak summer demand periods. At best, Denmark, for example, was able to consume less than 50% of the power produced by their wind turbines--the rest they had to export to neighboring countries at a loss.

Wind turbines, when coupled with a good energy storage system (like pumped water storage--which has its own large environmental problems too), will be a help... But having wind turbines built in China and slapped into the US Grid is, currently, not a great use of resources if you have to have 90%+ of wind power backed by conventional fossil and nuclear power plants all spun up and running at some 50% capacity for grid stability.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> But having wind turbines built in China and slapped into the US Grid is, currently, not a great use of resources if you have to have 90%+ of wind power backed by conventional fossil and nuclear power plants all spun up and running at some 50% capacity for grid stability.


We agree Bill! Did you miss the part where I was making the comparison? I'd still rather see China making turbines than Hummers... even if we just throw the turbines away! (Ok, that's a bit extreme, but I'm trying to get your attention.  )


----------



## Darell (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

This is cool.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/l...ll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true

They used a Rav4EV so they "wouldn't be measuring their own pollution."


----------



## Brock (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Darell you have to log in to see that one...


----------



## Darell (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Oops. Sorry. It is a free account. I opened it long ago, and it auto-fills for me.


----------



## BB (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> We agree Bill! Did you miss the part where I was making the comparison? I'd still rather see China making turbines than Hummers... even if we just throw the turbines away! (Ok, that's a bit extreme, but I'm trying to get your attention.  )



I was trying to be serious... The last year of H1 production (for civilians) was 2006--the others (H2, H3, Hetc.) are just GM's SUV death throws (it seems). "Real" Hummers were produced, in small quantities for something like a handful of years. Hummers are nice to toss darts at as signs of "excess consumption"--but that is only because few people see (via the media) the leaders and opinion makers of our world clearcut a section of forest to build the huge mansions, book for 20 people the 62 seat entire first class sections for one person to collect an environmental award, or get to ride the private jets that "our betters" ride around in everyday "...planes that were going somewhere in any case" .

I am not a big anthropomorphic global warming/cooling/climate change kind of guy... However, I am very concerned about sustainability (at least until the sun burns out--which nobody has really addressed yet).

Here is an article from the first Canadian citizen who received a PHD in Climatology (from UK school). No need to discuss it here--just to point out there are others sides to this discussion.

My concern is that if people address the wrong problems (say CO2 as man-made global warming vs pollution and resource depletion), then we will have wasted more time, energy, and resources before we even begin to fix the real problems (IMveryHO)...

At this point in time, building almost anything in China is not the lesser of any evil. The resources required to build (1/2.6%=) 38x more generators (steel, iron, copper, plastics, lubrication) compared to a much reduced resource requirement going into some other peak capacity generator needed project (hydro, co-generation, "clean coal", nuclear, etc.--which, of course, all have their own substantial issues).

If there were a bunch of BEV's out there--that would probably be a really nice, remotely controlled, variable power sink for these non-traditional electric generation resources... But not yet today.

Building solar and wind turbines in China, today, is not (IMHO) the lesser of two evils today. Building the wind turbines in Denmark--probably not so bad. Building them in the US--perhaps better yet.

-Bill


----------



## BB (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> Oops. Sorry. It is a free account. I opened it long ago, and it auto-fills for me.



www.bugmenot.com works for the free sites out there. Also available is a FireFox add-on (extension) where you just right click to log in.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Feb 5, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> I was trying to be serious...


As am I. "Hummer" in this case doesn't mean the GM vehicle. It means anything stupid-beyond-words vehicle that is ultra polluting and unneeded. And while I share your horror at the Chinese industrial situation - that I've seen first hand - I am STILL serious with my comments.

China is going to build something. We have to be realistic. We can't tell them to stop. If the're going to build something, it might as well be something that is otherwise beneficial. Everything we choose is the lesser of two evils. We don't have the options of sayins, "don't build anything."


----------



## BB (Feb 6, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Cool:



> _*China and UN plan carbon trading exchange*__
> By Mure ****ie in Beijing and Fiona Harvey in London__
> Published: February 5 2007 22:07
> 
> ...


Guess they need an "Oil for Food" replacement program at the UN.

-Bill


----------



## ikendu (Feb 6, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

3 companies all pursuing algae.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18138/

LiveFuels, Solix Biofuels and GreenFuel Technologies ...all pursing different visions of algae to biofuel.


----------



## James S (Feb 6, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I'm confused by what is supposed to be accomplished by carbon trading like that. It lets the bigger countries continue to use old dirty technology while paying the younger, poorer non-industralized countries to stay that way. They become dependent on the money coming in from selling their carbon allotment and so can never stop selling it and startup any kind of industrial economy for themselves. I"m not sure you can reliably skip over the carbon emission phase of development and skip right to a place where we haven't even gotten yet...


----------



## BB (Feb 6, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



James S said:


> I'm confused by what is supposed to be accomplished by carbon trading like that...


The last paragraph of the article mentions that they are not even trading in CO2 credits with China, but HFC 23:


> Many of the credits issued in China so far have come from the installation of equipment to curb emissions of HFC-23, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, generating large profits for a small outlay.


From Wiki:


> CHF3 is a potent greenhouse gas. The secretariat of the Clean Development Mechanism estimates that a ton of HFC-23 in the atmosphere has the same effect as 11,700 tons of carbon dioxide. The atmospheric lifetime is 260 years



In the end, to bookend my original thesis a few posts back that by addressing the problem as Global Warming (or Global Climate Change in honor of this record breaking cold snap), again from the FT.com article on China and Carbon Credits:


> The UNDP said most existing emission reduction projects in China offered "little or no impact on sustainable development".


Quoting Dr. Timothy Ball (PHD Climate Science, Canada)


> Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.


And, in the end, the analogy of CO2 trapping heat by calling it the "Green House Effect" is flat out wrong. The Green House Effect is caused by the prevention of Convective Currents in the air which cools the ground by caused by the heating of the sun. Glass walls simply prevent the atmosphere from circulating next to the warmed ground. This effect was first tested (scientifically) by Professor R.W Wood around 1909 (or a bit earlier):


> THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap. I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open," the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.
> 
> To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a themometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 oC., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.
> 
> There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 oC. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 o, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.


In the end, there is so much bad science (chasing fame and monies offered by politicians and tax free foundation money) behind this stuff that these people are truly now making the environment worst rather than better at this point...

Enough ranting for now.

-Bill

PS: Just to show that making fuel (ethanol) from corn is not a good idea overall--you have heard about the problems in Mexico--right?



> [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Mexico City, Jan 19 (Xinhua) The soaring price of tortilla, a corn-based foodstuff that is a dietary staple for millions of Mexicans, has led to a crisis for the poor as well as the government.[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The price of tortilla has shot up over 250 percent since the beginning of this year, from 5 to 18 pesos a kilogram (from $0.45 to $1.62), a third of the minimum wage of $4.5 in Mexico.
> 
> [/font] [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the Mexican diet, tortilla represents nearly half the total food consumption. Millions of Mexicans eat a daily dose of tacos, wrapping tortillas around various foods like beans and vegetables.[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The escalating price has hit many poor families hard. For many, tortilla is the main source of calories but they have been forced to stop buying it. Many tortilla outlets have been forced to shut down.
> ...
> [/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The government and economists also blame increased US production of ethanol as an alternative to oil for the price hike.[/font]



In the end, I fear, that ethanol from corn is just another of these environmentally toxic schemes required by law and funded with tax money (again) that is doing nothing for sustainability.

-BB


----------



## ikendu (Feb 6, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Since 1940, CO2 levels world wide are 27% higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. This is just a science fact based on observable measurements.

This just happens to correspond to the period where humans are hugely burning fossil fuels at a faster rate than ever before. I guess each person has to decide if this is human caused or not.

As for CO2 causing a "green house" effect. Bill is correct. Green houses keep warm by preventing heat loss from air flow. The world wide heat build up from CO2 in our atmosphere operates in a different manner.

See: http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm

CO2 does, however, cause heat build up in the Earth.


----------



## BB (Feb 6, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

One of the issues with CO2 is that, it appears, that it is a lagging phenomenon (at least for Antarctic de-glaciation by some 800 years--this paper suggests CO2 may be a leading indicator for Arctic warming--but summary does not state by how much)... I don't have access to the paper, but the summary says:

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III



> By: Nicolas Caillon,12* Jeffrey P. Severinghaus,2 Jean Jouzel,1Jean-Marc Barnola,3 Jiancheng Kang,4 Volodya Y. Lipenkov5





> The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age-ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (~240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.


 

Here are some more research summaries on CO2 as a lagging indicator from the Association of British Drivers _*(yea--I know--but there are links you can follow if you wish--unfortunately, the links are only to more detailed summaries--take them with a grain of salt--and I don't like that the summary of the *__*Caillon et.al paper left out the mention that CO2 was a suggested leading indicator in the Arctic*__*--my warning to watch out for disinformation from all sides of a debate)*_ that demonstrate that it is not clear at all that CO2 is a cause of warming conditions at all... In many cases, it appears to be a lagging indicator.

Anyway, here is a nice FAQ by Jan Schloerer (now about 10 years old) listing some of the estimates of CO2 sources and sinks and some other discussions about how changes in the atmosphere could affect climate. In this FAQ, there is information that one person's "Medieval Warm Period" may be another's cool period (warming and cooling patterns around the world appeared to be asyncornous to each other--with very little overall warming or cooling trends)...

 Again, I am not saying that is it OK to trash the planet--but there are many other issues (like stripping of vegetation, pollution, wars and such) that are demonstratively causing more problems now than just CO2 production from fossil fuels. Raising taxes on CO2 production/use ("1st world") and carbon trading schemes (with "3rd world")--so far--don't seem to be offering any real or practical solutions.

Again, just look at what three nations (China, India, and US) are going to be doing over the next 5 years to release more CO2 (5x new amounts of CO2 production from just coal fired power plants than Europe was planning on saving under Kyoto). And much of Europe is planning on decommissioning their current Nuclear plants for alternative forms of energy--Maybe they can get it from non-CO2 sources--or maybe not... Don't know.

Are we treading on new territory as Ikendu has referenced--in terms of recent geological history--it appears so. What will it cause--don't know.

But if recent history is any indication, generally humans do better in warming conditions than in cooling conditions... And given that we are at the end of a very long stable period of realitively warm climate--we appear to be due for a glaciation period (which is why a few decades ago Time had the coming Ice Age article)...

-Bill

PS: And to bookend the politics on this:

CNN: Gore says Bush administration paying scientists to dispute global warming


> MADRID , SPAIN (CNN) -- Former Vice President Al Gore said in an interview on Tuesday the Bush administration is now paying scientists to dispute global warming since the administration can no longer argue against it.
> 
> During an interview with CNN affiliate Cuatro in Madrid, Gore said, "they've lost the argument and they don't want to stop dumping all this pollution into the Earth's atmosphere. The only thing they have left is cash and now they're offering cash for so-called skeptics who will try to confuse people about what the science really say. But it's unethical because now the time has come when we have to act."


Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff


> In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.
> 
> “He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist,” Kulongoski said.
> 
> ...


State climatologist on opposite side of governor in court case


> Delaware's state climatologist has found himself in the middle of a political squall after taking skeptical stands on global warming and climate change -- in one case directly contradicting the state's own policy.
> 
> David R. Legates, a University of Delaware geography professor, co-wrote a "friend of the court" brief that opposed Delaware's position in a multi-state U.S. Supreme Court case.
> 
> In the appeal, state regulators argued that carbon dioxide from new cars should be regulated because of evidence the gas was contributing to rising global temperatures, climate shifts and changes in the environment. The Bush administration and industry critics opposed the demand, saying the dire warnings are unproven.


And, of course, there was Dr. Cullen from the weather channel last December saying this:


> Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.
> 
> I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political. But that's why talking about the science is so important!


----------



## James S (Feb 7, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

These threads are always full of really fascinating stuff! Those of us mostly reading as opposed to posting really do appreciate all the links to further reading that you guys do.

I was reading recently where China also has just recently contracted with Westinghouse for 4 really big nuclear reactors. Beyond just the CO2 emissions they have other reasons to want to get away from coal, the coal in china is in the north and most population is in the south and the coal tends to be highly contaminated with heavy metals and really bad things that are difficult and expensive to remove. There was a family that died of arsenic poisoning due to the stuff being released from the coal they were using in their cook tops.

Though I can't find the article now I was pretty sure I read that India also was contracting for big nuke plants. While I can't find any official US government info, if you look at the activity of private companies involved in that industry things are really booming here stateside. I hope that it's not just to build plants for other countries while the US builds new coal plants.


----------



## ikendu (Feb 7, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The more I read, the more I'm convinced that nuclear is not the solution to our energy needs. Mining uranium requires energy. If the concentration of uramium is low, you can require more energy to mine and concentrate the uranium than you get out of the ore in the first place (negative energy balance). I have read that the supply of sufficiently highly concentrated uranium ore will be exhausted in as little as 50 years.

Here is a lengthy (sorry) article:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/nuclear/WhyNuclearNotSustainable.htm

If we adopted plutonium cycle reactors, we could extend the life of nuclear power quite a lot. Althougth, refining and concentrating plutonium for such reactors (not an easy thing to do) creates a steady supply of weapons grade plutonium. The more we make, the greater the likihood of terrorists getting ahold of it and setting off a nuclear weapon. So... should we adopt plutonium cycle reactors?

As of this moment, I don't think so.

The only reason to do this would be our energy needs.

With conservation and efficiency, our needs can be less.

With solar and wind, we can meet all of our energy needs, even without conserving. The technology that holds us back is energy storage; the wind doesn't always blow when you need energy and the sun doesn't always shine.

We have workable storage technologies already. Abandoned caverns like salt mines can store compresssed air. Mountain areas can create artificial reservoirs and pump water uphill. ...and we are researching hydrogen as a storage medium.

Rather than spend a lot of money researching new nuclear power (for which the fuel is finite anyway), I have come to believe that we should instead research, incentivise and promote wind, solar and energy storage. This is the only solution on the horizon that is open ended. All other known technologies eventually "run out of gas".

Since we will have to switch eventually to wind and solar (we can include geothermal in that as well), why not get on with it? The technologies we need are here now and they work. Let's just do it.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 7, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I can't speak intelligently about the need for nuclear. It seems that, if done right, it will solve a lot of short term problems.

When people talk about solar or wind energy they tend to talk about needing huge storage systems to make the energy available when needed. They talk about storage dams and caverns and super capacitors and such. Much can be done at the individual residence.

I remember from the 70's a lot of easy (and cheap) ways to do solar heating on a per residence basis. The description of a rock based storage heating system at the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association was one of the simplest ways to store solar heat. A collector that's 8x8 warms air that warms rocks in the basement that then is used as a heat source for days.

A similarly sized collectior with a liquid heat transfer medium will heat the water for your water heater. You will need a larger tank to store the extra water, but it's been done.

With appropriate conservation, it's not too hard to create an electricity strorage system for an average residence. It does not have to meet 100% of a homes requirements in order to be useful. It can simply be sized to store whatever excess the house does not need. An inteligent power network could be designed so that it tells the individual home storage systems when to use the grid power and when save their energy for later, allowing the intelligent planning of central power plant operations. 

It seems we can adress the big complaint against solar and wind simply by making the storage local and the control central.

Daniel


----------



## James S (Feb 7, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

uranium and fast breeder reactors aren't the only viable choices, what about Thorium? Its is common and easy to mine and gets around many of the problems and dangers of uranium reactors, plus it MAKES uranium 

http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/

Maybe the strip mining industry needs to start manufacturing electric giant dump trucks...


----------



## Darell (Feb 16, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

If you guys haven't heard of or seen the KillaVolt electric drag bike, you REALLLY should.
http://www.killacycle.com/

0-60 in 1.4 seconds and an 8.76 second @ 145.44mph quarter mile. Do NOT miss the video at the bottom.


----------



## Brock (Feb 16, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Ok we are likely moving to within about 1.5 miles from my work. I plan to bike when possible, but since I often have to be in dress clothes at work sometimes that wont work. And I won't start on the weather up here, hard to bike in 6 inches of snow at -10F with a -40F wind chill.

Anyway this leads me to a plug in hybrid. So what is the word, I would only need about 3 miles of range with speeds under about 30 mph. What can the Prius do in "stealth" mode? Any news on a plug in Prius or any plug in regular people can buy?

Oh and the land we are looking at is 1.3 acres with a very nice southern exposure. I can finally get a larger array.


----------



## Darell (Feb 16, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Hey, that's great, Brock. Don't know what it has to do with drag bikes, but hey. 

A current Prius won't do anything for you. Even if it COULD make the 3 miles on battery you'd end up using more gas to recharge the thing than if you'd just operated it in normal hybrid mode. You'll get crappy mileage no matter WHAT ICE vehicle you were to drive that short distance - so as you point out a PHEV would be ideal for you. Andy ANY PHEV that comes out will have at least 10 mile range. Some (VOLT) are advertising 40. The reality will probably be 20 or so. All perfect for you use.

Toyota is in the best position to bring out the first PHEV. They won't say it, but of course they've been working on it from the beginning. Their cars are the only ones already designed to operate in pure EV mode from the factory - just without enough battery for (or the electronics to allow) any real range.

The next couple of years will be very exciting for PHEV. It is the single new technology that has unanimous support from the auto industry, policy makers, EV drivers, environmentalists - even the current administration!


----------



## Brock (Feb 16, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Because the drag bike would be to cold and not sure how it might handle the snow 

What is the range of the Prius in stealth mode? What is the speed you can get up to before the ICE kicks in 30 mph? What is the pack voltage? 

Not that I would do it, but some how figuring out a way to "top" off the batteries via grid/solar for my trips.

Now I will go look at your page and probably find all this on there


----------



## Darell (Feb 16, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Brock - but just think how fast you could cover those few miles!

The "range" of the Prius in EV mode is 1-3 miles. If you just crawl starting from a totally full battery, you can manage three miles. But unless you DO have external charging, you'll be doing more harm than good. Top speed in EV mode is 34mph.

Nobody has (or is likely GOING to) figued out a way to charge the little battery off-board. Tons of expense and hassle to gain a clean low-speed mile or two. Plus, if you're doing this in the terrible cold anyway, using the full-on heat with just battery power isn't gonna work. Even in EV mode, it'll defeat the mode and fire the ICE to keep up with the electrical demand AND to make heat. No free lunch with the Prius... until you add more batteries. And even then, you get a half-assed PHEV for way more money than a real one should cost from the factory.


----------



## Brock (Feb 16, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

heat... I don't get heat in the wagon right now on my 11 mile trip. Seriously I leave the setting to cold and the fan on 1 on defrost to keep the windshield from freezing over. This helps the engine up to temp faster which gets me better mileage, even with that I am lucky to hit 180F when I get home, even if I leave it on warm and fan off I won’t hit 150F. All of this with a 100% grill block, being in the car for 25 minutes at 0F is darn cold. So I could live without heat for just over a mile 
I am not sure why it would be hard to externally charge the batteries. Are they Li or ??? If they are NiMH it shouldn’t be to hard, just making sure you have the correct charging details. Although if the SOC on the batteries is tracked by the ECU (power in and out) and it gets an external charge and confuses the ECU I can see how you could run in to problems.


----------



## ikendu (Feb 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

How about buying a ZENN?







http://www.zenncars.com/specifications/specs_index.html


----------



## Darell (Feb 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Brock said:


> I am not sure why it would be hard to externally charge the batteries. Are they Li or ??? If they are NiMH it shouldn’t be to hard, just making sure you have the correct charging details. Although if the SOC on the batteries is tracked by the ECU (power in and out) and it gets an external charge and confuses the ECU I can see how you could run in to problems.


It is mostly hard relative to the gain - How much are you really willing to spend to get about 1KWh in there? And you have to fight the Battery ECU. Not something trivial for sure.


----------



## Brock (Feb 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

My problem is we have two vehicles right now and unfortunately what ever I get will likely replace the wagon TDI, can't afford to have three. So what ever we get also has to be able to take at least two people 120+ miles at a pop when I travel for work. And my wife has to keep the van currently getting about 23 mpg with 4 kids and the two of us.

I have a feeling I will get either an electric assisted bike or an electric scooter and keep the TDI for now.


----------



## Darell (Feb 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Brock -

Yeah, I totally understand. My next car will replace the Prius, so needs to have 150 mile range (or "unlimited" in the case of a PHEV). The good news is that I'm in no hurry. Skip the scooter/assisted bike though. If it is nice enough to be "exposed" it is nice enough for you to power the thing manually!


----------



## TIP AND RING (Feb 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Still about a quarter of the way through this threads original starting point. Great info abounds. Thanks to EVERYONE who is contributing info and experience. Please don't stop sharing information or posting.


----------



## ikendu (Feb 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Since I write from home now, a ZENN for my wife's two mile commute down the road to her librarian job would work fine and we'd keep the BioDiesel VW Golf for longer trips. Although, I'm loathe to give up our Miata (worth about $6000) in trade for a $12,000 ZENN that can only go 25 mph. When the weather is nice, she can walk. But when the day is -11F and -27F wind chill, that two mile walk down an exposed hill with no sidewalk can be pretty dangerous.

I've been wanting to convert the Miata to electric drive. Although, all of the Miatas I've seen converted on the web use lead-acid and DC motors. I'd want to use an AC motor and the cool new batteries like A123. Seems like what I need is always "just around the corner". The two books I bought (and read) on conversions were all about DC motors and mechanical transmissions. Plus... although I'm an engineer, I'm no mechanic.


----------



## idleprocess (Feb 18, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



ikendu said:


> How about buying a ZENN?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great. An NEV. Remind me to get excited because I always forget whenever I hear about these. 'Might be useful for those errands around your gated community, but with less than enough range for the average commute and not highway-capable _(nevermind not being fast enough for the average city street)_, I expect the appeal will continue to be limited.

NEVs have their place and may even become the platform of choice for commuting in a future where sprawling suburbia has been abandoned and the urban core is revitalized with most convenienced within walking/biking distance and the "far-flung" being no more than 10-15 miles away ... but for most Americans, that day is not here.


----------



## Darell (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

City cars are where it's at. The Ford Th!ink was an awesome little thing. 50mph and about 40 miles of range. You can do ANYTHING short of the highway in those, and that's most of our urban driving. For the most part, I agree with you regarding NEVs, unfortunately. I can get places faster and safer on my bicycle.


----------



## BB (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Ran across this site (mentioned in Solar Guppy's forum) for www.sunpower.com and looking around, found an interesting solar calculator... Sunpower currently uses Xantrex GT series inverters and Sunpower's 22% efficient panels (for smaller foot-prints).

SunPower Solar Calculator

I ran through the solar calculator, and if you have no shade--the numbers seem to be pretty consistent with my experience (my 3,500 watt panels produce about 10% less than predicted by my installer and by this program--possibly some morning/evening shading issues). I checked the numbers with my E7 PG&E TOU rate plan and it predicted a -$192. I actually got a -$285 credit (yes I sold more power than I consumed)--Overall the numbers seem to be pretty accurate--the differences are that my bill is not $600 per year, but closer to $500 per year..

Even though the program is biased towards Sunpower's solution--it does appear to have pretty good list of options you can play with (roof pitch, E,SE,S,SW,W, both flat and TOU residential rate plans by utility, and location in US by ZIP or State/City). A few of the views (like power generated) you have to pay attention when you generate more than you buy in some months--the power generated ends up in two columns and you have to add them back together to see total power available from Solar.

Looks like a very good product for doing what-if comparisons.

One word of warning--I compared San Mateo and Pacifica for power generated and got the same results (cities are only 10 miles apart)... However San Mateo is a very sunny/warm climate behind a coastal mountain range--and depending on where you are at, Pacifica can have weather close to San Mateo's or go entire summers without sun depending on where in the city you live.

So, if you live in a coastal marine area or have other local weather issues--I would take the numbers with a big grain of salt.

For example, $600 per year electric bill, 3,500 watts of panels SE facing 30 degree roof pitch, San Mateo CA:

E1 rate plan: -$79 over 1 year (flat rate residential)
E6 rate plan: -$84 (new TOU with partial peaks to 9pm and weekend PP too)
E7 rate plan: -$192 (old TOU with peaks Noon to 6pm Monday-Friday)

It is pretty interesting to play with and seems to support those complex TOU (Time Of Use)/Tiered rate plans

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Good link to the solar calc, Bill. I actually added that to my solar page for when I need it next!

Here's a nice little video on the Tesla:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFVg_xEGYno


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Thanks for the calc link. That may be all I need to convince the wife.


On an unrelated note....

The feds have reworked the EPA estimated mileage. I looked up my car since I have a good idea of it's actual gas usage. The new figures appear to be skewed as far UNDER the real MPG as the old ones were above.

I wish they'd just lay out a course and have the cars drive it for two weeks. LA to SF and back a few times, with 3 days driving in each city from 8 to 5, with the balance of the time doing 3 mile trips to grocery stores every 2 hours. That should provide a fairly homoginized replication of real life. 



The link to the new figures is here:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectEngine.jsp?year=2002&make=Toyota&model=Prius


Daniel


----------



## AndyTiedye (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The combined figure for the Prius (46) matches my best-ever tankful with the car, well over a year ago.
Best in the past year has been 44. Have they changed the gas again?
We did not see the improvement with "break-in" that others have reported.
More recently, it's been 42.

There are 4 other Priuses in our little mountain community, and all of us are
getting around 42 now. "Mountain" may be the key word here.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Hi Andy,

I suspect that you suffer from a geographical anomaly. If you live near a peak, then your engine runs (to heat the engine) during the first 5 minutes of the drive even though gravity should be able to do most of the work as you head down hill. My engine is usually off as I go down hills. 

I find that there is a penalty for climbing hills, but I recapture most of that by coasting down the other side. I'm betting that your community isn't getting to do that since you stop near the top.

My best ever tank exceeded 50 MPG ( I don't remember by how much) but was mostly freeway here in the bay area. I've had two (or was it 3) tanks that were as low as the new combined milage (41 MPG) , and that's in 50,000 miles of driving. Those low MPG tanks were attributed to leaving my wife in the car (broken ankle) with the AC running while I shopped.

It should be interesting to see the fallout from this. According to the EPA figures, my truck's estimated MPG fell about 15% (from 15 to 13) and so did the Prius ( from 48 to 41).


Daniel


----------



## Brock (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Wholly cow they went down. My car was rated 42/49 and now it's 35/45. Luckily my worst ever tank was 45.69 with my life time at 54.40. Make me feel like I am beating the odds even more


----------



## Darell (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Yeah, this is great. Now I'm absolutely stomping the EPA numbers where as before I was just making them. Lifetime average of 52mpg after a year. And yes, that INCLUDES driving at freeway speeds with cargo boxes, kayaks and bicycles on the roof!


----------



## AndyTiedye (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> Hi Andy,
> 
> I suspect that you suffer from a geographical anomaly. If you live near a peak, then your engine runs (to heat the engine) during the first 5 minutes of the drive even though gravity should be able to do most of the work as you head down hill. My engine is usually off as I go down hills.



It's at least 3 or 4 minutes to get to the hill, and at least 10 minutes down.
The warm-up period is longer than 5 minutes though.



> I find that there is a penalty for climbing hills,



You can see the MPG for the ENTIRE TANK going down, down, down,
losing another .1 every few seconds. Even climbing that hill at 25 mph
sucks so much gas. Instantaneous mileage frequently drops into single
digits.

but I recapture most of that by coasting down the other side. I'm betting that your community isn't getting to do that since you stop near the top.



> My best ever tank exceeded 50 MPG ( I don't remember by how much) but was mostly freeway here in the bay area.



I do not get 50 mpg on the freeway at all, unless it is downhill.



> I've had two (or was it 3) tanks that were as low as the new combined milage (41 MPG)



Do you have the Prius I (pre-2004)? That's what the 41 figure is for.
The newer ones are supposed to get 46 by the new ratings.

My Escape Hybrid is now rated 28-26, which seems pretty close.
We were getting closer to 29, sometimes better, on long trips the
first year we had it, but the mileage has dropped a bit on that vehicle
as well, corresponding with the changeover from MTBE to E10 in California.

Our old Civic Del Sol gets about 38, which is about the same as the OLD
EPA figure for it. Perhaps being a lighter vehicle means it doesn't have to
burn so much fuel going up the hill.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I have a friend in SF whose wife commutes to Alameda in an 06 Prius. He says they are getting 50 + MPG.

Yes, Andy, mine's an 02. It was parked 4 spaces from yours at lunch the other day. As posted before, when I drive a constant speed between 55 and 63 MPH I seem to get the absolute best milage. By the time I hit 75 (on I-5) the milage drops to 46 - 48 range. 

One of the things that keeps the house my milage down is my habit of getting a cup of coffee at the start of just about every trip. The coffee place is only 3/4 mile from my house. It's a drive-thru so the engine idles even though I'm not going anywhere.

I'm not sure why your freeway MPG is not higher. Have you tried resetting the MPG calculator as you get on the freeway to see how low it is at various speeds? I've done that on occasion, and was surprised by some of the results.

Daniel


----------



## AndyTiedye (Feb 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I'd say your freeway mileage is 15-20% better than mine.

At 55, I'll get 45 mpg on a good day. At 75, 41-42.

I have a low-bin Prius.


----------



## Brock (Feb 26, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

LOL, isn't not greenish yellow in color is it


----------



## Darell (Feb 26, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The tie-die tint is to be expected. My guess is just a high Vf.


----------



## Darell (Feb 27, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*







Who'd have thunk? Two plug-in cars on display in front of the White House. This picture from last Friday.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Darn, two plugins! What's the truck?



Is there any significance to the fact that the extension cords to the cars are NOT coming from the white house? 

 Just funnin folks!

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Feb 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The truck is the Phoenix Li-ion jobbie that Ed Bagley has been touting. Full-on towing-capable truck with 150 mile range and "lifetime" batteries.

I think Al Gore is off to stage right pedalling a generator.


----------



## Darell (Feb 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Here's a nice little EV article in the big news.... with some great videos too!
http://www.wnbc.com/news/11126830/detail.html?dl_trayclick

Best quote: When asked "Is battery technology a problem for you?" The answer was, "Battery technology is enabling us." Beautiful!


----------



## Brock (Feb 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I thought the cords ran over to a loud 15kw gas genset pouring out gobs of co2 and Nox


----------



## Darell (Mar 1, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Well, here's something you can buy for under $20k if you like going far on CNG.
http://eco-fueler.com/


----------



## BB (Mar 1, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Looks like a CNG VW Bug (old bug) conversion (think dune buggy with fiberglass body converted to a trike)... Are they using new VW Engines/Chassis from Brazil (if there are any)--or just getting old bugs and doing a chop/rebuild/conversion?

Much of the website is just about one of the founder's patent for a home sized CNG compressor.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Mar 1, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I know NOTHING about this thing except that Vanity Fair listed it is "The FIRST production Hydrogen vehicle on the market." Subtitle was that it can also run on CNG. Turns out that it ONLY runs on CNG, of course.


----------



## Darell (Mar 16, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

A pretty good interview with Rick of Commutercars (Tango).
http://www.podtech.net/home/technology/2362/a-tango-of-a-different-sort


----------



## Wolfen (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Compressed air car. http://www.gizmag.com/go/7000/


----------



## Darell (Mar 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Wolfen said:


> Compressed air car. http://www.gizmag.com/go/7000/


The concept has been around for quite some time. These things are LOUD! And so far they haven't proven to be practical out in the wilds. That pesky energy input from first compressing the air tends to be a bugger. I don't want to rain on any alt-fuel parade... yet the way these things are typically "marketed" by the "inventors" is nothing short of over-the-top. One guy hints at using the "air motor' to also compress more air so it'll run in a perpetual motion cycle. :sigh:


----------



## James S (Mar 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

re-compress the air?! lol lol lol!!!

And as far as being safe... anybody that has ever seen what happens to a scuba tank that fails knows there is nothing safe about very highly compressed air...

googling scuba tank explosion yields plenty of really great photos and some wonderful quotes like this: "The explosive potential in a fully charged 80cf aluminum SCUBA cylinder is approximately 1,300,000 foot pounds -- enough to lift a typical fire department hook-and-ladder truck over 60 feet in the air!"

I'll take batteries with a nice big fuse between each one so that any shorts during an accident are quickly isolated thank you...


----------



## idleprocess (Mar 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I suspect that the one place we're likely to see compressed-air vehicles is big assembly plants and other places where they have air compressors all over the place and enough compressor capacity to "recharge" these vehicles - likely quite frequently. Of course, these things had better run for some time off of 120PSI or whatever (relatively) low pressure is common for industrial air compressors that power air tools. Don't think that installing a 5000PSI air compressor is a trivial thing, nor do I think that air compressors are particularly efficient (neither are air tools from what I've gathered).


----------



## Darell (Mar 20, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



idleprocess said:


> I suspect that the one place we're likely to see compressed-air vehicles is big assembly plants and other places where they have air compressors all over the place and enough compressor capacity to "recharge" these vehicles - likely quite frequently. Of course, these things had better run for some time off of 120PSI or whatever (relatively) low pressure is common for industrial air compressors that power air tools. Don't think that installing a 5000PSI air compressor is a trivial thing, nor do I think that air compressors are particularly efficient (neither are air tools from what I've gathered).


Idle -

Ain't nothin' gonna run off 120PSI! You can fire a nail and spin a wrench with that. Moving a car is a whole 'nuther ball of wax.

And in all this discussion of compressors, please keep in the back of your mind that this is currently what H2 FCV's require as well. AFTER first making, storing, and transporting the stuff. THEN you need to compress the hell out of it for any sort of energy density. This "bit" if extra energy needed for compressing the gas is so often ignored as trivial. Yet it becomes quite significant when you realize that just the energy used for compressing the gas would allow an EV to travel the same number of miles as the FCV - but without consuming any more "fuel."


----------



## Darell (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Hey guys. My birthday is coming up, and if you want to do something less obvious than a Tesla (red, please) then I'd also be happy with one of these. Maybe even happier. 
http://www.aerorider.com/


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Re: Darell's birthday present:

I have to wonder if that would be comfortable after pedaling a little while in the central valley sun? 

I'm still hoping for a reasonably priced short range EV car that can be used for around town and yet still handle the 5 mile trip on the freeway to get to the next town. It can be single passenger as long as there is room for 3 grocery bags.

One can wish, no?

Daniel


----------



## ledlurker (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Zebra's (3 wheeled electric cars) are being sold in Austin, TX. The 20 mile range and the top speed of 40 is a real limiting issue though. We are considering one for the mother in law. She thinks it would work for her.


----------



## Darell (Apr 6, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Here is a fantastic little video on the Japanese electric Eliica. The car was built in 2004, and I've seen several vids on it - but this one has a great message and good footage.
http://www.japanjournal.jp/video/0703_Eliica_300k.wmv


----------



## Brock (Apr 6, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Why 8 wheels? Seems that would make it more complicated and they say they want to make it as simple as possible especially with four at the front turning together.


----------



## Darell (Apr 6, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

You'll have to brush up on your Japanese and ask them. One reason I heard was for astonishing handling. Hub motors in all those wheels. Imagine the directional traction that would afford with all those powered, steerable wheels. Yeow. I know that they get the power to the pavement really well like this. In the X1 that does 0-60 in three seconds, it is severely limited in rear wheel traction. Give it a second (or third or fourth) set of tires on the pavement, and you can wack another second off that time!

I quite agree that the complication seems WAY too high in that area!


----------



## Darell (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Woo-hoo! Autoweek test the ACP E-box.

link


----------



## ikendu (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

That link gave me this message:

We're sorry, but the page you requested is no longer available or not found on our server.


----------



## Darell (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Works better now, I think (hope).


----------



## BB (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Reads like a really nice vehicle (regardless of fuel)... Now, to reduce that $70,000 price and--I don't know--but I am still not quite sure of the reliability of 5,000+ LiIon cells. But if they can get 3-5 years of life from the battery pack (cost?)--then they must have the (battery construction) process down pat.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The only way to produce reliable packs is to build them... and test them... and stop using the parts that don't work. 

As for price, this is what I just wrote on another board:
Oh, I won't pretend that you're wrong! There's simply no magic wand to wave and make it better though. Same with Tesla, same with CommuterCars, etc. You can't build these from scratch and charge the customer 30% of what they cost you to build... and hope to stay in business. Unless, that is, you are a huge company that can absorb start-up costs... like Toyota had to do with the Prius. We have to find a way to get the build numbers up so that the scales of economy can finally lend a hand and help all of us... like Toyota did with the Prius (I'm not being too subtle here, am I?) 

The overall goal for right now is to show it can be done, show that the cars are viable, and show that the auto industry can (and should) do this! What pains me is that if this all works - thanks to the little guys taking the big risks today... then those same little guys may very well end up losing to the big guys who come after and take the market with instant economies of scale. The little guys will have to stay ahead with better performance, and cutting edge technology.

If an unknown company like Tesla can pre-sell 300 impractical, $100,000 cars with just a hope and prayer, you really do have to wonder what the numbers would look like for a practical mass-produced-by-the-big-guys car at $45k. Especially now that the public is just on the cusp of being aware of the actual BENEFITS of e-drive, after being spoon fed all the negatives for 12 years. The car makers just love to tell us that there is "no market" for EVs. And yet no mainstream EV has ever been marketed! So that's a pretty big stretch!

Even this eBox review trashed the EV1 with misinformation. But that's the nature of the beast, and the EV1 is behind us. As long as we begin to concentrate on what is available and possible NOW, we'll be in good shape.


----------



## ikendu (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The hard part about EVs is the frustration waiting for a mass production manufacturer to start the evolution process that will get us inexpensive (relative to life time operating cost), reliable, field tested EVs that mere mortals can afford.

I was just reading a nice article on the early engineering of the Tesla (in this issue of E environment magazine). 

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3623&src=

How they are experimenting with how to cool the battery pack, etc. 

ICEs have had decades of experience on how to mass produce every last aspect of the vehicle. Kudos to California for jump starting the zero emissions mandate. I wish them well with re-tooling the mandate for carbon emissions.


----------



## BB (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I probably would buy one of these in the $30-$40k range without much delay.

And, I agree, that it would not make sense for the manufacturer to sell them at a loss. And, that one would hope a company like Toyota, Honda, and GM that have actually produced electric and/or electric hybrids for a while would think that selling a car for $40k would give it a try...

But, I still wonder if the killing of EV's is still a world wide government conspiracy (and I am not one to believe in conspiracies)... Even with the hybrid's and just smaller cars in general, I keep reading from various government spokes people that they are getting killed from loss of tax revenues.

I have a sneaking suspicion that we won't see a big push (by governments) for EV's until they have us "chipped" with mandatory GPS units and download infrastructure (that does not use gas stations for downloads). Problem is that the state would need to know if a GPS was hacked or by-passed--so every road would need a toll/transponder/camera system and tax police to enforce the E-Road-Tax... 

That is why we see the (IMHO) the massive Hydrogen Fuel fraud being pushed by the government and press. Other than a (virtually) guaranteed non-consumer bypass-able fuel source--It is a high cost method of generating power (fuel cells, can't use regular steel/iron pipes--must use stainless steal to prevent hydrogen embrittlement, most likely huge amounts of hydrogen leaks from everywhere--hydrogen being the smallest molecule is the hardest to seal against leaks).

If they were after a clean cheap gaseous fuel that works with very little new technology required (currently, the cheapest source of hydrogen seems to be from using Natural Gas as a feed stock)--natural gas would seem to be a "natural". But--since a person can just buy an (not-cheap) natural gas compressor for their home to fuel their cars--it would be an easy system to bypass in terms of road taxes.

How is that reasoning for a non-professional conspiracy nut?

-Bill


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I don't think that it's accurate to say that they would have to sell the E-BOX at %30 of it's cost to build. They just have to do the same as any other manufacturer, and not try to recoup the R&D costs with the early models. Are they really putting $50,000 worth of parts in the E-BOX? I sort of doubt it. Are they putting $50,000 of labor into it? That's 9 man months for an average mechanic. They might, but if that's the case then they have not worked out the jigs, looms, etc that make a process practical.

If the goal is simply to build public awareness, then the backers of the product should have the E-BOX sell at the prices that would be possible with mass production. That would build customer demand, which would then allow more investors to see the light and it would REALLY kick start the industry.

BTW, It's been reported that the Prius was never sold under cost, per examinations of the the Toyota financial records. I saw news conferences from Toyota spokes people in 2002 that stated that the Prius had finally recouped all R&D and tooling costs. That tells me the car was selling for MORE than it cost to manufacture. Very few cars will recoup the cost of R&D plus the cost of building assembly lines in the first year or two.

But the point is; Anyone can build an expensive, limited production, one-off car. The big car makers do it every year. Inventors do it all the time. Backyard mechanics do it daily. If they want to build a car to change the paradigm, they have to make it practical AND affordable.

Daniel


----------



## BB (Apr 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I don't thing anyone has posted this yet:

Popular Mechanics May 2007 Plug-In Hybrid Article:

Not too much hard information the article.... Looks like GM is aiming for around 2010 for a plug-in hybrid or other gas engine generator / hydrogen fuel cell (hydrogen--i don't think so) hybrid. Toyota may hit 2009 with theirs.

Currently around $1,000 per kWhr for the battery (10+ kWhrs for a pure electric vehicle seems to give nice range--Puris is a bit over 1 kWhr). May drop by 1/2 in volume. Perhaps even to $300 a watt if they are lucky (and smart).

They think the current US Electrical Grid could power up to 73% of light duty vehicles and cut oil use by 1/3.

-Bill


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

This month's Popular Science magazine has a similar bent. It's the "Cars of the future" issue.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> How is that reasoning for a non-professional conspiracy nut?
> 
> -Bill


Pretty darn good, Bill!

Yes, the CNG situation is the ultimate argument-ended for Hydrogen in my mind. Just use the CNG directly, and you're better off. And yes, there are MANY reasons why EVs are shunned - not so many of them are the practical reasons that so many drivers assume (and have been spoon-fed).


----------



## Darell (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> I don't think that it's accurate to say that they would have to sell the E-BOX at %30 of it's cost to build.


By "cost to build" I meant cost to build profitably. And that, just about by definition, means "sales price."



> They just have to do the same as any other manufacturer, and not try to recoup the R&D costs with the early models.


A tiny little company with severely limited capital simply cannot do this - or compete with the "other manufacturers" with deep pockets.



> Are they really putting $50,000 worth of parts in the E-BOX? I sort of doubt it. Are they putting $50,000 of labor into it?


What they're doing is putting $50k of parts PLUS labor into it. If they felt they could sell for less while remaining solvent, I'm confident that they would.



> If the goal is simply to build public awareness, then the backers of the product should have the E-BOX sell at the prices that would be possible with mass production.


This is not ACP's goal. They can't afford to be that altruistic. It is MY goal. I should have said that better. The following part that I mentioned about if this goal is realized, the little guys will be forced out - was the telling part.



> That would build customer demand, which would then allow more investors to see the light and it would REALLY kick start the industry.


If we're already subsidizing the big auto makers to "kick start" the hydrogen industry - why must the little guys struggle with starting the battery industry on their own? Makes no sense.



> BTW, It's been reported that the Prius was never sold under cost, per examinations of the the Toyota financial records.


Yeah, I've seen it all over the map. Where do you start counting, and how far out to you amortize the development costs? I mean the very first one off the line would have to sell for $1billion or so if they expected to never sell one "under cost."



> That tells me the car was selling for MORE than it cost to manufacture.


Cost to mfg is WAY different than the cost to develop. And a company like Toyota can spread that huge cost out over hundreds of thousands (millions!) of cars. Tesla might have 100. 500? HUGE difference. 



> Very few cars will recoup the cost of R&D plus the cost of building assembly lines in the first year or two.


Exactly! And this is the big difference between being a little, under-funded company and a huge one that can swing those losses for several years.



> If they want to build a car to change the paradigm, they have to make it practical AND affordable.


Probably true. The question is "how?" The product not only has to be affordable - the company must remain solvent.


----------



## cy (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

what about availability of lithium? to support all these upcoming electric/hybrid vehicles tonnage of lithium needed would need to radically jump. 

Zebra batteries? what's the feasibility? 
lead/acid is too heavy, but cells based upon other plentiful metals (not lithium) could be a factor. 

seems the simplest idea of using tiny diesel motors as used all over Europe has been pretty overlooked. those folks were paying $2 gal fuel when we were paying $.50 gal here in US. 

now folks in UK highest recorded fuel so far is 485 pence to imp gal. that $10 per imp gal. 

thanks to current administration for allowing mergers of super colossus oil companies. business logic dictates if they can charge that much over there... why can't they do the same here in US?


----------



## Darell (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



cy said:


> what about availability of lithium? to support all these upcoming electric/hybrid vehicles tonnage of lithium needed would need to radically jump.


The limited supply of Li is certainly being discussed, and is a concern. Yet if we assume that EV acceptance will follow the same rate of hybrid acceptance (which is likely a very generous assumption) then we have enough time to develop entirely new battery chemistries before the limited supply becomes a big issue. It didn't take us long to go from lead-acid, to Ni-Cad, to NiMH to Li. For right now Li-ion holds the most promise. I don't think it'll be the end-game, however!




> thanks to current administration for allowing mergers of super colossus oil companies.


Best to stay away from that here on CPF proper. Lots of room for it in the UG!


----------



## evan9162 (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Darell,

How are your Rav4's batteries holding up? You've had it for 4 or 5 years now, correct?


----------



## Darell (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Howdy -

In December of this year, we'll have owned the Rav for five years, and we've averaging about 10k miles/year on it (though we actually put more on it than that - there were a few times when we had THREE cars here with two drivers (EV1, Ranger EV) so the miles on the Rav were dilluted during those times. Today the Rav has about 45k miles. Tires look like they're good for another 45k, the brakes show hardly any wear. It has never had an oil change or tuneup. The AC system has been the one thorn in my side since the beginning, but apparently I'm a special case! Most work great. And when mine is working right, it is AMAZING. But I digress.

My range today is the same as it was back in 2002 when we bought the car. I still consistenly exceed 100 miles easily. But that's not the big story here. The big story is the owners who have more than 2x as many miles as I do in the same period of time! Yup, the privately-owned Rav4EV 100k mile club! And these guys report the same thing regarding batteries. No replacements, and still seeing better than 100 miles range.

First, if you haven't scanned the owner's gallery, have a look:
http://evnut.com/rav_owner_gallery.htm

Then boogie over to the 100k mile club:
http://evnut.com/rav_owner_100k.htm

And read the stories. Avi (last on the list) had a great write-up (Toronto Star) on his experience:http://evnut.com/docs/Avi_story.htm

Today Avi has about 130k miles on his private vehicle.

The Fleet vehicles (many of them eleven years old now!) have over 160k miles on them, and they too, are still showing "like new" range.

Nobody - certainly not Toyota - ever expected these batteries to be so durable. So... here we have 10-year, 150k batteries... and the industry line is STILL, "we're waiting for the batteries."


----------



## Darell (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The Tesla in Vanity Fair.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/tesla200705

Right up Daniel's alley with this quote about the eBox:
"Musk sighed when he heard the conversion would cost at least $45,000. "Who wants to take an ugly $20,000 car and buy it for $65,000? That's not a very viable strategy. "


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Popular Science (popsci) featured cars of the future this month. Unfortunately, they made it a mixture of amateur concepts that could not work (for example a circular 1 person car with no ground clearance) and concept cars that don't work (the Chevy Volt, for which there is no battery available to fulfill their performance claims) along with things that really do work. My fear is that the average person would be confused as to which is which.

The article on the Tesla was rather well done. They underplayed the recent advancements in Li-Ion technology, but that was not too surprising. I like the behind the scenes interviews with the people behind the Tesla.

In the same issue is a write-up on the "smart", an 8 foot long sub compact that is very popular in Europe. The car is going to be marketed in the US as a gas powered commuter car. Strangely, they will be making it longer and with a bigger engine for the US market. I'm not sure why you need more power to run down a freeway at a constant speed or when driving in stop and go traffic.

The smart diesel is the most popular in Europe, and it gets 60 MPG. The mileage that the pop sci folks got in their 1,800 mile drive was lower than I get in my Prius. To be fair, they were often exceeding the speed limit, and I stay at the speed limit, so that may have accounted for some terrible (38 MPG???) economy.

They also had an article on the Honda Civic powered by Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). The addition of a residential compressor allowed it to be filled at home overnight from the house natural gas lines. I noticed a few gotchas... The trunk is filled with the 3600 PSI fuel tank. The compressor has to run 16 hours to fill the tank. The neighborhood the author lives in did not have the capacity to meet the needs of the compressor when there was increased demand (home furnaces) during cold spells. This was corrected by upgrading the gas feed to his neighborhood (IIRC) but I don't see this as a positive thing. I was left with the feeling that the natural gas infrastructure in a normal neighborhood would not be able to support multiple residential CNG compressors.

All in all they had some decent info to go with the nonsense.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Apr 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> I was left with the feeling that the natural gas infrastructure in a normal neighborhood would not be able to support multiple residential CNG compressors.


Interestingly enough, the electricity load required to run the compressor is no trivial thing either. Similar to compressing hydrogen for a FCV - the energy needed just to compress the NG would drive an EV more than half the miles that the CNG would take the car... and of course that is without first consuming any of the NG! NG is cheap and relatively clean. Compared to H2, it is a real winner as a fuel - but it still doesn't get into the tanks for free.


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I jiust hopped over to Darell's page, and say that there is an electric car available! The sparrow is now on sale for $25,000. I would love one for those quick around town trips I make so often. It took a while to find the size of the "storage area". It's 6 cu feet, 1 cu foot more than the European "smart" model. 

I don't often have a need to go places without buying something or dropping something off, so the storage is an issue. 6 cu ft is roughly 3 grocery bags, and that's enough for most quick trips. If I buy more than that my wife wants to help shop  so we'd take the Prius.

Thanks for the pointer Darell.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (May 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Daniel -

I was pretty happy when somebody else pointed out to me that I should STOP telling everybody that you can't buy an EV today. That comment led to the creation of the Available EVs page. Nowhere near complete, of course - but I add to it when I find something interesting.

While a bit rougher around the edges, used Sparrows can be found for FAR less than a new NMG. They're the same basic cars. The new ones do have some nice battery management improvements, though I'm not sure it is $10k worth! Tough business to be in right now, and I wish them the best.


----------



## Darell (May 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

So in other news, I just came across this article. Last week there was an gaoline tanker truck crash near the Bay Bridge in the SF Bay area. The thing burned for hours and exploded, collapsing the roadway above the incident and severely damaging the road below.

Anyway, I found this follow-up article to be worth a read.
safety of using gasoline


----------



## BB (May 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Just a Solar Update for those in California... Here are the details as posted in the Wind-Sun Solar forum (Brock is there quite a bit, I followed him, and Hi to to new member Darell!). You may have to join (no spam from Wind-Sun) to read the posts.

California changes Grid-Tied Metering Options...again

Basically, a few months ago California forced all new Solar Grid-Tied systems (solar panels connected to an inverter tied directly to the utility mains--no batteries and turns your meter backwards--actually a very good deal for people with solar) to only use a Time Of Use metered rate (probably E6 for Northern California PG&E) and prevented people from connecting with their old flat rate metering (E1 is typical).

Problems are a few--

1. If you start with a relatively small system, your electric rates are much higher than the E1 rates except for 10pm to 6am. So--installing solar could actually increase your bill unless you use most of your power between 10pm and 6am.

2. E6 is a very complex rate scheme--Three rate times (off peak, partial peak, peak), weekends rate times are different than weekday rates, Two seasons have different rates/rate times. Very difficult to even guess how your energy usage/generation will affect your bill (save money or cost you money).

3. E7 TOU rate was quite good for solar (peak rates from noon-6pm, weekends were all off peak). Simple to understand and relatively easy to work around to offset power to off-peak times. E7 has been allowed to some new grid-tied solar users--for a limited time (I think).

Anyway, from the articles, the confusion caused by this has killed 3/4 of the solar installation volume "over night" and was causing installers to layoff people and consider leaving the business...

The Gov-erminator is (apparently) working to fix this mess...

Just goes to show you how "fragile" this green/solar market is to government whims.



Mike said:


> CA Solar Use Falling Because of Economics
> http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/09/1241243
> 
> Rebate rule chills sales of solar
> ...



-Bill

PS: Looks like the LA Times story is available for free--you just sign up, use www.bugmenot.com for a spam-free login and password.


----------



## ikendu (May 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Darell, this page with available EVs is awesome! Thanks so much for pulling that all together!


----------



## BB (May 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Hmmm.... Might have to drive up by Santa Rosa and drop in to see the Zap/Xebra.

Darell (and others). Any feed back on the current car for reliability and its ability to climb hills (city streets)? There is a note on the Zap website that talks about an optional high power controller for hilly areas.

Also, other electric car news... Another issue where regulations are followed by electric car vendors, only to have governments get ready to perform an about-face... In this case, a small car is licensed as a motorcycle and, suprise, it does not crash test well.

Celebrity green car is declared unsafe:


> An electric car beloved of green-minded celebrities and promoted as the environmentally friendly alternative for city drivers may be banned after failing a basic crash test carried out by the Department for Transport. The Government is so concerned by the lack of protection offered by the G-Wiz that it rushed out a statement last night stating that it was urgently seeking a review of the European regulations covering the sale of the cars.
> 
> The tiny car, made in Bangalore, India, has enjoyed a recent surge in popularity in London because it is exempt from the congestion charge and parking fees in dozens of car parks.
> ...
> ...


I am not sure that I am with the government on this one of banning the vehicle--but I am sure that some basic crash testing and improvements can probably be made over time without killing the car.

This is a very eye-opening comment on the expense of living in London:


> — The starting price is now about £7,000
> 
> — GoinGreen, the company that imports the G-Wiz to Britain, says drivers could save up to £8,000 a year in London, due to fuel savings of up to £1,000, exemption from road tax and free or discounted parking


-Bill


----------



## AndyTiedye (May 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

How much does a monthly pass for the Underground cost these days?


----------



## IlluminatingBikr (May 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Does anybody remember where the chart showing the efficiency of hydrogen vs. battery electric technology is? It had the efficiency of each stage of production/usage, as well as the overall efficiency.

I'm doing a report on BEV technology for my economics class, and I would really like to be able to include the chart in my presentation.


----------



## Darell (May 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Just catching up!



BB said:


> Basically, a few months ago California forced all new Solar Grid-Tied systems (solar panels connected to an inverter tied directly to the utility mains--no batteries and turns your meter backwards--actually a very good deal for people with solar) to only use a Time Of Use metered rate (probably E6 for Northern California PG&E) and prevented people from connecting with their old flat rate metering (E1 is typical).
> 
> Problems are a few--




The big problem here.... THIS ISN'T the big problem that needs fixing! This is not why business has dropped significantly. The reason for that is the insane requirements for the new rebate system. What used to take us under two hours to apply for, now takes eight hours. We now have to charge the customer to submit for the rebate - we simply cannot swallow those hours. The customer is not too happy to have to pay to get his rebate! AS far as I'm concerned EVERYBODY should be on TOU, not just solar customers. This was a fix waiting for a problem. :sigh:


----------



## Darell (May 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



ikendu said:


> Darell, this page with available EVs is awesome! Thanks so much for pulling that all together!



Great! Let me know when you find others that I should add.


----------



## Darell (May 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> Hmmm.... Might have to drive up by Santa Rosa and drop in to see the Zap/Xebra.
> 
> Darell (and others). Any feed back on the current car for reliability and its ability to climb hills (city streets)? There is a note on the Zap website that talks about an optional high power controller for hilly areas.


As far as I'm concerned, the car NEEDs the bigger controller and extra batteries to make it useful to most. It'll climb hills just fine. The quality control just isn't there though, and reliability would be a big concern... and safety.



> Also, other electric car news... Another issue where regulations are followed by electric car vendors, only to have governments get ready to perform an about-face... In this case, a small car is licensed as a motorcycle and, suprise, it does not crash test well.
> 
> Celebrity green car is declared unsafe:


Yeah, this is just BS. When was the last time we crash-tested motorcycles? There are all kinds of cars sold all over the world that are not crash-worthy... and yet they don't get pulled. I'm not sure why these are being singled out. Pretty soon they won't let me ride my bicycle.



> but I am sure that some basic crash testing and improvements can probably be made over time without killing the car.


Yeah, I agree. Be good to work on improving a few things (like keeping the doors on after the collision!)



> This is a very eye-opening comment on the expense of living in London:


Drivers in places like that can barely afford NOT to drive EVs!


----------



## Darell (May 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



IlluminatingBikr said:


> Does anybody remember where the chart showing the efficiency of hydrogen vs. battery electric technology is? It had the efficiency of each stage of production/usage, as well as the overall efficiency.
> 
> I'm doing a report on BEV technology for my economics class, and I would really like to be able to include the chart in my presentation.



My guess is that you'll find most of what you need on my page here:
http://evnut.com/fuel_cell.htm ... though I'm not sure just which chart you speak of...

If this is for an economics class, you don't even have to touch the poor efficiency. Just go with cost of production!


----------



## AndyTiedye (May 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> As far as I'm concerned, the car NEEDs the bigger controller and extra batteries to make it useful to most. It'll climb hills just fine. The quality control just isn't there though, and reliability would be a big concern... and safety.
> 
> 
> Yeah, this is just BS. When was the last time we crash-tested motorcycles?



If you registered it as a motorcycle here, the driver and all passengers
would have to wear helmets.


----------



## Darell (May 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



AndyTiedye said:


> If you registered it as a motorcycle here, the driver and all passengers
> would have to wear helmets.



You're sure? Here there is a difference between TWO wheeled motorcycles and THREE wheeled motorcycles. And here there is no other way to register a three-wheeled vehicle besides "motorcycle." I can barely fit my bare head inside a Sparrow - would be almost impossible with a helmet on! Still, in most of these three-wheelers, I'd be pretty tempted to wear one!


----------



## Darell (Jun 1, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Bit of video on the tesla that I hadn't seen before. This is the first I've seen of the nifty charging station display. Tesla just got a bunch of money to create new public infrastructure as well. Color me excited. If anybody can pull it off, it'll be these guys.

http://tinyurl.com/2b5oea

Be sure to click on the video link near the top.


----------



## BB (Jun 2, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Darell,

Sorry to hear about the Zap... From reading, it sounded like not ready for prime time issues were still there. The pre-Zap had issues in rain, the Zap talked about issues on the hills. And a Zap Forum talked about 300 feet of climbing was about the limit without resting/cooling.

My local driving does include 300-500 foot hills. I too think that it could use an extra pair of batteries to just match the Think and other electric golf cart style vehicles. Plus it had a bit more speed for those busy roads (but, of course, that is when a well built crash cage is even more important). 

Safety--well, my wife comes from Asia and all of her family friends kept getting smeared on the streets riding motorcycles--so she would not be fond of the Zap as is.

Lastly, we were in Costco Mountain View today, and there was a silver RAV 4 EV there--and she started asking all sorts of questions about it (told her it was $40,000)... I think she would have bought one then and there if they were still in production today.

Only took a few years (and a roof full of solar panels and Grid Tied inverter plus a $270 unused utility credit from net metering last year) to change her mind. 

Maybe a Prius with a $10,000 battery conversion would start to interest her now... oo: What is the current info on those (people getting them done, happy)?

-Bill


----------



## rodfran (Jun 3, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Hello Darell, I am finally back in the system!


----------



## Darell (Jun 3, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> Only took a few years (and a roof full of solar panels and Grid Tied inverter plus a $270 unused utility credit from net metering last year) to change her mind.


Yeah well... whatever it takes! On the flip side, my wife is so used to commuting in the EV that she rarely thinks anything of it. Sometimes I'm compelled to remind her not to run into anything with our insanely rare, expensive and irreplaceable vehicle!



> Maybe a Prius with a $10,000 battery conversion would start to interest her now... oo: What is the current info on those (people getting them done, happy)?



That's a great question. There are several out there in private hands now. But I don't hear much from them. Just like with EVs, I guess they're just driving them and not thinking about them so much.


----------



## Darell (Jun 3, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



rodfran said:


> Hello Darell, I am finally back in the system!



Welcome back!


----------



## Darell (Jul 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Hey... where is everybody?

The new EPRI report just came out. The basic finding is little surprise. Electricity is a clean method of propulsion. Now it is at least official (again). And these guys get listened to.

http://www.epri-reports.org/


----------



## BB (Jul 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Raise your scientific paper with a recent Popular Mechanic's article on PHEV and the NRDC-EPRI report...



> General Motors spoke up for the study today, insisting the Detroit giant was excited to study the findings. “We have made strong statements that we believe [PHEVs] are the future,” GM vehicle line director Tony Posawatz says. “As a company that has relied on 98 to 99 percent of the same energy, there is a business rationale for us.” And, it appears, a scientific one



-Bill


----------



## Darell (Jul 21, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> Raise your scientific paper with a recent Popular Mechanic's article on PHEV and the NRDC-EPRI report...



Wow. The (but harm our air) part is sure reaching. As long as nobody reads the article nor the study... I'm guessing they get the wrong idea from having this in the title.


----------



## BB (Jul 22, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Prius conversion to PHEV for $24,000 in Colorado...



> Hybrids Plus is one of the few outfits in the country that, for another $24,000 or so, will remove the nickel metal hydride battery that comes with the Prius and replace it with a more powerful lithium ion battery.



-Bill


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 22, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I've never understood why anyone would convert a Prius (or any other widely-available hybrid) to PHEV. Of the hybrids I know of, only the Prius has electric-only operation - limited to <35 MPH. I guess it's good news for NEV enthusiasts and would boost gas mileage otherwise, but how many areas have consistent ~30MPH speed limits and how much of a market is willing to pay that much for a limited-utility upgrade?


----------



## Darell (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



idleprocess said:


> I've never understood why anyone would convert a Prius (or any other widely-available hybrid) to PHEV. Of the hybrids I know of, only the Prius has electric-only operation - limited to <35 MPH. I guess it's good news for NEV enthusiasts and would boost gas mileage otherwise, but how many areas have consistent ~30MPH speed limits and how much of a market is willing to pay that much for a limited-utility upgrade?


It may help you to understand when you realize that the only benefit is NOT in just extended battery range. If you have an average 20 mile commute, you can easily see mileage well over 100 each day, plus a few pennies of electricity. Driven the same way, a factory Prius would see about 45mpg. Instead of the ICE constantly trying to refill the battery as it normally does, very little ICE charging is need in a normal day's worth of driving. And you still have all the battery boost that you enjoyed before. And on city streets you can zip along without the ICE firing every time you leave a stop light. If you always travel many hundres of miles in a day, the benefit is obviously not as great. Yet for normal people driving normal commutes, it could be a significant difference. The shorter your drive, the higher your gas mileage. There are people who driver cars for a two mile commute! Imagine that. All that pollution and wasted gas is now not needed for those folks doing cold starts for damn-near no gain.

I agree with you that it is a kluge. A very expensive Kluge. What it shows is the potential. Can you imagine how good one of these would be if it were designed for PHEV from the factory? If nobody started these conversions, nobody would believe what they were capable of. For that, we need to thank and support the guys who've done this at great personal expense (in most cases).

Does that make sense? I've been all over the map on this whole thing, and I'm reasonable comfortable with my position now.


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> It may help you to understand when you realize that the only benefit is NOT in just extended battery range. If you have an average 20 mile commute, you can easily see mileage well over 100 each day, plus a few pennies of electricity. Driven the same way, a factory Prius would see about 45mpg. Instead of the ICE constantly trying to refill the battery as it normally does, very little ICE charging is need in a normal day's worth of driving. And you still have all the battery boost that you enjoyed before. And on city streets you can zip along without the ICE firing every time you leave a stop light. If you always travel many hundres of miles in a day, the benefit is obviously not as great. Yet for normal people driving normal commutes, it could be a significant difference. The shorter your drive, the higher your gas mileage. There are people who driver cars for a two mile commute! Imagine that. All that pollution and wasted gas is now not needed for those folks doing cold starts for damn-near no gain.
> 
> I agree with you that it is a kluge. A very expensive Kluge. What it shows is the potential. Can you imagine how good one of these would be if it were designed for PHEV from the factory? If nobody started these conversions, nobody would believe what they were capable of. For that, we need to thank and support the guys who've done this at great personal expense (in most cases).
> 
> Does that make sense? I've been all over the map on this whole thing, and I'm reasonable comfortable with my position now.



'Think I'd rather see the "strong serial hybrid" concept come into reality, like the Volt is promising.

I don't know about your area, but the average surface street has a speed limit of 35-45MPH around here. Save for the fuel economy bump a PHEV prius provides, there will be little other benefit to such a thing for me or people in my area. I always thought the the benefit of a PHEV was supposed to be 100% electric operation for ordinary commuting.


----------



## Darell (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



idleprocess said:


> 'Think I'd rather see the "strong serial hybrid" concept come into reality, like the Volt is promising.


I think many people would



> Save for the fuel economy bump a PHEV prius provides, there will be little other benefit to such a thing for me or people in my area.


Not sure I follow. The whole point here is to get a fuel economy bump. So if we toss that benefit, you are right - there isn't much other reason to do this! With better fuel economy comes less oil imported, less oil burned, less pollution generated, and on and on. The Fuel economy bump (to well beyond 100mpg in most cases) IS the reason this is done - NOT to make a longer-range EV. The Prius isn't designed for battery running, and doesn't do it very well. What it DOES do well is accept plenty of electric boost. And the extra battery capacity (charged off board) let's the Prius do what it does best... and do it better. Again - people aren't doing this to make an EV out of the Prius. They're doing it to get better gas mileage.



> I always thought the the benefit of a PHEV was supposed to be 100% electric operation for ordinary commuting.


1. Nope.
2. It is what many of us consumers would like to see, so that short, around-town trips burn zero gasoline. From the consumers side (the folks talking about it the most right now) this is what you will hear.
3. All automakers that are even considering PHEV all desperately want to make what they call a "blended" system like the converted Prius. They want to add electricity simply as a way to reduce fuel consumption - NOT as a way to keep the ICE off as long as possible. This way is the FAR easier way to deal with overall emissions, and is much cheaper as the batteries and the motor can be much smaller. For example - if the Volt were to be a blended PHEV, it could have been built years ago to achieve the desired overall mileage and emission numbers. But to have 40 miles of EV-only range, and be sold in the price range they're talking about, and have all the other specs they want.... well that stuff doesn't exist yet - as they say.

I fully agree that I want a "battery depletion" PHEV over a blended unit because I mostly want to drive an EV - and only fire the ICE when I leave town on a long trip. For me, that is the PERFECT secondary car (after a pure EV that works so well for *most* of the driving). But at this point, I'd also support a blended PHEV that was enjoying 100+mpg. It would be a great step in the right direction - finally moving away from single-fuel (gasoilne!) hybrids of today. And once that PHEV door is opened, I think lots of good will spill out. And THEN conversions will make sense. I can see big battery aftermarkets finally emerging.


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> Not sure I follow. The whole point here is to get a fuel economy bump. So if we toss that benefit, you are right - there isn't much other reason to do this! With better fuel economy comes less oil imported, less oil burned, less pollution generated, and on and on. The Fuel economy bump (to well beyond 100mpg in most cases) IS the reason this is done - NOT to make a longer-range EV. The Prius isn't designed for battery running, and doesn't do it very well. What it DOES do well is accept plenty of electric boost. And the extra battery capacity (charged off board) let's the Prius do what it does best... and do it better. Again - people aren't doing this to make an EV out of the Prius. They're doing it to get better gas mileage.


$24,000 is a HUGE investment for a fuel economy jump until the battery pack expires. I'm not sure that any passenger car is going to last long enough for such an investment to make sense. Sorry.



Darell said:


> 1. Nope.
> 2. It is what many of us consumers would like to see, so that short, around-town trips burn zero gasoline. From the consumers side (the folks talking about it the most right now) this is what you will hear.
> 3. All automakers that are even considering PHEV all desperately want to make what they call a "blended" system like the converted Prius. They want to add electricity simply as a way to reduce fuel consumption - NOT as a way to keep the ICE off as long as possible. This way is the FAR easier way to deal with overall emissions, and is much cheaper as the batteries and the motor can be much smaller. For example - if the Volt were to be a blended PHEV, it could have been built years ago to achieve the desired overall mileage and emission numbers. But to have 40 miles of EV-only range, and be sold in the price range they're talking about, and have all the other specs they want.... well that stuff doesn't exist yet - as they say.
> 
> I fully agree that I want a "battery depletion" PHEV over a blended unit because I mostly want to drive an EV - and only fire the ICE when I leave town on a long trip. For me, that is the PERFECT secondary car (after a pure EV that works so well for *most* of the driving). But at this point, I'd also support a blended PHEV that was enjoying 100+mpg. It would be a great step in the right direction - finally moving away from single-fuel (gasoilne!) hybrids of today. And once that PHEV door is opened, I think lots of good will spill out. And THEN conversions will make sense. I can see big battery aftermarkets finally emerging.



I have zero interest in a "blended" unit. It's the worst of both worlds. I have to fuel it *and* recharge it to get the commuting efficiency. A "blended" unit would probably still be dependent on gasoline to move - charging the battery is optional.

If GM weren't waiting for their ever-elusive Li-ion battery technology/manufacturing/pricing advancement, they could have done the Volt with NiMH - maybe not with 40 miles' EV range, but close.

But I suppose that the rigid/unimaginative nature of taxing and regulatory structures would make the introduction of something that doesn't consume liquid fuel most of the time in large numbers would be too troubling - nevermind the general public's fear of having to plug in their car (not a problem for the cellphone, laptop, or large appliances).


----------



## James S (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I dont think you're quite getting what Daryl is trying to say 

He's not suggesting that you'll make back the ludicrous investment in the modification. He's suggesting that the people who are willing to do this are showing the rest of us what should be possible and even better straight from the factory. There isn't any reason they can't come that way from the factory. Mostly it's just better software and somewhat bigger battery. The only thing that has kept them from doing this already is that they weren't smart enough to figure out this is what we want. From the factory such a setup would add a very modest amount to the price of a production vehicle. But we all know how completely removed from anything resembling reality the car manufacturers are and they would NEVER have come to this conclusion without the hackers out there showing us what is possible and how easy it would be to come stock that way.

So I want a battery only speed bump to say 40 or 45 and a 10 or 20 mile range on battery alone. If that were the case I could do all my driving here on 90% of days with no gas consumption at all.

That would pretty much answer all the problems that people have with all electric cars, since you can drive them forever if you need to, but you dont use any gas dropping the kids off at school in the morning and hitting the grocery store on the way home.

Sign me up, I want one


----------



## Darell (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Yeah, James said it well. I’m not trying to convince you of anything here, though it may appear that way with my “justifications” for blended PHEVs. My goal was to help you understand the modified Prius thing, and the whole blended PHEV concept in general. The modified Prius is an expensive first step that does not take us to the end game. It is a step that I think needs to be taken nonetheless. Blended PHEVs don’t make me all that happy either, except in the context that they’re a step forward.

There is no need to apologize for not wanting a blended PHEV. If given the option, most consumers who are at all familiar with today’s blended hybrids and EVs would also want charge-depletion PHEV. The general public would probably be much more comfortable with a blended PHEV (due mostly to perceived detractions of battery cars), and I certainly already know that the auto industry is more comfortable with it. I am trying to give some reasons for why blended PHEVs are more likely to reach the showrooms first. When that happens, the door will be open to the whole PHEV concept, and I predict that good things will happen. It has been proven many times that we can’t get to the “ideal” without suffering the baby steps. “The perfect is the enemy of the good” and all that. As long as we keep going down the “good” path, we have to keep supporting it or we won’t get anywhere near the “perfect.”

We all have our own version of how things should have gone and how things should go from here. And to get to the collective goal of much cleaner personal transportation, we all need to compromise.

Since 1996, here’s how it happened in a nutshell (no reason to bust my balls on what I left out or included – this is just a stream of consciousness timeline with some comment):

- CARB forced car makers to build ZEVs in 1996; BEVs were the only viable way to make a ZEV.
- The drivers loved these BEVs – even with the expected warts of any first-generation vehicle, and after all the hoops that drivers had to jump through to obtain them.
- The car makers told everybody that we don’t like them; range is too short; batteries won’t last.
- BEV production stops in 2003 and never resumes due to a suit brought against CARB by GM and the federal government. All car makers quietly collect and crush as many of the BEVs as possible. Toyota is the only one to have sold theirs – so the “owned” Rav4EVs are out of Toyota’s hands completely – while the leased ones are disappearing from the roads. 
- GM begins crushing the EV1s and, comes out with the Hummer brand the same month. We actually get pictures of their crushing facility which is shocking, but certainly not illegal in any way. We try to save the last few that haven’t been trucked to the crusher. The effort fails, but the groundwork is done to save some of the other brands (Ford Ranger, Rav4EV).
- In the meantime, Japan car makers, realizing that their biggest export market is CA, and that CA seems pretty damn serious about their pollution and gas mileage standards – decides to introduce the Prius to North America to stay ahead of the game that GM first owned with the EV1. They figure that they’ll have a vehicle that exceeds the new proposed CA vehicle standard before the standard is even in place. In this way, Toyota can keep building their ever more gas-thirsty trucks and SUVs, while still painting a green leaf on their web site and umbrella of products. The Prius is their poster-child, and nobody pays much attention to the truck sales behind the curtain.
- GM tells the world that America doesn’t want silly little hybrids, and that road leads to ruin for any company foolish enough to amortize the first units in the hope of greater sales later. Stock holders beware!
- The Prius proves to be a strong seller and Toyota can’t make enough of them. People are lined up to pay many thousands over MSRP.
- GM responds with some rather pathetic product with the “hybrid” logo on it. Nobody is impressed with increasing gas mileage by 2%. Mostly they’re just shutting off the engine at stops – not providing any propulsion from battery power. Sales are dismal, and GM again thinks that hybrids just have no place in their lineup.
- Prius sales continue to climb as the second generation comes out in 2004. More power, better ride, more room, more amenities… and about the same price as the previous generation.
- Lots of tinkerers realize that the best part of the Prius is stealth mode, and do everything they can to extend this “battery only” mode. The JDM EV switch is installed, and the owners are giddy with having a VERY short-range, low-speed EV that is still charged via gasoline.
- More serious tinkerers find that with some extra batteries, the Prius will stay in EV mode longer, and get awesome gas mileage even when the ICE is running. People wonder why this isn’t an option from the factory.
- The movie “Who Killed the Electric Car?” comes out in the spring of 2006.
- GM introduces the Volt prototype in 2007, and tells us that they didn’t mean ALL hybrids were silly – just the ones made by other car companies. And in fact theirs is not a hybrid – it is an EV with a range-extender built in. Just as soon as a few unobtanium parts are viable, they’ll put theirs on the market and it will be the perfect car at the perfect price with industry best performance, range and mileage. The production date mentioned most is 2010 – the same year that a few years ago GM execs also promised to have 1 million Fuel Cell cars on the road.
- In the meantime, Toyota has said for many years that a charge-depletion PHEV was not even being considered, and presented CARB and the public with many hurdles that the concept faces. Most of these issues directly contradicted the success of their amazingly robust EV product of 1996 – the Rav4EV – a product that they’d like to forget about by all accounts.
- Nobody who follows this stuff even pretends that Toyota is NOT building PHEV prototypes during this time.
- And here we are today. We’re on the cusp of production PHEVs. Toyota has said they’ll do it, but won’t give any details. Their next-gen Prius is postponed by a year, and we’re told that Li-Ion will NOT be used in that car – after it was to be the FIRST production car with Li-Ion. GM promises the Volt. Several other companies figure that their first hybrid will be PHEV. Except for GM, most folks really want to build blended units due to cost, emission and complexity concerns. The Tesla Roadster is REALLY close to production (following a seemingly endless round of certification tests and resultant modifications).

The take home message here is that 12 years after we had full-function EVs on the road, we are finally back to seriously discussing vehicles that can use electricity as fuel. And in my book, that is where we need to be heading. Yes I wish we didn’t have to wait all that time, yes I would have done things differently. And here we are. We need to make the best of what we’ve got.

Now… Here’s one version of how I would have like to have seen it go:

- Car makers were forced to build BEVs
- Many drivers realized that they needed two cars if they had long-range needs, and still wanted to use an EV for the shorter-range every-day trips.
- Car makers responded with range extenders like Toyota’s ACP-built “Long Ranger.” Now you could have your EV for the 90% of trips it worked fine for, and still use the same car for long trips by hooking up a small liquid-fuel trailer to keep the batteries charged enroute.
- Demand for these practical EVs grew, and so did demand for better range.
The second-generation EVs are built with modern batteries, and offer ranges of 200-300 miles. Private enterprises begin installing fast chargers along the highways to entice people to stop at their business establishments for a charge. Most charging is still done at home, overnight during off-peak hours, but it is now possible to drive great distances without even taking the range-extending trailer along. Long trips still require advance planning, however.
- The movie “Who Killed the Electric Car?” Is not made.
- The third-generation EVs incorporate small ICE generators. You could choose gasoline, biodiesel, NG or H2 ICE for this option. If you are still confused, you choose the H2 option and find that you can charge WAY more places than you can even hope to find Hydrogen fuel. Gasoline is the least-chosen option, and we stop importing oil. (woot! I kill myself sometimes)
- The movie “Who Killed the Gasoline Car?” is made.
- Now that EVs had 200+ miles of battery range, drivers were finding that most of them weren’t using the generator as much as they thought they would – if at all. The gas was going stale in the tank; the drivers balked at the added weight and cost, and were not thrilled to still have to get oil changes and tune-ups. The option of swapping the ICE for a few more battery modules is offered, and the resultant extra battery range meant that half of the population could drive without any fuel other than electricity. The other half found great utility in buying the cars with the built-in generators that became more efficient, cleaner, smaller, lighter and cheaper with every generation.

Isn’t my world fun?


----------



## Darell (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



James S said:


> The only thing that has kept them from doing this already is that they weren't smart enough to figure out this is what we want.


I'll go a step further and say that the consumers also didn't know what they wanted. For Joe Consumer, gasoline works just great, and there are no obvious down-sides.



> From the factory such a setup would add a very modest amount to the price of a production vehicle.


Indeed! Leave off the leather interior and DVD player option, and you've paid for PHEV. Of course nobody asks when leather and DVDs will "pay them back" but a PHEV system has to pay immediate financial dividends for the general public to find it acceptable, of course.



> they would NEVER have come to this conclusion without the hackers out there showing us what is possible and how easy it would be to come stock that way.


That's certainly my feeling.



> Sign me up, I want one


The line starts right behind me!


----------



## Darell (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

And regarding PHEVs and Toyota... This just in:
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200707200126.html

quote:
The new car has been designed to capitalize on technology already developed by Toyota in the manufacture of previous models of hybrids.

The plug-in has been developed based on the enormously successful Prius hybrid.

Current hybrid models are fitted with nickel-hydrogen batteries.

In order to make large-capacity charging necessary for the plug-in possible, Toyota switched to lithium-ion batteries.

Toyota is the only car manufacturer in Japan that has applied to the transport minister for approval of plug-in hybrid vehicles as experimental cars.


----------



## Darell (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

and from 'VW Driver' magazine:

"..in the not-too-distant future, something will replace gasoline as the principal propellant for our automobiles - something renewable and/or rechargeable that emits virtually zero pollutants. There's no alternative."

"..Volkswagen expects that all cars eventually will be electric.
That's the current point of view, anyway."
-"Volkswagen's Alternative-Fuel Strategy" VW Driver Spring/Summer 2007

Interesting, especially in an article mostly about new diesels, and coming from an automaker that isn't known for touting EVs.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> and from 'VW Driver' magazine:
> 
> "..in the not-too-distant future, something will replace gasoline as the principal propellant for our automobiles - something renewable and/or rechargeable that emits virtually zero pollutants. There's no alternative."
> 
> ...


Not surprising when you consider all the alternatives:

1) Stay with gasoline/diesel oil. Let the price swings and long-term price increase reck havoc with the economy while at the same time abandoning the suburbs because traveling the requisite distances will become unaffordable to most. And long term you'll have to switch to something else by mid-century anyway as the spigot runs dry. I dread to think of how messed up the transition will be if we wait until it's basically forced upon us.

2) Go with biofuels. Same problems as 1) due to variable crop yields. Side effects include increases in the prices of food (we're already seeing this with the limited switch to ethanol). Besides all that, biofuels can at best satisfy only a fraction of the demand.

3) Hydrogen and fuel cells. Fuel cells are finicky, expensive pieces of machinery prone to problems (just like ICEs incidentally, which is why the auto industry touts them as the next step forwards-for their spare parts cash stream, anyway). Hydrogen is an explosive, dangerous thing to have in a moving vehicle piloted by mostly incompetent drivers. Hydrogen/fuel cells is basically an expensive, complex, inefficient battery, so why not just use a real battery and be done with it? Hydrogen might work eventually, but it's a far more costly alternative than just charging a battery. It really makes absolutely no sense.

4) Increase public transportation to the point that most people don't need cars. Provided the transportion is mostly electric rail it would solve the major problems. The only thing is that most of the US is too spread out to make it economic. It might work in the case like 1) after the suburbs were largely abandoned, but it's difficult to see it happening in today's climate. New public transportation projects are certainly on the rise finally, but they'll never completely replace private transport. I'll also mention that a wild card here is the fact that many of our Interstate highways are due for a major, expensive rebuild. It may be more cost effective long term to perhaps just use the rights-of-way for high-speed rail, and relegate autos to the short distance niche they fill best. It wouldn't be comprehensive national public transport, but it would at least be a step in the right direction.

5) Continue R&D to make velomobiles faster and less costly. Convert some of the Interstate highways for their use. This is not a comprehensive solution since a good percentage of the general public isn't fit enough to use long-distance human powered transportation. Of course, I would love a system of highly efficient bikes and roads where I could cruise at 80 mph to 100 mph under my own power for intercity distances. The reality is this is at best a partial solution. I personally think we need a mass-produced, very efficient velomobile costing $1000 or less regardless. It would take human-powered transport from an "alternative" to something mainstream for a good many people. It would also save on health care costs long term.

None of the other pictures presented above are pretty although I would definitely prefer 4) or 5) over what we have now. Where does this leave us? Basically with electric autos. Nothing else is really capable of economically replacing gasoline on the scale that we currently consume it at. As a plus, in a post-gasoline world, cars lasting 25 years or more and hardly breaking down might be the norm. That, coupled with the much cheaper operating costs of EVs, would mean consumers spend their money elsewhere, helping the economy and creating jobs. As averse as the mainstream establishment is to much cheaper transportation, which is what EVs represent, long term this is exactly what is needed to sustain economic growth. The economic model of private transportation needs to change to one where the bulk of the profit is made on the sale of the vehicle, and not on spare parts or fuel for it (or taxes on the fuel). Since the price of cars really can't increase much, the only alternative will be for the auto makers to get the manufacturing costs down to make up for their lost spare parts cash flow. Long term we'll probably have to scale down the auto industry due to cars lasting longer and not needing as many spare parts.


----------



## Brock (Jul 23, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I recently heard rumors over on http://forums.tdiclub.com/ VW had a diesel hybrid plug in they are testing in Europe.


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



James S said:


> So I want a battery only speed bump to say 40 or 45 and a 10 or 20 mile range on battery alone. If that were the case I could do all my driving here on 90% of days with no gas consumption at all.
> 
> That would pretty much answer all the problems that people have with all electric cars, since you can drive them forever if you need to, but you dont use any gas dropping the kids off at school in the morning and hitting the grocery store on the way home.



In my current situation, I might be able to settle for a "blended" hybrid that could reliably do EV operation on city streets - especially if it could go 20 miles on a charge.

I always wondered if the <35MPH electric speed limit on the Prius was both a design consideration with their chosen motor and carefully chosen to ensure that the Prius was not quite suitable to operate in EV-only mode all the time on highways and city streets.


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> Indeed! Leave off the leather interior and DVD player option, and you've paid for PHEV. Of course nobody asks when leather and DVDs will "pay them back" but a PHEV system has to pay immediate financial dividends for the general public to find it acceptable, of course.



DVD players, leather interiors, alloy wheels, upgraded engines, etc are sold on the basis of providing benefits _other than_ increased efficiency. Hybrids and PHEVs are largely being pitched as more efficient (and thus more economical to operate) than ICE cars, so it should be no surprise that the cost:benefits analysis is whipped out early in the discussion.

Altruism (or the perception thereof) sells fewer cars than image, performance, comfort, utility, and what the buyer thinks they can afford. While some might buy a PHEV or BEV out of concern for the environment or oil dependence, I don't think those numbers will be quite enough to sustain any mass-produced vehicle, so the efficiency has to be there.


----------



## BB (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I think the Toyota Prius was actually sold as a very low emission vehicle using the batteries/electric motor to help the engine (low torque design--again to reduce emissions) operate cleaner as Darrel (?) said.

The fact that it used less fuel--an accidental plus when the price of fuel recently spiked.

My economics--Get a reliable gasoline (or diesel if ever available) car for about $15-$20k (a little premium) and $10,000 for the "extra batteries" for 10-20 mile range around town (35 mph maximum OK--would be very nice if managed the local hills on battery only too).

For $10,000--I can hardly get a glorified electric golf cart (4 passengers) with fabric doors.

$20k+$10k--one car that works for me (instead of two vehicles--and the electric vehicle is very limited--does not meet crash requirements for "standard' cars and is not even really rain resistant).

Will see where this goes in the next year or two...

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



idleprocess said:


> I always wondered if the <35MPH electric speed limit on the Prius was both a design consideration with their chosen motor and carefully chosen to ensure that the Prius was not quite suitable to operate in EV-only mode all the time on highways and city streets.



I don't think they had any sinister plot in mind with the 35mph thing. It comes down to mechanical issues of the HSD system. The system is designed to instantly accept input from either ICE or battery. The 35 mph limit is basically to keep the gears from self-destructing. If you let the electric side spin up faster than that, the gas engine can't smoothly restart and add power, and the gearing that connects the ICE is spinning faster than it safely should. (Makes more sense when you see the inner workings of the HSD). If you stipulate that you are ALWAYS wanting to combine battery and ICE (instead of having any sort of charge-depletion mode), then this system is an elegant and practical solution. The 35mph limit is only annoying if you want real EV mode.


----------



## Darell (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



idleprocess said:


> DVD players, leather interiors, alloy wheels, upgraded engines, etc are sold on the basis of providing benefits _other than_ increased efficiency. Hybrids and PHEVs are largely being pitched as more efficient (and thus more economical to operate) than ICE cars, so it should be no surprise that the cost:benefits analysis is whipped out early in the discussion.


Oh, I agree that the problem also lies at the feet of the advertisers every bit as much as the consumers. (You don't have to plug it in!) However, much of the advertising is on how green the vehicles are. How easy on the environment. But what it typically comes down to for the consumer is: How much money do I save on gas if I pay an extra ~$2,000 for a hybrid? Rarely do you hear about any of the other advantages/savings that come along with reduced fuel consumption and reduced emissions - because we don't pay those costs directly. Obviously, if we all had to pay for the damage for which our vehicles are responsible, the cost/benefit analysis would look much different indeed. Just put gasoline at $10/gallon, and re-do the math! In fact, it is the short-sightedness of the consumers who do this "how much money do I save on gas" analysis that most has me championing more expensive gasoline.



> Altruism (or the perception thereof) sells fewer cars than image, performance, comfort, utility, and what the buyer thinks they can afford. While some might buy a PHEV or BEV out of concern for the environment or oil dependence, I don't think those numbers will be quite enough to sustain any mass-produced vehicle, so the efficiency has to be there.


Like I said, the consumer doesn't care about "efficiency" - he cares about how much he saves at the pump. Yes, they are interrelated.... but by simply having higher gas prices, the consumer sees that paying a modest sum for higher gas mileage suddenly makes a lot more sense.


----------



## Darell (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Cleaner Future? Plug in!
(latest article on PHEV studies)

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/20/MNGT7R3OH81.DTL


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

which would be better; buying an all-electric, or buying a hybrid and discarding my 11 year old 23 miles per gallon Subaru, or continuing to drive the Sub? (runs fine.)

I'm surprised the all-electric vehicle sellers don't emphasize the virtual lack of need for maintenance. To me having that ice engine on board is a liability, being able to run independant of it is a plus but no sale..
though I'm sure the ICE repair industry has almost as strong a will to survive as the petro-industrial military complex..

my 2 watts.


----------



## Darell (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

All depends on what you do with the ICE vehicle. Best, of course, is to get rid of it, and replace it with a bicycle. If you aren't using it much, then it makes no sense to trade up to anything at this point. If you just use it to putt around locally, a golf-cart-like EV (GEM or otherwise) may be the better choice.


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I'm averaging only about 8,000 miles a year. As I said the car's about 11 years old.
Would buying an electric car offset the junking of the subaru and all the energy involved in it's manufacture? That is, in how many miles or years?
Would not burning the 348 gallons of gas every year in the Sub offset any other factor, ie; the energy to make a new car, etc.?


----------



## Darell (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I sure don't have an easy forumula to figure it out - I just know that it takes a boat-load of energy to make ANY kind of car. Trashing an old working one in favor of a more efficient one will unlikely ever make the energy ends meet. If the old one is dead already, that's a different story. And if somebody else can use/buy the old car who would have otherwise bought a new or less efficient car, then that's a benefit as well. Lots to consider. Almost never a good ROE (return on energy) to dispose of an old working car in favor of a new more efficient one. The pollution equation is a harder one to figure...

You use your gas car less than we use our electric car, certainly.


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

yes that's the lines along which I was thinking..but mustn't we consider the effect of burnbing that gas vs. electricity? I have heard dollar figures for the damage caused in 'real world' ice driving ie; damage to air, human and animal health, injuries and deaths, costs of building roads, etc. to be anywhere from (in addition to the cost of gasoline) $5.00 to $50.00 -- 

so figure it costs the world $20.00 a mile for me to drive my car.
(let me get my solar powered calculater here..)
that's $160,000 a year to burn the 348 gallons -
at half that it seems buying a new electric car would be good for the world..
?
heck that might even justify getting an electric sedan for longer trips, AND an electric trike to get groceries! (16 mile round trip)


----------



## Darell (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



TedTheLed said:


> so figure it costs the world $20.00 a mile for me to drive my car.
> (let me get my solar powered calculater here..)
> that's $160,000 a year to burn the 348 gallons -
> at half that it seems buying a new electric car would be good for the world..



Ah.. if it were only that simple to calculate! 

You have to also take into account the damage that'll be done by the electricity generation to fuel the EV. Unless you're going to buy a bunch more PV to do that job... and then there's the extra damage done by the mfg of the panels... and on and on. That will eat away at that $160k, though it shouldn't erase it.

Tough call. Hey, according to some folks, buying a Hummer is the evironmentally-responsible move here! (I assume everybody has seen the dust-to-dust "study" of the Prius and Hummer comparison?


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

well, I'm trying to figure it out and your opinion carries alot of weight with me, after all who is more aware of all the contingincies, and even close to ball park numbers? 
if it's a too close to call issue for you, well, then, I'll just keep pushing the ice-mobile as long as I can... 
I could never fuel an EV with my 600 watt array -- 
I woud have to take advantage of that cheap grid electricity somewhere, at a friends house or something -- those free EV fuel stations are gone now, no?

I haven't seen the Prius/Hummer comparison could you put it in a nut shell for me?


----------



## BB (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Here is the original (I think) Reason Article on why a Hummer is more green than a hybrid...

Basically, if you assume that a Prius will last 100,000 miles and a Hummer will last 300,000 miles (and other min/max comparisons), you can make an argument that the Hummer uses less resources than a Prius (with $3 a gallon gas)...

Is this a fair comparison--don't know, probably don't need to argue it here... Probably more interesting on how statistics and math can be contorted to prove almost any argument.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Jul 24, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



TedTheLed said:


> those free EV fuel stations are gone now, no?


We have more public EV charging stations in CA today than we did five years ago. There are well over 1200 of them being maintained on a volunteer basis by a dedicated group of EV owners. Find the most conprehensive list here:
http://evchargernews.com/ Untold volunteer hours put into maintaining the chargers and this list. It is updated daily.



> I haven't seen the Prius/Hummer comparison could you put it in a nut shell for me?



Nutshell from the "study": The Prius uses more energy in its lifetime than every full-size SUV on the road. Damage from a specific Nickle plant is 100% attributed to making Prius batteries (even though the bulk of the damage was done before the Prius was ever built). The Prius is a novelty and has a lifetime of 100,000 miles, while a Hummer has a lifetime of 300,000 miles and is used as a "real" vehicle. Development cost for the Prius is not shared by any other vehicle - even those that are now using the same HSD system. While development costs for the Hummer are spread across MANY different models of cars. Yadda, yadda.

Here is the "report"
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST PDF VERSION.pdf

And some comments on same. Don't hold me responsible for what Google returns!

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Aut...MMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220.html?pg=1

http://www.betterworldclub.com/articles/hummer-not-more-efficient.htm

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf


----------



## Darell (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Wow... First I've heard about Porsche jumpin
http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/24/autos/porsche_hybrid/index.htm?cnn=yes

"Porsche puts hybrids in the fast lane
New Cayenne SUV can cruise at 70 mph on the electric motor, far faster than existing models.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Porsche said Tuesday a new prototype SUV hybrid will be capable of cruising at speeds up to 70 miles an hour on the electric engine alone, far faster than existing hybrids.The result is a vehicle that's 25 percent more efficient than current models and can cruise considerably faster than the current 40 mph top cruising speed of the hybrid Toyota Camry."

It can't GET to 70mph on electric, but it can "cruise" there whatever that means. Not a PHEV that I can tell, so it won't be "cruising" at 70mph for very long!


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

thanks very much for all the links and info!
duh, I didn't know about the free ev chargers, I haven't been to the particular beach near here where they had, I mean have, them, so I thought they disappeared..

There may be a point to the prius/hummer claims -- only 100k miles isn't much these days, sounds like the life you'd expect from a car in the 50's..
I remember an article from Consumer Reports a while back where they said the most econmical car to run was the expensive mercedes, just because it would last a long time and so amortize the cost/miles..it had the lowest cost per mile to run, I remember the amount too: $00.05 per mile!

I know there may well be a market for the glamorous 70 mph hybrid porsche, but I don't need to spend an extra 20K go 10 or 15 mph faster..beside you get a ticket for that here..
and still it doesn't free you from ICE repairs and maintenance..


----------



## Darell (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



TedTheLed said:


> There may be a point to the prius/hummer claims -- only 100k miles isn't much these days, sounds like the life you'd expect from a car in the 50's...



There would be a point if it had any basis in reality. The Prius is proving to be as robust as any other Toyota. 100k miles was seemingly grabbed out of a hat. They assume that these cars are used as neighborhood runabouts. They don't seem to realize that they're as roomy as a Camry, and very capable long-distance vehicles. It is the main car for most people who own them - and nobody is throwing their cars away at 100,000 miles. There isn't even a tuneup scheduled before then! Now... can you imagine the cost of running a Hummer for 300,000 miles? Nevermind the the extra $25,000 initial cost over a Prius. But I digress...

Interesting take on the Mercedes. And I agree that a car that lasts longer is the better buy - IF YOU KEEP IT. But how many people truly keep their cars to the end of their lives? Not too many that I know (but a few!)


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

..thanks Darell that was the input i was looking for; why bother reading a bunch of articles peppered with bs? I don't know.
But, did i hear right, the Prius doesn't need a scheduled tune up till 100.000 miles? What about the ice engine??

and considering your comments on the Mercedes I am now newly resolved to keep that old Sub going as long as possible..

oh and I bought a new inner tube for my bicycle yesterday 
(a squirrel bit the tire!)


----------



## Darell (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



TedTheLed said:


> ..thanks Darell that was the input i was looking for; why bother reading a bunch of articles peppered with bs? I don't know.
> But, did i hear right, the Prius doesn't need a scheduled tune up till 100.000 miles? What about the ice engine??


It still needs oil changes, and a new air filter every now and again. But nothing else for 100k. Many new cars are being sold like that now.



> oh and I bought a new inner tube for my bicycle yesterday
> (a squirrel bit the tire!)


Best news I've heard this week. All this talk about cars makes me forget that it's best if we don't drive them - no matter how efficient they are! Keep a spare tube and a patch kit handy so you have that bike ready to go at a moment's notice! Too easy to just hop in the car if the bike is dusty and has a flat tire!


----------



## Darell (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Now, this is awesome. Please remember when watching this that...

1. This is an official Toyota video
2. The official Toyota tag line is "you don't have to plug it in"
3. Toyota has said for years that they are not even considering PHEV

How awesome is this to actually see in action?

http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/tech/environment/phv/conference/driving_300k.asx


----------



## Brock (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

More info, we need more info! Does it have a larger battery pack? When was that vid made?

I have to say though why the heck don't they just use a standard 120vac Edison plug. I know in Japan they have different plugs, but I sure as heck hope you don't need an adapter or at least have an option of a standard 15 amp 120vac plug.


----------



## Darell (Jul 25, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Brock said:


> More info, we need more info! Does it have a larger battery pack? When was that vid made?
> 
> I have to say though why the heck don't they just use a standard 120vac Edison plug. I know in Japan they have different plugs, but I sure as heck hope you don't need an adapter or at least have an option of a standard 15 amp 120vac plug.



Slow down there, sparky. You'll get your more info! Yes, these protos have a larger NiMH pack. Video is quite recent. Teh connectors used are Yazaki - left over from the original conductive Rav4EVs. Makes sense on a proto to use 240V so they don't spend half their "testing" time charing the silly thing. If offered here, I can give you pretty good odds, that it'll use normal 120V hardware

Get your specs right here: http://priuschat.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=10108

Notice that they give the charge time spec for both 100V and 200V. I think you'll be OK. PLus... these are just Prototypes. Eight of them I believe.

Anything else you need? Maybe come over and wash dishes? Child care?


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

well those specs are underwhelming; 13 km range?? couldn't get me to the grocery store and back..and 13ah (albeit 202 volts) battery!? and what do those 50kw out put numbers mean? that little 1500cc engine puts out 50kw?
please splain if there is a splanation..

..sink full of dishes here...


----------



## BB (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

:huh2:

From the PDF link:

Gas Motor:

Displacement
1,496cc
Maximum output
56kW(76PS)/5,000rpm
Engine
Maximum torque
110N-m (11.2kg-m)/4,000rpm

AC synchronous motor
Maximum output
50kW(68PS)/1,200 ~ 1,540rpm
Motor Maximum torque
400N-m(40.8kg-m)/0 ~ 1,200rpm

So, the 50kW is the AC motor... The gas motor is rated 56kW...

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



TedTheLed said:


> well those specs are underwhelming; 13 km range?? couldn't get me to the grocery store and back..and 13ah (albeit 202 volts) battery!? and what do those 50kw out put numbers mean? that little 1500cc engine puts out 50kw?
> please splain if there is a splanation..



First let me point out that these (they have eight) are prototypes. The specs are for these cars that exist and are being driven. (as compared to say, the Chevy Volt where GM has published all kinds of very exciting "specs" for a car that does not exist, nor do they even have a working prototype)

There are millions of poeple who have commutes that could be done with no gasoline even with this short battery range (sad yes, but true). The typical soccer mom performs about six trips a day that are under two miles - normally in the family SUV. These are still gasoline hybrids... but now, if your commute is, say, 20 miles RT, you'll burn half the gasoline that you did before in your standard hybrid. Your 50mpg is now 100 mpg.

The excitement here isn't in the specs; the excitement is in the policy change of a leading car maker. Just last year we were told (by Toyota) that Toyota wasn't even considering a PHEV. I knew different - but that was the official word. And now we have these official specs of real prototypes to prove otherwise. Once this Plug-in door is open, it should be like opening the flood gates to this technology (much like non-P HEVs after the Prius came out)

50kW is significant. Though people try to compare ICE HP output with electric motor output, it really can't be done. They are entirely different animals. To put 50kW into perspective, the one and only traction motor in my Rav4EV is rated at 30kW continuous with 50kW peak. The Rav is a barn door compared to the Prius, yet this motor will allow me to cruise at 80mph (and accelerate to that from a dead stop in the same gear!)


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I see, thanks. 

actually I was surprised such a small motor could put out 50,000 watts !
my, (seemingly fairly large,) diesel generator puts out only 5 kw..so I was wondering..

At that output though those poor batteries will be empty in a few minutes..
Ok I know, prototype, precedent making.. I wish them luck..


----------



## Darell (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



TedTheLed said:


> I see, thanks.
> 
> actually I was surprised such a small motor could put out 50,000 watts !
> my, (seemingly fairly large,) diesel generator puts out only 5 kw..so I was wondering..


That surprises a lot of people. The 30kW (or 50kW depending on how you rate it) motor on the Rav is smaller than two coffee cans end-to-end. That that includes the cooling fins, the output shaft and oil-bathed bearings (this is the only place the car uses oil- but it is sealed up.  ) It even LOOKs like a coffee can!



> At that output though those poor batteries will be empty in a few minutes..


Yup. We can only hope that we'll see a larger Li-Ion pack in there. Plus... I can count on one hand the number of times that I've actually USED 50kW in the Rav. And that was just to see the peak performance. Uphill, full throttle, pegged at (electronically limited to) 50kW. Nobody is going to be cruising along using 50kW in a Prius unless they're mad at the car. The barn-door Rav will cruise at 60mph at about 11kW.


----------



## Darell (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Great news from a colleague:



"Have You Driven a Fjord Lately?"

Norway's new Think City is on the cover of the August issue of Business 2.0 magazine, on stands shortly. It is the lead article under a feature section "The 29 Best Business Ideas in the World."
And it's the most upbeat piece on a pure electric I've read in a long time.
Author Todd Woody is to be congratulated. He even leads off with "Did someone kill the electric car? You wouldn't know it..."

Business 2.0 devotes a whopping six pages to the car and business plan of Think CEO Jan-Olaf Willums. Here are some highlights:

* First deliveries to start by the end of 2007 in Scandinavia
* Tesla is supplying the batteries (reported elsewhere earlier)
* Cars will be sold online only...no showrooms
* A monthly "mobility fee" will encompass the battery lease,
scheduled maintenance, web connectivity, and insurance (possibly)
* Dean Kamen (Segway inventor) is an investor; he's experimenting
with an onboard Stirling engine that makes the car a grid-connectable
hybrid.

There's lots more, including a great quote from Ed Kjaer from SCE's EV
program: "There is a fundamental shift happening that is going to require new business models...The timing is right. We are on a path now toward electric cars, and there is no going back."

I'm most impressed by the forward-thinking and can-do people that Willums is able to attract. There is none of the tentativeness, fear, and downright reluctance to make things happen that we hear constantly from the big automakers.


----------



## Josey (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The problem with EVs and Hybrid plug-ins is where the fuel comes from. Even if you plug it in, you need a large source of clean electricity -- which rules out natual gas, most big hydro, nukes and coal. But I think the solution to that problem is gaining on us fast. We will soon have super cheap solar panels that will generate large amounts of electricity. 

Even now, on a sunny day, my relatively small solar system can quickly overwhelm my need for electricity and my ability to store the excess. The perfect solution is an electric car or a battery bank that can later fill the car's battery bank.

We know that it is easy to build zero-energy homes using solar and off-the-shelf energy-efficiency technology. Large corporations and enterprising small start-ups are racing to the market with new solar technology that will give us energy-surplus houses. It's already common to see solar panels on watches and backpacks and cheap toys. That's just the start. Applied Materials, a key player in driving down the cost of computer chips that enabled the computer revolution, is using those same skills to invest in a new-technology manufacturing program that will allow it to lower the costs of solar panels from about $4 a watt now to $1 a watt in just a few years. Ted Turner is investing millions, calling solar "the biggest business opportunity the world has ever seen." OK, he's prone to hyperbole, but nothing will drive the EV market faster than a massive new source of clean electricity, and that source is coming. (And we're not even talking wind and tide and wave, yet.)

{politics removed by Darell}

Once solar panels become a commodity, the EV and hybrid-plug-in market will explode. The plug-in market will lead, but EVs will be close behind.


----------



## Darell (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Josey -

In our attempt to keep politics off of CPF, I removed the one line from your post. Thanks for understanding - you can see how it can so quickly derail the conversation...



Josey said:


> The problem with EVs and Hybrid plug-ins is where the fuel comes from.


No, not really. Even when the electricity comes from our most polluting sources (and I will stipulate that many of them are TERRIBLE) a plug-in car is still better for us in just about every way - when compared to your standard gasoline car. Yes, a plug in car is going to be dirtier than riding a bike, walking or (gasp) not driving - but this discussion only makes sense when we compare like with like. Now, when we add green energy to the equation, the scales tip HUGELY in favor of plug-ins of course. So plug-ins can be quite green, while gasoline cars never can be - not when you account for the upstream issues.

Bottom line: PHEVs and EVs that are charged from our current grid mix are a step in the right direction when compared to gasoline cars. Better, of course, is to use green power. I simply do not see "where the fuel comes from" as a "problem" with plug in cars that should hold them back in any way.



> Even if you plug it in, you need a large source of clean electricity


Again... not really. At least not while we get the volumes up. We have enough "excess" capacity during off-peak times to power many millions of plug-in cars, before extra electricity capacty is needed. And folks can also choose do what may of us EV drivers have already done - grow their own electricity on the roof with PV - to offset the usage of the vehicle (and house!)



> We will soon have super cheap solar panels that will generate large amounts of electricity.


I hope you are right. PV systems even at today's prices can be a sound financial investment when compared to stocks, etc.



> Once solar panels become a commodity, the EV and hybrid-plug-in market will explode. The plug-in market will lead, but EVs will be close behind.



I'm ready for blastoff.


----------



## Josey (Jul 26, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

No problem, Darell. Maybe I can make the point more gently, because it is central to my point. I think the political environment is changing to the point where solar will attract the kind of support traditionally afforded only to more conventional energy sources. And the massive investments that will follow will make solar a low-cost source of electricity, cheap enough so many people will have houses that produce a surplus of electricity.

I know the argument that plug-in EVs are cleaner than fossil-fuel rigs, but I don't think that will be clean enough, especially as demand for new vehicles continues to grow. It may be a step in the right direction, but it's not a large enough step.

I don't think we have excess power right now. The grid is stretched. Voltages keep getting driven higher and higher to accomodate the demand. We're facing competition for fuel sources from places such as China. Schwarzenegger is touting the hydrogen highway, but he has the same problem: Where do you get the power to produce the hydrogen. And then there is the huge technology shortfall with hydrogen that doesn't exist with solar.

When you say grow your own electricity on your roof, that's what I'm talking about. That's the big source of new, clean electricity. Solar is still expensive, but with the political climate changing and very significant investments of capital and talent by corporations large and small, solar is about to get very cheap. And once your house can easily and cheaply produce more power than you use, what do you do with the surplus? EVs are the perfect solution.


----------



## Darell (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Josey said:


> No problem, Darell. Maybe I can make the point more gently, because it is central to my point.


I read you loud and clear... just enjoying the discussion.  Please don't look at my comments as arguments, but as further discussion.



> I know the argument that plug-in EVs are cleaner than fossil-fuel rigs


More of a studied, proven fact than an argument, but I'll take the stipulation anyway it is offered....



> It may be a step in the right direction, but it's not a large enough step.


Oh, I quite agree. The momentum, however, still severely favors the status quo - which is no step at all. By pushing the idea that EVs are being "held back" by not being powered with cleaner energy is a vote to continue down the status quo path.

I don't think we have excess power right now. The grid is stretched. [/qoute]
The grid is only stretched at peak times. We have gobs of "below capacity" power at night and other off-peak times. Using this power to balance the grid makes the grid more efficient, and makes ALL power cheaper per kWh. We have to pay for much of that off-peak power regardless of if we use it or not. We pay for it in money and pollution.



> Voltages keep getting driven higher and higher to accomodate the demand.


For the demand *at peak times*.


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

now this is what I call 'good news for modern man' ! 

y'know I hadn't thought of charging the ev battery over a period of days to get a run out of it..duh..I do fill the house batteries from the night before in just 2 or 3 hours on a sunny day, then 10 or 20 minutes running the well pump, then the rest is wasted, that's another good 4 or 5 kwh's -- at 11kw I could run to the grocery and back every couple of days..with just a 600 watt array..well, in the summer, anyway..


----------



## Darell (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



TedTheLed said:


> y'know I hadn't thought of charging the ev battery over a period of days to get a run out of it..duh..I do fill the house batteries from the night before in just 2 or 3 hours on a sunny day, then 10 or 20 minutes running the well pump, then the rest is wasted, that's another good 4 or 5 kwh's -- at 11kw I could run to the grocery and back every couple of days..with just a 600 watt array..well, in the summer, anyway..



Yeah, if you had an EV battery sitting around to soak up any of your extra power... you could also add that extra storage to your existing battery storage if you need the home powered more than the car the next day. All good. On 5kWh, you would be able to drive my Rav4EV easily 15-20 miles (!). A modern, more aerodynamic car would do better. If you're tossing 5KWh away most summer days, you're talking probably about ALL of your vehicle miles right there.

Makes ya wonder why everybody needs gasoline, eh?


----------



## James S (Jul 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

the reason that we're competing with china and other places for fuel to make electricity is because our utilities have invested in the simplest and cheapest to put in gas turbines to handle peak loads, and maintained ancient coal plants for most of their generation. This is the worst of both worlds.

I'll throw a spanner in the works and state that it is my personal, but I think highly educated  belief that while solar and other "green" sources can replace the peak generation from many gas turbines, only new nuke plants can replace coal plants in our infrastructure.

As a child I expected to own a nuclear car by now  And by making the electricity for an electric car from those sources it almost makes it true  In reading over the last year I've come to understand that about 95% of the valid arguments against nuclear power are based on the assumption that we'd be building more of the exact same plants that we designed in the 40's and that are still making our power today. But when you stop to realize that we would not be building more of the same facilities, nearly all of those arguments stop having any meaning. This is a very very interesting time for nuclear power in the US as the first new plant in 50 years is about to get ordered!


----------



## Darell (Jul 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



James S said:


> In reading over the last year I've come to understand that about 95% of the valid arguments against nuclear power are based on the assumption that we'd be building more of the exact same plants that we designed in the 40's and that are still making our power today. But when you stop to realize that we would not be building more of the same facilities, nearly all of those arguments stop having any meaning. This is a very very interesting time for nuclear power in the US as the first new plant in 50 years is about to get ordered!


While I'm not in the mood to get all deep and serious about this right now (currently sick, and only have so much argument in me!) I've come to a dissimilar conclusion after my study over the past few years. There are still *plenty* of valid arguments against modern, *buildable* nukes. Yes, just like with FCV's, there are many "pie in the sky" scenarios for nuke plants about how they could and maybe shoud go. But we're still mired in reality.

At this point, ANY centrized huge source of power gives me the willies. If we take the same actual dollars that it would take to replace our consumption with nuke plants, we could do way the hell better with other options, IMO.


----------



## ikendu (Jul 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



James S said:


> ...belief that while solar and other "green" sources can replace the peak generation from many gas turbines, only new nuke plants can replace coal plants in our infrastructure.



I used to have thoughts like that. Not any more.

Solar and wind combined with a smarter grid and storage systems can do it.

Clean, no waste, no risk, cheaper, more widely distributed, more secure.

What are our peak loads?

Bright, sunny days.

When does local solar produce the most?

Bright, sunny days.

Combine that with the fact that we are so wasteful that we simply throw away a lot of the energy we use... clean up that wasteful energy and we'll need way less to start with.

As a society, we just haven't committed ourselves to get it done. Other countries like Germany and Denmark are way ahead of us. The U.S.! Falling behind.

We have huge areas of the U.S. with tons of sun. Combine that with new heat storage solar generation and you've got utility scale solar that works.

We have huge other areas of the U.S. with tons of wind energy. Combine that with compressed air and water storage (25 such systems operate in the U.S. right at this moment) plus a smart grid that can turn demand on and off and you've got utility scale wind solutions that work.

Renewable.

Coal, natural gas, oil and yes... even nuclear ...eventually run out.

Continuing to burn up our fossil fuels steals resources from our children while polluting our world.

Building more nuclear means we pile up more toxic, radioactive waste that creates a debt to be paid by our children and grandchildren for control, clean up, and higher health care costs (plus higher risks of terrorism and proliferation).

Renewables build an inheritance. Non-renewables steal or create debt. Simple choice.

"We don't inherit the Earth, we borrow it from our children."


----------



## ikendu (Jul 28, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Josey said:


> I don't think we have excess power right now. The grid is stretched.



Since the charging pattern for PHEVs can be so different (all at night during the lowest load part of the day), the DOE presented a report in Dec. '06 that says if all vehicles were EVs or PHEVs, we could charge 84% of them with existing gen capacity and grid capacity.

Press release:
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204

Report:
http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 29, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



James S said:


> As a child I expected to own a nuclear car by now  And by making the electricity for an electric car from those sources it almost makes it true  In reading over the last year I've come to understand that about 95% of the valid arguments against nuclear power are based on the assumption that we'd be building more of the exact same plants that we designed in the 40's and that are still making our power today. But when you stop to realize that we would not be building more of the same facilities, nearly all of those arguments stop having any meaning. This is a very very interesting time for nuclear power in the US as the first new plant in 50 years is about to get ordered!



Veering OT here...

I was disappointed when I learned that the integral fast reactor (IFR) concept had been cancelled. Here was a reactor that was both more thermally efficient than conventional designs, exponentially more "fuel cycle" efficient with its fuel because it recycled the hot isotopes into usable fuel, and largely eliminated the nuclear waste problem by removing most of the hot isotopes from the waste stream. Instead of mining gigatons of coal and hydrocarbons, mere tons of uranium could provide similar energy.

The concept needed work to go into production, but likely would have had few of the downsides of conventional nuclear plants if it was deemed workable on a large scale.


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 29, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

oh goody only a little more nuclear waste that we already have too much of that we can't handle and it's better cause it probably won't melt down and kill Pennsylvania and contaminate the nation's groundwater for 100k years like those other nasty nuke reactors? yay.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jul 29, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

There are always downsides to everything. While nuclear waste is a bad thing, so is damning rivers, drilling for oil and strip mining to get coal. While nuclear disasters can be catastrophic, so can oil spills and collapsed damns. 

I don't pretend to know what the ultimate solution is, but I do hope we are prepared for the time when other resources are maxxed out. That will only happen by doing research now, including the risky stuff.

If one of the side effects is more electric cars, that's OK with me. 

Daniel
Daniel.


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Jul 29, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



TedTheLed said:


> oh goody only a little more nuclear waste that we already have too much of that we can't handle and it's better cause it probably won't melt down and kill Pennsylvania and contaminate the nation's groundwater for 100k years like those other nasty nuke reactors? yay.



That about sums up my opinion too. Not that fossil fuels or even biofuels are so much better.

One of the signs of mental illness in animals is _soiling where they sleep_.


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 29, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



TedTheLed said:


> oh goody only a little more nuclear waste that we already have too much of that we can't handle and it's better cause it probably won't melt down and kill Pennsylvania and contaminate the nation's groundwater for 100k years like those other nasty nuke reactors? yay.



Actually, I believe that IFR reactors could use much of that nuclear waste we're currently planning on warehousing for thousands of years as fuel.


----------



## ikendu (Jul 29, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



idleprocess said:


> Actually, I believe that IFR reactors could use much of that nuclear waste we're currently planning on warehousing for thousands of years as fuel.




Anyone got a link to any reactor of this type is operating successfully?

I keep hearing that our attempts at breeder reactors have failed and they have all been turned off.


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 29, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



ikendu said:


> Anyone got a link to any reactor of this type is operating successfully?
> 
> I keep hearing that our attempts at breeder reactors have failed and they have all been turned off.



As far as a I know, there was only the one test reactor that was shut down about 10 years ago.

I understand that the problems with breeder reactor center around its interesting choice of coolant, namely liquid sodium. I understand that there are numerous breeder reactors in service to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, likely small-scale devices not in use so much for power generation.


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 29, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

If I read this right (probably not) they're burning plutonium (MOX) in Europe..? Never heard of this.
Less toxic than caffein when ingested, they say..unless you inhale it, then you die of cancer;
and I don't know if terrorist would mind it being less than ideal for bombs..

http://www.uic.com.au/nip18.htm

"..Plutonium is one among many toxic materials that have to be handled with great care to minimise the associated but well understood risks. In the 1950s Queen Elizabeth was visiting Harwell and was handed a lump of plutonium (presumably Pu-239) in a plastic bag and invited to feel how warm it was..." 

"We are not a-mutated," she was reported to have quipped.. (not really  )


----------



## James S (Jul 29, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Never run out of nuke fuel if you use breeders. Current burn up of a light water reactor is less than 6%. A breeder can use a lot more of that. And they dont have to be all super high powered and scary either. The reason that they tried to design "fast" breeders which required pumping the output power so high was because at the time they were designing these things they believed that uranium might be a very scarce resource. There were few commercial uses for it at the time so there was very little being produced. It's not actually necessary to build a huge "fast" hot and scary plant to breed fuel. Only if you want to do it very quickly to seed other plants. If you're just talking about using as much of the fuel in your own plant as possible and making enough to take care of your next refuel then you can do it much slower at much more reasonable power levels. Have a google for seed and blanket designs. 

It's actually fun to disagree with you guys on something as I'm usually such a sycophant in this thread 

Nuke "waste" is really just nuke fuel with 5% of it turned into other things. The worst of which do not last millions of years. The rest of it can be treated instead of instant death that needs to be sealed away, but just as a very rich resource of interesting and very useful materials that cannot be obtained in any other way. And with a modern seed and blanked designed reactor there would be a lot less of it anyway. There is no real technical reason that the burnup rate in a small reactor can't be run up to 70% or higher meaning that your reactor will be running on a lot of those isotopes that you would normally classify as waste.

I also dont think that the future is in huge multi-gigawatt plants. There are significant barriers to building them. And modern designed reactors in the 100 to 500 megawatt range are no bigger and not much more difficult to build than a current gas turbine plant. Indeed, the better designs use nitrogen gas as the coolant which can run right through exactly the same gas turbine that you would normally burn natural gas to make the hot air to run through them. And pebble bed reactors cannot "melt down" anyway. They require no active cooling to safely self-regulate.

The self-regulation of a modern plant is actually really fascinating to try to understand. When a particle is spun off from the fuel, it's far too energetic to stop and react with any of the other fuel in the reactor. So it requires a moderator. Most reactors use graphite or heavy water like the new canadian plants do. That slows down the neutrons so that they can react with the fuel nearby and cause more reactions and a stable output. If you stop all moderation the reactions will heat up and ultimately they will heat up to the point where the moderation is not enough and the energy just escapes the core without causing any cascade reactions. At this point it settles down and sits at that setting until the fuel is used up, but it's well within the design limits and far far below the temperature necessary to melt the fuel. SO if you pulled all the control rods out and walked away, it would heat up, cool down a bit and just happily sit there never melting, never venting, never doing anything till you went back to it to get it working again. Can't do that with a light water reactor like were build in the 50's. (the Chinese have a plant that they continuously do this to by way of demonstration to foreign dignitaries that are visiting. They pull the rods and just watch what happens while the politicians in suits sweat in the control room  )

so a modern nuke powered gas turbine will make most of it's own fuel on site, use up most of it's fuel on site, since the burn up will be so much higher it will only need to pull out waste a fraction of the time that a current reactor does. That amount of "waste" can easily be stored on site as current plants do until there is enough of it lying around to bother building a recycling industry for it.

So which will happen first? Covering vast tracts of desert with solar panels or starting to build some smaller nuke plants that use mostly existing technology that the gas turbine folks already know how to build? Lets start an office pool  I'm not as up to date with the happenings and legislations in the other industries, but in the nuke industry things are changing fast lately. I am hoping that smaller companies will come up with better designs rather than just our current monster electric companies building more monster sized plants. As economy of scale does not count when building these hugely complex plants. but more smaller ones would benefit.

The recent eartquake in Japan is a good example. Rather large earthquake. The huge plant survived with no more obvious danage than a little water sloshed out of the waste tanks which measured less radioactive than the hot springs up in the mountains that people go to for their health. But now, even with all the safety measures that whole plant has to be taken out o service for however long it takes them to x-ray and check every weld and every bolt in the place before putting it back on line. This is going to cost them 3 billion dollars a day to replace that electricity from other sources. I repeat, several smaller plants are better than 1 big huge one.

Especially when you get over the fact that they are not so scary and dangerous and green glowing icky inside.


----------



## Darell (Jul 29, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



idleprocess said:


> I understand that there are numerous breeder reactors in service to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, likely small-scale devices not in use so much for power generation.



Just one of the other "side benefits" of this technology that keeps spreading to countries that do and don't like us. :sigh:

While I have no idea of the reality of safe, almost self-supporting reactors that are being discussed here, they do have the smell of Fuel Cell cars about them. "They'll be GREAT if you just give us a whole bunch of money and time." With a whole bunch of money, we could skip most of the time penalty and go right to things that we KNOW are cleaner than what we have today.


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> Just one of the other "side benefits" of this technology that keeps spreading to countries that do and don't like us. :sigh:
> 
> While I have no idea of the reality of safe, almost self-supporting reactors that are being discussed here, they do have the smell of Fuel Cell cars about them. "They'll be GREAT if you just give us a whole bunch of money and time." With a whole bunch of money, we could skip most of the time penalty and go right to things that we KNOW are cleaner than what we have today.



Breeder reactors and the IFR are two separate things.

Breeder reactors produce plutonium by design. You can use this plutonium to keep fueling your reactor, for nuclear weapons, whatnot. The only big operators of breeder reactors in the United States that I know of are under the tight control of the department of energy for the purpose of producing plutonium and other weapons-grade isotopes. I seriously doubt that the designs and operational details of these reactors are being shared with much anybody that's not on exceptionally friendly terms.

The IFR project designed a reactor similar to a breeder, but neither its "waste" nor the chemical processes developed to reprocess the waste into fuel produce weapons-grade fissionables.


----------



## ikendu (Jul 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



James S said:


> ...a modern nuke powered gas turbine will make most of it's own fuel on site, use up most of it's fuel on site, since the burn up will be so much higher it will only need to pull out waste a fraction of the time that a current reactor does.



Is there even one such "modern nuke" plant in operation today?

Got a link for that plant and how the operation has been?



James S said:


> ...a fraction of the time that a current reactor does. That amount of "waste" can easily be stored on site as current plants do until there is enough of it lying around to bother building a recycling industry for it.



I attended a session by some "anti-nuke" guys in June. They were very against Yucca Mountain. I asked them if storing waste on-site wasn't a lot more risky than however risky Yucca Mountain was. Most of those existing on-site storage facilities are hugely overcrowded and way past "full". This is creating its own potential accident situation. As more over-crowding occurs, more of the "hot waste" is packed closer together. If that should ever lose its cooling ...big problem.

The anti-nuke guys didn't have an answer about this.

I'm all for building something that can be safe and truly use up dangerous waste products.

Although... the nuclear industry was touted for years (in the 50's and 60's) as completely safe with electricity so cheap it would be "too cheap to meter". THAT was before we started thinking about how to de-commission a reactor (they do eventually have to be shut down and then cleaned up ...no "machine" can operate forever). And... before we started thinking about how much energy it takes to mine and refine uranium. And... how much of the highly concentrated uranium is left. And... before we realized that plants are operated by human beings ...who do make errors (which have led to the disasters we've had).

Like I say, if we can build one of the new (I'm going to use a pejorative phrase here ...sorry) "wonder reactors" that are inherently safe, produce virtually no damaging waste and basically fuel themselves without adding the risk of increased terrorism and nuclear proliferation ...then let's get on with building a demonstration reactor of this new, wonderful design so we can see how it performs.

I am pretty wary of the claims considering how wrong all of the nuclear hype has been so far (completely safe and pollution free ...not).

If one doesn't exist anywhere, let's build one and put it through the test. 

Let's see if we can find a safe site to build it where the local people will allow it to be built (honestly, a real life barrier to any nuclear "progress").

Meanwhile... we only get about 1% of our energy from wind today while other countries like Denmark are at 20%.

Seems like we should be putting a high priority on building the next 19% of our electricity from wind while we figure out if we can build safe nuclear.


----------



## James S (Jul 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

There are several reactors all over the world doing this. Mostly smaller test reactors. China, South America seem to be ahead of the curve in actually building these plants. China has the first one scheduled to come on line generating 200 mw sometime this year. But their demonstration facility, a 10mw plant, the HT-10 has been around and successfully demonstrating the technology for quite some time.

As far as decommissioning a pebble bed reactor is much easier than a light water reactor. The main reason is that it's much less radioactive inside. While they operate at much higher thermal temperatures, they operate with less radiation to keep that temperature. Water is a very good absorber of neutrons, so in order to sustain the power output in a light water reactor you have to run it at a much higher flux density. Which causes a lot of the containment and stuff in the core to become much more radioactive than the containment of a pebble bed reactor. 

When we were designing the current flock of light water reactors we didn't have the materials science in the 40's to build high temperature gas turbines nor to coat bits of fuel in graphite the way we do now. This is not a big deal now, it wont be any more difficult to build than a natural gas fired turbine as far as that part is concerned. And no complicated water and steam plants which are necessary if you can't use the hot gas directly.

The Chinese plant and the South African plant I think make a mistake in using Helium as their coolant gas. It's behavior is different enough from regular air that you need to build specialty turbines to use it. Most of the problems associated with these plants has to do with this side of things rather than the reactor bed which is really very simple and the science of which is very well understood and tested. If you use nitrogen as the coolant gas then you can use existing turbines and newer designs are doing this.

As far as the danger of the fuel and having more of it around. It's not as bad as you've been led to believe. In order to make bomb grade plutonium you need a special reactor. A commercial breeder reactor, even though it's making plutonium, is making the wrong isotopes to make into bombs. The military reactors making bomb grade plutonium run on almost entirely enriched uranium and are much much different than a commercial reactor of any kind. This is why it's so funny when countries are building one kind of reactor and claiming that it's for power generation, and the opposite is funny too, when a country is building a reactor that is obviously and only for power generation and people are frightened about them using it to build bombs. Only the PR departments of the oil companies could create such a storm of fear uncertainty and doubt. We all know how good they have been at making sure nobody wants an electric car, we all know how hard they have worked to discredit other alternative energy sources and how successful they have been over the years that we still hear the same old tired and patently untrue arguments here in this thread over and over. Perhaps it's not too much of a stretch to realize that most of what you fear about nuclear power comes from the same source...


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

vast tracks of solar panels sound good to me. wouldn't need to be that vast though, just a few square miles (100? I forgot)..would take care of the US..

interesting nuke stuff. but still the production of what breeder reactors breed is never-ending, what if we can't find enough enemy tanks to penetrate with the stuff?
the idea of making them small enough to have one in my backyard producing endless electricity for me and my car does appeal to me, though..


----------



## James S (Jul 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



TedTheLed said:


> vast tracks of solar panels sound good to me. wouldn't need to be that vast though, just a few square miles (100? I forgot)..would take care of the US..



The number goes down with each increase in efficiency for solar panels. The original estimates I saw were calculated with like less than 10% efficiency and you can get panels now that are around 30 or better I think. However there is the problem of what to do overnight and how to get the power from those high solar radiation areas over to your house. We can do all these things, they aren't unsolvable just huge engineering problems. But we now know what the cost of a 40megawatt for 15 minutes battery is in that other great thread going on, now stretch that to a terrawatt and a half or so for 10+ hours and see where that gets you for storing the power overnight. And do those estimates include charging the state of texas sized battery every day in addition to powering peak loads? And how long do the batteries last if you're deep discharging them every night, and if you instead increase capacity so that only a shallow charge is necessary then how many more batteries do you need? The infrastructure to produce nuke pebbles to begin building these plants is here now and can be ramped up. Where would a hundred square miles of solar panels come from. People complain about estimates of how long it would take industry to ramp up to make nuke plants, but 100 square miles of solar panels need to be build too. 

You understand, I'm not against solar power at all  I just dont think putting all our eggs in one basket is a good idea either.



> interesting nuke stuff. but still the production of what breeder reactors breed is never-ending, what if we can't find enough enemy tanks to penetrate with the stuff?
> the idea of making them small enough to have one in my backyard producing endless electricity for me and my car does appeal to me, though..



I'm not sure what the composition would be of the end products of a long running, high burn-up rate breeder reactor would be. But very very little of it would be in the form of depleted uranium. I'm not aware of too many non-military uses for the stuff as you say, but one is for radiation shielding because of how dense it is. So you could use some portion of waste from the reactors to shield the reactors


----------



## ikendu (Jul 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



James S said:


> ...solar panels. ...what to do overnight



You combine solar with wind on a sufficiently large grid (like we already have in the U.S.) so that the two power sources complement each other. That is just step one.

You build compressed air and water pumped storage.

You build solar thermal power stations that heat hot oil. You keep a reservoir of hot oil to produce steam after the sun goes down.

You build a smart grid so that demand can be switched on and off to more exactly match the power when it is available.



James S said:


> ...do those estimates include charging the state of texas sized battery every day



I gotta see that thread. Someone proposed charging a Texas sized battery?


----------



## Darell (Jul 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Storage? Just get a few million BEVs on the road with V2G and we'll have your texas-sized battery ready to shave the peaks.

Listening to all this, I can't help but think how much more we'd get for every green dollar, by spending it on realistic conservation. Or... how much we could get by not spending a thing! We know ALL the "byproducts" of conservation, and surprisingly, none of them is bad. Many Gigawatts of conservation based on well-established technologies are ours for the taking (technologies like driving at or below the speed limit, not making/ordering more food than you can eat, planting fewer lawns and more natives, reusing before recycling, buying locally-made product and locally grown produce, leaving the car at home for the trips that can be walked/biked/carpooled, telecomuting, turning off (unplugging!) devices that aren't being used, insulating, time-shifting major usage to off-peak, using passive heating and cooling, getting sick less (from less energy-caused pollution?)). Nothing very sexy about it, but we most certainly have the technology, and as I said - we know all the environmental damage that conservation causes. It is the same kind of damage that we do to our bodies when we eat healthy.

We have WAY the hell more energy in this country than we need. We're just stupid about how we use it, in general.

Lots of people want to smoke, and more youngsters pick it up every day. Faced with this knowledge, we could either choose to make more cigarettes, and make them more user-friendly and maybe even cheaper... or we could concentrate our efforts on getting smokers to cut back or stop, and keeping new smokers from starting. But honestly, that's MUCH harder than just conserving energy.


----------



## James S (Jul 30, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

You gotta understand, I'm totally for all the things you want too so arguing with you is kind of silly. But fun none the less.

I'm going to need to see some sort of estimate with numbers that show that windpower can carry us overnight, every night. I think you're not seeing the scale of the issue. Especially if with one breath you talk about charging your EV's off the grid overnight to use up extra capacity.

I dont agree that we have way more power than we need. we certainly waste power, but how much and how much is realistically necessary. I am not willing to not have air conditioning. I am willing to invest periodically in new and more efficient equipment and in new and better insulation and such. But after a certain point you can't do any better. I've cut my lighting related costs by almost 2/3rds by switching almost entirely to CF bulbs in the house, but I can't do any better than this. I can add a few more percent by getting some LED and other more efficient types in the future, but the biggest cut has been taken. There isn't anymore, I'm not wiling to sit in the dark and I shouldn't have to just because an artificially created monopoly wants to charge me for oil and coal.

So if I can cut my usage by 2/3'rds then all I've done is put off the power use until 2 more people build houses out here. Thats going to happen in the next 2 weeks just in my square block.

In any case, I'm buying stock in some of the smaller companies springing up around the nuclear turbine business 

PS, you do know about how the amount of overhead generating capacity that is required is legislated right? They are required to have a certain amount of extra capacity ready to go so that we dont go dark. This works well but is expensive. How can you possibly manage load by pulling power from BEV's? What happened on memorial day weekend when 75% of them are on the highway during the hottest part of the day? There can't be uncertainty like that in the grid supply, which is why I still think that some centralized generation in the form of nuclear plants is a good idea.


----------



## James S (Jul 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Left you all speechless for a few hours huh? 

The wonderful thing about a PHEV is that when you plug it in, it doesn't matter where the power comes from. It could be anything that is currently deemed more efficient than the little ICE generator under the hood, and it's not difficult to build a plant that can run cleaner than that. The ICE should be just for the rare extended range trip that we all take. This is why it's so ideal!

And I'll point your attention to this article:
New Nuke Application

Which outlines the recent application of a power company to build a new nuclear plant! The first one in more than 30 years!

Course, it's a 1.6 gigawatt plant, huge and they dont specify the design specifics, but it still is a good thing that interest in resurging.


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I had decided to never reply immediately to any post; the thought can only become more refined the more I consider it..well forget that
..any nuke is a good nuke? I don't think so..

how about a hybrid grid, the same thing is wonderful about it as with the car.
anyone can plug in anything anywhere, the panels don't all have to be in one place..with other alternative inputs, like the hybrid car, I think we could reduce oil input a geat percentage..
ocean wave electric generation could be huge, the machine seems t have been perfected; looks extremely simple - just one moving part generating in each direction of movement..
batteries are the weakest link at this moment but as Ikendu mentioned there are many efficient alternatives (flywheels too) to these especially when you need to preserve the energy for only a relatvely short period..days perhaps..


----------



## BB (Jul 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I always worry about using wind/water turbines/etc. to extract the large amounts of power we need without causing massive unintended consequences (not that oil, coal, nuclear, etc. have their own too).

For example, dams block sediment flow and have been causing accelerated coastal erosion. Even simple finger jetties and such cause massive shoreline changes. Add water turbines under the SF Golden Gate Bridge (dropping sediment at the gate instead of transporting it further out to sea/coastal regions) and wave powered generators (basically, stopping wave action, causing sediment to settle, changing local on-shore currents) will cause large and long term changes to our shoreline areas.

Will this be good or bad--don't know in the grand scheme of things. However it certainly will cause local disruptions and changes--will we be up for that? Given the whole "climate change" hysteria (the Earth is constantly changing, always has, always will), not likely.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Jul 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



James S said:


> You gotta understand, I'm totally for all the things you want too so arguing with you is kind of silly. But fun none the less.



Just wanted to point out that I don't really consider this to be "arguing" as much as *discussing*. There is a difference in my book, an dit often comes down to knowledge, logic and respect.


----------



## TedTheLed (Jul 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

these things are on such a large scale that they would be located far from shore. I don't see them making much difference in the ocean currents any more than wind turbines affect the wind..






http://themoralbusiness.com/img_biowave.jpg


----------



## BB (Jul 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I did not say that they would affect deep ocean currents or that wind turbines would affect the wind...

I said that there would be many local effects of these devices... And we see these effects on the shoreline every day. Large (utility sized) wind turbines cause upper level winds to mix with the air close to the ground--already documented as causing a ~2 degree F drop in ground air temperatures in the local around just a single turbine. And if somebody builds a wind farm up wind of an existing wind farm, the leeward farm will lose power (and there already been lawsuits, in Germany?) about changes in local wind patterns.

Also, the farther these devices are built from the area the power is to be consumed--the more transmission losses.

My solar panels have, perhaps, a few percent "transmission" loss between my inverter and my loads. From the "power plant" to my loads, probably a 50% transmission loss.

A 50% loss of power (or increase in effective energy costs) is not a small deal.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Jul 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



BB said:


> probably a 50% transmission loss.
> 
> A 50% loss of power (or increase in effective energy costs) is not a small deal.
> 
> -Bill



50% would be huge... but not realistic. I believe the avergage line loss is less than 10% in the US - near 8% IIRC? Maybe I misunderstood which transmission loss you mean?


----------



## BB (Jul 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Technically, I was lumping everything, transmission and distribution, together... One place I saw said the DOE attributed 20% to transmission losses...

Interesting data here, total losses are much higher (appears to include energy loss in generation of electricity too) (entire report + index link).

Scroll down for graph #9 (retail electrical power vs losses)

Underlaying data for graph#9

For the last year (2006), 3.4 x 10^12 BTU retail electricity, vs 7.4 x 10^12 BTU "losses". Or, 69% total losses.



> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Total losses are calculated as the primary energy consumed by the electric power sector minus the
> [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]energy content of electricity retail sales. Total losses are allocated to the end-use sectors in proportion to
> [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]each sector's share of total electricity retail sales. [/FONT]



-Bill


----------



## Darell (Jul 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Total losses are a WAY different thing than transmission losses! By this definition, an automobile loses about 80%. A PV system like mine loses 85%.


----------



## BB (Jul 31, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

True...

-Bill


----------



## James S (Aug 1, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

cool article on the continued advancement of solar panels. Up to over 42% efficiency which is awesome!

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=49483

And I didn't necessarily mean that any nuke is a good nuke... But if the regulatory agencies are willing to consider and grant permits for new plants, that means that more forward thinking companies with more interesting and efficient designs have a chance of getting them approved as well.


----------



## Darell (Aug 6, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

17-year-old video of the GM EV1 prototype, the Impact. This thing was just recently discovered, and is an awesome piece of history. Here is the quicker-loading, low rez version:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7694402778593676025

Higher rez (90mb) can be found here


----------



## James S (Aug 6, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

can I just make a small suggestion. That if you want a car to succeed you dont want to call it the "impact" as that is something we generally try to avoid when driving any kind of car...


----------



## Darell (Aug 6, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



James S said:


> can I just make a small suggestion. That if you want a car to succeed you dont want to call it the "impact" as that is something we generally try to avoid when driving any kind of car...



Yes, that became an industry joke almost as big as the Nova. The difference is that the Impact was just the proto name that didn't go into production.

Did you hear where Alec was saying how we shouldn't wait for the "next big thing" in batteries. Just build it now with 100 mile range, and then when the new batteries come out, it'll just be better - with 300 mile range. And now, 17 years later, GM is waiting for the "next big thing" in batteries before it builds the 40-mile battery-range Volt.


----------



## Darell (Aug 7, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Don't know why I waste my time with all this. First we find that driving a Hummer is better for the environment than driving a Prius. And now we find that driving ANY gas car is better than walking.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

Apparently, only those people who walk eat meat.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 7, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Talk about a biased study. They're only picking foods with a high carbon footprint. And the idea of people being couch potatoes would in the long run cause them to require more medical care-another big carbon emitter. Besides that, if the TV or computer was off-limits to cut down on carbon emissions, then what is this sitting person supposed to do, twiddle their thumbs? Read? Wait, doesn't making books emit carbon plus destroy trees? How about just developing and using existing means of producing power which don't emit carbon?


----------



## Josey (Aug 7, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

The hummer study was clearly biased, wrong and dumb; but this study is really about the modern meat industry, which is incredibly energy intensive and on the order of magnitude with cars as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Most people could do more to help the environment and slow global warming by switching to a vegan diet than by switching to a more fuel-efficient car, especially if that diet is largely organic and locally grown.

Food really is a big deal. 

It takes about 10 fossil fuel calories to produce each food calorie in the average American diet, mostly because that diet is heavy with meat and processed and long-traveled food. A family of four consumes food energy equal to about 930 gallons of gasoline, which is about what that same family uses to power our homes and fuel our cars. 

The vegan diet really helps because it takes far less energy to produce, especially if it is organic (no fossil-fuel pesticides and fertilizers) and locally grown. If you eat an apple, you get all the caloric energy. Feed that apple to a pig, and the available energy via meat is reduced by a factor of 10. 

The American press (and Al Gore) do not talk about this issue because Americans are so meat driven. Few people in this country are ready to hear that they can do more with their diet to slow global warming and improve their own health than they can with a new, fuel-efficient car. It's more fun to talk about new gadgets, like EVs, which I concede are also important and necessary. Just not enough.


----------



## ikendu (Aug 8, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> Don't know why I waste my time with all this.



Ah... don't cha know? You are supposed to throw your hands up in the air and give up. Just keep on doing the things we've been doing for a hundred years and don't rock the boat!

Things will be fine... at least until I retire and cash in my stock options.

Then I'll have enough to weather any conceivable storm personnally ...and the rest of humanity can go... (finish with your own favorite line).

Seen the lastest Newsweek?

Global Warming is a Hoax ...not.

The Truth About Denial
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/


----------



## James S (Aug 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



> The Truth About Denial



heh, this is how science works! Some people need some further examples shown to them and this is an excellent one. In the beginning there were people afraid that their data was showing them something alarming, so they wrote some papers to get others interested and continued to do work on their own. Initially they were laughed at, then it became political and we laughed at them (at least I certainly did, nothing is funnier than watching a politician trying to make you think they understand the science behind an issue). But in spite of all the posturing and bogus claims and stupid things being said the science in the background continued. Now we took what was fringe a few years ago and it has become mainstream. And I don't mean mainstream in the media and politically, but scientifically. After a certain point there is enough data and enough observation to begin to call something real and not just a theory. (and a theory is not just an idea that somebody came up with while in the shower the other day, it's an attempt to explain the observed reality in a way that doesn't require invoking magic powers or throwing away well accepted precepts of physics...)

And so now the situations are reversed, we call the denialists cranks and the mainstream folks look at the data and accept that something real is happening. We're still filling in a lot of the gaps here, but the trend continues to support the overall idea that it is real and the details we're filling in overwhelmingly strengthen the argument instead of call it into question.

THIS is how science works. Beware of anybody who "knows" things without this process. Beware of ideas that do not evolve and adapt to new data. (there are many systems of things that pretend to be science, several modalities of alternative medicine come immediately to mind, which were "discovered" by a personality a hundred years ago and preserved by the cult of personality in their original exact form, they have not adapted as more things were learned, they are not real) Beware those who tell you they have discovered things that throw out a hundred years of physics. They are not taking new data into account so their ideas will always be wrong 

Politically throughout history governments have tried to legislate reality, but it doesn't change things outside of their chambers. The REAL continues whether we like it or not and does not succumb to our desires or any amount of sticking our heads in the sand.


----------



## Darell (Aug 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Latest news on the Plug-in front. Now... who do we believe? Neat that the "next generation of Li-Ion will be here in just a couple of months, eh?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/09/autos/gm_electric.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes


----------



## Darell (Aug 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Josey said:


> but this study is really about the modern meat industry, which is incredibly energy intensive and on the order of magnitude with cars as a source of greenhouse gas emissions.
> ...
> Food really is a big deal.



I do agree that it is an important issue. I don't agree with the conclusions of the "study" however. One HUGE missing piece is the upstream energy/pollution of creating the fuel for the car... and creating the car in the first place. If anybody can REALLY show that walking is more energy/pollution intensive than driving... well, then I'm on the wrong planet.

Showing how much damage our diet does to our environment is one (important) thing. Pretending that we'll eat more meat, and thus pollute MORE if we stop driving, is just ridiculous.


----------



## Josey (Aug 9, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I don't disagree with you, Darell. There are just too many variables in the walk/drive issue, including the actual type of food people eat and the type of car they drive. Certainly, driving a solar-powered EV to the store is way different than driving a Hummer. And usually what happens when the typical American starts to walk more is that he or she loses excess weight. (Which means they use less gasoline when they do drive.) They don't eat more to make up for calories burned during walking.

A lot of these studies are flawed, although many have a grain of truth. I'm a big fan of solar power for EVs and the home, but if we keep increasing our energy usage at the current rate, in 250 years we'll need more than one sun if solar is our only energy source. Of course, it doesn't have to be the only energy source. We can be more efficient. We can use our intelligence and common sense and adapt our lifestyles to this huge energy and population pressure.

I really appreciate people who use these products now, especially solar and EV, because they pave the way for economical consumer products in the future. I don't think we can survive without switching to EVs and a whole bunch of other lifestyle and technology changes.


----------



## Darell (Aug 10, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Since I am such a vocal proponent of EVs, much of my bigger message is often lost. I'd rather figure out a way for people to do *without* private cars, than to keep figuring out ways of facilitating the private automobile. But while we're dealing with that much bigger issue, we need a more benign way to go about our daily activities. (And according to some, walking is NOT that way! :sigh

Many people also assume that I think that EVs are some sort of cure-all for our society's ills. That is absurd, of course, but it is a common comment I hear. And then there are those drivers who think that I'm out to remove all other vehicle options. Take away their big trucks, etc. When, in fact, my whole push for EVs is to simply make them available as a choice for those who want them. While I work to *increase* choice, I'm accused of trying to limit choice. :thinking:

Hmm, I seem to be going all stream-of-consciousness here, with no real point. I think I'd better stop.


----------



## idleprocess (Aug 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Darell said:


> Don't know why I waste my time with all this. First we find that driving a Hummer is better for the environment than driving a Prius. And now we find that driving ANY gas car is better than walking.
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
> 
> Apparently, only those people who walk eat meat.



Hm, I see some problems with that study...



> The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production. “Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” he said, a calculation based on the Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.



Meat is essentially a combination of fat and protein - Fat contains 9 calories per gram, protein contains 4 calories per gram. Thus, 100g of beef should contain 400 - 900 calories. Looks like their figure for CO2 indirectly generated by walking is off by a factor of at least 2-3... assuming you eat only beef and their figures for CO2 emissions from the agribusiness sector are accurate.

EDIT: Er, looks like I forgot to account for the water content of meat. Perhaps ~100g will equate to ~180 calories.



Darrel said:


> I do agree that it is an important issue. I don't agree with the conclusions of the "study" however. One HUGE missing piece is the upstream energy/pollution of creating the fuel for the car... and creating the car in the first place. If anybody can REALLY show that walking is more energy/pollution intensive than driving... well, then I'm on the wrong planet.



No kidding. A car weighs some 15-20x as much as the average human and as we all know, they're a tad _less_ than 100% efficient at converting fuel into kinetic energy.


----------



## idleprocess (Aug 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



Josey said:


> And usually what happens when the typical American starts to walk more is that he or she loses excess weight. (Which means they use less gasoline when they do drive.)



Uhm ... when you chop 10, 20, 30% of the human mass out of the equation for the typical car, you're probably not even going to make a statistically significant change in fuel economy. A 200lb human in a 3000lb car is 6.66% of the mass - if they drop an astounding 30% of their weight you're looking at a combined mass of 3140lbs vs 3200lbs or a 1.2% change _(rounded up!)_. There are numerous other variables that are going to have a bigger effect.

I have some experimental evidence to support this... I once had about 700 pounds of miscellaneous junk in my truck for a long period. I thought that my fuel economy would jump after removing it (dropped the mass by about 15%), but the improvement in fuel efficiency was barely (and inconsistently) 1MPG on a vehicle that averages 20-24MPG before ... seems that the effect on rolling resistance was minimal so the main penalty was the extra oomph demanded during acceleration. My traction was better with all that junk in the bed...


----------



## Josey (Aug 11, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



idleprocess said:


> Uhm ... when you chop 10, 20, 30% of the human mass out of the equation for the typical car, you're probably not even going to make a statistically significant change in fuel economy.


 

Sure, when you are talking about one person losing a little weight, but if we as a nation dropped down closer to a more healthful weight, there would be a significant savings in fuel. It's kind of like the idea of everyone in China eating one more egg a day. Not much at the individual level, but for the Chinese as a whole it would require massive new egg production.


----------



## James S (Aug 12, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

heh, but realism still needs to be part of the equation. If you read the real studies out there you'll find out that being slightly overweight is NOT a death warrant, that people cannot loose weight simply by altering what they eat, that if you exclude ludicrous diets on each side of the equation the data says that people weigh within a few pounds of what they weigh and that no diet can change that long term. But nobody cares that reality is slightly askew from what we've been fed by the media. We may be cutting down on our fast food consumption (I know I have) but we're sure lapping up the crap from the media. 

The REALITY is that if there was a plugin hybrid that sold for a modest premium over a standard car,let you do your daily commute on 90 cents of overnight charge, and yet let you put gas in it on weekends when you drive to grandmas it would sell like crazy. Wondering if you could get the population to loose 10 pounds to save gas is just funny to me.

And it sounds like car makers might be waking up to the market for this vehicle... I know I'll be in line to buy one.


----------



## Darell (Aug 12, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

Better than dieting or "trying" to lose weight would be to take the challenge of walking or riding your bike just one day a week (Ok, or month). With that one tiny change, you're looking at a savings of gasoline that works out to many millions of dollars that does not leave our economy for oil... and millions of pounds of C02 that is not pumped into our atmosphere. And THAT is amazing... and relatively easy. On top of it all, people would probably start losing weight!


----------



## Darell (Sep 13, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

My, how times have changed.


http://www.caranddriver.com/dailyautoinsider/13995/gm-plans-new-family-of-electric-cars.html

GM Plans New Family of Electric Cars - Daily Auto Insider
The Daily Auto Insider 
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
September 2007 

General Motors is hoping to launch a whole family of electric cars, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz.

GM is beginning to map out plans to produce a wide range of electric models beyond the Chevrolet Volt, which it has promised to launch in about three years, the story said....


----------



## James S (Sep 15, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



> My, how times have changed



What I'm going to enjoy will be the revisionism necessary for them to prove how forward thinking and prescient they always were about such things. I can't wait to hear the officials at some press conference saying that they didn't really mean it when they told us how it would never work. The justifications will be worthy of a religious experience I think


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 15, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

I don't think that they will have much trouble with thier past. All they have to say is "The batteries we needed are finally available!" And they might be right about that. They set mighty high standards for the EV1. Most people will ignore the fact that the batteries they had were acceptable for many, if not most, day to day needs.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Sep 15, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*



gadget_lover said:


> They set mighty high standards for the EV1.


Indeed they did. And surpassed every damn one of them.

I agree that they will have little trouble sweeping the past under the rug. The "past" was mired in sub $2 gasoline. Today, even if the technology was the same, the playing field is much different.


----------



## Darell (Sep 17, 2007)

*Re: EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 9*

OK... time to shut this one down and start a new one. Find Part 10 here:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2153503#post2153503


----------

