Has the EV already become obsolete ?

80 replies [Last post]

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
jdh2550_1
jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Points: 2338
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

marcopolo wrote:
IBScootn wrote:

So they pressured GM to not install the new batteries, crush the cars, and soon Texaco/Chevron became the controllers of those nasty new battery patents to make sure they never made it into cars.

There is no reasoning with WKTEC believers! If you want to believe in this long debunked myth, join all the others who also believe it. But, think about this. your maxi-scooter, especially if it's a Vectrix VX1 is probably powered by NiMH batteries!If Texaco stopped anyone using NiMH technology, where did Gold Peak get the NiMH batteries?

This is one of my favorite topics! It's not "conspiracy theory" - it's standard business practice. Just like Apple is suing Samsung about iPhone patents - even though Samsung does a lot of production related to the iPhone. Companies use patents as barriers to entry all the time!

My understanding of the whole EV1 to Evonics to Cobasys NiMH issue is this:

1) Cobasys really did sue Toyota and Panasonic for their use of NiMH in the RAV4-EV (the first one!). Panasonic thought they'd engineered around the patent. The courts agreed with Cobasys. Normally, one would expect a licensing deal. Instead I think there was a $30MM settlement and the production of the RAV4-EV stopped.

2) Cobasys didn't want to not sell any NiMH though. Even at that time hybrids were on the drawing boards. A potentially big market! They wrote the licensing terms in such a way as to make licensing for hybrids acceptable but only allow limited sizes for pure EVs. I'm not making this up - I even found it in a Cobasys document at one point.

3) So, I think Gold Peak may have gotten around it by how they use the cells and using smaller cells.

4) I agree 100% with Marco though - GM didn't want to do an EV and as soon as the California law was overturned/repealed/whatever they couldn't wait to scrap it. Why? We'll never know the real answer.

5) I think I also heard that one of the reasons NiMH was relatively short-lived as a technology (even in things like AA cells etc.) was because of onerous licensing terms. This made folks keen to get to an alternative technology. But, I'm not really sure about that argument.

So, Marco, once again - don't cry "conspiracy theory" (and don't tell me we don't fight wars with Canada - I know we don't!). There's a very believable set of circumstances that very much support that Cobasys actively stopped NiMH use in pure EVs. Why? Just like the EV1 we'll never know - but we can all wonder...

OK - back to the code...

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

jdh2550_1
jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Points: 2338
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

marcopolo wrote:

Am I the only one alarmed for the future of EV technology?

Err, on a forum called "V is for Voltage" - you very probably are! ;-)

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

jdh2550_1
jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Points: 2338
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

Hey Marco -

I finally got around to googling Virent.

Where on earth did you hear that this fuel is pollution free? (carbon neutral does not equal pollution free)

My reading on Virent's site didn't turn up that info (which, let's face it would be something they'd want to boast about) - but it did turn up the rather interesting fact that they talk about blending their product. They don't give a definition of how much - they just say "at high percentages". Well Ethanol is normally blended at around 10% - so is a 100% increase considered "high", but that's only 20% bio vs. 80% fossil. Maybe it's 50% or maybe it's 90%. They don't say. When they don't say something good - I'm assuming they're hiding something bad. Yeah, I know, what a cynic!

So, your super fuel that will obsolete EV's is starting to look a little less useful and a little more like an incremental improvement that yields far less benefit than you seem to imagine:
1) It requires blending with dead dinosaurs
2) It's carbon-neutral not pollution-free

Now, are you sure you're not a shill? ;-) (<-- that's a joke!)

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

jdh2550_1 wrote:

Where on earth did you hear that this fuel is pollution free? (carbon neutral does not equal pollution free).My reading on Virent's site didn't turn up that info (which, let's face it would be something they'd want to boast about) - but it did turn up the rather interesting fact that they talk about blending their product. So, your super fuel that will obsolete EV's is starting to look a little less useful and a little more like an incremental improvement that yields far less benefit than you seem to imagine:1) It requires blending with dead dinosaurs 2) It's carbon-neutral not pollution-free

As usual, you are correct, Carbon Neutral does not really equal pollution free to the knowledgeable. But, I would maintain it means exactly that, to Joe Public.

After speaking to Dr. Randy Cortright, (Virent's Chief Scientist) I received the following information:

Virent's BioForming technology uses catalysts to convert plant sugars into hydrocarbon molecules like those produced at a petroleum refinery. Traditionally, sugars have been fermented into ethanol and distilled. These new ‘biogasoline’ molecules have higher energy content than ethanol (or butanol) and deliver better fuel efficiency. ‘Biogasoline’ can be utilised directly as a gasoline substitute or seamlessly, blended with other compatible fuel's in any proportion.

There was a lot of other stuff, largely PR. The key issue, is that the new fuel does NOT require to be blended with anything. However,it's not hard to see Shell's attraction for a 'greening' blended fuel!

Much of the information published by Virent, comes from the early days. Now that Shell is in the picture, the scientific information has lessened, and the PR increased! This is only to be expected, since Virent were seeking to raise funds, and Shell doesn't care about funding, and can take a far more long-term strategy.

On it's own the Virent process doesn't amount to much more than a super improved bio-fuel. Virent's process resolves previous bio-fuel technical problems, but it doesn't address crucial feedstock logistic's.

That's why Cargill's considerable investment with Virent/Shell/Honda, is newsworthy! Both BP/Nestle, Exxon/Monsanto, and Chevron are all investing considerable sums to solve the difficulty of feedstock logistics.

Naturally, this research is kept out of the public eye. (I mean, it's hard enough being an oil company, let alone being connected with Monsanto!!).

But the size of these investments, and the increasing involvement of the US military (and government), gives reason to believe that the feedstock logistics may be close to being resolved.

On the one hand, I can see how this product could decimate R&D budgets and investments in a fledgling EV industry. On the other, I would welcome, even a 'carbon neutral', bio-fuel to replace Maritime Bunker Oil!

Immediate removal of the pollution created by just twenty large container vessels is the equivalent of the entire North American car fleet. Now, who could argue that's not worthwhile!

Likewise, Shell could argue that the reduction of 80% of the entire US vehicle (including Airplanes,Rail and large trucks)dependence on fossil fuel, is of far greater environmental, and economic value than a handful of EV's, many of which depend on coal-fired power to operate.(Shell's argument, not mine. But, enough validity to be widely accepted)

Therefore, the oil companies could argue, on a world wide basis, taxpayer money would be better spent on effective technology, available now, that subsidising a 'yet to be developed' EV battery industry.

Compare the two arguments

Oil Lobby(Bio-Gasoline

1) Bio-gasoline will reduce car emissions by 80%
2) Air/Maritime/Rail by 70%
3) Reduce dependency on imported oil 100%
4) Massive boost to the economy
5) Massive reduction of US debt and increased prosperity
6) Huge increase in small town/rural wealth
7) No disruptive technology. ICE vehicles, half the price.
8) Pump price to fall by 50%
9) Huge boost in employment.
10)Energy Security
11)Investment Security
12)Technology roll-out, virtually immediately!.

EV Lobby

1) EV reduce US fleet emissions over 10 years, maybe, 2%
2) EV Air/Maritime/Rail 0%
3) EV reduction of imported oil, 1%
4) No significant economic impact.
5) No decrease in Debt
6) No increase in rural wealth
7) Disruptive technology. Initial cost of EV's excessive
8) No fall in pump price.
9) No increase in employment
10)Very little increase in energy security
11)High risk Investment
12)Lengthy adoption time. Even with hybrid figures included, EV's, at the most optimistic, can only sell, maybe 5-10% of world vehicle sales over 10 years. (and without a competitive new technology)

As,I say John, all this is predicated on the feedstock problem being solved. You will notice that to be fair, I used a blended Bio-gasoline product for my model.

Now, be honest, which product would you rather bet on winning the hearts and minds of voters, legislators, and Investors? That's the threat as I see it, and my guess is the Oil giants and Auto-maker are very hopeful that a new technology like bio-gasoline will provide a viable solution to dwindling supply and competition from alternate fuel technologies.

__________________

marcopolo

MikeB
Offline
Joined: 04/14/2008
Points: 517
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

Just a quick note: agriculture in general is not carbon-neutral. Virtually everything we grow is treated with fertilizers, which are industrial products. And all the farm machinery runs on diesel (though that could be eliminated if you consume the fuel you are farming for). And then there are land-use issues, where carbon negative forests are cut down to provide 'carbon-neutral' cropland. And carbon isn't 100% of the global warming impact, some of the impact is from smaller things like albedo changes, which is also a side-effect of clearing forests and creating cropland.

No question that biofuels are a massive improvement over what we currently burn, but I think there isn't enough cropland to support the level of transportation the world wants to sustain. We are going to have to feed 9 billion people soon, and feed them at a price that they can afford. With deteriorating crop yields due to extreme weather events becoming more common, the competition between food and fuel will just get worse.

We, as a society, may get fooled into investing into biofuel rather than EVs, but I think that would be a tragic mistake. Biofuel should be seen as a transition path, a way to keep things moving while EV technology continues to improve. Battery technology can't replace liquid fuels yet, but in 10 or 15 years, with good investments in research, it'll probably be the only reasonable choice.

__________________

My electric vehicle: CuMoCo C130 scooter.

marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

MikeB wrote:

Agriculture in general is not carbon-neutral. Virtually everything we grow is treated with fertilizers, which are industrial products. Land-use issues, where carbon negative forests are cut down to provide 'carbon-neutral' cropland. And carbon isn't 100% of the global warming impact, some of the impact is from smaller things like albedo changes, which is also a side-effect of clearing forests and creating cropland.

We, as a society, may get fooled into investing into biofuel rather than EVs, Biofuel should be seen as a transition path, a way to keep things moving while EV technology continues to improve. Battery technology can't replace liquid fuels yet, but in 10 or 15 years, with good investments in research, it'll probably be the only reasonable choice.

Mike, thank you, as always for your input.

In reply, I would ask you to consider the following, hypothetical scenario:

Cargill produces a genetically engineered Tree. This Tree grows quickly to maturity, and lives for 200 years, each year bearing a 'Bio-Fruit' crop every 4 months. The Tree can grow on marginal, otherwise non-arable, land. The tree not only helps to sequester CO2, but prevents desertification. The Tree, requires only water from a desalination plant,(using a small percentage of it's own output), and is fed water and nutrient hydroponically. The Tree is genetically programed to resist all known pests, and is completely sterile, thus countering any fears of bio-contamination. etc, etc.

Since the Tree does not grow on arable land, and the 'fruit' is inedible, competition with food crops is not a consideration. However, by reducing desertification, The tree would be acting as a barrier for crop land that would otherwise be lost!

Such a 'magic' Tree, is I am reliably informed, not beyond the technical capacity of Gargill, Monsanto etc. The infrastructure to create such vast forests would be enormously expensive, but well within the capacity of the deep pockets of desperate Oil corporations. In fact, no other organisations could fund such a gigantic program.

Given my desire to witness the abolition of bunker oil, I will confess, this scenario has great appeal!

In such circumstances, who would continue to risk invest in battery R&D? No investment, no battery development, the EV industry dwindles, but the oil companies can continue to dominate transport fuels.

So, Mike do you think that such a scenario, is too far fetched?

__________________

marcopolo

jdh2550_1
jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Points: 2338
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

marcopolo wrote:

Carbon Neutral does not really equal pollution free to the knowledgeable. But, I would maintain it means exactly that, to Joe Public.

Oh, I agree with that statement 100%. And it's no accident that Joe Public equates the two. It's in the oil industry and bio-fuel's industry interest to promote that bio-fuels be it blended or otherwise produces "cleaner fuel". Personally I don't consider CO2 "dirty" - when emitted into the airstream it doesn't cause any illnesses (like NOx does) nor does it have an immediate environmental impact (like soot does). CO2 contributes to global warming and global warming is an important environmental issue. But it's not the only environmental issue.

Quote:

After speaking to Dr. Randy Cortright, (Virent's Chief Scientist) I received the following information:

Virent's BioForming technology uses catalysts to convert plant sugars into hydrocarbon molecules like those produced at a petroleum refinery. Traditionally, sugars have been fermented into ethanol and distilled. These new ‘biogasoline’ molecules have higher energy content than ethanol (or butanol) and deliver better fuel efficiency. ‘Biogasoline’ can be utilised directly as a gasoline substitute or seamlessly, blended with other compatible fuel's in any proportion.

Wow, I'm impressed - you went straight to the "big cheese". Thank-you. And this clears it up. So, it doesn't have to be blended - it's just in Shell's interest to focus more on blending at this time. OK. However, as Shell is one of their biggest investors (if not the biggest investor) then it's fair to say that it will be used in a blended fashion as long as Shell wants it that way. How long will that be, and in what level of concentrations? One can imagine the answer to that would be "while Shell still makes profit on fossil-fuels they will lobby for blending not replacing".

Quote:

(I mean, it's hard enough being an oil company, let alone being connected with Monsanto!!).

ROTFLMAO!!! ;-) ;-) Very droll and very true!

Quote:

Compare the two arguments

Oil Lobby(Bio-Gasoline

1) Bio-gasoline will reduce car emissions by 80%
2) Air/Maritime/Rail by 70%
3) Reduce dependency on imported oil 100%
4) Massive boost to the economy
5) Massive reduction of US debt and increased prosperity
6) Huge increase in small town/rural wealth
7) No disruptive technology. ICE vehicles, half the price.
8) Pump price to fall by 50%
9) Huge boost in employment.
10)Energy Security
11)Investment Security
12)Technology roll-out, virtually immediately!.

EV Lobby

1) EV reduce US fleet emissions over 10 years, maybe, 2%
2) EV Air/Maritime/Rail 0%
3) EV reduction of imported oil, 1%
4) No significant economic impact.
5) No decrease in Debt
6) No increase in rural wealth
7) Disruptive technology. Initial cost of EV's excessive
8) No fall in pump price.
9) No increase in employment
10)Very little increase in energy security
11)High risk Investment
12)Lengthy adoption time. Even with hybrid figures included, EV's, at the most optimistic, can only sell, maybe 5-10% of world vehicle sales over 10 years. (and without a competitive new technology)

I'm not going to go through all those points - because you're making a vast number of massive assumptions and there's no provided basis. It's simply your world view. It might be the prevalent world view - but that's mostly due to marketing and a lack of scientific education! You provide no facts to back up any of this. For example, I know that rail is looking at different EV solutions for reducing consumption - in fact I know an engineer that has some patents in this very area so to blithely assign a percentage to rail is clearly false. Yes, I know one has to make estimates for future looking projections - but those estimates need to be based on very thorough an unbiased research - such research is very difficult to come by!

Also, it's very telling that you go back to talking about "emissions reduction" and not "CO2 emissions reductions". Yes, Joe Public says they're the same. Yes, "CO2 emissions" are a subset of "emissions". However, to have a fair and unbiased fact based discussion these distinctions do matter. I know that in previous posts you've mentioned the health-based costs of pollution, well, as far as I can tell Virent's bio-gasoline has no meaningful impact on reducing health-based impacts of pollution

Yes, Joe Public only wants to focus on one thing at a time and the pollution-de-jour is related to CO2 and global warming. In isolation it's good that we're all focused on something that is important and worthwhile. But CO2 is not the only pollution issue. Wouldn't it be better to have a solution that helps mitigate all pollution issues - at least by moving the problem from personal transportation and pushing it closer to the source and power generation?

Now, stop saying "be honest" - I am honest as the day is long (pay no mind to the fact that the days are getting shorter!!!) ( <-- joke alert )

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

dp
Offline
Joined: 03/30/2009
Points: 145
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

"In reply, I would ask you to consider the following, hypothetical scenario"

To be fair shouldn't we also consider a hypothetical scenario with batteries also. If we can imagine "magic trees"...why not "magic batteries" that are 3 times better than what I can currently buy?

All sort of researchers will tell you they are on the verge of a breakthrough. Google it and you come up with all sorts of stuff.

"Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) recently revealed an energy storage breakthrough that could one day make batteries more commercially competitive with gasoline."

"100-Fold Lithium-ion Battery Breakthrough"

MikeB
Offline
Joined: 04/14/2008
Points: 517
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

marcopolo wrote:

So, Mike do you think that such a scenario, is too far fetched?

Here's the trick: if you are willing to postulate pie-in-the-sky technological advances, then why not just speculate that a Mr.Fusion device (As shown in the Back to the Future movies) exists?

Sure, magic trees sound great! Can we keep the forest populated with unicorns too?

Actually, trees are a poor choice for biofuels. What we really need is basically a grass, since the entire above-ground portion of the plant can then be harvested and the roots survive to keep growing. And grasses are faster growing than trees. Bamboo might be the optimal choice, since it's a grass with many of the properties of trees. Of course, if you can make such a magic biofuel grass using genetic engineering, why not make it edible as well? We could grow massive biofuel wheat crops in the Sahara desert, and now we're getting both food and fuel from the same plant?

But since we're talking about big technology advances, why not apply Moore's Law to both battery chemistry and solar cells? We already know that massive and rapid increases in silicon chips is standard practice for the computer industry, even getting 1/10th that speed of advancement in power electronics allows us to beat the magic tree in about 5 years. Remember, biofuels don't come directly from fruit like a squeezed orange, there's always an energy-intensive chemical processing stage as well as a massive distribution network, so direct conversion of electricity to stored electricity will always be more efficient than biofuels. Skipping all that pesky chemistry just saves so much work!

And the energy news sources have a new 'revolutionary' advance in either battery or solar cell techs about once a month. Sure, most of them are all "3-5 years from commercial development" and half will fail to materialize, but they also promise an improvement of 5-10x over current tech. We've got MIT's liquid crude battery technology to look forward to, as well as carbon nanotube trees forming the surface layer of solar cells and increasing conversion efficiency by 10x. And if you add in about half the other misc advances that have been announced, there's another factor of 5-10 that could be achieved.

Sure, oil companies have big money to spend, but they're putting something like 1% into alternative fuel research right now. At that level of research spending, they can be matched, dollar for dollar, by tech companies like Google, on the electricity side of the energy game.

And from the overall 'good of society' perspective, I'd rather make my own energy at home than be dependent on a massive oil company. Distributed infrastructure is what makes the internet robust. Distributed power generation could do the same thing with energy. Costs go down because everybody is competing and potentially self sufficient, rather than relying on a small number of near-monopoly players. Sure, there's economies of scale to worry about, but that might not be as important when every square foot of ground is a potential source of energy.

One more point: there's two entirely different energy markets to think about right now. One is stationary, one is mobile. Homes and businesses will be driven by electricity for the foreseeable future, there's no getting away from that. The only question is where that electricity is generated. Mobile energy is both a question of source and of storage. But investment in clean electricity generation is going to happen no matter what the oil companies try to come up with. And even a moderate additional investment in electrical storage can solve the entire problem. It's going to be an interesting competition, but there's simply no way that clean electricity is going to lose out entirely.

__________________

My electric vehicle: CuMoCo C130 scooter.

robert93
robert93's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2009
Points: 240
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!

marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

MikeB wrote:

Mr.Fusion device

like Andrea Rossi, University of Bologna :)

Quote:

Can we keep the forest populated with unicorns too?

Yes, indeed, absolutely!..oh, and Nymphs! Must have Nymphs! (I already know a few Satyrs!).

Quote:

Sure, oil companies have big money to spend, but they're putting something like 1% into alternative fuel research right now. At that level of research spending, they can be matched, dollar for dollar, by tech companies like Google, on the electricity side of the energy game.

Mike, there's three weaknesses in that statement. Firstly, the oil companies have two existing huge industries as allies,(feedstock industry, and automotive). Secondly, know one knows what sort of investment levels and existing resources are being diverted. Unlike Google etc, these corporations already have massive R&D infrastructure. Thirdly, would you call BP/Nestle 'initial investment' of $20 billion, a small investment? Shell is spending 5.5 billion annually on bio-fuel investment. Chevron's investment in Geo-Thermal is enormous and very commendable. These corporations will soon be fighting for existence, and can pressure governments in ways Google could not conceive!

Quote:

From the overall 'good of society' perspective, I'd rather make my own energy at home than be dependent on a massive oil company. Costs go down because everybody is competing and potentially self sufficient, rather than relying on a small number of near-monopoly players.

Industrial investment is about building valuable assets. Refineries, infrastructure, market share, appreciating real estate, forests. These are what attract investment. Ideology, and morality, doesn't really count. It's always a frustrating trap to extrapolate personal preferences into the market place hoping others will share your vision. I'm not saying you are wrong, or your concepts not scientifically valid. (you are always well researched, and knowledgeable!). Just impractical, in a world economy driven by self-interested groups of powerful entrenched vested interests.

Quote:

It's going to be an interesting competition, but there's simply no way that clean electricity is going to lose out entirely.

Outside the transport industry, I agree. Clean energy to Homes and Industry is a different matter. My bet is Geo-thermal, or Nuclear on purely economic grounds. However, I agree Solar technology is certainly the holy grail.

{or the U of B's Dr Rossi!} :)

__________________

marcopolo

marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

dp wrote:

To be fair shouldn't we also consider a hypothetical scenario with batteries also. If we can imagine "magic trees"...why not "magic batteries" that are 3 times better than what I can currently buy?

"Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) recently revealed an energy storage breakthrough that could one day make batteries more commercially competitive with gasoline."100-Fold Lithium-ion Battery Breakthrough"

DP, here the thing, for hypothetical scenario's to be useful, they have to be based on probabilities. Solving the energy storage problem would be a huge bonus for the EV industry. But, on it's own would not be enough to fight a 'clean' resurgent oil industry, than could literally turn the energy clock back to 1967!

So you must ask your self, what is the possibility of a battery being developed, cheaply enough that will provide the same range and capacity as a 'clean' bio-gasoline selling for $2 dollars per gallon, not increase the cost of the automobile, and can be used for air-planes, trains and ships?

That's the use of hypotheticals, they make you think about aspects of investment strategy, unpleasant to your own concepts. It's called investment risk management. Unfortunately it hasn't been much in vogue in recent years!

__________________

marcopolo

marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

jdh2550_1 wrote:

you're making a vast number of massive assumptions and there's no provided basis. It's simply your world view. It might be the prevalent world view - but that's mostly due to marketing and a lack of scientific education! You provide no facts to back up any of this.

As usual we seem to have met in the middle! I concede that my example comparison 'table', was only intended as broad outline. Each point would require a book to thoroughly explore! The table was intended to reflect the view that would be adopted by most of the 'popular' media, voters, investors and legislators. That's why I headed the table with 'lobby'. Rick Perry, maybe wrong scientifically, (and have only a poor grasp of reality), still more than 40% of US voters will vote for him.

Quote:

For example, I know that rail is looking at different EV solutions for reducing consumption - in fact I know an engineer that has some patents in this very area so to blithely assign a percentage to rail is clearly false. Yes, I know one has to make estimates for future looking projections - but those estimates need to be based on very thorough an unbiased research - such research is very difficult to come by!

"clearly false"?!! Why, because you know some engineer that may have some unknown, unproven patents, that may prove valuable? Really, c'mon, maybe the future may prove me inaccurate, but "clearly false"?!! (still like to hear more info on his innovations, sounds very interesting!)

Quote:

I know that in previous posts you've mentioned the health-based costs of pollution, well, as far as I can tell Virent's bio-gasoline has no meaningful impact on reducing health-based impacts of pollution

Are you serious? Are you equating the health effects of ordinary diesel, (let alone bio-fuel),to number 6 Bunker Oil?!! Your argument is the same as saying, "if a person drinks one litre of 80% medicinal alcohol it will have the same effect as one litre of low alcohol beer!" (sorry, I forgot, all US beer is weak!):)

In fact, Virent state that the bio-forming process is non-toxic and produces no harmful health effects to flora and fauna alike. (not even Unicorns). However, I have noticed that since the arrival of Shell and Cargill, there is lot more caution, and lawyer talk in the press releases! Whether this is correcting inaccuracies due to initial over-enthusiasm, or natural corporate caution, by corporate lawyers skilled in crafting PR statements, its hard to tell.

I mean ,there's a lot of vague stuff about the process IE;, "The carbon in these polymers is obtained from atmospheric CO2, effectively reducing greenhouse gases in our environment", and 'The superior environmental and economic benefits the bioforming process are at the cutting edge of technology, and will take mankind...etc." These statements are clearly phrased by PR lawyers, not scientists.

Quote:

Wouldn't it be better to have a solution that helps mitigate all pollution issues - at least by moving the problem from personal transportation and pushing it closer to the source and power generation?

Well, that depends on where you're standing. Let's get rid of cars altogether? In fact, let's get rid of personal housing, live like bees, or ants! Or, live like humans, with all our waste and folly, and still mitigate pollution by creating new industries to clean up, and offset the harmful effect of pollution, devising less polluting alternatives, increasing forests, while rehabilitating the oceans.

I still say that Virent's process, propels bio-fuel back into contention as a competitor for Investment funds, to EV development. Virent's process brings back into contention the giant Oil, Auto and Feedstock industries, who only a year ago looked like conceding to the inevitability of EV transport. It's no use the EV industry putting it's head in the sand while bleating (muffledly)about the righteousness of the cause.

When investment stops, so does EV development, as an industry.

__________________

marcopolo

jdh2550_1
jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Points: 2338
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

marcopolo wrote:
Quote:

For example, I know that rail is looking at different EV solutions for reducing consumption - in fact I know an engineer that has some patents in this very area so to blithely assign a percentage to rail is clearly false. Yes, I know one has to make estimates for future looking projections - but those estimates need to be based on very thorough an unbiased research - such research is very difficult to come by!

"clearly false"?!! Why, because you know some engineer that may have some unknown, unproven patents, that may prove valuable? Really, c'mon, maybe the future may prove me inaccuragte, but "clearly false"?!! (still like to hear more info on his innovations, sounds very interesting!)

I spent as much time giving backup to my position that EV technology will have a > 0% impact on rail transportation as you did saying that it would be zero. So don't come crying to me about lack of data! *thhhppppt* (that's the sound of a raspberry being blown in your general direction).

Yes, you're right I overstated things - however I think you're smoking something if you think that the rail industry isn't actively pursuing hybrid based solutions to the ever increasing pollution regulations they have to deal with. But the whole problem with this discussion (and what makes it mostly pointless - although entertaining) is that we don't have access to the information.

Sorry, but my engineer friend considers that stuff proprietary (and wouldn't stay my friend very long if I shared it). But at the ultra high level it's a way to handle steep grade sections of the various N.A. rail lines and fits well with the existing infrastructure (which should appeal to you!)

Quote:

Are you serious?
.... through to ...
while rehabilitating the oceans.

Sorry, I was intending to direct my commentary to only discussing the personal transportation fleet. I know precious little about bunker oil (regardless of it it's #6 or #26)

Quote:

I still say that Virent's process, propels bio-fuel back into contention as a competitor for Investment funds, to EV development. Virent's process brings back into contention the giant Oil, Auto and Feedstock industries, who only a year ago looked like conceding to the inevitability of EV transport. It's no use the EV industry putting it's head in the sand while bleating (muffledly)about the righteousness of the cause.

When investment stops, so does EV development, as an industry.

And this is where we agree on some middle ground but disagree on the size of the impact.

I think your position (as evidenced by the title of the post) as this is a nail in the coffin for EVs.

Your position is far too naive for my taste.

My position is that I agree that bio-fuels have a *VERY* large part of the total transportation puzzle but that this in *NO WAY* says that *ALL INVESTMENT* in EVs will stop. My position has nothing to do with "righteousness". It has to do with that for personal transportation EVs are just plain better for somewhere between 50% to 75% of end-user use cases (personal transportation is used mostly for local distances).

It's been fun - but I think I've run my course on this one. But feel free to keep discussing magic trees and unicorns. (Now, are you going to share whatever you're smoking??? ;-) )

Question: Has the EV already become obsolete?
Answer: Nay, nay and thrice nay!

Next question please! ;-)

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

Mik
Mik's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2007
Points: 3727
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

MikeB][quote=marcopolo wrote:

...
...
... Bamboo might be the optimal choice, since it's a grass with many of the properties of trees. ...
...

Remember, biofuels don't come directly from fruit like a squeezed orange, there's always an energy-intensive chemical processing stage as well as a massive distribution network, ...

...

And from the overall 'good of society' perspective, I'd rather make my own energy at home than be dependent on a massive oil company. Distributed infrastructure is what makes the internet robust. Distributed power generation could do the same thing with energy. ...

...
...

Some very good points there!

You can have all of the above with bamboo - it's even edible!

Pyrolysis of biomass (including bamboo) is an exothermic reaction and - if done the right way - results in fuel (methanol, tar, wood-vinegar) as well as electricity generation, while being strongly carbon negative.

Biochar is a by-product of the pyrolysis reaction and has a lifespan of thousands of years when applied to soil. It massively increases fertility and reduces need for water and fertilisers.

Mobile pyrolysis units could also provide much (hard labour) employment and all but remove the fire risk from places like Texas and Australia. Fuel-reduction burning releases practically all the carbon into the atmosphere, but pyrolysis and production of biochar will "sink" it into the soil.

Some links to help get the idea:


http://gekgasifier.com/gasification-basics/
http://gekgasifier.com/gasification-store/gasifier-genset-skids/
http://gekgasifier.com/reactor-options/pyrolysis-biochar/

__________________

This information may be used entirely at your own risk.

There is always a way if there is no other way!

jdh2550_1
jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Points: 2338
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

Mik wrote:
MikeB wrote:

...
Distributed infrastructure is what makes the internet robust. Distributed power generation could do the same thing with energy. ...

Some very good points there!

Pyrolysis of biomass (including bamboo) is an exothermic reaction and - if done the right way - results in fuel (methanol, tar, wood-vinegar) as well as electricity generation, while being strongly carbon negative.

I'm also a fan of "massively distributed micro-power generation" (a.k.a. lets all make our own electricity) - apart from the one issue is that we could end up with a similar pollution control issue that we get with the I.C.E. (attempting to control pollution at millions of points instead of a few thousand concentrated points). The good news is that most folks looking to generate their own power at this "micro level" are doing so with a key-driver of being "cleaner". I see many advantages: robustness (no single point of failure), reduction of power transmission losses (generate it where you use it), increased competition in the market place (do I "pay as I go" from the grid or invest in my own generation?), increased efficient use of "waste product" (nut shells is mentioned in Mik's pic above and for bio-fuels there's always W.V.O to consider). It also doesn't have to be a complete replacement of "grid-based" power and with "reverse metering" it removes power storage issues for the micro-generator. I think there's lots and lots of potential! I imagine that the developing countries (or remote under-served areas of developed countries) will be big adopter of these sorts of technology. And they may very well benefit by leapfrogging "old tech" and going straight to "new tech". Exciting times!

In my spare time I've followed some of this stuff as well. I love the picture of the VW Bug conversion! It illustrates that there's always been individuals researching in this arena despite the convenience of relying on big oil or big power companies. :-) Also that gasifier unit Mik posted looks really interesting - from my perspective often it's a case of taking long known about processes and adding some "modern day" process control and automation to make it either more efficient and/or convenient. Consider this "load and forget" bio diesel unit: http://utahbiodieselsupply.com/biopro190.php. My personal "holy grail" is to see if home production of algae as feed-stock could be made feasible and automated. I'm not sure that it can be. But I'm not sure that it's impossible either! (Remember a lot of the problems quoted are applicable to scaling up to industrial levels).

Mik: Are pyrolysis and gasification two names for the same thing? I think they are, right?

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

jdh2550_1 wrote:

I'm also a fan of "massively distributed micro-power generation" (a.k.a. lets all make our own electricity) - apart from the one issue is that we could end up with a similar pollution control issue that we get with the I.C.E. (attempting to control pollution at millions of points instead of a few thousand concentrated points). The good news is that most folks looking to generate their own power at this "micro level" are doing so with a key-driver of being "cleaner". illustrates that there's always been individuals researching in this arena despite the convenience of

John, you are right! Miks post is very interesting! However, people can always brew their own beer, churn their own butter, knit their own yogurt, grow their own do...well y'get the idea. But the simple fact is, they don't they buy it.

To digress, exactly as I predicted, here is the latest announcement from Reuters,Sep 13th 2011;

"PetroChina, the world's third most valuable company as of the second quarter of 2011, says it will add 11.1 million tons of biofuel production capacity by 2015, according to a company official who spoke with Reuters. Additionally, PetroChina says it will import 470,000 tons of biofuels by 2015, as China aims to make use of more alternative fuels.

The biofuel imports, likely from countries such as Brazil and the U.S., will be blended with gasoline and sold in southern Chinese provinces. PetroChina currently has limited biofuel production capacity."

In other reports, The PRC is conducting wide spread bio-fuel research in the vast western provinces, where the PLA is 'reserving' millions of acres as defence land. Western Intelligence speculation that recent involvement large scale research and survey by feedstock and agri-geneticists, involve some sort of vast feedstock production, to guarantee supply for the PLA.

Things seem to be hotting up!

__________________

marcopolo

jdh2550_1
jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Points: 2338
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

marcopolo wrote:

But the simple fact is, they don't they buy it.

Oh, I know. But my "aspirational goal" is a unit about twice the size of a whole house generator that runs off of bio-fuel. One half of the unit is the feedstock to fuel processor and the other half the generator. All in a completely automatic system. That, of course, is the key - zero work by the owner is essential (the feedstock guy comes by and reloads the hopper once a day/week/month/year/whatever-period.

Oh, and just like the whole house gen-sets it would automatically tie to the grid. If it failed you have grid power. If you don't use all the power you sell it back to the grid.

I want to make it so simple that when building a new house you'd be crazy not to include one.

Now, it's not easy but I don't think it's impossible.

My reasoning goes something like this: I live in a house today that has power outages about 1 to 2 times a year. I've no desire to put in a whole house generator - but boy, one would be convenient - instead I have to go out and get my 6kW portable genset running and refill it depending on the length of the outage. My friend decided to put one in his pre-existing house. I'm positive that if I were building a new house I would specify one of these gensets - it's easy to roll that cost in to the build process and amortize it over the life of the house.

While I don't subscribe to a Mad Max like doomsday scenario I do very much expect that we will have more rolling blackouts before they actually upgrade the grid system (rather than just talking about it).

BTW, these automatic whole house gensets have become very popular and have come down significantly in price. Now all I need is the "fully automatic renewable totally incredible generator" - trouble is I don't like the acronym!

;-)

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

jdh2550_1. wrote:

My reasoning goes something like this: I live in a house today that has power outages about 1 to 2 times a year.

Sounds very interesting! Fortunately, I live in a State of Australia that very seldom suffers power blackouts. But,I see real value in your device in a rural/farm/Island setting!

Interesting idea!

BTW, what do you make of the news from the PRC? Time moves quickly, the PRC's 3 Oil Companies, backed by the PLA have asked for the funds used for Solar, wind etc, be diverted to Bio-fuels and clean coal. The PLA see this as a method of providing for all those PLA personnel who will be left behind in military restructure and modernisation.

A budget of $2 trillion over 5 years has been sought. The PLA is a very powerful organ of the CCP. It argues that PRC enemies could cut off the sea lanes and destroy PRC pipelines, but vast agricultural feedstock, located deep in PRC's Western remote provinces is much harder to destroy, and easier to defend.

$2 trillion, would seem to up the ante, don't you think?

__________________

marcopolo

jdh2550_1
jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Points: 2338
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

marcopolo wrote:
jdh2550_1. wrote:

My reasoning goes something like this: I live in a house today that has power outages about 1 to 2 times a year.

Sounds very interesting! Fortunately, I live in a State of Australia that very seldom suffers power blackouts.

I think part of the issue with the US "final mile" of electricity delivery is that the majority of it is still above ground on poles. My understanding is that a lot of European countries require underground cables (more expensive but more reliable). I confess I know nothing about Australia.

Quote:

But,I see real value in your device in a rural/farm/Island setting! Interesting idea!

Well, I have the ideas you have the investment background. Let's do it! (OK, just kidding, kinda busy right now)

Quote:

BTW, what do you make of the news from the PRC? Time moves quickly, the PRC's 3 Oil Companies, backed by the PLA have asked for the funds used for Solar, wind etc, be diverted to Bio-fuels and clean coal. The PLA see this as a method of providing for all those PLA personnel who will be left behind in military restructure and modernisation.

A budget of $2 trillion over 5 years has been sought. The PLA is a very powerful organ of the CCP. It argues that PRC enemies could cut off the sea lanes and destroy PRC pipelines, but vast agricultural feedstock, located deep in PRC's Western remote provinces is much harder to destroy, and easier to defend.

$2 trillion, would seem to up the ante, don't you think?

Yes, it is very interesting. I could see the PRC wanting an audacious plan for energy independence. They also have the "advantage" of a political system that can more easily enact large scale projects (I doubt "eminent domain" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain plays a big part in their plans!)

Does China have any oil production at all? I know that they're one of the biggest importers - but I don't know their domestic production capability. They have a very real energy dilemma on their hands.

It is very telling that they're asking for solar and wind funds to be diverted for this. I can see "clean coal" (sorry, but that's just an oxymoron in my mind!) is probably a lower risk pay-out. I don't see bio-fuels at this stage being any less risky than wind and solar - maybe a couple of percentage points - but nothing that makes bio-fuels a slam dunk. I wouldn't be entirely shocked to find out that the PLA owns agricultural and mining interests that would gain from this shift (I believe that the PLA is notorious for this sort of agenda).

Regardless of the "hidden agenda" it is interesting that at least one country is "putting their money where their mouth is" with regard to energy independence. While we in the West bicker about a gazillion different nuances the PRC is making some apparently very bold moves...

BTW, I went to a presentation today and the closing remarks were about a phenomenon that they dubbed "reverse innovation" (I don't like the name). It was about the flow of technology from the developing nations back to the developed nations (the "reverse" speaks to the fact that normally technology flows from developed to developing). Bio fuel development appears to fall into this category.

And now for my education rant (for no particular reason!): I'm sure in a few years time the talking-heads will be bemoaning how far ahead the PRC is and "demanding" we do something about it. How about properly funding our education system? And how about doing it NOW! We in the US consistently get pwned (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwned) in the edumecation league tables. Wake up people - there's a correlation here!!

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

jdh2550_1 wrote:

(I doubt "eminent domain" plays a big part in their plans!)

Yep, the PLA is more eminent, and they have domain!

Quote:

Does China have any oil production at all? I know that they're one of the biggest importers - but I don't know their domestic production capability. They have a very real energy dilemma on their hands.

Although, the PRC exported oil in the 1970s and 1980s, by 1993 PRC had become dependent on foreign oil. PRC currently imports 62% of its oil by 2030, PRC oil imports will exceed US oil consumption.

PRC imports from Kazakhstan, Burma, Vietnam, Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, West Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Canada. PRC is increasingly dependent on Middle East oil. Its effort to acquire more oil from the Western Sahara and Libya, and other Middle Eastern interests, have been consistently blocked by Western Oil Companies, backed by Western governments.

Quote:

"clean coal" sorry, but that's just an oxymoron in my mind!

Agreed, absolutely!

Quote:

I don't see bio-fuels being any less risky than wind and solar - maybe a couple of percentage points - but nothing that makes bio-fuels a slam dunk. I wouldn't be entirely shocked to find out that the PLA owns agricultural and mining interests that would gain from this shift (I believe that the PLA is notorious for this sort of agenda).

Yeah, it's probably easier to think of the PLA as a sort of unified military/political/industrial/commercial complex than a military defence force.

But, once established, a vast multi-million acre biofuel feedstock supply, would be difficult to attack, especially with underground refineries. Wind and solar can't power aircraft and heavy tanks. But, bio-fuel would do so economically. In a purely economic war, such acreage could provide a blended fuel to eliminate PRC exports.

Unlike the West, the PRC regards it economy as part of defence and internal security planning. That why the heads of the giant resource PRC corporation a reliable, security trained, cadres.

Quote:

Regardless of the " hidden agenda" it is interesting that at least one country is "putting their money where their mouth is" with regard to energy independence. While we in the West bicker about a gazillion different nuances the PRC is making some apparently very bold moves...

Yes, and with our technology!

Quote:

"reverse innovation" It was about the flow of technology from the developing nations back to the developed nations. Bio fuel development appears to fall into this category.

What is it with these 'conscience struck' third world apologists? Bio-fuel is a creation of hi-tech western science. Feeling sorry for the plight of underdeveloped, third world people, and guilt about slavery, colonisation, etc doesn't mean that we have to praise or invent virtues for third world peoples, they simply don't possess. Moral indignation, and Kumbaya mentality, has simply driven these nations into further misery.It's the worst sort of patronising paternalism that fosters a victim mentality.

It's at its worst in countries like Australia, where the notion that a handful of hunter-gather nomads,roaming across a a vast continent for Millenia, some how 'own' the mineral rights. Never-mind that they have no conception of what minerals are, let alone how to find,develop and exploit the deposits.The idea that those who do so for the betterment of all mankind, are some how thieves, is patently absurd.

Worse, the introduction of such a philosophy creates a dependency that robs the hunter-gatherer of any hope of assimilation, and ensures dependency. We can't preserve human culture like a museum or worse a Zoo! Human culture is about assimilation, or extinction. Nothing will change that fact. No matter how many well meaning liberals, dress-up in native costume and play native folk music, (on modern instruments).

Quote:

I'm sure in a few years time the talking-heads will be bemoaning how far ahead the PRC is and "demanding" we do something about it. How about properly funding our education system?

Yes, and no! Asian education is very narrow. Asian students work very hard to pass exams, and get the answers right. In contrast, at it best, western education should be about debating what the question should be! This breeds innovation, (but also promotes discord).

I agree that any nation which neglects its education system, is not saving money today, but impoverishing its tomorrow.

__________________

marcopolo

zunzhine
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2010
Points: 54
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

Biofuel is ok, but it doesn't make sense to waste 80% of its energy contents by using it
to power ICE vehicles.

Biomass is best used for heating, utilising 100% of its energy, rather than refining it to a
point where it can be used in ICE engines who wastes 4/5 of its energy contents.

Its a sensible goal in itself to get rid of ICE's because they waste energy, pollutes the air,
and is a major source of noise pollution.

My guess is that EVs is the future, and that fusion power plants will be our main source of
energy in a four or five decades.

marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

zunzhine wrote:

Biomass is best used for heating, utilising 100% of its energy, rather than refining it to a
point where it can be used in ICE engines who wastes 4/5 of its energy contents.

Unfortunately, bio-fuels are not competitive to produce electricity. But if Shell is correct, the Virent process would replace gasoline,diesel,bunker fuel and aviation fuel. At a stroke this would reduce most of the worlds transport produced pollution by 95%.

Quote:

My guess is that EVs is the future, and that fusion power plants will be our main source of
energy in a four or five decades.

That would be great! I could park my fusion powered car next to my Unicorn!

__________________

marcopolo

bxcycleman
Offline
Joined: 01/16/2009
Points: 54
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

Ridiculous! You could have been driving any gas powered car and have read that report about lower fuel costs. Your position in the fuel chain doesn't make your argument rational. We are a species, who search for fat and sugar. Some of the search is productive and some is detrimental. Pollution is detrimental. If you're concerned about being part of the solution you'll measure your words and deeds accordingly. The rest of your projections are based solely on the fact some oil vendor has a cheaper ticket. They are selling oil. Oil is insulation. You explode it in your car's engine and it goes into God's ceiling, where the winters get warmer and the summer cooler, and then the true suffering comes about. Climate change is something mankind has contributed to, for fat and sugar. Man doesn't dominate nature, ever.
Equally ridiculous is finding fault with people who would convene anywhere on the planet with the purpose of finding out if anybody there had anything relevant to say on an energy related subject, being the truth about it all. Answers are something we all need, and they're as hard to find as crow's teeth. If you cannot base your sense of what energy is in something other than your car, you need to go back to H2O-101, the basics. If you screw up the water, you have no chance in any other realm of study. Electric vehicles are obviously outside your realm, unless you understand, gasoline is not the answer, period. If you live in the desert maybe you know. If you wrote all your stuff while sitting next to a swimming pool, we got nothin' to talk about!

zunzhine
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2010
Points: 54
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

@marcopolo:

What I meant with my first post above, was that fuels that burns, should
be used for heating purposes (industrial/home), where all its energy can
be utilised.

By using it to power ICE engines, 80& of its energy contents go to waste.

Besides this ICE's are complicated, noisy, expensive to maintain. Its
outdated technology, and electric cars will be all over the place in a few
decades.

pcarlson1979
pcarlson1979's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/20/2011
Points: 461
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

zunzhine wrote:

and electric cars will be all over the place in a few decades.

SHOULD be all over the place in a few decades.

But whilst America is addicted to MORE POWERFUL CARS every year, there is no incentive for the American manufacturers to make EV's.

I think we will gradually see Japanese and Chinese manufacturers pop up and supply EV's whilst the Detroit manufacturers will become obsolete and slowly dies a long expensive death. This big car manufacturers (GM, Ford) will not change their ways. They would rather sell a 15% efficient 600HP engine rather than a 85% 90kW motor.

Sadly I don't think I will see large EV adoption in my life time (60+ years). I predict once oil gets harder and harder to get, I see America starting WW3 for oil...umm I mean....freedom for the country's occupants.

__________________

------------------------------
eRider 8000w Scooter - PDT Version
72v 50AH CHL battery
350A Sevcon controller

24km: Delivered - 24 September 2011
2490km: Installed dual 35w HID lights Bi-Xenon Projectors - 27 November 2011
8313km: Installed BMS - 13 October 2012

"Scrappy" - Custom 48v Electric Dirtbike Conversion
20 Feb 2012: Bought 2005 Suzuki DRZ-400SM Motorcross Bike for $100
Motor: MARS ME0708
Controller: Alltrax AXE4844 400A controller
Battery: 16xCHL 50Ah LiFePo4 = 48v

LeftieBiker
Offline
Joined: 07/09/2011
Points: 655
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

pcarlson1979 wrote:
zunzhine wrote:

and electric cars will be all over the place in a few decades.

SHOULD be all over the place in a few decades.

But whilst America is addicted to MORE POWERFUL CARS every year, there is no incentive for the American manufacturers to make EV's.

I think we will gradually see Japanese and Chinese manufacturers pop up and supply EV's whilst the Detroit manufacturers will become obsolete and slowly dies a long expensive death. This big car manufacturers (GM, Ford) will not change their ways. They would rather sell a 15% efficient 600HP engine rather than a 85% 90kW motor.

Sadly I don't think I will see large EV adoption in my life time (60+ years). I predict once oil gets harder and harder to get, I see America starting WW3 for oil...umm I mean....freedom for the country's occupants.

No, it seems that instead we are going to put natural gas wells in all of our backyards, turning our drinking water into another liquid fuel and heating the planet to the point where furnaces will be obsolete. Good for the people we won't be bombing, not so good for everyone else...

marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

pcarlson1979 wrote:

But whilst America is addicted to MORE POWERFUL CARS every year, there is no incentive for the American manufacturers to make EV's.I think we will gradually see Japanese and Chinese manufacturers pop up and supply EV's whilst the Detroit manufacturers will become obsolete and slowly dies a long expensive death.

Actually, the USA is at the very forefront of EV manufacturing and development. The US government have spent billions encouraging EV development with subsidies and infrastructure roll out. GM, Ford, Tesla, Nissan Leaf, Fisker,Smith Trucks (Navistar) Polaris, Coda, Jacobsen and countless other EV manufacturers all have EV factories in the USA.

Japan,France and South Korea are following with the UK and other smaller players (including Australia)!

EV's are here already, you can choose you model and drive home on electrons!

But, still not out of the fossil fuel replacement technology race is Bio-fuel technology. With the versatility and economy provided by the Virent process, if a suitable feedstock can be produced, EV's will revert back to specialist vehicles.

But, which ever of these new technologies win the race, the result must be good for the planets environment!

So why all the doom and gloom?

__________________

marcopolo

zunzhine
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2010
Points: 54
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

I'm sorry, but biofuels is a dead end for transportatrion purposes. To
produce biofuels, and then let 80% of its energy contents go to waste
in ICE powered vehicles makes no sense in en energy starved world.

ICE' are DINO tech, and will go away.

When the Iter project is finished, and then the Demo project, all energy
produced will be electric, and so will the cars, until our sivilication
dies during the beginning of the next ice age.

These projects are a few decades until completion.

jdh2550_1
jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Points: 2338
Re: Has the EV already become obsolete ?

marcopolo wrote:
pcarlson1979 wrote:

But whilst America is addicted to MORE POWERFUL CARS every year, there is no incentive for the American manufacturers to make EV's.I think we will gradually see Japanese and Chinese manufacturers pop up and supply EV's whilst the Detroit manufacturers will become obsolete and slowly dies a long expensive death.

Actually, the USA is at the very forefront of EV manufacturing and development. The US government have spent billions encouraging EV development with subsidies and infrastructure roll out. GM, Ford, Tesla, Nissan Leaf, Fisker,Smith Trucks (Navistar) Polaris, Coda, Jacobsen and countless other EV manufacturers all have EV factories in the USA.

Hey, you forgot Current Motor Company! Shame on you... Oh, I suppose you were talking cars. ;-)

My thanks to pcarlson - he's hit on my personal favorite topic. Us 'mericuns are addicted to bright shiny things that are well marketed (be it an iWhatever or a really fast car). Marketing folks market what business will pay them to market. The car industry is locked in a myopic cycle: they market power and speed because people buy power and speed, people buy power and speed because it's well marketed. And around we go. Same with distance or carrying capacity (watch any NFL game and count the number of pickup ads). Marketing anything is not based on realities - it's based on perception. The perception is that the majority of folks need unlimited range - whereas the data says otherwise (majority of us don't need more than about 30 miles per day). The speed limit (in the US - yeah, I'm jealous of the Autobahn!) says we don't need 150+mph capable cars - yet that's what a lot of us desire.

Change the marketing message and you'll stand more chance of achieving EV adoption.

Or, just make a damn good EV that shows that EVs are just plain better than ICE alternatives. That's the approach I'm trying to take. Because it takes more than one company to change the marketing message of an entire industry that's been pushing the same message for about 100 years.

I still love fast, powerful cars though! Damn - I'm part of the problem.

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
V3 Cycle Analyst for Electric Bikes Ebike Display The Cycle Analyst V3 dashboard with speedometer sensor and magnet is a great addition to any Ebike

Who's new

  • ekeltsmd
  • Atila
  • polak187
  • lskxokpin
  • mick_wilt
Customize This