The Plug In Vehicle Scam 125 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
It's the most insidiously appealing idea of our age: replace those nasty gasoline burning engines with cheap batteries that recharge in minutes and save a fortune on fuel while you "See the USA in Your [electric] Chevrolet." It's so appealing in fact that it ranks right up there with free lunch.
P.T. Barnum would have been proud.
Listen up America – It's a scam! The emperor has no clothes! There is no such thing as a cost-effective electric vehicle that will carry a family of four at highway speeds. But the cautionary if not downright conservative analysis from sources as diverse and credible as the Department of Energy, the White House and Carnegie Mellon University somehow manages to get lost in a media sideshow that focuses on scientific breakthroughs that promise a 5-minute recharge time for batteries nobody can afford to buy.
I hate to be a buzz-kill and point out the brown object floating in the punch bowl but this graph comes from the DOE's brand new Annual Energy Outlook 2009 and shows their best estimate of the market penetration rates for various classes of hybrid electric vehicles over the next 20 years. In this chart, the PHEV-10 and PHEV-40 categories are the only cars with plugs. Everything else is either a full hybrid (HEV) or a mild hybrid (MHEV).
So while your future car is very likely to have modest hybrid capabilities, there is almost no chance it will have a plug or need a charging station. For people like me who think numbers tell a more compelling story, the following table presents some detailed forecast data that I've gleaned from the Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009.
| New Car Sales (Thousands) | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 |
| Gasoline ICE Vehicles | 5,554 | 7,567 | 7,999 | 7,878 | 7,678 |
| TDI Diesel ICE | 53 | 152 | 359 | 596 | 802 |
| Electric-Diesel Hybrid | 0 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 5 |
| Electric-Gasoline Hybrid | 195 | 546 | 985 | 1,471 | 2,034 |
| Plug-in 10 Gasoline Hybrid | 0 | 101 | 138 | 198 | 250 |
| Plug-in 40 Gasoline Hybrid | 0 | 49 | 57 | 81 | 113 |
| Other alternative power systems | 312 | 823 | 1,176 | 1,150 | 1,155 |
| Total New Car Sales | 6,114 | 9,241 | 10,722 | 11,381 | 12,035 |
| Percentage of New Cars With Plugs | 0.0% | 1.6% | 1.8% | 2.5% | 3.0% |
| New Light Truck Sales (Thousands) | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 |
| Gasoline ICE Vehicles | 5,152 | 4,701 | 3,664 | 3,332 | 3,033 |
| TDI Diesel ICE | 195 | 381 | 637 | 921 | 1,174 |
| Electric-Diesel Hybrid | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Electric-Gasoline Hybrid | 92 | 336 | 620 | 951 | 1,223 |
| Plug-in 10 Gasoline Hybrid | 0 | 32 | 22 | 43 | 65 |
| Plug-in 40 Gasoline Hybrid | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other alternative power systems | 950 | 1,884 | 1,613 | 1,394 | 1,269 |
| Total New Light Truck Sales | 6,389 | 7,334 | 6,557 | 6,641 | 6,765 |
| Percentage of New Trucks With Plugs | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.6% | 1.0% |
With due respect for emotionally committed carbon activists who sincerely believe plug-ins are the only way to save our beloved planet, the DOE estimates that cars with plugs will be 0.0% of the new car fleet in 2010, 1.1% of the new car fleet in 2015, 1.3% of the new car fleet in 2020, 1.8% of the new car fleet in 2025 and 2.3% of the new car fleet in 2030. In simpler terms, plug-in vehicles are not the Greatest Show on Earth and the three ring circus we fondly refer to as the auto industry would close the sideshow if it wasn't such a big draw for children of all ages (including government) that bring fat wallets.
We've all been buried in press releases and reports about carmaker plans to introduce plug-in hybrids over the next few years. These are PR stunts, not business decisions. They remind me of a controversy that erupted in the mid-1800s when an entrepreneur named George Hull had the Cardiff Giant carved from a block of gypsum, aged and buried in a field. He then found the treasure while digging a well and promptly sold a two-thirds interest to a credulous investor syndicate managed by a banker named David Hannum. After the sale, Hannum's syndicate moved the Cardiff Giant to Syracuse and increased the entry fee to $1, which was serious money in the 1860s. Things really got rolling when P.T. Barnum tried to lease or buy the Cardiff Giant and was unable to do so. At that point Barnum had a plaster of paris copy made and promptly began denouncing the original as a fake. In newspaper stories about the dispute, Hannum was quoted as saying, "There's a sucker born every minute" in reference to the people who were paying to see Barnum's fake giant instead of the original giant that his syndicate had bought from Hull, which was also a fake. While it's not entirely clear whether Hannum was a sucker or a huckster, they all ended up in court where Hull confessed that the Cardiff Giant was a hoax and the judge ruled that truth was an absolute defense to the syndicate's lawsuit against Barnum.
There is an immense difference between announcing plans to manufacture a product and actually hitting the start button on an assembly line. I am certain we will see a huge variety of one-off prototypes, concept cars and limited production test vehicles over the next couple of years; but unless the DOE's analysts are as clueless as some vocal critics believe them to be, substantially all of the PHEV programs that are being announced today with great fanfare will be quietly axed before too much money is wasted on politically popular ideas that don't make a bit of economic sense.
The headline news out of China is that BYD is introducing a cheap PHEV-62. The truly impressive story is that China built and sold an estimated 23 million electric two-wheeled vehicles (E2W) last year. Collectively, these E2Ws used enough battery power for a million American style PHEVs; all of which leads to a couple of interesting questions for the PHEV crusaders. First, what do you think the chances are that 23 Chinese will give up a little battery power so that one American can squander a lot of battery power? Second, who do you think will have the greater buying power if it comes down to price competition in a resource constrained world, 23 thrifty Chinese or one profligate American?
Li-ion battery developers have access to the same reports I do and they know the PHEV frenzy is a scam. But its a scam where they can let somebody else wildly exaggerate the economic potential of PHEVs and then use baseless auto industry PR to justify building government subsidized factories that do not make sense under any reasonably foreseeable future conditions.
With a simple Google search anybody can learn that Ener1 (HEV) is seeking $480 million in Federal loans to build battery plants with capacity for 600,000 HEVs by 2011 and 1.2 million additional HEVs by 2015. A123 Systems is seeking $1.8 billion in Federal loans to build battery plants with capacity for 5 million HEVs per year.
The National Alliance for Advanced Transportation Battery Cell Manufacture is seeking another $2 billion in Federal funding to build one or more manufacturing and prototype development centers that will be shared by the fourteen NAATB members. While I actually believe the NAATB proposal has considerable merit because it includes giants like 3M (MMM), Enersys (ENS) and FMC (FMC) along with emerging companies like Altair Technologies (ALTI), the nagging question that simply will not go away is "Who is going to buy batteries for over 6.8 million HEVs a year when the DOE's demand forecast is less than half of that number?"
Will we ultimately see those same manufacturers back before Congress demanding HEV and PHEV mandates like we saw with ethanol?
I've written a series of articles on how Li-ion technologies stack up against the competition once you move away from the idea of a PHEV-40 that needs an immense amount of stored energy to move a family of four at highway speeds. The entire archive is available on my Seeking Alpha author's page.
Li-ion is a wonderful technology for portable electronics, E2Ws and personal transportation applications where the vehicle weight to passenger weight ratio is less than about five. It is nonsensical when the goal is to move four passengers and a couple thousand pounds of steel and composites at highway speeds. To date the only rational PHEV proposal I've seen is a gas-guzzler to dual-mode EV conversion initiative that's being developed by Axion Power International (AXPW.OB). The raw end user economics are not as attractive as I would like them to be, but the existing fleet of gas-guzzlers is a far larger problem than the new car fleet will ever be.
Since my parents always taught me to focus on the big problems first and leave the petty stuff for later, I have a hard time arguing with a proposal to slash gasoline consumption by almost a billion gallons a year for every 1% of the existing gas-guzzler fleet that's converted into gas sipping EV-50s. Everything else is just a sideshow.
Mark Twain once said, "history doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme." Like the Cardiff Giant, PHEVs are an appealing bit of fiction that everybody wants to believe. Like the Cardiff Giant there are hucksters prowling the land claiming they have the real deal. In the final analysis, the losers will be the investment syndicate members and the suckers who pay their dollar to see the fake giant.
The DOE's Annual Energy Outlook 2009 makes it perfectly clear that PHEVs are irrelevant for normal people who worry about things like budgets, monthly payments and retirement plans. Fortunately, there are many real energy storage solutions from real companies that actually deserve our attention. I may revisit the PHEV loony bin from time to time to poke a little fun at the true believers, but I'm basically done with this topic.
Disclosure: Author is a former director and executive officer of Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) and holds a large long position in its stock. He also holds small long positions in Exide (XIDE) and Enersys (ENS).
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 125 comments:
We have to go for really fuel efficient cars with less than 5 liters per km first. This should be then bioethanol or other renewable fuel.
Use batteries first stationary where weigth doesn´t matter but cost.
www.autoblog.com/2008/...
if obama wasn't focused on the "clean coal" myth, and if energy secretary chu wasn't "agnostic" about natural gas transportation, perhaps they would have the time to sit down with toyota and find out what US policies would have to change in order for toyota to supply these electric/nat gas camry hybrids by the *millions* to US consumers. it is the best transportation solution today to address the economic, environmental, and national security problems posed by US foreign oil addiction. but alas, i suppose that would just make too much sense, and how can the gov subjugate and master its citizens if they had the mobility such a car would enable.
www.city-journal.org/2...
Well written and nice mix of metaphor with the reference to the Cardiff Giant and allusion to the famous phrase "sucker born every minute".
I hope you are wrong but believe you are right about the enduring carbon based fuels economy. Even though the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent, the facts will eventually prevail.
My point is that Americans need to change their buying habits, traveling habits, driving habits and other habits that got us into this mix. We all would love a car that is cheap and uses no gas. We always want the easy tech fix. Can't happen this time. Maybe we should borrow a couple of ideas from the Chineese. Save a little money, don't waste anything, work hard, and be very smart.
( Sounds like my parents talking). Can you imagine a middle class American saving 10% of their income in cash in a bank. Thats China. And a middle class Chineese makes $3,400 -$9,000.
If we are going to compete and lead the world we need to start by changing our habits. Use less oil. Conserve everything else. Save ,Save, save. Nothing else will work.
John Kennedy once said, "some people enjoy the comfort of an opinion without the discomfort of thought".
Thank you for your excellent thought used to support your opinions on energy storage issues.
Futurist, I'm not done blogging, I'm just fatigued with conversations about an inconsequential application like PHEVs. I agree that our brave new world will require people to change themselves before changing the world. The months I spent in Asia a couple years back were the shock of a lifetime and without some huge changes in people's attitudes there may be a monstrous role reversal. It doesn't have to be that way, but it could be.
Thanks for the link to this sobering article.
city-journal.org/2009/...
If anyone is interested in the future of carbon based fuel they should read this
Check GM's promised lauch of Chevy Volt in 2010.
I believe you've hit on the REAL car of the future. Now or later, it's eventually inevitable.
If an electric or battery-operated vehicle can't make that distance, the purchase will not be made. Why buy something you can't use?
Cities are not the only place to live, and by the choice of many, also not the best place. I have spent the last 30 years moving farther and farther from the big city, and with each mile I've met more people who are doing the same. We have more lakes than restaurants, more rivers than barbershops, and more wildlife wandering across our roads than most areas have traffic lights or children crossing those roads. We brake for ducks and turtles, and we like it. So the electric vehicles won't be used here because they can't get us to work and back home to the areas we love, and there are no buses out here.
Now excuse me, I have to go out and watch the birds.
Finis Lithium
Note that when the red glare from the lithium investment bonfire dies down it will still be true that China is currently closing the gap between its domestic production of rare earth metals (used, among other things, to make NiMH batteries, and brushless DC motors) and its domestic demand for those metals. One of the reasons is, in fact, the increasing production of those two-wheelers for which lithium ion batteries seem to be too expensive. Another is the increasing production of rare earth based permanent magnets, and the computer hard drives and other electric motors that use them, in general, as the Chinese economy attempts to fill its domestic consumer demand. One day soon, if not already, (lanthanum) nickel metal-hydride batteries will only be able to be made in China due to China's position as the producer of 97% of the world's new rare earths.
Thus the hybrid vehicles in the DOE chart may well be imported from China beginning very soon.
Jack, the thing that keeps me up at night is what happens when China's domestic consumption exceeds readily available supply? We saw immense import competition in the lead acid market in the '90s that forced the closure of many U.S. plants. Over the last couple years the import stream has dried up and now the industry is having to rebuild capacity. Given a choice between providing batteries for 23 of their citizens or one of ours, who do you think will win the economic shoving match?
> jack
here are the facts according to the geologists: global warming is natural since we are still in a relatively cool period, carbon in the atmosphere has often been MUCH higher, and the rate of change we are experiencing is, in fact, unremarkable; unfortunately, people keep listening to dopey climatologists with models that do not even work, pathetic-- not to mention politicians, administrators and scientists who are working to socialize our industrial capital; if you trust them you will get what you deserve, just like in the 70s.
any of you remember when we were warned about the coming man-made ice age in the early 70s? some people never learn
legislating a switch to NG transportation is stupid because consumption is consumption. long term, it will increase pollution by increasing consumption through subsidies, inefficient technology (yes, as a matter of fact, NG is less efficient than gasoline for transportation) and worst of all, tremendous economic dislocation. replacing infrastructure causes more consumption than NG will ever save, terrible idea
use saudi arabia's cheap oil now and our expensive oil later is good policy
Would you agree that "small" PHEVs is a real market in the near term? (under 2000lbs)
Have you ever been in one room with over 2000 lead acid batteries charging simultaneously? I have been in many. I have also discharged more EVs than you can imagine over the past 30 years.
Zenfar, they're pretty toys for big boys, but nowhere near an economic solution.
Speculawyer, you've bored me not enraged me; and while the graph is a 20 year look the table gives you five year increments and the link takes you to the raw data. I've always known that my writing would never dissuade a true believer from his delusions, but perhaps they'll keep the next generation of investors from throwing their good money after somebody else's bad.
Trying to replace a fuel tank with a battery is another story altogether.
While I concur with your thesis about the threat, or lack thereof, presented by global warming, I have a question about your second point. How is it that you arrive at the conclusion that NGV's are less efficient than oil for operating ICE's?
uk.reuters.com/article...
there may be hope for north american rare earths and rare metals. take a few minutes to review the following, if not already aware-
avalonventures.com
rareelementresources.com
resourcesstockdigest.com
On Apr 28 10:36 AM Jack Lifton wrote:
> John,
>
> Finis Lithium
>
> Note that when the red glare from the lithium investment bonfire
> dies down it will still be true that China is currently closing the
> gap between its domestic production of rare earth metals (used, among
> other things, to make NiMH batteries, and brushless DC motors) and
> its domestic demand for those metals. One of the reasons is, in fact,
> the increasing production of those two-wheelers for which lithium
> ion batteries seem to be too expensive. Another is the increasing
> production of rare earth based permanent magnets, and the computer
> hard drives and other electric motors that use them, in general,
> as the Chinese economy attempts to fill its domestic consumer demand.
> One day soon, if not already, (lanthanum) nickel metal-hydride batteries
> will only be able to be made in China due to China's position as
> the producer of 97% of the world's new rare earths.
>
> Thus the hybrid vehicles in the DOE chart may well be imported from
> China beginning very soon.
>
>
>
sorry, bad link! try
resourcestockdigest.com
H2 fuel cell EVs with the hydrogen made by off-peak nuke power at combo 3-way nuclear plants/production facilities, which can produce electrons, reverse osmosis clean water, and electrolytic hydrogen. Look Ma! No carbon in the chain. Preferred nuke design: Thorium laced natural Uranium CANDU reactors that don't lend themselves to weapons production (no enriched uranium). Both ideas are my own, though others are working on parts of this. Several nations are designing 2-way power & H2O desalination plants (i.e. with the economies of nuke off-peak power and large scale of reverse-osmosis, the economics actually works).
So John, since you're done with PHEVs, let's move on to the grid and related ideas like mine stated here. At one point you said this might be your next doggie sock to bite into....
In an earlier reply to Michael Fitzsimmons I directed him to a new article out of City Journal Magazine that is very thought provoking on several levels. So I'll take this opportunity to repost the link.
www.city-journal.org/2...
While economics and resource constraints will still play out, it's not beyond doubt that certain places will have substantial numbers of electric cars. I just don't think there'll be sufficient electric cars on a global scale to do more than tinker on the CO2 margin.
On Apr 28 10:28 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
> Sorry Mr Petersen, but too many smart people have told me that there
> is a future for plug in vehicles. They didn't tell me however how
> many of these items will be on the road in e.g. 2030, and in what
> countries. In any event, although 'scam' is one of my favorite words,
> I don't think that it belongs here.
The City Journal Magazine article I linked in my previous response makes a very good argument that all of the industrial world's efforts to curtail carbon emissions won't do a thing except make them economically weaker and increase emissions in asian countries that pick up the economic slack and will use coal to do it.
It truly is worth a careful read no matter where you stand on the global warming question. I remain a committed agnostic.
One way or another, we'll get there.
Thank you,
Electricnick.com
The NAATB seems to have a fairly outlook and wants to build a combined research and manufacturing process development center. The dollar amount makes me cringe, but it's probably exactly what we need if we want to get to the best Li-ion chemistry and production methods possible. Remember, Li-ion is an important product class that has huge market potential on its merits, particularly toward the right hand tail of the bell curve where performance is key and cost is secondary. It's just not the panacea the hucksters claim.
But let's say for the moment that the feds were to contribute to speed up the pace. What would be wrong wth that? This would surely generate MANY MORE REAL JOBS than the Green ones being bandied about by the Know Nothings in Washington, not to mention the ridiculous trillion dollars being spent by B-O & Co. in so-called Stimulus, which is replete with projects like updating skating rinks.
And what's more important to our future economy and well being? Getting rid of the yoke OPEC has around our necks, or rewarding one's political supporters? Insofar as those now running Washington are concerned, we've already learned the answer to that.
You're going to get your wish. True EV's are ideally suited to your needs. All you need do is fork over $100K to Tesla or $50K to GM for a Volt when they come out and you'll be in business. Meanwhile, you may wish to opt for a Prius hybrid that costs $25K and gets 50 MPG.
The point is once we all make alternate transportation choices, which will differ according to our individual needs, we can begin making a serious dent in OPEC's stanglehold on us. And it won't take all that much to do it. If we can reduce oil consumption by just 10-15%, that will seriously limit their cartel's dominance.
The only remaining problem is no one in Washington has figured this out yet.
> the idea of cars with plugs is fatally flawed (prior thread)
> there is almost no chance [your future car] will have a plug
John,
1) Since you're living in Europe you may have missed the news on the recent spot gasoline shortages during the hurricane season -- apparently Atlanta was particularly problematic with shortages and long lines.
Madison Avenue marketing sharps will have no problem getting folks to pay-up for, say, a 20+mile all-electric range PHEV by using "gas line" footage blended in the advertisements. Need to get to the grocery or pharmacy and back? No problem. Go on some other errand or visitation (without denting your commute fuel)? No problem. GM/Ford/Xyz PHEV is your answer!!! End with a picture of your "gas-only" neighbor watching you drive by. (Personally, I think that last picture is why four-wheel-drive vehicles scurry about after snow storms -- the "superiority" factor sells).
2) Anyhow, transit bus companies are building plug-in buses right now. Obviously they already feel comfortable with the price/performance of these batteries because they have been pitching them to municipal transit operators for months. Several heavy duty vehicle makers are moving to lithium from other battery types, and some are building all-electric lithium buses and trucks.
This time, the aroma of the article as well as of some commentaries is dramatic, and I do not see anything negative in the death of the electric car. As I said before, there are other solutions for powering 4 passenger cars that have a brighter future. Hydrogen is one, and more are in the works (protonex.com ) or will be discovered. The universe is full of energy and can easily support the big car, truck, railway, air transportation. I love my motorcycle but I’ll keep my 1 ton truck. The Chinese are on 2 wheels mostly because of the traffic jams, not because they cannot make bigger cars.
Regardless of the form of energy we’ll gather from the universe, we’ll need to convert it to electricity, between other forms, and store it, because machine tools, air condition, toasters, light etc will use electricity for a long time. I repeat myself when saying that the national – world grid is the main field of competition for the electric energy storage industry where companies will succeed or fail, and not the transportation ind.
Maybe it is the time to change the “alternative energy transportation buzz” from electric cars and batteries to other energy sources. What companies are involved and what kind of technologies are they embracing?
I appreciate that you're an agnostic. I did a module at college and the lecturer was amazed that the IPCC could be 90% confident of anthropogenic climate change. We were shown a climate change graph which correlated temperature with carbon that had an Rsquared of 0.15. Whether it makes sense to act anyway without certainty depends on your vantage point.
By the way, I've learnt a lot from your articles on EVs, please continue to post any developments.
On Apr 28 12:31 PM John Petersen wrote:
> engstudent, I agree that PHEVs are more attractive in countries that
> have very high gasoline prices. These are economic relationships
> that will always be subject to change. They are certainly not carved
> in stone.
>
> The City Journal Magazine article I linked in my previous response
> makes a very good argument that all of the industrial world's efforts
> to curtail carbon emissions won't do a thing except make them economically
> weaker and increase emissions in asian countries that pick up the
> economic slack and will use coal to do it.
>
> It truly is worth a careful read no matter where you stand on the
> global warming question. I remain a committed agnostic.
For phev to take off there will need to be some game-changing paradigm shifts- smaller vehicles and perhaps alternative fuels combined with a huge increase in the price of oil.
Do you know how many of the Auto X-prize entries are using electric storage/hybrid technology as part of their quest to reach 100mpg?
Also, I believe there are major improvements in logistics, telecommuting, and shared resources that can do more to reduce fuel consumption than phevs. But with oil at $80/barrel or below for the next 10 years, these may not be cost effective. And without significant carbon restrictions I don't see the price of gasoline going back to panic levels since the Fed hasn't pursued the most aggressive money printing path.
I'm still more worried about recovering a high growth technological/industrial economy instead of one where we all grow gardens, make herbal soaps in the backyard, and teach massage classes in the evening to get by.
If 50% of new cars are diesel as it is in Europe the save in PIB and deficit could be reduced by billions each year, only a heavy taxed fuel will push the HEV or PHEV to mass production (aside of tipe of battery), US will start doing something seriously when a federal gas tax is implemented (and now is the perfect moment to it).
Regards
I don't know much about most of these small companies that make prototype electric cars. I suspect that most of those will fail to even get to production. But GM is going forward with the Volt, and I don't see anything that is going to stop it. They are in the process of eliminating virtually every other brand they have, but nothing has been cut from the Volt program. I know most of the readers here like to bash GM, and most of it is deserved, but they are following through with this car, even if it's the only car they produce after (if) they go through bankruptcy.
I have to disagree with the author in saying that the electric car is a scam. Surely some other forms of vehicles will have to develop in the next 50 years, there is just not enough oil to keep up with the growing demand for cars. It might be some form of plug in hybrid electric, or some advanced biodisel, or perhaps some other technology, but 50 years from now we surely won't have 100% of the vehicles on the road be regular gasoline engines like it is now.
My objections in this article are limited to family cars and the picture changes dramatically when you start talking about transit buses, taxis and other heavy use commercial vehicles. It will take some testing to find out whether heavy-duty hybrid or big battery packs is the most cost effective solution, but commercial vehicles are a different equation and may indeed be a good application.
User 345093, I didn't mention Axion's products in this blog much less talk about their use in transportation. The only thing I said was that the dual-fuel gas guzzler conversion initiative is the only PHEV plan I've seen that makes sense because it attacks our biggest problem. If you've read my other blogs, then you know that the initiative will not give Axion or anybody else a particular IP advantage and will be an absolutely level playing field for any battery producer that wants to compete.
Commercial hydrogen is made by stripping down methane in a process that gives you one C02 molecule for every methane molecule. It is the most wasteful form of energy in existence when you consider the entire supply chain. If and when we get to electrolysis of water using off peak power, then hydrogen will face the same storage, transportation and distribution issues that we have with natural gas, except that the national national gas infrastructure is massive and there is no hydrogen infrastructure.
Every decision in life comes with a price. Your willingness to pay that price should always be your decision. The same is true for my blogs, if you want the information you have to read what I want to talk about.
Engstudent, sometimes I wish there wasn't as much data as there is. But after spending several winter months in Hanoi and actually growing accustomed to the easily identifiable smell of burning coal, I can assure you that the problem is in fact worse than anybody wants to admit.
Dirk, oil prices are indeed the $64,000 question. I'm in the camp that expects $70 to $80 within 12 to 18 months, but there are very smart people who disagree with me and certainly know more about that market. I don't really track the auto-x-prize so I can't offer any insight there. Once people start changing their habits they'll find the possibilities endless. I'm an extreme example who lives Europe by choice and will take on clients covering 8 time zones to the east and 8 time zones to the west. Eliminating the commute entirely does work for many and can only become more popular.
Advill, now you're singing my tune. My ideal car is a strong hybrid (no plug) with a thrifty diesel engine. But that's another of those things that a lot of American's resist because of the poor performance diesel offered in years gone by.
In its March 30, 2009 summary determination that General Motors (GM) had failed to propose a viable bankruptcy alternative, the President's auto industry task force said:
"GM is at least one generation behind Toyota on advanced, “green” powertrain development. In an attempt to leapfrog Toyota, GM has devoted significant resources to the Chevy Volt. While the Volt holds promise, it is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable."
The entire article is available here:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
I pray that new alternatives don't take 50 years to develop because I agree there is not enough oil. But there are lot dogs barking up the wrong tree right now.
I just bought a 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid and yes it may not have been an economically sound choice if gas stays at $2 a gallon, but I am enjoying every minute I spend in the vehicle, I bet Tesla and Karma owners will / would say the same.
See how good they are! Sell perceived need, not actual need!
> My objections in this article are limited to family cars
Yes, you keep getting dragged into debates on mass market EV/PHEV cost and benefit analysis where many experts aren't necessarily in agreement -- "religious wars" so to speak. Fun sometimes, though the head of Aerovironment once noted that their auto customers are *more* secretive than their military ones! It's hard to gather info in that space.
If we categorize this arena as:
Type A) cheap all/partial electric vehicles for the mass market
Type B) expensive all/partial electric vehicles with "superior" features (20mi electric range to avoid "gas shortage" fears, or "power take off" feature to power your house for several days during outages, or even 4 second 0-60 acceleration)
Type C) premium heavy duty fleet vehicles (buses, delivery vans, service trucks) with superior commercial cost/benefit
Type D) premium stationary power (superior temperature, life-cycle, or power density sometimes needed)
I have found that there is much more information available about Types C and D -- if you dig for it.
For example, during a recent energy commission meeting a rep from a truck company said that the "fast charge" supplier for their forthcoming EV truck is located in Monrovia, California (big clue there). And a state representative during a recent legislative committee meeting said that one of his corporate constituents "has agreed to buy" 60,000 EVs from a large vehicle maker (which he named). Perhaps he meant 6,000, but it sounded like 60k to me.
Similarly, the Type D stuff can be tracked thru energy commission meetings, ISO presentations, EPRI stuff, and FERC filings (e.g. an "upside down" pumped hydro installation is proposed for $333/kWh).
End your "fatigue" by ditching "Type A" discussions at least.
On Apr 28 10:28 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
> Sorry Mr Petersen, but too many smart people have told me that there
> is a future for plug in vehicles. They didn't tell me however how
> many of these items will be on the road in e.g. 2030, and in what
> countries. In any event, although 'scam' is one of my favorite words,
> I don't think that it belongs here.
marketquant, the type A & B are where the greatest religious fervor and weakest economics reside. Sadly all the arguing over religious issues has gotten us away from the primary purpose of finding stocks that are currently undervalued and likely to appreciate more rapidly than their peers over the next few years. Since that really is my goal, I'm just going to get back to the fun stuff.
But is a tradeoff even necessary? I'm no expert, but can't the limited range of PHEVs be significantly enhanced by adding a small generating capacity to keep the batteries charged while driving?
With the cost of electricity (in inflation-adjusted dollars) continually coming down in price, and the cost of fossil fuels likely to increase, it seems efficient PHEVs will eventually become ideal replacement vehicles. My guess is it will happen sooner than this article would indicate.
web.mit.edu/newsoffice...
On Apr 28 09:03 AM Futurist wrote:
> John,
> Thanks for the link to this sobering article.
>
> city-journal.org/2009/...
>
>
> If anyone is interested in the future of carbon based fuel they should
> read this
Don Harmon
If one considers the propulsion spectrum from ICE cars to PEV, it's obvious that the huge area covered by hybrids is just a way to make ICE more fuel efficient. In most examples, this is accomplished mainly by regenerative braking, something you can't do without electricity. Some other hybrid designs seek to optimize the different torque-hp curves for electric motors and ICE. This gives the different strong - weak parallel hybrid designs. All just eek out marginal MPG gains for a huge increase in complexity and cost. see: www.phoenixnewtimes.co.../
Theoretically, all a hybrid needs is a small battery to save the kinetic energy on braking and maybe a little push for startup acceleration. So what's with all the big batteries in hybrids? Easy, the longer the battery can power the car (electric range) and/or the larger the battery supplement to the ICE, the better the fuel mileage will be according to most calculations.
It's even better for MPG if the batteries get their energy externally (plug-in) as opposed to 100% internally (non-PI). It's like cheating. Diesel electric locomotives are "serial hybrids" with no storage batteries. The Chevy Volt still has me scratching my head, maybe they'll make it at EMD. Once it hits the battery range limit, the MPG will suck running off the generator.
So if the bigger the battery, the better the MPG, the logical extension is to put in BIG batteries and toss the ICE and we end up at the other end of the spectrum (PEV). Except this won't work because batteries don't cut it.
If and until transportation battery chemistry issues and major improvements get worked out, the entire hybrid and PEV industry should be considered a scam.
Tim - to make the statement you made:" shows a complete lack of understanding of history and of the concepts that made America a leader in the free world. It's sad to see this kind of attitude still prevalent in society today.
Don Harmon
Don Harmon
Don Harmon
Don Harmon
Don Harmon
Don Harmon
Don Harmon
Don Harmon, there are names for economic systems where political will trumps market forces but people generally object to labels like fascist and socialist, so I typically try to avoid them. Let's just say that neither is called free market or capitalism.
I listened carefully to the interview an noted that Dr. Bell kept using terms like 'lowest-cost producer," which is what I keep hammering on. In any system where money matters and consumers have free choice, the lowest cost producer of a product that serves their needs wins, and that's the way it should be. If the economics don't work for the average consumer who always has a choice to do something or do nothing, political will is not enough.
Speculawyer, your argument would be much more cogent if the one article where I said something nice about PHEVs didn't say:
"I'm convinced that a rapid implementation of Axion's gas-guzzler to dual-mode EV conversion initiative could be just what the industry needs. While I believe most consumers will choose the least expensive solution, there will still be large numbers of users who are willing to pay a premium price for the perceived advantages of Li-ion. Since gas-guzzler to dual-mode EV conversions use off-the-shelf technology and nobody can claim a solid intellectual property advantage, every manufacturer would have a level playing field in a multi-billion dollar market where technologies would succeed or fail on their own merits. More importantly, small battery producers would not be forced into the unenviable position of a midget negotiating with a giant."
That sounds like an invitation to a horse race, a challenge as it were. Build you solution, show what it does and let the market decide. I have no problem with the possibility of losing a fair race.
I really thought you would have been clever enough to figure this out for yourself but I was apparently wrong. So let's go to a desert island with two vehicles; an existing H2 and a Camry that's almost ready to roll off the production line. You only have one battery pack. You can get a fixed number of miles per day from the battery pack whether you put it into the H2 or the Camry. If both vehicles drive the same distance each day you are going to have a far bigger impact on your island's gas consumption and carbon emissions if the batteries go into the H2 than you will if they go into the Camry because you are going to use the batteries to improve the worst mileage performer instead of the best mileage performer.
Solid public policy says solve the big problems first and then get to work on the less problematic sectors. There are 120 million gas pigs on the roads. That's where the attention needs to focus.
As to the balance of your rant, there were a people who invested in the Cardiff Giant and many more who paid to see it before the truth became clear. The truth about cars with plugs will become clear when somebody tries to sell PHEVs to Joe Lunchbucket, the final arbiter of whether a product makes sense. My bet is that old Joe will thumb his nose and the only buyers will be the emotionally committed or the mathematically challenged.
Don Harmon, if you read what I've written with the same open mind you asked of me earlier you'll see that I've never claimed Axion's products will be superior, particularly in PHEV applications where I don't believe any battery technology works. The DOE report I've cited, together with the White House report and the Carnegie Mellon report simply reinforce the argument that PHEVs are not sound economic propositions and won't be until the fundamental economics change. Things will undoubtedly change at some future date because they always do. But we are where we are on April 29, 2009.
What I have said is that there will be a horse race and it is far too early in the pre-race festivities to crown a winner. As of yesterday afternoon roughly $900 million in market capitalization bets are riding on HEV and Valence, compared to about $60 million in market capitalization bets on Axion. Given the studies that have been done at Sandia on other lead-carbon devices and a wealth of publicly available data that talks about the performance of lead-carbon in HEV (without plugs) applications, I think the 15 to 1 odds look attractive.
The nice thing about sites like Seeking Alpha is they create a permanent record. Everything I've ever written is available by clicking the link under my picture at the top left of this page. For people who have not been following my ongoing debate with the defenders of the one true faith, these articles are a good start:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
and
seekingalpha.com/artic...
I would encourage anybody who wants to believe Mr. Harmon's repetitive and inaccurate charges about how I've characterized the Axion battery to glance at the discussion under the caption "PbC Status" in the second article referred to above.
Tom Konrad wrote:
John, why do you put so much faith in DOE? They're generally well intentioned, but why are you so certain that they know what they are talking about?
I responded:
Tom, it's not so much faith in the DOE as faith in the rational behavior of economic men.
In general I find data from the DOE far more comprehensive and far less biased than data from other sources. I've run the numbers for PHEVs many times and have never been able to make the basic economics of PHEVs work. While I've always been comfortable with my own analysis, I also look for third parties who have done the same work and reached similar conclusions. When I find that support from several sources that are supposed to be smarter than me, my confidence level increases.
When it comes down to writing about important conclusions, I always use the best third-party data as the lead and demote my own conclusions to also-ran status. After all, I do have a dog in this fight.
Predictions of the future are views through a murky crystal ball at the best of times and they're often wrong. But of all the sources I could rely on, I think the DOE may well be the fairest, particularly when their published conclusions are very different from the policy goals the bosses are espousing.
On Apr 28 11:14 PM Tony Petroski wrote:
> Back to the Future: Has anyone thought of a horse/electric hybrid?
> Attach an electronic prod to the backside of a horse and hit the
> "go" button anytime you want to accelerate?
All well and good but I think the animal rights people would have a lot to say about were the batteries would be stored!
Any thoughts on this one John. I've always viewed horses as carbon neutral anyway.
An unusual birthday present idea though.
for an electric equivalent of a daihatsu terios
www.chinacartimes.com/.../
I see this as an easier sell in US or Australia than China as we have garages and second cars galore...
some other points
1st EVs sales are crippled by not being able to match the entry price point of ICE cars, but that is more of a business problem than a technical problem, and requires a business type solution. (Ie Mobile Phone style plans)
2nd dealing with bigger cars is more important, your comment about sticking a battery in a H2 is very correct. getting batteries to those who use the most fuel should be the priority as it has the most payback.
3rd my prediction is that PHEVs and EVs will lead to a renaissance of big is beautiful. Eliminate the fuel cost and a H2 become a very decent vehicle again. Placing a row of say Pb C batteries and a portable generator in the back of a pickup truck is simple and allows the complete drive train to be basically removed or not installed. (Ie 1 electric motor and controller replaces part of transmission system, gear box, engine, fuel system, cooling system, engine management system, exhaust system)
sticking a plug on a HEV has variable impact depending of the drivers usage and plug availability. but if I drive from home (with a plug) for 14 times (once a day) over 2 weeks and use 300km and have 10km electric only on each trip, I almost halve my gasoline usage. Place a plug at my workplace and I almost eliminate my gasoline usage. 10km range in a honda insight would be pretty close to just substituting its NiMH battery with an Ultrabattery (Pb C equivalent)
Renim, Autogreen Blog pegs the Zotye at $20-K for a 100 mile EV range, which is about right for a pure EV. While it should be an easy sell in the U.S., people get all worked up over the idea that a 100 mile range is inadequate. That psychology fuels a push for extreme energy storage and attendant battery costs. So the real problem is a disconnect between 'I need' and 'I want." In your example, a pure EV would provide far better economics than a PHEV because a stand-alone electric dive system is about a third the cost of a hybrid system.
Today's, April 29th's, Washington Post has a very good article called "The Volt; Not Ready To Roll," www.washingtonpost.com.... Its conclusion is:
"... we would probably accomplish more in terms of sustainable fuel savings simply by driving less, trading in big cars for smaller ones, and improving existing hybrid and internal-combustion technology.
The Obama administration should refrain from lavishing public money on losing propositions such as GM's Volt -- and let the entrepreneurs keep on tinkering.
If anyone cares to take the time to read your summary article above, and the WP "editorial writer's article" referenced here the only logical conclusion is Game Over.
Jack, it's always nice to be a week ahead of the Washington Post:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Let's press on with all the scientific, tech and political pursuits judiciously.
In the meantime, though, most importantly let each and every one of us millions of blue planetarians all over the world conserve our share of energy every single day at driving, lighting, thermostat settings etc and cut out all waste where we meet it. Each of us can cut 25% of our energy consumption w/o sacrificing any quality of life. The opposite, in fact, occurs: inevitable savings in money, time et al allow for substantial QOL improvements.
We are the World, we ARE the People and YES we can and will save our Planet Blue. The power of the web is an absolutely magic bullet for change. If we the People could elect a black President against seemingly insurmountable odds, that's proof that anything is possible in the WWW. The beauty: each of us is free to participate and can start TODAY. Each one of us, that is an enormeous number! So what are we waiting for?
Just do it!
No, I don't swallow blindly everything you put forth and I keep in mind that you stand to benefit from the positions you reiterate so thoroughly due to your holdings in certain battery companies, and I would encourage all readers to also bear this in mind. However, I read the various sides of the energy storage topics you examine in your articles and the research I do beyond Seeking Alpha, and frankly I find your arguments the most convincing from just a layman's pragmatic perspective. This would be true even if you didn't own a single share of stock.
I worry about GM's considerable stake in the Volt, but to me it's very symptomatic of the problems that have gotten GM in their current financial difficulties. They seem to be more focused on basing production decisions on what they see as the trend of the day rather than focusing on designing a practical quality product to sell consumers on. They too often seem to be behind the curve even when they're aiming not to be. It's the same sort of thinking that has allured so many investors into sinking money into the "centerfold" technology battery stocks (great term).
I agree that we are entering into a brave new world, one dominated by a major shift in how we power our world, but also a world where we will have to be more selective, much less wasteful, and, perhaps more than ever before, Darwin's survival of the fittest will be more about wisdom and less about might. I just hope the people who are bound and determined to keep their money in Li-ion battery companies are not doing it out of a refusal to change their minds now that we know so much more about the different battery technologies and our economic need toward abstemious prudence. One of the characteristics of a good investor is someone who can acknowledge being wrong and recognizing that it is the mark of a genuinely successful achiever.
Likewise, I hope our government demonstrates the same sort of prudence in how they are spending our stimulus money, particularly in the energy storage industry, and don't become overly fascinated with the trendy technology of the month. If we are to succeed in this brave new world we will have to be smarter than we have been in the past, both as individuals and our government. This is not a change of choice; it's a change of necessity.
On Apr 29 12:32 PM John Petersen wrote:
> Jack, my favorite quote is "Translation: Unless and until gas prices
> shoot up, you'd be crazy to buy one of these much-ballyhooed vehicles,
> which will run 40 miles on a single charge if GM can overcome difficult
> battery-engineering issues."
To survive and thrive in the world that is, we need to do more with less and create a bigger table so that there is room for everyone who wants to earn a place. The challenges and opportunities are immense. But feel-good solutions for perceived environmental that increase the actual level of waste are not sustainable.
I try very hard to be as even handed as I can despite the fact that I clearly have a dog in this fight. I encourage everyone to follow the links I provide, absorb as much information as possible and triple check my rationale against what others have to say.
We are on the verge of an investment trend like none the world has ever seen. If it's not the long-term leader as a critical enabling technology, storage will certainly be one of the leaders. The great news is that all of the survivors will be huge winners for the people that own them and unless an investor has a particular inside track, diversification across the storage sector will be key.
Lawyer John Petersen may have nuked, figuratively speaking of course, a large portion of altenergy on Tuesday April 28, 2009.
Over 400,000 google [john petersen scam] hits as of Wednesday April 29, 2009 16:50
Petersen, we previously identified, as an altenergy shill.
www.thefreedictionary....
How wrong we were.
Critical comments on HEAT OUT = HEAT IN - heat loss can be directed to outstanding article Energy Efficiency: Semiconductors' 21st Century Challenge.
www.semiconductor.net/...
And these are smart engineer-educated guys.
But we are not above lobbing pointed comments. As you may realize."
home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/pnmelectric...
"a place for every known battery technology but that place needs to be defined by engineers and cost accountants rather than popularity polls."
"In any system where money matters and consumers have free choice, the lowest cost producer of a product that serves their needs wins, and that's the way it should be."
Not only do these statements seem contradictory, many economists would take exception to the later, especially for technological products. Read Romer's papers on "increasing returns" and you will find many examples of inferior products domininating competition for various reasons.
Regarding the physics-engineering:
Non-plug-in hybrids are a scam. All they're doing in net is slightly boosting the overall efficiency of an ICE. By the time you factor in all the chemical-mechanical-el... conversion losses, then add the extra weight for the motor and batteries, you're only slightly above the MPG of a comparable subcompact with a high tech ICE. Then you have the cost arguments like: "a stand-alone electric drive system is about a third the cost of a hybrid system."
Regarding the desert island: "You can get a fixed number of miles per day from the battery pack whether you put it into the H2 or the Camry." The H2 is 2.5X the weight of the Camry and a lot less aerodynamic. Gimme a break. Is this law school physics?
So we're back to plug-ins. For hybrids, the bigger the battery pack, the longer the electric range, the better the gas mileage. If you can recharge before the end of the range every time, you basically have an EV. So why mess with an ICE. My personal criteria for an EV is 80MPH / 80miles between charges, so that ugly Chinese thing starts to look pretty good.
My biggest concern is your comment "in the U.S., people get all worked up over the idea that a 100 mile range is inadequate." For a second commuter car, if the price was competitive and the total cost of ownership - life cycle cost was right (meaning the batteries don't die early), I think there would be a large market in US suburbs where the cars could be recharged every night. The primary vehicle is for road trips and to haul the boat to the lake.
Lastly, as clean as ICE's have gotten and considering the conversion efficiencies, I think it's still preferable to pull transportation energy from the grid from an environmental standpoint.
The facts are, that what you said is pure nonsense.
Go to the next AGU meeting and see how many agree with your "facts".
So according to you, all the climate scientists who have spent their careers studying the climate are just dopey, and you have the answers.
And we should all trust the fate of our civilization to your conclusions. Do I have that right?
And you repeat the complete nonsense that science in the 70s said we were in for global cooling.
That is a talking point of climate change denialists that like most, is based entirely on half truths.
Yes, there were 7 science papers in the 70s predicting cooling. And there were 44 papers predicting man made global warming.
You are just repeating baseless propaganda. There was never anything even close to scientific consensus on cooling. In fact, if there was any consensus, it was that the earth would warm due to CO2 emissions. 86% of the papers, to be exact.
Even the lead scientist of the cooling hypothesis recanted three years later, saying he miscalculated.
Some people never learn, as you said.
To be fair, some popular media outlets got hold of the cooling story and publicized it. And there was some concern at the time that our emissions of aerosols from combustion could cause cooling. Since we enacted laws in the 70s to cut down on these pollutants, (but not for those reasons) their role of masking the warming from CO2 has been largely diminished.
The "facts" are that global warming is natural? You must be kidding. More baseless unfounded propaganda and denialist talking points. Every major scientific organization in the world, the earth science faculty of every major university in the world, at least 97% of all climate scientists in the world ALL say you are wrong. Your assumptions are the ones based on emotions and political ideology. I'll continue to trust science.
The AGW theory is the most thoroughly peer reviewed theory in history. But you choose to believe the fossil fuel sponsored handful of deniers, with their completely debunked distortions of the science. It is crystal clear that your choice is based on political ideology, because it sure isn't based on science.
Explain to me what is natural about taking the accumulation of carbon that was removed from the short term carbon cycle over a period of 60 million years and deposited as coal, and putting it back into the short term carbon cycle in the geological blink of an eye of about 200 years. This is unprecedented in at least 50 million years and perhaps in the history of the planet.
The same is true for oil though the time scale is a little shorter, but still tens of millions of years.
"use saudi arabia's cheap oil now and our expensive oil later is good policy"
You're just full of pearls of wisdom and disinformation.
By the way, the science is much stronger than it was, even two years ago, when the IPCC published the 4th assessment. In fact, that report has proven to be overly optimistic and conservative.
www.sciam.com/article....
getenergysmartnow.com/.../
Conflicting statements from an industry front group, with the inapt name Global Climate Coalition (it's standard practice for these front groups to adopt names that make it sound like their "astroturf" networks actually care about the environment.)
"Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate"
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
commenting on the Global Climate Coalition
'The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,'
"the coalition said in a scientific 'backgrounder' provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that 'scientists differ' on the issue."
"But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted."
'The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,'
"the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995."
www.nytimes.com/2009/0...
So they knew in 1995!
The Bushies aided and abetted and were the principal cheerleaders for the anti science disinformation campaign to confuse the issue of global warming.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Administration Oversight, Environment, Politics and Science Committee Report:
White House Engaged in Systematic Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science
"The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming."
oversight.house.gov/st...
Don't believe congress? Read the books "The Boiling Point" and "The Heat is On" by Rob Gelbspan, and the book "Censoring Science".
John Peterson used the word meddlesome to describe Obama recently. I guess it depends on whose stuff your meddling in. It's quite alright when the meddling benefits your pet corporate interests, over the interests of the rest of us.
I'll bet you cheered on Sen Boehner for his absurd remarks about climate change recently
House GOP leader Boehner on ABC:
“The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical.”
climateprogress.org/20.../
(hint - no scientist has ever made such a ridiculous claim about CO2)
and I bet you loved the idiotic statements made by Rep Shimpkus.
"Cutting CO2 emissions is 'Taking away plant food from the atmosphere'”
climateprogress.org/20.../
Yeah, well there was a time when the atmosphere had lots of CO2 and plants. Not much oxygon or breathing animals though. Lots of plant food.
Just abouty every one of these anti AGW spokesman is a complete fraud. And if they're a scientist, I can almost guarantee that they are funded by the fossil fuel industry, either directly or through their many fronts. They're good at "wiping the oil" off the money.
www.one-blue-marble.co...
www.desmogblog.com/sla...
engstudent
So you based your opinion about global warming on a graph your lecturer showed you? Has it ever occured to you that he may have had his own bias? And this one single case, or piece of data, undermines the entire 30 years or so of climate science by thousands of scientists, right? The climate models were often questioned 10 years ago, but they have gotten better and better.
Have you ever seen the butcher jobs that skeptics have produced in an effort to make their claims?
Here's are some good examples.
tamino.wordpress.com/2...
scienceblogs.com/delto...
tamino.wordpress.com/2.../
sourcewatch.org/index....
Paul Killinger
Using the Tesla roadster as a measure of the cost of electric vehicles for the average driver is misleading. The Tesla is a high performance luxury roadster, and it's price is in the ballpark with similar gasoline powered luxury performance roadsters like an equivalent Porche or Lotus.
And the Chevy Volt is the first of it's kind, by an American company.
WayneinOregon
"One assumption I would challenge is whether large numbers of Americans would buy PHEVs with such a limited range."
From what I understand, a PHEV has no limit on range, unless you are referring to the range on electric mode only. Or are you talking about the range before you have to fill up with fuel?
John
Methane from animals is a strong greenhouse gas, but stays in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than CO2 which stays in the atmosphere for a few centuries.
The city-journal article I cited earlier makes a solid argument that it's already too late for us to take effective action to avoid global warming because even if we changed all our evil ways in the twinkling of an eye, India and China could not and would not. So that you don't have to go searching, the link is:
www.city-journal.org/2...
People see what they want to see. You want to see AGW brought on by greedy oil-swathed industrialists, I want to see climate change that is in the hands of God. We both have some data we can point to, much of yours from Europe and the UK, much of mine from American and Canadia scientists, so I'll call your Leeds with my Harvard and raise you an MIT.
In an effort to move policy as soon as possible (and as John suspects, attract more funding for research and monitoring) AGW supporters are sounding the climate alarm and hitting the panic button. Al Gore says Arctic ice will be melted in five years. Meanwhile, skeptics are talking about the emerging cooling trend. And, there will not be massive implementation of anything that will interfere with ongoing CO2 emissions for a few years at the earliest- the political and economic realities still carry enough inertia that there will be lots of gas-guzzling (and cud-chewing) emitters for a long time to come.
So the good news is that we won't have to wait too long to see if one side or the other is full of BS. Meanwhile, I'm happy that alternative energy appears to mitigate the worst case economic scenarios of peak oil in addition to giving you hope for mankind's future survival.
"Peak oil, and not global warming, is the most immediate threat to the human race. Although the solutions generally address both issues, the distinction is one of urgency."
i continue to believe this, and that US produced natural gas transportation is the best way to protect the US from the bullet of peak oil aimed between our eyes. the facts that burning natural gas has 50% less CO2 emissions than coal and 20-30% less CO2 than gasoline, as well as none of the toxic particulates coal and oil emit, are more feathers in the cap of natural gas and strengthen the case for it. the toyota electric/nat gas camry i mentioned before is the best solution i have seen. it could be mass produced in a new york second, and we could start reducing foreign oil imports, CO2 and particulate emissions immediately. meanwhile, we keep getting distracted by other technologies that either aren't proven, aren't ready, or will realisitically require recharging by coal because wind and solar will take years to build out to such a capacity as to replace foreign oil. all that said, i consider myself an environmentalist, and i am all for solar and wind and EVs. at the same time, i urge folks to be pragamatic about the magnitude of the foreign oil import problem the US faces, and to be realistic about solutions and timelines.
frflyer,
You seem to have a good general knowledge of the situation, so could you comment on this:
EPRI recently gave a smart-grid presentation at a CA utility commission meeting where they said that even after implementing all the mitigating proposals (33% renewable portfolio, demand response, efficiency requirements, PHEV/EV, etc.) that utility CO2 emissions would only be flat in 2020 or so (i.e. no reduction from current output), but to achieve the 3% desired policy reduction from 2020 would require nuclear power and CCS working (and EPRI said early results were actually promising on CCS).
Do you think the folks most concerned with GHG, and who trust scientists, will also trust the engineers? Or will the concerned folks "hold out" for completely clean solutions even if our current knowledge says that this will not achieve the goals?
Michael, in an earlier life I worked for a few years as an executive of an independent oil and gas producer. Since our operations were all in south Louisiana and the Gulf, natural gas was our life blood. Like you, I'm terrified of the amount of cash we export every year to import oil, particularly since I believe CNG can be very efficient fuel in many ICE applications. In an April 27, 2009 press release, the DOE said "The President is committed to restoring integrity to science policy, and making decisions on the basis of evidence, rather than ideology." With a little luck, we may arrive at the same point for energy policy.
And if we're really serious about poverty and prosperity, then educating people about the advantages of free trade, division of labor, and rule of law (including bankruptcy), combined with educating them about the downsides of single motherhood, would go a lot further than attacking global corporations and proposing additional costs on energy utilization.
A Bold Plan for Mass Adoption of Electric Cars
www.ted.com/index.php/...
snipurl.com/g06e1
...and tell me what you think.
Shai is working with top leadership of several countries (Israel, Denmark) and two U.S. states (Hawaii, and the San Francisco area supported by some mayors there) to create a plug-in and battery swap infrastructure, similar to a car wash, that makes the economics of this generation of electric cars affordable.
Dirk McCoy: "I want to see climate change that is in the hands of God", you gotta be kidding! And your comment about alternative energy is even more ignorant. Alternative energy produces a small fraction of our energy needs and even if Obama could get his wish and double the U.S. alternative energy output it would still be a small fraction of the U.S. energy needs. Do you use the teachings of Nostradamus also to get information about the future?
Mr. Agassi seems to have garnered enough support for tests in Israel and Denmark. If they're conducted, those tests will provide a huge amount of data on whether the idea will work on a larger scale and governments will be able to "make decisions on the basis of evidence rather than ideology." I hope he can make it work, but as an investor and as a car owner I'd want to see a lot more detail before writing a check.
A couple of things I'd quibble in the presentation. He claims 25% of world CO2 comes from cars and trucks. I'd like a source on that one. It's surprisingly hard to find these graphs, but here's one from the organization of vehicle manufacturers:
oica.net/category/clim.../
which shows 16% as of 2007. Of course they have a stake in the game, but that's the best graph I can source.
That graph linked above, and Agassi's source almost certainly, don't count deforrestation as a 'man made' source of CO2. When you include deforrestation it drops to 10% (as of 2000) for road transport:
www.wri.org/image/view...
That's quibble number one. I'd also like a source and assumptions on the 120 mile EV range. Here's an article about a 16kWh iMiev minicar which Mitsubishi claim gets 100 mile 'cruising range'.
www.edmunds.com/inside...
The assumptions are no air conditioning, no radio and at a constant speed. The article found it to last about 60 miles. The correct way to specify range is to make a reasonable assumption about air conditioning, radio usage etc. But most importantly, quote the range as part of a drive cycle. Posting a 100 mile cruising range is rather pointless given the stop and start of traffic.
I wish him every success. Better Place are also in discussions to come to Ireland so I may well get a chance to make a truly informed opinion before long.
On Apr 30 01:59 PM TruthO wrote:
> Please watch the ten minute TED video presentation below, by sustainability
> entrepreneur Shai Agassi, titled:
>
> A Bold Plan for Mass Adoption of Electric Cars
>
> www.ted.com/index.php/...
>
>
> snipurl.com/g06e1
>
> ...and tell me what you think.
>
> Shai is working with top leadership of several countries (Israel,
> Denmark) and two U.S. states (Hawaii, and the San Francisco area
> supported by some mayors there) to create a plug-in and battery swap
> infrastructure, similar to a car wash, that makes the economics of
> this generation of electric cars affordable.
I have to congratulate you on being ahead of the curve again. The new "cash for clunkers" program Congress is looking at is designed to take SUV's and older cars off the highway and save billions of gallons of fuel. Heres a link.
money.cnn.com/2009/04/...
The program is modeled off of one a couple of Stes have passed plus Germany.
My hope is that someone is clever enough to include the SUV hybrid conversion as well as a vehicle swap.
with regard to vehicle costs--what about the acknowledged fact that Daimler Benz has lost money on every Smart car since it was been introduced? Also, I really believe that the Prius is being subsidized by the myriad of other Toyota ICE models, If the first versions had not been artificially underpriced with government subsidies, rebates, etc.--then you would not have seen nearly as many sales. CNG and high efficiency diesel, both available today, are being ignored---why?
Futurist, the cash for clunkers may be a good idea for people that want to downsize, but after a lot of years in Houston I understand that SUVs, vans and particularly pickups convey an image you just can't get in a Prius. So the issue as I see it is more than providing money, it's changing the way people think. Of the two, the second is much harder than the first, which is why we see companies pressing for 40 or 50 or 150 miles of EV range when the economics follow an absolute inverse relationship to range.
jbde, I only wish that were the case. The combined numbers for CNG and LPG cars and trucks including ICE and bi-fuel were pegged at 8,200 in 2010; 11,000 in 2020 and 11,600 in 2030. Unlike the table above, those numbers are not in thousands.
Well, I am not sure that has any meaning though or what the point is. Computers are in almost every home now, but when those were first introduced did they seem cost effective. No, but eventually as the numbers of people who wanted them grew and tech. improved, then the computer as we knew it changed everything. I think it will be the same for an electric car, but I believe its going to be an all-electric or with a range extended generator using natural gas, hydrogen, or gas/ethanol. All electric will truly end or dependence on oil and that is good for many reasons. But transportation costs actually effect everything in our life especially with a global economy. With a possible new advancing technology like electric cars and with greatly improved efficiency and cost benefits that could be the same game changer that computers where. Likely not, but probably next in line.
I agree that hybrid plug-ins are a scam, but BEV and the former EV1 were not and neither is the Tesla Model S. But I do agree this is not going to be cost effective in BEV either until this scales better and tech. in batteries advances and becomes cheaper.
Hopefully something like EEStor's Ultra-Capacitor will actually come to light or some other technology to supplement the high cost of batteries.
Plug-in hybrids are a scam and the only reason it still includes that gasoline engine is so the companies can make money on the backend for all the maintenance and replacement parts, etc. The engine itself and the need for a tank of gasoline actually means that larger battery is needed for the extra weight. BEV which are either all electric like the EV1 or Telsa or they use a range extendor engine which is more of a gasoline generator that is lighter and only used when needed.
You might be interested in this.
newenergyandfuel.com/h.../
The claim is 40-60% less volume, 30-70% weight plus double the life, low production cost and minimal capital investment required.
Any thoughts? Looks like a different approach than Axion but similar benefits. Wouldn't it be great if it were possible to combine the two technologies?
zato, I've been following Atraverda's work on bi-polar lead-acid for several years now and like a lot of promising battery technologies, getting it from the lab to a factory is proving quite difficult. In my experience, the hard part is not developing good science, it's developing the industrial processes and automated equipment that allows guys in gimme caps to make a commercial product. When Atraverda clears that hurdle, I'll be the first to talk about it.
Are there some previous posts where I can learn more about the PbC/hybrid/ultracapacitor units? As a second question, have you heard any more about the Firefly units? It seems to really have calmed down after the Wall Street Journal award in 1997.
seekingalpha.com/autho...
If your specific interest is the lead-carbon devices, a good starting point would include:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
seekingalpha.com/artic...
seekingalpha.com/artic...
seekingalpha.com/artic...
seekingalpha.com/artic...
If that's not enough to make your eyes glaze, you can track back into the source documents I provide links to for more information.
The idea that the entire world of climate scientists, from something like 120 countries, has been corrupted because they want more research money, is patently absurd. Scientists laugh and cry at the same time on hearing this suggestion. Sure, what you are alleging may happen sometimes in science, but to generalize it to a whole discipline of science is not plausable.
"Scientists are competitive. It doesn't pay to jump on bandwagons.
Each individual scientist must compete for funding. The best way to advance your career within the scientific community is to prove everyone else wrong. It is their job to poke holes in each others arguments. The fact that nobody can come up with a legitimate theory that debunks the consensus on climate change speaks volumes about the strength of the evidence."
Learn about ten other flaws with this argument here:
www.logicalscience.com...
Looking for motive? One that isn't just supposition, but actually very well documented?
On the other hand we have the most powerful non government economic entity in the history of the world, with the most to lose from a transition to clean energy. Their tactics are nearly identical to that of the tobacco industry and they often use the same front groups, like the Heartland Institute. They took a page from the actions of big tobacco, which forestalled efforts to get people off cigarettes with similar questioning of science, and with lots of truthiness masquerading as science.
They and their PR people, and buddies in government, encourage the reptition of long disproven skeptic arguments about climate change, which the gullible repeat endlessly on the internet. This is not a search for scientific truth.
It has little that resembles how real science is done.
If you've read George F. Will's articles on climate change recently, know that they lacked any scientific credibility whatsoever. All three of his major talking points were completely false, even according to the sources he used.
And here's Republican leader Michael Steele chiming in on climate change.
“The supposed warming, and I am using my finger quotation marks here, is part of the cooling process…. It was once called Greenland for a reason"
Yeah sure
climateprogress.org/20.../
"Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology"
by Johnny Rook
"Your adversary will deny the facts, cherry pick the scientific evidence for bits of data that, taken out of context, support his/her denialist view, or drag out long-debunked counter-arguments in the hope that they are unfamiliar to you and that you will not be able to refute them. If you succeed in countering all of his arguments he will most likely reword them and start all over again."
"The answer is simply that you are operating off of a mistaken premise. You think that the question of whether or not climate change is real and has an anthropogenic (human) cause is a question to be answered by application of an open mind, research, facts, and critical thinking. Isn't that how scientists approach these problems? They're skeptical and critique each others work, discarding ideas which fail to stand up to scrutiny by their colleagues and replacing them with ones that better describe the facts."
"Denialists, however, have no interest in facts except as weapons in an ideological struggle. They don't even care if 'facts' are correct or not, since their intention is not to establish that something is true or false, but rather to win a battle in an ideological war."
"I'm not talking about people who are skeptical only because they are uninformed about the issue. Nor, am I talking about scientists who disagree with other scientists over the details of global warming."
"For conservative/libertarian ideologues who compose the overwhelming majority of denialists, Climaticide is just such a case. If a conservative/libertarian ideologue were to accept global warming as real then he/she would be forced to admit that the problem is so big and so complex that government action is required to deal with it. But for an conservative/libertarian ideologue that is impossible because he/she believes that government is the cause of ALL problems and that the solution to all problems is 'freedom'."
"Denialists frequently make this attitude explicit when they accuse the 'liberals' concerned about climate change of having invented it as an excuse to expand government. The latest version of this tactic that I've encountered is that none of the science in support of global warming need be taken seriously because it is the product of government-paid scientists who are only doing their bureaucratic masters' bidding, apparently forgetting that the current masters are themselves Climaticide denialists."
note: this was written during Bush's term.
"Government science is corrupt science because it's government science. 'Scientists' in the pay of the oil and gas industries on the other hand are free of this corruption because they are doing science for the capitalist heroes who defend our 'freedom'."
www.dailykos.com/story...
China has already set renewable energy goals for 2020, though I'd like to seem them higher. They recently added some more subsidies for solar, and announced their intent to have 100 GW wind energy by 2020. They had over 6 GW of wind power go online last year, just behind the 8.3 GW in the U.S. Their solar potential in the western deserts is tremendous, as is ours. Using China as an excuse not to take the lead is chicken doo doo.
It's like schoolyard talk.
But he ....
The U.S. under Bush was the worlds biggest obstruction to doing something about emissions. They used the same excuse. We now have a president who actually talks to people in order to solve problems, which is why Obama is meeting with people from the industrializing nations like China, India and Brazil to talk about this.
Scientists think we have a shot at keeping global temperature rise at 2 C in this century, which is still serious but not completely catastophic and civilization ending. The business as usual path is at least 3 C and more likely 4-5 C increase by 2100. Catastophic on an unbelievable scale.
Giving up is not an option.
marketquant
I think it can be done without nuclear and coal eventually, but it's probably not politically possible now. In other words I think we could eventually have 100% renewable energy grid. Existing aging nuclear plants will be de-commisioned over time so we will likely end up with the same 20% or so from nuclear, we have now.
Energy plans that call for agressive build out of renewables mostly include nuclear, as well. Google plan, for instance. Climate Progress's Core Climate Solutions includes nuclear and CCS, but they think a renewable only effort could work. My point has been that solar and wind are more ready to deploy on a large scale and will end up being cheaper than either of those two. I don't rule out either. The principal author at Climate Progress is Physicist Joseph Romm, who was Assistant Energy Secretary for Renewable Energy and Efficiency during Clinton's term, and acting
Assistant Energy Secretary, for a time. He's a very prolific writer, with knowledge of climate science, energy and government.
"The time to plan and construct a coal-fired power plant without CCS equipment is generally 5–8 yr. CCS technology would be added during this period. The development time is another 1–3 yr. Thus, the total planning-to-operation time for a standard coal plant with CCS is estimated to be 6–11 yr. If the coal-CCS plant is an IGCC plant, the time may be longer since none has been built to date."
"..... based on the most optimistic future projections of nuclear power construction times of 4–5 yr5 and those times based on historic data, we assume future construction times due to nuclear power plants as 4–9 yr. Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant ranges from 10–19 yr."
"The median construction time for reactors in the US built since 1970 is 9 yr."
"For CSP, the construction time is similar to that of a wind farm. For example, Nevada Solar One required about 1.5 yr for construction. Similarly, an ethanol refinery requires about 1.5 yr to construct. We assume a range in both cases of 1–2 yr. We also assume the development time is the same as that for a wind farm, 1–3 yr. Thus, the overall planning-to-operation time for a CSP plant or ethanol refinery is 2–5 yr. We assume the same time range for tidal, wave, and solar-PV power plants."
climateprogress.org/20.../
"This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today — and ten times the cost of energy efficiency"
from the study:
"Generation costs/kWh for new nuclear (including fuel & O&M but not distribution to customers) are likely to be from 25 - 30 cents/kWh."
Most estimates are for more like 12-17 cents/kWh, but who knows? That's is still twice what solar will be in ten years. Wind is already in single digits.
Nuclear Energy: Skyrocketing costs; Fruitless Subsidies
solveclimate.com/blog/...
climateprogress.org/20.../
If you believe in the KISS motto, energy sources that need no fuel ever and are free at their source
have a lot going for them. Thomas Edison said he couldn't wait till we harnessed the energy of the sun. Actually, solar thermal could have been done in his day, it's so low tech. But of course we had seemingly endless cheap energy already.
At least half our coal plants are too old to convert to CCS. And CCS is not as easy as it sounds when you realize that we need global solutions, not just in the U.S. We would be pumping CO2 into the earth on a scale like we now pump oil out of the ground.
Some coal plants could be converted to biomass, which could be done in a sustainable way with proper planning, or co-firing coal with biomass, which some are already doing. This avoids actually shutting down coal plants.
We have to consider all the coal plants in China, which would be better with, than without CCS.
Where I mostly have a problem concerning nuclear is when it's promoted as the magic bullet solution to everything. But I also just don't feel comfortable with tens of thousands of nuclear plants covering the earth. Nor the fact that it leads to nuclear weapons. Imagine the possibility for situations like Iran and their nuclear energy program.
Not to mention the threat of dirty bombs from less lethal materials from waste. And it has other problems which I won't go into here.
I've heard talk about thorium, which sounds promising and safer, but I know next to nothing about it. First, a pilot plant would have to be built, so if it's feasable, build it. But how long will that take, through pilot stage to commercial plants online?
By contrast, solar thermal pilot plants have been running for 20 years, with and without heat storage. The heat storage was primitive compared with what new plants will have, but provided 3 hours of power for southern Cal, after the sun went down. They are now co-fired with NG, which also works well. They are 9 small plants totaling 355 MW peak power. About the size of individual commercial CSP plants.
news.cnet.com/8301-111...;title#comments
If global warming is a real phenomenon and is man made, then we are well and truly screwed already. If it's not a real phenomenon or is not man made, then we don't. In either event it is not an outcome that we have the power to change.
I support alternative energy in all its forms because I've seen some of the 6 billion who want the lifestyle you and I enjoy. They are on the street today all over the world. If we don't find a way to reduce waste and make more room at the table, there will be hell to pay and I fear global conflict between heavily armed nations far more than I fear global warming.
Total energy by region to 2030:
energy.sigmaxi.org/wp-...
Total energy by fuel source to 2030:
www.world-nuclear.org/...
Have you come across any studies which show a different trend, ie oil, coal & gas use decreasing and solar & wind shooting up? Is that then broken down into GW global solar & wind installation target per year etc.?
The problem I see is that the current power generation facilities represent sunk costs so dramatic change would take time. An integrated study which looked at how quickly manufacturing capacity could be expanded, whether the skilled workers are available, whether the raw materials would be available, cost and so on would make talk of radical change more credible.
Thank you for pointing out how much sense electric drive makes right now and how well it's market penetration is projected to be, in the form of all vehicles that have an electric motor (in addition to the starter, which would make all existing vehicles with a non crank starter electric vehicles), hybrid, plug-ins or whatever type.
Thank you for pointing out how much sense electric drive makes right now and how well it's market penetration is projected to be, in the form of all vehicles that have an electric motor (in addition to the starter, which would make all existing vehicles with a non crank starter electric vehicles), hybrid, plug-ins or whatever type.
For those of you that have been living under a rock, you can read all about the facts on Tesla’s vehicles, here at this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
For those of you who tend to not follow links, a few of the facts about the Tesla Model S, which were taken from the above link is as follows:
“It is expected to enter production by early to mid 2011[3] with a price of $57,400 ($49,900 after $7,500 federal tax credit) for the base model and acceleration of 0-60 mph in 5.6 seconds. The Model S will have a range of 160 miles (260 km), 230 miles (370 km) or 300 miles (480 km) when fully charged, depending on the chosen battery option, and feature a 45 minute QuickCharge when connected to a 480V outlet. In addition, a battery swap will be possible in less than five minutes. [4]”
I would also like to point out that the affordability of the Tesla products should not be so harshly judged. Consider the price of some of the higher end SUVs such as the GMC Yukon, Cadillac Escalade, etc. You also have to consider the savings of a 100% plug-in electric vehicle as opposed to even your most fuel efficient gas burners.
To all of you that want to argue that plugging a car into the grid would still be causing additional coal, etc. to be burned by the power plants, you all need to read the 400 + page document that addresses the facts about what impact plug-in cars would have on our current grid. If you take the time to read the entire document, you will also find a lot of the “Missing Facts” that some are you are claiming don’t exist. This document is not just about the electric grid but is a fact based report on the issues of “Plug-In” vehicles.
www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/...
There are ongoing plans to add thousands of Wind Turbines to our current electric grid that will supply additional clean energy. In fact, the above link gives full facts of how many wind turbines it would take to power a significant amount of the needed energy to support 100% plug-in vehicles. The above report also addresses using “Smart” electric meters that would only allow charging of the plug-in electric vehicles during “Non-Peak” hours, to reduce the over load of the electric grid. Again, read the entire document and you will see that a lot of the “Problems” with 100% plug-in vehicles have already been thought about and planned for.
The real truth that some have alluded to in these posts, is that most all car manufacturers could produce a 100% plug-in electric vehicle similar to what Tesla has produced but they choose not to. If you watched President Obama’s last address to the nation in April he made a comment about if the Chinese have already produced a fully electric plug-in, then there is no reason that our American car companies can not do the same. I am hoping that he follows through with his claims on being sure that this happens. Unlike a lot of you guys putting comments on these post, I am sure President Obama has read the entire above 400+ page report addressing the facts about 100% plug-in vehicles.
You all should educate yourselves with the facts before posting off base comments as I have seen here. It appears to me that Mr. Peterson has his own agendas and appears to ignore known facts. I encourage you all to get the facts for yourselves and do not rely on the ignorance of others.
If this first link does not work, then go to the second link and then find the "Transcript" link on the main page to view the report.
www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/...
www.brookings.edu/even...
seekingalpha.com/artic...
I believe that oil prices will return to an $80 or $90 level by the time the recession ends and continue an inexorable upward march from there. I also believe that over time battery prices will fall, albeit at much slower pace than developers promise. But under current conditions, the only arguments open to EV advocates are emotion and philosophy because the fundamental economics are not there.
I am realizing more and more that you ignore facts and substitute the real truth with your own fantasies. In your charts where you are trying to compare using batteries vs. fuel cost, you have included things such as interest, battery cost, maintenance cost, etc. None of the figures that you quoted would actually apply to a vehicle purchased from Tesla Motors.
The figures that you came up with are not at all comparable to the operating cost of the Tesla cars. If you were to purchase a Tesla car, you do not have to pay extra for the battery that is installed in the car, it comes with it. That’s like trying to say that GM, Ford, or Chrysler charges an additional charge for the engine after they sell you the car.
Tesla claims that the battery is good for approx. 100,000 miles before it will need replacing. Anyone can read the facts about the Tesla cars and battery technology on their website. According to their claims:
Electrical Cost to Charge the Batteries
"It will cost you roughly 1 cent per mile to drive the Tesla Roadster".
Using the numbers of the battery lasting 100,000 miles and it costing 1 cent per mile, that would equate to it costing you only $1,000.00 for the battery charging/use. Figuring that it would take an average driver 4 to 5 years to drive those 100,000 miles, I am sure the price of the batteries will most likely decline during that time.
Anyone can read for themselves the real facts at:
www.teslamotors.com/ef...
You once again are trying to compare apples to oranges and are not giving the real facts.
.
> If global warming is a real phenomenon and is man made, then we are
> well and truly screwed already. If it's not a real phenomenon or
> is not man made, then we don't. In either event it is not an outcome
> that we have the power to change.
Be careful of succumbing to a defeatist attitude John.
You are so way off base with your line of thinking. I have now realized that you are obviously mentally ill and you are incapable of looking at true facts and figures.
On May 05 11:31 PM John Petersen wrote:
> ITPro, the cost of the batteries is included in the vehicle, which
> is why a car with $15,000 of components sells for over $55,000. That
> $40,000 difference is the cost of the battery. It may not be separately
> stated on the invoice but it is there nonetheless. When you divide
> that number by 100,000 miles, you get to $0.40 per mile for battery
> amortization plus electricity costs.
You put up straw men and then knock them down. Is that a way to inform your readers? No one looks to electrics for cross country touring. Electrics are for urban-suburban driving the great majority of miles are put on cars.
And who really cares about 5 minute recharge times so why is that an issue other than it helps your rant? I suppose it’s the same people who want electrics to ‘see the USA’. I’ll be happy with a 60 amp 220v service in my garage that can give me a hundred miles in a three hour overnight charge. That would handle my 70 mile commute and a few side trips around town with miles left over in my 30KWhr cell.
Oh, and let’s not forget how the HEV's EnerDel lithium titanate battery boosted Prius mileage from 50 mpg to over 70 mpg …without any other modifications! Does that count as a potential significant hybrid advancement?
You’re right. You are a buzz-kill.
EVs are great for urban driving as long as the weight is low enough. Once you start talking suburban commuter, the energy storage and speed requirements ramp way up as does the weight. More than minimal battery power rapidly kills the basic economics.
When you show me a battery pack that reduces the fully loaded cost per mile of travel I'll be impressed. Changing a battery pack, adding a plug and improving the mileage of a Prius does not impress me any more than adding a battery pack and plug and telling me you've created a 100 mpg Hummer.
www.wired.com/cars/coo.../
did you see this article already about BYD:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
It will be interesting to see if they can realize this numbers...!
There has been a lot of talk about Warren Buffet's purchase of a 10% stake at a post-money valuation of $2.3 billion. About a week ago, I pulled its annual report and was able to calculate the following valuation metrics for the Buffet purchase:
Price/Earnings – 12.3
Price/Book – 1.18
Price/Sales – 0.6
BYD's current market price is about 3x the price paid by Buffet.
www.youtube.com/watch?...
On Apr 28 10:48 AM John Petersen wrote:
> Mr. Banks, my original title for this piece was "Plug-in Vehicle
> Hucksters are Doing P.T. Barnum Proud." The more alarmist title came
> from the Seeking Alpha authors who are always looking for a search
> engine edge. The biggest problem with smart people is that they frequently
> have aspirations that are out of synch with economics because everybody
> wants a better world. The only advice I can offer is do your homework.
>
>
> Jack, the thing that keeps me up at night is what happens when China's
> domestic consumption exceeds readily available supply? We saw immense
> import competition in the lead acid market in the '90s that forced
> the closure of many U.S. plants. Over the last couple years the import
> stream has dried up and now the industry is having to rebuild capacity.
> Given a choice between providing batteries for 23 of their citizens
> or one of ours, who do you think will win the economic shoving match?