'Tis the Season … for Bashing Electric Vehicles
I have to say that I’m befuddled by all the electric vehicle bashing. Here’s an article from the Washington Post that really lays it on with a trowel. While author Charles Lane admits “the administration’s objectives – reducing carbon emissions and U.S. dependence on foreign oil – are legitimate,” he quickly goes back to the main theme: “But $5 billion wasted on electrics is $5 billion that cannot be used to meet these goals.”
The article quotes experts who agree, but (what a surprise) scrupulously avoids those that don’t.
Every time I see something like this, I think: Well, this most certainly could be more propaganda from the extremely powerful interests, i.e., the traditional energy world, who want to see electrics fail – make that “who desperately need to see electrics fail.” But the part of me that is not so cynical honestly tries to make sense of this.
I suppose there must simply be scads of people who just don’t see the importance and scope of the problem we’re trying to solve. But still I struggle to wrap my wits around this, as the basic economics are so clear. OK, so you object to a $5 billion program to promote an alternative to oil. But you’re OK on “the war that broke us” (Iraq — $3 trillion — see linked Washington Post article) that left 109,000 dead — to keep the oil flowing? You don’t see a problem with the $63 billion we spend annually on dealing with the asthma and other lung disease associated with fossil fuels? You think it’s acceptable that we borrow $1 billion every day to pay for foreign oil, further deepening our debt burden?
And you have an all-electric car available today, the Nissan LEAF, (with dozens of OEMs running like mad to follow suit), that gets a 100-mile range and costs $20,000 after rebates — but you don’t think it will sell like hotcakes as gas prices continue to rise?
Sorry, but I’m lost here.
“PVEN” – converter of water into energy.
Allows to produce electric energy from ordinary tap water, fresh water or salt water. Can be used in all cars (of all sizes), ships (both river and sea based), and everything that rides on the earth, flies in the sky, swims in water (ships) or underwater (submarines), with engines working on petrol, diesel or gas. All of the above can be fuelled 100% with water (fresh or salty) using our technology. Also, all power stations, which work on petrol, gas or diesel, can work now on usual water (on the detonating gas from water). Existing product currently being manufactured in several countries (at our production units). Calorific capacity of fuel from water, natural gas and petrol is; detonating gas from water – 33,3 kWh/kg, natural gas – 13,9 kWh/kg, petrol- 12,7 kWh/kg. Term of technical safeguards to every detail of the device from 1 year to 3 years. Dimensions of the installation of 15 kW of power (for cars up to 2000 cm3): weight – 1 kg, dimensions – 30 cm x 20 cm x 30 cm. Environmentally clean and safe. Time installation “PVEN” on a car, boat, power or other means of transportation, not more than two hours. Manufacturing period of 1 day, depending on the amount of order and power. Continuous and alternating current. There are no analogues in the world. All products are patented. The weight of the installation “PVEN is from 1 kg, depending on the brand of car, boat, power plants and other products running on gasoline, diesel or gas. Limit of power “PVEN” does not exist. Do not confuse our installation “PVEN” producing detonating gas from the water with “gas-Brown”, our technology is much more effective for all other similar technologies, which are described on the websites of other companies, but which have no comparison in quality, price and performance of these technologies, so we do not give out any information on the Internet. For large orders can be produced per day more than 1,000 pieces of “PVEN. In coming years, all vehicles in the world, all rides, swims and flies, all will go to our “PVEN” technology, because in today’s world there is no alternative to our technologies. Contact –a5r5@hotmail.com
“PVEN” – converter of water into energy.
Allows to produce electric energy from ordinary tap water, fresh water or salt water. Can be used in all cars (of all sizes), ships (both river and sea based), and everything that rides on the earth, flies in the sky, swims in water (ships) or underwater (submarines), with engines working on petrol, diesel or gas. All of the above can be fuelled 100% with water (fresh or salty) using our technology. Also, all power stations, which work on petrol, gas or diesel, can work now on usual water (on the detonating gas from water). Existing product currently being manufactured in several countries (at our production units). Calorific capacity of fuel from water, natural gas and petrol is; detonating gas from water – 33,3 kWh/kg, natural gas – 13,9 kWh/kg, petrol- 12,7 kWh/kg. Term of technical safeguards to every detail of the device from 1 year to 3 years. Dimensions of the installation of 15 kW of power (for cars up to 2000 cm3): weight – 1 kg, dimensions – 30 cm x 20 cm x 30 cm. Environmentally clean and safe. Time installation “PVEN” on a car, boat, power or other means of transportation, not more than two hours. Manufacturing period of 1 day, depending on the amount of order and power. Continuous and alternating current. There are no analogues in the world. All products are patented. The weight of the installation “PVEN is from 1 kg, depending on the brand of car, boat, power plants and other products running on gasoline, diesel or gas. Limit of power “PVEN” does not exist. Do not confuse our installation “PVEN” producing detonating gas from the water with “gas-Brown”, our technology is much more effective for all other similar technologies, which are described on the websites of other companies, but which have no comparison in quality, price and performance of these technologies, so we do not give out any information on the Internet. For large orders can be produced per day more than 1,000 pieces of “PVEN. In coming years, all vehicles in the world, all rides, swims and flies, all will go to our “PVEN” technology, because in today’s world there is no alternative to our technologies
Happy Holidays and thank you for this article. My opposition to oil began with the first oil shortage in the 1970’s when oil rationing meant Americans could get only three gallons of gasoline per trip to the pump. When oil prices rise, our economy suffers because everyday people are not able to plan ahead for future price increases, which the people cannot afford in general. Oil is no longer a viable energy source as peak oil has either happened or will happen soon. Thus, we must make the change to alternative fuel sources sooner than later. History repeats itself and shame on us for allowing a few companies to dictate how we live our lives.
Craig,
I somewhat agree with you, or in other words I’m somewhere in the middle on this issue. I would have rather seen a bottom up approach than the top down approach we have seen.
Incentivizing electric cars from the top down by investing the public money in the battery technology, without the investment in clean energy to recharge these auto batteries, seems to me to lack sound thinking.
Were it up to me I would have come at the issue from the other end and offered communities incentives to install distributed energy technology that could produce low emissions electric power on the far end of the power lines where the communities are. I believe power from non-fossil sources for recharging batteries for autos and electric cycles, and offering incentives for the purchase of those light weight EVs especially if that technology could also produce the liquid fuels to refill fuel tanks with a higher ratio of cellulosic fuels fuel would have been the better approach.
Les Blevins, Advanced Alternative Energy Corp.
The use of the word cult predisposes you to write a condemnation of electric vehicles. And you do so with full blinkers . I use this terminology to fit your view into the dated era of the horse and buggy days). Or perhaps you write to elicit responses for readership verification.
“Lavishing” subsidies- can you say oil and gas? Let’s eliminate the subsidies on the carbon enriched businesses and put these huge amount to work on saving the planet for your grandchildren and mankind. You are concerned about s significant impact before 2030. Maybe we should have started earlier or perhaps be more aggressive.
Are you keeping up with solar- ever hear of solar paint- use of infrared harnessing?Wind power is it real. It’s all solar energy and those plants run on coal are dirty- yes but by powering cars with electricity we net out producing less carbon than using gas. Don’t think for a moment that gasoline only contributes to our carbon emission when it emerges from tailpipes- ever heard of the tar sands.
Modern batteries are much more benign than their lead acid predecessors. And are you keeping up with the development of ultra capacitors. You might also realize that electric storage is an important part of our energy future. You might also note that cars will be mainly charged at night when there is excess power available on our grid.
Improving internal combustion engines is pointless. We already have small turbines which a magnificently mor suited to power generators to provide extended range when required but the improvement of internal combustion engines is like using buckets to make more electric power while supporting bucket manufacturers.
For my part, I ride my electric assist trike to shop and complete local errands- what are you doing to save the world for the children?
I need a 200 mile range. It can be a retrofit type or something, anyless than Tesla.
Oh thats right… Right now middle class America is so broke, especially the self employed..We are handcuffed by the banking industry greed and the 1099 income vs W2 income clause in lending. We have to work for the govt by the govt and to the govt..
When I start the American Electric Car Manufacturing Company I will buy the best…lol…
I heard Phoenix makes a good product..Being of an electrical discipline I know what a facade the whole energy issue has become…They are now hammering Toyota for doing business with Tesla…lol The change has to be grass roots but the money will control who wins and loses everytime.
EV1 proved it worked 17 years ago….Govt bought GM and Control has been awarded to whom? Oil is not an enemy but needs to be stored for future use etc..Not burnt.
The Volt 40MPC….(miles per charge)….an elect backup, not primary
We need to take the govt and the banks out of the equation..
1). Charge from windmill solar = cost of sys set-up-maint.
2). Remove the lies from the math trying to compare EV to ICE
3). Have the design and build tech for retrofits spread all over the USA
4). Real Work-Truck Retrofits ICE to Batt for fuel savings
Lets end the lies NEDRA has shown the power..EV1 has shown both the success and the barriers toward entry. The more entities that tell you what you can and cant do the less freedom..period..
I am very suspicious to say this, but in a way I have to agree with whoever mentioned the billions spent by the government. In my modest opinion, that money is waisted on an a technology (Lithium-Ion) proven to be not affordable to the masses anytime soon, if ever. EV-1 back in the 80s. could make 60 m.p.h. in 6.5 seconds, run @85 m.p.h. for 80miles using inexpensive lead-acid batteries. With today’s technology, EV-15 or so could go much farther using the same battery, if wastn’t for the Hummers getting in the way of that project. Please open http://www.ev-motion.com and correct me if I am wrong.
If my memory correctly serves me, the first EV-1 cars were made with lead-acid batteries and had a rather limited range. The later ones used nickel metal hydride batteries and had a much greater range.
Right now, the batteries with the greatest energy density are lithium polymer batteries; they have an energy density considerably greater than nickel metal hydride batteries.
Craig: can you send me to a source for the cost of asthma/air pollution/lung disease attributed to fossil fuels ($63 billion)? I’ve been trying to verify something I heard that the health costs for internal combustion engines is 50 cents/gallon.
Thanks.
Check out Boyden Gray’s piece in the Texas Review of Law and Politics about three years ago on the aromatics. Boyden puts the cost in damage to peoples’ health and medical costs total, at approximately $250 billion a year from the aromatics.
Craig: I was overwhelmed ! So many negative comments, such a volume of miss-information, both from the Oil Fuel and the Electric “Camps.” A few facts, a lot of falsehoods and miss- stated so called “Results from Research” but with narrowly defined topics to produce maximum perversion of the facts.
Listen, the Electric Motor and Batteries are so efficient that we can take a gasoline or diesel engine, use it to power a vehicle, then at the same use some of the energy of that engine to rotate the electric motor working as a generator to charge up a pack of batteries. Minutes later we can use the Motor and Batteries to assist the I. C. Engine on a heavy load and the average combined efficiency of the entire system will rise by about 25% . The obvious and logical incontrovertible observation is that the Electric Motor and Batteries Pack is such an Efficient Energy system and the Internal Combustion Engine system is so In-Efficient that a combined system is 25% more efficient than the I.C.Engine that we should not use the I. C. Engine at all! Stop subsidizing the wrong solution. Put all the funds we pump into the Oil companies adding to their already obscene Profits. Instead give every vehicle owner an Electric Vehicle. It would only take perhaps five years using the same dollar amounts we give the oil companies now. The true NET cost to convert a car to electric is only about $5,000 and selling the scrap removed to recyclers pays for the labor involved. Note that COAL burns and after affordable treatment has cleaner exhaust than burning Crude Oil.
One of the FRAUDS limiting the spread of Electric Vehicles at this time is the half dozen company virtual monopoly being perpetuated by those companies selling “Charging Stations” to individuals for their homes and to agencies raising Public funding to install them in Public Locations. I call it a big Rip-Off because I can bay on the internet from any of several suppliers for the bits and pieces necessary for a “Glorified Weather Resistant Electric Outlet. At a total “RETAIL” cost of $350.00 but the companies getting grants and subsidies from auto manufacturers are selling the same components in a distinctively shaped box for brand recognition for about $3,000.00 and that is not including the $800.00 to $1,800.00 being charged by Licensed Electricians to install them. Furthermore, if Underwriter’s Laboratories had not Capriciously demanded EVs use a “Special” connection system the same connectors as are used by Recreational Vehicles could have been used at a cost of about $150.00 installed. and that is safe enough for a retiree with a $300,000 RV Bus to plug in by herself safely… Or an electric fork lift operator, or a private Golf cart owner. (perhaps it IS a CONSPIRACY…)
Sure, electrification of the vehicle fleet is likely in our future. I put my money where my mouth is regarding solar panels, efficiency etc….However, people like me have questioned how Americans are going to magically afford the financing for all these new cars. If we do somehow all acquire EV in the near future, the lights would go out when we try to charge them all because our grid cannot handle this right now. And it’s not clear that we can power them all without drastically increasing the burning of dirty bituminous coal.
With the impending oil crisis, now at our doorstep, I believe it is an illusion to think that we can carry on business as usual by just simply switching energy sources at the last second. A great power-down and relocalization of our economy (read Jeff Rubin) is coming sooner than most people think.
I would hope that most Americans are very not “OK” on the deficit spending for all these endless wars. However, it’s not clear that what citizens think really matters anymore in the USA.
Craig,
I did two posts because the topics were different although both relate to Electric Vehicles an area in which I have considerable Expertise.
It does disturb me to see the post (entered two times) on: “PEVN” by Alexander. Perhaps the “Cold Fusion” and “Perpetual Motion ” developers could be persuaded to keep it all in confidence and a secret and keep our nations enemies from getting it. I understand that an Insane Asylum makes a very secure location for developing such technology. just put their desks in one of the “Rubber Rooms” and block ALL public contact.
I disagree with the Washington Post article.
We cannot achieve an adequate reduction of greenhouse gasses if we continue to depend on petroleum-derived fuel to power our vehicles. Also, it is a risk to our health, economy, and national security to remain dependent on oil, most of which is imported. Today’s electric and hybrid cars are not the final answer, but they are an important step in the right direction.
Because both electric and hybrid cars are so much more efficient than gasoline cars, they can reduce both air pollution and greenhouse gasses slightly even when the electricity is generated from coal. Both do reduce our dependency on imported oil. Moreover, they can be made even more efficient by supplementing the batteries with ultra-capacitors so that the batteries will not be subject to high charging and discharging currents which reduce their efficiency.
Note that when gasoline cars were introduced in the late 19th century, they were very expensive and unreliable; many people saw them as a passing fad. However, as automotive technology advanced, cars became less expensive and more reliable. We can expect both electric and hybrid cars to become less expensive as battery technology improves and as production volume increases.
Hybrid cars are a crossover technology towards fully electric cars and as a stop-gap measure, will reduce our consumption of oil. They may be phased out as battery technology improves making fully electric cars more practical.
Improved battery technology should improve the range. Also, standardizing batteries and making them quickly exchangeable at battery exchange stations would completely solve the range problem.
What we are seeing now is the first phase of hybrid and electric cars. One of their purposes is to provide the experience necessary to manufacture better ones in the future. We should be happy that there are well-heeled people willing to purchase these cars thereby helping advance the technology so that it will become more practical and economical in the future.
Although battery electric cars may be the winning automotive technology of the future, there are other possibilities. If energy becomes cheap enough, it may become possible to manufacture clean synthetic fuels for IC engines in which case that technology could replace electric cars, or cars running on synthetic fuels could coexist with electric cars. Attempts to predict the future usually fail, so we’ll just have to wait and see which vehicle technology or technologies prevail. Meanwhile, both hybrid and electric vehicles have a place.
Sorry to contradict you Frank, but when the Explosion cars running on lamp oil, or Kerosene, or Gasoline or Ethyl Alcohol (White-Gas) their retail prices were about 1/3 of the price of a typical Electric. They were so noted for being un-reliable that a song,”Get-Out and Get Under” was popular about them. Dealers didn’t start having service departments until after the end of WWI as many men were trained as mechanics during that war.
My Grandfather was unsuccessful in making an engine run well on hydrogen and oxygen produced on board from electricity as the only fuel, because it burned too quickly and would blow the “head” off the engine. I would use exhaust gases recirculated and not added water spray from the carburetter as he tried to slow the rate of combustion and that may work! That was in 1915 and there was no fuel cell system available. Then energy costs were so low and cars were so inefficient that wasting 50% of the energy using electricity to convert water to Hydrogen was acceptable. Today anyone working on Hydrogen fuel cells is just a fraud; seeking other sources of funding to pocket.
Actually, there is no contradiction. Gasoline cars WERE very expensive when they were introduced, which is why they were often called “the rich man’s toy.” Electric cars were just more expensive but, as you say, they were more reliable.
President Theodore Roosevelt had an electric car.
I wouldn’t TOTALLY rule out hydrogen fuel cells; it’s conceivable that they could become practical sometime in the not to near future, although with the technology available today their practicality is decidedly limited.
An engine can run very well on hydrogen; it’s been successfully tried. Hydrogen and air, that is, NOT hydrogen and oxygen which, as your grandfather found out, would most likely produce somewhat spectacular results. Air is about 1/5 oxygen which means that if an engine were run on hydrogen and pure oxygen, the pressures generated would be about five times higher which is considerably greater than the pressure for which engines are normally designed. Thus, it’s not surprising that attempting to run an engine on hydrogen and oxygen resulted in premature mechanical failures of a somewhat startling nature.
The problem with wide-spread adoption of battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) is not their range. The key difficulty lies in the time necessary to replace the consumed electric energy from the electric-power grid. This recharging time is not a battery problem, but rather a limitation on the electric power that is available from our home electric service. In order to make this point clear, let’s use some data from the Nissan website on their BEV Leaf website. The Leaf has a 24 kW-hr battery that the control circuitry judges to be “empty” when the state-of-charge is depleted to 4 kW-hrs. So a depleted battery requires 20 kW-hrs of recharge energy to reach full charge. Most homes using conventional wiring for an electric range or electric dryer are wired on 30 Amp circuits at 240 Volts that computes to a power rating of 30 x 240 = 7.2 kW. So to receive 20 kw-hrs would take 20/7.2 = 2 hrs-47 min. If a 60 Amp circuit were provided then this time would be halved to 1 hr-24 min. My own personal judgment is that the joy derived from driving a BEV will not compensate for this long recharge time by most consumers. We are just too accustomed to refueling a gas tank in 5 min, not hours, and I emphasize that this is not a battery issue, but rather an issue with the power levels of electric utility distribution systems. The technical solution to reducing petroleum consumption lies with plug-in hybrid powertrains not BEVs.
You are partly right on what determines charging time. It is, as you say, dependent on how much power is available from the charging source. However, it is also limited by the battery.
If a battery is charged too rapidly (unlikely with the power available at one’s residence), it will overheat. In any case, very rapid charging will reduce the life of the battery, but again that would not occur with the amount of power available at a typical residence.
There have been proposals to exchange batteries instead of charging them in the vehicle; that would go a long way towards solving the charging time problem.
The replies to this article have been fascinating!
Ranging from the usual conspiracy theories to well-informed observations.
Analysing all the posts, (ignoring the absolute crazies), three main arguments opposing EV’s stand out.
1) Electric cars are not environmentally beneficial due to increased use of fossil fuel
2) The technology is still in it’s infancy, so Govt funds will be better spent improving public transport infrastructure
3) The world must ‘downsize’ to a sort of weird socialist/minimalist/agriculturalist nirvana, without oil companies, banks, military , ‘obscene’ profits etc.
Every major automobile manufacturer is now deeply committed to producing EV (or hybrid) products to compete in every ICE market segment! From tractors to earth moving, personal transport to buses, two-wheeled to military vehicles, EV versions are either available or in advanced development. With this sort of investment, the future of EV’s replacing ICE would appear inevitable, so why are these issues still being debated?
1) The issue of electricity generation is a separate, and irrelevant, technology. Nearly every nation, (and all power utilities) are developing new technologies to replace fossil fuel.
2) The Public v/s Private transport debate is older than EV’s, and reflects different concepts of urban infrastructure, lifestyle choices. Public transport in most cities needs to be improved. But, public transport on it’s own, lacks, the versatility, convenience and economic viability to satisfy the personal transport choices of citizens, apart from mass commuting.
3) The concept that the world is capable of downsizing, is just plain nonsense. A comfortable theory to avoid doing anything practical! The doomsday alarmists have nothing to offer except an insight into their own sense of insignificance and insecurity.
I am not a citizen of the US, but I am proud to acknowledge the way, even if belatedly, US manufacturers have grasped the nettle and have made great strides in catching up in the EV race. The GM Volt is an excellent product, and even if developed as a result of govt incentives, who cares?
Ford Motors, under the direction of the Ford family, has been able to put into production all the EV idea’s Bill Ford supported, while in the automotive wilderness, for more than 20 years.
Across, the USA, and the entire planet, engineers, scientists and tinkerers are working tirelessly, inspired to be pioneers in the excitement of new technologies .
Battery, or energy storage, technology is also developing at a tremendous pace and the technical breakthroughs in the next few years will be astonishing.
The EV has a bright, and assured future!
Yes I agree with you in toto. EV is the future car. The battery issue can be resolved with proper R &D. We have to get out of the OIL cycle used for Transportation and Manufacture of Fertilizers. Ihave seen good earth reduced to a burnt earth using Fertilisers based on Naptha
Shrinivas
It’s all fine and dandy, but if all this happens what will everyone in the oil and automotive related business’ do for work? Collect checks from the Gov. What about the billions collected in taxes?how can the Gov replace that income (their jobs) it has to start at the solar home, schools and business level, the EV has to come after that
It’s amazing how we have tried to find investors for our product for the last 2 years and yet even government approach did not assist us in anyway. We also had people attempting to steal our concept in the local market and on the international ground. We also had problems with our local standards bureau for testing the product. Yes I agree that in many ways it is all linked to the oil industry prevent the progress of such product developments. We are yet to see results in the world the produces an equivalent amount of gas as much as we do with our minimum current draw from our hydrogen fuel cell. What is amazing is that it started in the kitchen with 2 teaspoons in a jar of water and now a physically attractive unit that is not even noticeable to the untrained eye under the hood of the vehicle. Let them enjoy the ride,It will not last forever, one day we will enjoy the benefits of our knowledge.
At every crossroads presented by a dying technology or a shift in economic direction, the die-hard adherents to the old way cry foul and bemoan the injustice of the new way. Such was the cry of tailors and seamstresses with the invention of the sewing machine. The moguls of radio decried television as a passing fancy. The very first record executives to seriously consider The Beatles decided that the electric guitar was not likely to remain a major component of popular music. Monarchs demeaned, attacked and subverted revolts and revolutions and fought the rise of democratic republics. Military forces resisted mechanization and clung to the musket, the cannon and the horse. Weavers whined about the Jacquard loom, and fur traders chaffed at the fickle whims of the fashion market.
Often the new way truly does cause widespread and vastly damaging suffering – like the quick transformation of the American family from one breadwinner to two at the expense of parents raising their own children, or the demise of American manufacturing and the rise to primacy of the financial sector, and the shift from the creation of goods to the provision of services at the expense of a strong middle class and a robust consumer economy.
In any event, whether the change is for good or ill or, as is often the case, a mix of the two that cannot be easily defined, the population always does its best to adjust to the new paradigm and often takes paths that were unexpected at the outset.
The cowboys who worked the cattle runs for that short but fiercely iconic period in our history got down from their horses and took jobs in the ranches and train-yards and factories, and the trappers came down from the mountains and went back to France and Russia or made themselves guides for the wealthy vacationers who took on the new fashion of touring American wild places, or trading useful goods to travelers in the many railroad towns that sprouted up at every major and minor hub across our beautiful country. People reinvent themselves in this country much faster than they themselves expect.
In the same way, people currently involved in the filthy, planet killing business of sucking up and spewing forth crude ancient sunlight and burning it primitively in engines that have little changed in their basic design in 100 years, will eventually discover that the era of oil and gasoline is departing, and they will reinvent themselves just as their great grandparents had done. Just think about going back to the days before Post-It notes and portable handheld computers and cell-phones and microwaves or, for that matter, before freeways and broad spectrum antibiotics and moving pictures… maybe you can think about it – possibly even remember such times, if life has graced you with sufficient years – but I’ll wager you wouldn’t eagerly go back… not really, not beyond a nostalgic daydream.
Here are the real questions: Will the money in this country get behind the change before we’ve done far too much irreparable harm to the biosphere on which we all, at bottom, depend? Will the technology be hidden and repressed and denied and discredited until the best options are priced out of our dwindling league, and we’re relegated to a position of economic backwater, while more forward-thinking and open-minded powers take the stage and leave us to beg for the crumbs and broken meats from the wings of the feast?
Resistance to change is a natural emotion and has existed within mankind forever. However, people are not generally stupid, as I think you believe without saying so. Whenever solid arguments are made, and especially whenever arguments which include personal benefits are successful, people are more often than not accepting and willing to bring change. Whenever any case hasn’t been argued soundly and therefore accepted, that situation shouldn’t be confused with stupidity so quickly. People aren’t perfect, of course. But from what I read and from who I talk to, I’m convinced that a huge majority of people recognize man has tremendous impact on his environment and must act responsibly. The disagreement comes in the details, and the public at large has yet to be convinced.
I don’t have the perfect answer to bringing about the vast cultural change that would best accelerate change towards “smart energy”. However, I CAN identify failures. Calling for socialist and/or minimalist reactions as one contributor did here will never work. Likewise, claiming that anyone who is moving forward towards a preferred activity with regard to energy is enlightened or “forward-thinking and open-minded”, and relegating the U.S. to a “backwater” status will fail. Can you cite any evidence or any fact to support the economic advantages reaped by the “advanced” nations? China may be the gleaming example, but to be honest you need to look at the total picture. How much of China’s GDP and growth will be linked to “smart energy” and how much to “old energy”? They still continue to build coal fired plants at a rate to make anyone who believes in a nearing climate disaster blush (or rant). And what about EU nations that shifted wealth heavily towards “smart energy”? Can you make an argument for their improved well being overall?
My point is simply that the arguments fail greatly in bringing about a significant cultural change. With EVs, for example, simply pouring money at them while trying to obscure the realities (such as the true energy balance and for that matter the true “carbon footprint”) is failing.
Cameron, vast sums of money are being invested in solving the problems of new technologies and the humans race has never Bent more innovative faster, but the problems are vast and time consuming.
Take hope from the number of EV’s coming on to the market, improvements in nearly every energy science, from cars and buses to dry-cleaning.
Alexander, Randall, what on earth are you smoking? Give it up and get back to work or you’ll fail your finals! In fact, better give me the rest of your stash for safe keeping…….
Did you know that for the last 5 years Australians have been able to purchase a production four door 4 seater EV with the same performance as the Mitsubishi iMev?
Hi, Craig,
I couldn’t agree more. These people are either fossil fuel etc. vested interests, their lackeys or just don’t care about the environment.
We can bypass them. A solar generator on the house roof, which I, and many other people have installed, povides the power to run the Nissan Leaf which I am saving to buy.
The negative mob will still be trying to protect the obsolete internal combution engine when I am driving around in my Nissan Leaf, however long it takes me! ( as far as I know a government subsidy is not yet available in Australia for purchase of the Leaf ) In the meantime I can have a shower etc. without using the mob’s fossil fuel to generate my power.
Befuddled is putting it mildly.
Nigel, why wait to buy a Nissan Leaf?
Autralia, has for the last 5 years produced a four seater, four door, production EV with similar performance specifications to the leaf, and a Five year warranty?
The Blade Electron, is available now, backed by one of the largest service networks. It has won evry endorsement from all the peak motoring bodies and easily outperformed the iMev in saftey, price, performance, and passenger comfort. Build quality is comparable to iMev or leaf and is based on Australia’s best selling small car. (also car of the year?).
Why wouldn’t you support your own countries manufacture?
Numbers don’t lie …This all adds up to be true .
I’ve install Solar PV in Our home, My parents and my siblings along with Geo thermal heat pump, next purchase is the electric car. Knowing what makes sense and following through with the part I can play and we’re doing it. A little more we’re doing… building a couple Solar farms 10+mw Because we believe this is the right direction and piece of the puzzle needed now.
Those who can do more keep doing it, Build it and they will come along.
Key factors in the inevitable transition to EVs are easy to understand and visualize, but tough to implement. 1) Battery technology is simply not “there” yet, since a pound of gasoline still holds more potential energy than a pound of batteries. Moreover, batteries have cold weather and range limitations that have yet to be overcome. In time, they will beat out fossil fuel efficacy. The solution, will, no doubt, come from some young techies working in their garage somewhere in America (probably without a penny of US gov’t. funding); motivated, in part, by a serious financial incentive.
2) America can generate enough electricity to power 150 million EVs, but can it do so at a lower overall cost than is required to power 150 million ICEs? The answer is yes…sort of. We all know America is to coal as Saudi Arabia is to oil, but coal conversion technology is still “dirty” and mining coal is hazardous. The chicken-and-egg nature of EVs vs. charging stations notwithstanding, I view the transition to EVs at least as much of a national security/survival factor as an environmental one. Bottom line: When profits are to be made, the OEMs and grids WILL respond…but NOT before. That is simply the way free market economies work.
Craig,
I agree that powerful interests are attempting to prevent our society from moving forward with other fuel options. Because it will increase the income of their businesses and increase their personal wealth, these people and the economic forces they control are doing whatever possible to keep the world economy dependent on oil. They do not care if oil becomes increasingly expensive or that it is acutally a threat to our national security. Infact, that is what they are moving toward.
Early in the development of the automobile, forces moved to make our economy dependent upon Black Gold, Texas Tea, oil. Some examples of alternatives that were squashed in their infancy include, the Ford Model A was designed to run on multiple fuel sources including cooking oil. I have seen an exhibit of early electric cars built as far back as the 1920s. My father was a fire fighter for Bethlehem Steel Corporation. When I was a boy, he came home from work one night and told us about a developmental car that one of his coworkers was driving. The car designed by GM was capable of running on water utilizing a special carborator.
Corporatate forces are fundamentally conservative. They do not want new ideas to upset their profits. New ideas after all are a threat. They will require investment to create not only the conceptual product but also an investment in factories to produce that product, advertising to lure the public to desire the new product, and a distribution system for that product. Finally, what are they going to do with all the obsolete products they produce and all the factories that are producing them.
Sincerely,
Jim Becker
James and all others who believe in the Great Oil Conspiracy.
Get over it! There never was an ‘oil conspiracy’! No magic carburettors were suppressed, no cars that could travel 1000 miles on a cup of tea/water/magic additive. Just good old snake oil! Granduncles who met a fellow, whose cousin, knew someone on the inside, who told him ’bout a car that ran on air! All fantasy! All Nonsense!
The success of oil is the ease and convenience of its ability to store easily assessable energy. Nothing else compares to oil, economically. Not biodiesel, not batteries, not anything!
Oil fuelled all the great advances of the 2oth century. The abolition of horse drawn traffic by the automobile has saved infinitely more lives that the automobile has taken, improved public health way beyond its drawbacks.
The problem is simple, Oil is a finite resource! Oil’s other uses outside transport, are far more important and valuable to continue wasting this precious resource on transport fuel.
The most practical alternative to oil for most nations is electricity. Biodiesel, ethanol, methane CNG,LPG will all play a role in a future energy matrix.
The era of the EV is already here.
The question is, from what source do we create electricity. Hopefully, one day Solar will be viable, in the meantime most countries will try to find cleaner coal technology, other nations will turn increasingly to new technology nuclear reactors.
No conspiracy theories, just simple economics. Already the Major oil companies are looking forward to a petrol free oil industry, far more profit and less distribution costs.
But please stop wasting your energy on absurd conspiracy theories! (unless you are Oliver Stone).