ART005's Comments

Rapid Transition to Grid Enabled Vehicles Not Possible or Desirable

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:45:53 -0500

Nakedjaybird, are the transportation systems you list using battery powered elec. travel? If not, they have no relevance to this discussion. Electric subways are used all over the world, a perfect match of need and technology.

Rapid Transition to Grid Enabled Vehicles Not Possible or Desirable

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:39:40 -0500

GhostOfSpec: you completely miss the point. No one on these posts has ever said someone shouldn't buy an EV. The media blitz is that EVs equitably hold their own vs. IC, sign up for yours now! The expose of the truth in these threads is that isn't true! And it is so far away that the extensive subsidized role out is irresponsible.

You use the word "subsidy" generically. What percent of subsidy meets your approval and how much is too much? Should tax payers smart enough to not be tricked into EV be forced to subsidize those that are? It's the same moral hazard issue persistant in housing, banking, investing, and other unproductive technologies like residential grid-tie PV. The list of foolish efforts that fall flat on their face at tax payer expense is endless.....

There are many options that consumers can choose to achieve some of your listed benefits:
Light weight EV (scooters)
Geothermal heat pump vs. propane or elec.
Solar water heaters
New home insulation methods
Natural gas HEV

Where is the media propaganda blitz for the truly equitable assets?

Rapid Transition to Grid Enabled Vehicles Not Possible or Desirable

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:39:24 -0500

John, replying to jerrydd is a burden to you but it cuts right to the misleading propaganda that is selling the illusion in full service EV. Such as the price of a Leaf is about the same as a $20,000 IC car, oh but that doesn't include the $10,000?? battery. Consumers will just make a monthly lease (mortgage?) payment on the battery ~$100 + elec. costs. At $2.50/gal, $100/mo will power a 35 mpg IC car 1400 miles/mo. Considerably more miles than anyone is going to be able to drive a 100 mile/charge, 6 hrs to charge Leaf. Plus you still have to pay for the elec. and the charging equip.

The EV propaganda scheme is everyone should help subsidize the dream, it's a great idea until all the facts are put on the table. The same nonsense applies to Residential Grid-Tie Solar PV (elec.)

Rapid Transition to Grid Enabled Vehicles Not Possible or Desirable

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:06:41 -0500

John, your reply to User450850 regarding price reduction eludes to but I think just misses addressing weight impact of batteries towards future price reduction. My thought that I'd like your comment on is: Younger consumers are used to $100 items eventually cost $10 and think the gov can accellerate that curve for "Green Technology." The small items that generation relates to weigh 1 or 2 lbs (cell phones, portable CD, Ipod, etc.) Maybe the cost of manufacturing goes from $95 to $5 (miracle of technology) but the cost of materials stays at $5 but seems insignificant. Battery technology in many chemistries is quite advanced (commodity) while the weight of the materials presents a significant high barrier to further price reductions. What is your opinion on different chemistry battery material costs vs. manufacturing costs?

Rapid Transition to Grid Enabled Vehicles Not Possible or Desirable

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:20:40 -0500

John, I think your best article yet! The valuable well you draw from just keeps getting deeper and better. I wish this article was read on the evening news every night until people get it. There are exciting dreams that are achievable and valuable and there are exciting dreams that are unachievable and somewhat destructive. Capitalism tries to sort them out, socialism pretends no difference.

As you demonstrate productive difference between HEV and PHEV, my pet peeve is the similar productive difference between solar heat (hot water) and solar PV.

We appreciate your work, thank you.

Why the Stock Market Should Crash

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:45:02 -0500

Monticello, I've lived in Malaysia. Watch out for Pirates on land and sea......

Why the Stock Market Should Crash

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:26:39 -0500

jimmy Turano: Thanks for your post. It adds life to all the typical numbers and statistics usually used to describe the current situation.

Solar Market Declines for First Time Ever

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:09:44 -0500

The never ending faith in residential grid-tie PV amazes me. I don't remember Robert Cast's article but 1.5 yrs ago I was the only one in an SA article saying LDK was not destined from $15 to $26, I suggested $10 for kicks, now I think it's $6. Look at some basic energy numbers: Coal power plants sell commercially at $0.07/kWhr and residentially at $0.085/kWhr. Nuclear costs less than $0.08/kWhr. Solar is still trying to break $0.15/kWhr, jerrydd's numbers are pretty good but he misses the point that the power companys will add to consumer's cost to use grid-tie PV and if you try to use batteries your cost for the batteries alone is over $0.25/kWhr. My residential power bill is $0.085/kWhr but my monthly service fee just went from $5 to $20/mo as a gov. subsidy for wind turbine installation. Wind turbines cost half as much as PV on a $$/kWhr basis. So my 100 kWhr/mo elec. bill is $29. That is almost $0.30/kWhr for power that my company 30 miles away pays $0.07/kWhr!! Basically I am being taxed $15/mo or half my bill to solve the illusion of global warming.

You can not produce grid-tie residential PV from a 3 kWp system at under $0.10/kWhr if the panels were free! Racks, cables, labor, inverter and such alone will break the budget!! Don't suggest hiding the cost in subsidies, it cost what it cost regardless of who is paying for it.

The whole residential grid-tie PV concept is based on lies with more lies. While you're clicking thumbs-down, keep this in mind: I own a solar water heater, geothermal heat pump, 1 kWp turbine, passive solar home, biomass stove and water heater, $4000 30+ mpg car, registered PE, my inventions are saving industry enough energy to run a small town. I live what I'm talking about, those of you getting your info from Google need to wake up to the lies! If you don't think lies on that scale are possible then read the gov.'s proposal for improving health care......

Toyota Tests and Rejects Lithium-Ion Batteries for the Prius

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:27:22 -0400

Kirk, I think your post can lead to misunderstanding by people that think technology can solve everything and eventually everything is destined to $9.99 at the strip mall discount center.

"My point is cost and reliability can and probably will come down with time as long as there is not a limitation due to physics and/or chemistry."

Clearly your background is such to differentiate what technology easily discounts and what it is likely not to discount but it could be misinterpreted by those used to thinking everything is destined to $9.99. An easier restriction to understand is lbs vs. physics/chemistry. When a cell phone starts out at $200 weighing 1 lb and then someday costs $9.99 weighing just under 1 lb, what technology has done is reduce the manufacturing cost but the $5/lb of materials is still limiting.

The widespread dream that relatively heavy things like batteries are destined to $9.99 is very misleading and a bit naive for typically younger people that have seen that curve happen to almost all their personal use items.

So technology can help increase charge density and thus reduce weight and reduce manufacturing cost per lb but if the vast majority of current battery costs are in $$/lb then unfortunately the basement cost is supported quite high.

Your reference to <0.1 lbs diodes is a poor analogy for 100s lbs batteries. Think about the price curve of flooded lead acid batteries over the last 20 years, relatively flat.

I'm glad there is input like yours in SA, I just wanted to address a misunderstanding I've heard from the "don't worry eventually everything gets much cheaper crowd."

Toyota Tests and Rejects Lithium-Ion Batteries for the Prius

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:40:53 -0400

John, nice short reality check. There has been so much critical noise on SA lately about people not adequately believing in the "Dream" whatever the Dream of the Day is. People that haven't empowered themselves to be on the front of today's energy developments need to take advantage of the opportunity to listen and learn from resources from which they normally wouldn't even have access.

Thanks for not letting up.....

Why Is Congress Agnostic About Natural Gas?

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:53:35 -0400

Wisdom vs.: You are referring to step changes in demand that won't occur vs. supply curve and price stability. Your insults really don't apply. Energy sources that are under utilized based on price and availability vs. their value to use that become a bigger part of the energy supply pie help reduce pressure on the rest of the pie. While supply to the pie gets more manageable, time allows new solutions to the supply pie while time also works on the demand pie. Technology and conservation help reduce pressure on the demand curve, global increasing standards of living add pressure back to the demand curve. Arbitrarily undermining supply pie components due to some personal agenda of a long off utopia destroys the time value benefit of those components which undermines the likely success of getting to the utopia.

The path to the energy Utopia the Greens dream of requires time and less green sources of energy to maintain productivity so the accomplishments leading to the utopia can be realized.

Why Is Congress Agnostic About Natural Gas?

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:28:13 -0400

mpherson: my comment got chopped off. I also mentioned that you're right about the lack of gasoline taxes being a big one but the gov could go after that via much higher registration fees for CNG vehicles. I suspect lack of gasoline taxes was part of the EPA putting the squash on aftermarket CNG conversions.

Why Is Congress Agnostic About Natural Gas?

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:24:47 -0400

mpherson: It's much simpler than you think. The at home Phil station comes in different models that operate at different speeds. I have the pleasure of living in communities where neighbors would be willing to share a Phil amoung 1 or 2 households and simply pay the operator as needed, the machine and vehicle have meters on them. Multi car families know which vehicle range accomodates which travel patterns. The EPA has just about wiped out conversions in the U.S. so the Italian experience will not be common.

Energy Secretary Chu Wimps Out Again

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:10:55 -0400

m_chaddon: See LoveShorting above "Excellent and important article. Reminds me again of this tough question: How can a guy who was awarded a Nobel prize be so damn stupid? (Answer: Politics.... so the new question: Who is PAYING him (Union of Concerned Citizens)?)"

"Although natural gas is a fossil fuel". Natural gas (methane) is not a fossil fuel unless my A$$ is prehistoric!

Look closely at what you referenced: Accumulation (not burning) of methane is 58 times more effective at trapping heat in atmos than CO2 (combustion product). Water vapor is 1000 times more active per lb radiating trapped heat than CO2. Is there too much water vapor, what about the drought concerns? Just a bunch of potentially scarry numbers when spun properly, don't really present any obvious policy for use of natural gas.

In general, watch out for names like World or Global society of such and such......

Check into this item mentioned above: "So fighting pollution has nothing to do with CO2 - leave anthropogenic to Al Gore and the Spelling Bee and google the 566,000 hits for "IPPC mistakes". This is where I mostly disagree with Secretary Chu."

How Natural Gas Can Save the U.S. Economy

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:42:32 -0400

Elliot, you are completely missing the point. The Volt can be rated at 2,300 mpg (no typo) and gasoline free for the lifetime of the car and it has the performance of a 25 mpg car at best. It is virtually useless. It's technically useless compared to vehicles having an on board generator and compared to other E.V. without on board generators it horribly underperforms. It is the worst of both worlds, hybrid and E.V.

You are repeating the baseless headlines. The Volt is only 230 mpg if you assume infinite life of the battery and all other costs of the car similar to conventional cars. In the real world the Volt will struggle to achieve over 25 mpg equivalent. You and the headlines assume the battery is a magic free box in which you charge electrons and when you need energy you just discharge what you need. Then you can say use of the charged electrons in the E.V. is more efficient than use of the fuel to charge those electrons if you use the fuel directly in a vehicle as thermal energy to drive a non E.V. Halleluiah, the world will be saved by EV, NOT!!

Every energy aspect of the battery has to be accounted for when evaluating the efficiency of the Volt. It's energy to manufacture, it's lifecycle, it's cost. The yachting industry is very intense in it's true evaluation of deep cell batteries whether they are charged by wind turbine, water turbine, solar PV, shore (grid) or diesel generator. The yachting industry currently factors about $1/kWhr battery cost not including the cost to generate the power going into the battery. Compare that to the real cost to use grid power ~$0.11/kWhr. The battery increases the cost of electricity around 10X. You and the headlines (230 mpg) can ignore it until you buy a Volt and then you'll have to pay for it!! Look at the Volt and CNG Camary discussion above. Counting added engine life, a CNG vehicle is about 90 mpg equivalent, the Volt is under 25 mpg equivalent.

How Natural Gas Can Save the U.S. Economy

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:56:19 -0400

Elliot, you are not taking into account the cost of the battery for a full service elec. car with on board generator. You are refering to a misleading definition of efficiency based only on electrons. If you include storage efficiency costs the picture changes dramatically!! See the Camry analyses above (was that your negative vote?)

Elec. vehicles are great for specific dedicated use where an on board generator is not necessary and overall weight of the vehicle can be very small compared to the load. Such as elec. scooters, fork trucks and such. These type of vehicles can easily be charged during their down time and make it through their daily use cycle without having to be recharged during use. Battery powered 4 passenger vehicles with 75+ mph, 300+ mile range are a poor application of E.V. The best answer today for that vehicle is CNG and for city drivers add the Hybrid technology. Actually 300 mile range is a stretch for CNG but quick fill options address most of the shortcoming.

How Natural Gas Can Save the U.S. Economy

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:55:52 -0400

Another natural gas vehicle fact not getting much press is how much longer the engine is likely to last burning CNG rather than gasoline. I think the CNG engine lasts twice as long as gasoline engine. Say 400,000 miles vs. 200,000 miles. If a 30 mpg Camry costs $20,000 and uses 6,700 gallons of gasoline (200,000 miles at 30 mpg) @ $2.50/gal = $17,00 lifetime fuel or about the same cost as the car. So if the CNG Camry engine lasts twice as long, that savings discountes the $$/gal(equiv.) another 25%.

How Natural Gas Can Save the U.S. Economy

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:39:05 -0400

Good job Fitzman! From the department of the media using headlines to distract population with worthless reporting:

Yesterday Chevy announced 230 mpg Volt with no specifics except $40,000 car available late 2010, the battery should last 10 years, they are making 10 per month or week or something like that....

I would love to get help confirming this but I think the replacement Volt battery costs $15,000. 10 years at 15,000 miles/yr = $0.10/mile battery costs. AT $2.50/gal gasoline the volt is a 25 mpg(equivalent) vehilce if all of its future fuel (gasoline + elec.) were free!! Yeah Chevy technology, the world is saved, NOT, morons!!!

I'm just here to help with the reporting.......

Four Reasons to Buy Qwest, Besides the High Dividend

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:43:29 -0400

My experience as a prior Quest customer is I've never heard a paying customer say anything good about them. Are any of the contributors Quest customers?

Quest acts like it's their destiny to be a useless old fashioned phone company and revenues will come from people with no choice but to deal with their B.S.

Quest will not last. The only question is if the sale price is good or bad for the stock....who cares.

Cap-and-Trade Datapoint of the Day

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:21:11 -0400

Salmon, you need to do a lot more homework!! $175/person!!??

I suggest you get yourself invited to some power generation facilities around the country and talk to them about less than 10% increase in costs due to gov. scam to raise revenue to provide services to buy votes to empower incompetants such as community activists!

LDK Rides Solar Wave Up

Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:38:47 -0400

My point is that rates above $0.12/kWhr are fabricated by taxes and political agenda that creates higher elec. rates. Certainly remote places like HI and AK are special cases. It is not reality that power is around $0.11/kWhr in MT, WY, NV and over $0.25/kWhr in CA. In fact a lot of power generated in those states is supplied to CA. The higher fabricated rates are then used to justify the productivity of $0.30/kWhr residential PV. You sound convinced, but it's a scam!

On Jun 13 02:03 PM rooferguy wrote:

> Although you are right that average electricity costs are $0.12/kwh,
> you ignore that fact that solar is quite cost effective where rates
> are ABOVE this average.

Fuel Systems Solutions Conceptualizes a Better Energy Policy

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:47:46 -0400

Deweyp, here is some HPEV battery info right here on seekingalpha:
seekingalpha.com/autho...

On Jun 12 07:32 PM Deweyp wrote:

> You are right, I'm just a hard working grunt in the auto industry
> who heats his house with fuel oil, but I have an electric plug in
> my garage.

Fuel Systems Solutions Conceptualizes a Better Energy Policy

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:59:49 -0400

Hello 396040,
The benefit is in redistributing the energy portfolio at a net benefit to the nation and probably the world. Illustrating more of what you question:
1. The limited market that can use a 30 mile/day PHEV will see their operating cost go way down compared to gasoline. Nuclear and Coal likely main source. Remember PHEV applies as much to bicycles and scooters as it does to cars.
2. Where nat gas market is strong those drivers will see their $/mile costs drop by almost 50%. For instance OK, TX, WY, MT, CA, others? Their less gasoline use benefits the other gasoline users just as with PHEV.
3. Geothermal Heat Pump HVAC can help offset some increased Nat Gas use with real savings.
4. Solar Hot Water at even the residential level is at least break even with Nat Gas, and much better than propane and elec.
5. Commercial scale energy alternatives usually can't match coal and nuclear but they help maintain a ceiling on the other energy prices to help keep their use more affordable. Wind, Solar Heat Elec., Geothermal Heat Elec. all provide elec. at under $0.10/kWhr.
6. Throw in more conservation education and it can be substantial. All we need is perception that oil prices won't always go up to run the speculators off. Right now the message is $100/bbl and then $200/bbl are guaranteed in the future. When that is believed it becomes selffullfilling (sp?) due to speculation.

On Jun 12 02:14 PM user396040 wrote:

Fuel Systems Solutions Conceptualizes a Better Energy Policy

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:39:01 -0400

Deweyp, I don't think you have a technical background:
1. Natural gas cars do exist. Fueling systems exist.
2. Adding regenerative braking to a natural gas car is not a technological hurdle.
3. PHEV (plug-ins) are a huge unknown based on world supply of battery materials, operating range, life/cost cycle, charge rate capacity, weather sensitivity, and all around market demand. The market/gov has to decide if PHEV are going to be light productive vehicles unable to meet current crash standards or PHEV will meet crash standards and give up most benefits of elec. car technology.
4. Almost 10 years ago practical analyst called for the bankruptcy of GM based on simple revenue vs. income charts. Union reps held their positions encouraging outlandish compensation and Execs. signed the contracts to keep the place going long enough for them to collect a few more years of million dollar salaries. The whole thing was a predicted scam publicized 9 years ago. Sorry you didn't get the memo! Details above in NakedJayBird.
5. GM had a 40 years head start on U.S. automarket. They blew that and everything else. Don't tell U.S. families paying their bills what social engineering now has to be done for U.S. auto industry to pretend they haven't destroyed themselves. U.S. auto industry doesn't build Nat Gas cars because they think they don't have to. Me thinks they doth protest too much!!
6. When you try to justify the value of an industry that killed itself, each auto worker you describe in your first post should ask themself would they pay themselves the rate to do the work for themself the rate they were being paid? The same applies to alot of U.S. workers.

On Jun 12 01:10 PM Deweyp wrote:

> Michael. I see 3 problems here.

Fuel Systems Solutions Conceptualizes a Better Energy Policy

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:29:13 -0400

The $4,500 gift you mentioned is similar to the typical $6,000 given to homeowners installing residential grid-tie solar panel systems that generate elec. at around 4 times the cost of typical technologies. The gift never has to be returned. There are even complete used systems on the market, presumably removed from homes.

On Jun 12 11:19 AM nakedjaybird wrote:

> Duh! So as well as directly bailing out the autos, etc., with our
> tax dollars, we have an additional $4,500 tax dollar gift to specific
> individuals up-trading autos to help bail out the autos. Spread the
> wealth.

LDK Rides Solar Wave Up

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:36:04 -0400

I wish the world could come to terms that while large commercial Solar PV arrays might have limited opportunities in limited locations, typical residential grid tie installations can't be justified.

If the gov subsidy ammounts towards residential PV were spent on more productive technologies and conservation the world would be doing a lot better.

At the residential level (3 kWp), the power management equipment alone costs more than can be justified by the elec. production: racks, cables, inverter, installation, disconnect, etc. If the panels were free (without subsidies that have to be paid eventually) a 3 kWp system cannot be justified.

The true cost of residential elec. is around $0.12/kWhr. Using tax inflated numbers like $0.25/kWhr to justify residential PV is a shell game. Residential PV costs around $0.30/kWhr. 3 - 10 times alternatives!!

Fuel Systems Solutions Conceptualizes a Better Energy Policy

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:21:03 -0400

15,000 mpg should be 15,000 mpy. Seeking Alpha should provide a 15 minute editing window.

On Jun 12 10:18 AM ART005 wrote:

> All the CAFE talk seems useless to me. If someone wants a 45 - 50
> mpg car they can buy it today. My 1997 Accord gets 30 - 33 mpg cruising
> at 75 - 80 and comfortably seats 4 with a big trunk. 12 years old
> with better mileage than is the future CAFE. I have a hitch and utility
> trailer for big hauls from Home Depot. It does it all. It's worth
> under $5000 and costs a 15,000 mpy driver $1200/yr for gas. There's
> not much room in those numbers for gov improvement.
>

Fuel Systems Solutions Conceptualizes a Better Energy Policy

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:18:34 -0400

All the CAFE talk seems useless to me. If someone wants a 45 - 50 mpg car they can buy it today. My 1997 Accord gets 30 - 33 mpg cruising at 75 - 80 and comfortably seats 4 with a big trunk. 12 years old with better mileage than is the future CAFE. I have a hitch and utility trailer for big hauls from Home Depot. It does it all. It's worth under $5000 and costs a 15,000 mpg driver $1200/yr for gas. There's not much room in those numbers for gov improvement.

There's a CAFE discussion that it contributed to GM bankruptcy. As GM declined, CAFE required it to build little cars that it lost most money on while holding its own with SUV and bigger. Without CAFE GM could have left the little car market and limped along longer in big vehicle market.

Fitzman, your idea is a big step forward. Serving every market with Nat. Gas vehicles should not be a necessity. It will work very well where it can work and will grow based on its success. Nat Gas car drivers are paying around $1/gas equivalent.

One more thing. Nat. Gas conversions used to be very popular and accessible. Then EPA got involved and took over which cars could be converted and the cost went way up. I'll think you'll find a conspiracy theory there.

Li-ion Battery Technologies: Understanding Their Development Path

Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:33:48 -0400

At a little lower tech level than this discussion is at, there is a nice cost analyses of battery storage performance over lifetime in the recent issue of Sail Magazine. The jist is that a Li based battery costing initially many multiples of the best Lead based alternative actually nearly breaks even. The charge discharge cycle pattern on a yacht is more similar to an HEV than a PHEV but still the results are surprising.

Top U.S. Utilities Grow Solar Power Despite Recession

Sun, 31 May 2009 18:28:00 -0400

Heat has nothing to do with solar panels. In fact it derates some PV technologies by close to 30%. Some industrial scale applications suffering from heat derating actually use water cooling loops to help keep the panels more productive.

On May 31 06:22 PM crosscreek wrote:

> There is enough desert and heat in Texas to put up solar panels.
>