Archives

L.A.'s car showcase underscores that the government needs to help automakers make eco-friendly vehicles. (http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-neil14nov14,0,5046607.story?coll=la-class-autos-highway1)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2009_Cadillac_Escalade_Hybrid.jpgDan Neil – LA Times – Nov. 14, 2007

2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid – Not exactly what most would consider a green hybrid … If you usually skip the linked story, do not skip this one. -- Ed.

PORSCHE -- a company associated with environmental friendliness like Wilt Chamberlain is with prim chastity -- is going green. On the company's stand at the Los Angeles Auto Show (starting Friday) is a front-wheel-drive, zero-emission electric car. One version of the car is a series-hybrid -- the gas engine doesn't turn the wheels but, rather, charges the batteries -- and features all-wheel drive. Very cutting-edge stuff.

The car is a Lohner-Porsche, circa 1900, built by automotive pioneer Ferdinand Porsche and the Lohner coachworks in Vienna. Porsche AG has conscripted the car from its museum in order to establish the company's bona fides as it introduces the Porsche Cayenne hybrid concept, the gas-electric version of its urban trailblazer. Setting aside the Cayenne hybrid's technical merits for a moment, we should ask: Why didn't the all-wheel-drive series-hybrid version of the Lohner-Porsche succeed?

For reasons, it turns out, that sound familiar to us today. The vehicle was complex and costly; the batteries -- over a ton of lead-acid -- were not sufficiently "energy dense," which is to say their electrical output was canceled out by their weight and bulk. Over a century later, as the world awaits salvation from the curse of its own oil-based mobility, automakers cite these same drawbacks in explaining why plug-in hybrids (PHEV’s) and electric vehicles (EV’s) are not ready for primetime. And these are not the ogres of Detroit. This is Honda, Toyota and Nissan. Batteries remain the critical and highly contested component, the as-yet imperfect technology upon which the future of the automobile depends… http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-neil14nov14,0,5046607.story?coll=la-class-autos-highway1

While the outlook is bleak in this article, I'm very glad someone with a sizable audience is willing to stand up and insist that we need electric vehicles and that the key to this whole thing is battery technology.

I'm convinced from what I've seen to date that A123 has the necessary technology. People may complain that energy density isn't great, but you know what? It is good enough to get most every essential job done. So what if you have to "fill" a bit more often? Add some power plants and start charging in most places. It is workable right now on a medium impact scale and since it will take a while to get there, get the infrastructure upgraded as people transition.

I sincerely hope that the Volt or something like it succeeds. Nothing would make me happier than the ability to go most everywhere on battery power alone, and I will put my money where my mouth is.

Dan Neil wrote in this article;

If it sounds as if I'm defending the automakers, I am, but I'm also proposing a course of action. Government needs to spend whatever it takes to help automakers develop battery technology and should grant consumers whatever tax breaks and incentives necessary to make the transition to electric vehicles, in a generation, all as a matter of supreme national interest.

I am 1000% with him. And I know where the government can get the money. Not from us, the taxpayers. They should regulate the oil cartel, tap the billions they are making in windfall profits every quarter, and use it to:

1. Subsidize the big three to develop & build their best PHEV (using these subsidities to work out the problems with the PHEV batterys) by December, 2008.

2. Subsidize Americans purchase of these vehicles by offering hudge discounts to the purchase price of their first two vehicles. Subsidize these purchases to the point that most all Americans could afford to get one or two.

And PRESTO! By 2009 we would reduce our oil consumption, massively, AND increase all American's standard of living immensely. Good-Good!

As I see it, there is no alternative. There is no where else that the government could go and get the amount of money necessary to fund such a program. But rules would have to be put in place to make sure the money was used for the purpose intended and independent watch dog agencies should be developed to oversee the project. Otherwise, our government will just steal the money (there good at that).

How's that for a good idea?

Bob.

Dan Neil wrote in this article;

2. Subsidize Americans purchase of these vehicles by offering hudge discounts to the purchase price of their first two vehicles. Subsidize these purchases to the point that most all Americans could afford to get one or two.

Bob.

In your scenario, what do you forsee happening to all the current vehicles?

a good question... as most people seeing the massive potential in switching to a fuel efficent vehicle will see resale value of their "gas pigs" drop... wait not drop plummet.

hmmm, this is probably going to happen anyway when the american public realizes that there is no other alternative to high FE vehicles.

Maybe I should start investing in recycling/salvage companies. I see record productivity in their near future ;)

1. Subsidize the big three to develop & build their best PHEV (using these subsidities to work out the problems with the PHEV batterys) by December, 2008.


How's that for a good idea?

Bob.

Bob,

Part of that is happening:

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/research/batteries/index.html

The Argonne National Laboratory is doing R & D to help our auto-makers with battery technology, and all of America.

Harry

In your scenario, what do you forsee happening to all the current vehicles?
I figure that everyone, like myself, will keep there dinosaurs and use them sparingly when needed. I am currently spending 7% of my personal income on gas. I figure that if I could get a vehicle that would go 10 miles on electric only, I would be able to cut it down to 2% (rough estimate). That would save roughly $100.00/mo, which would be nice.

If everyone did that our oil habit would dramatically shrink and our stamdard of living would all go up, some by much moer than mine.

I figure that everyone, like myself, will keep there dinosaurs and use them sparingly when needed. I am currently spending 7% of my personal income on gas. I figure that if I could get a vehicle that would go 10 miles on electric only, I would be able to cut it down to 2% (rough estimate). That would save roughly $100.00/mo, which would be nice.

If everyone did that our oil habit would dramatically shrink and our stamdard of living would all go up, some by much moer than mine.

Does your calculation account for the dramatic increase in electricity to support all the new electric vehicles? I am not shooting down your idea, its a good one, but it also needs to include a build up of the infrastructure. Say something along the lines of a solar array to power the new EVs everyone is going to buy, or at least a discount on it. Because of mismanagement and greed out here in California we still see the potential of rolling blackouts in the hot summers. Add a huge increase in EVs to the mix and we would be in trouble.

The solutions just aren't that simple, unfortunately.

Hi TheTonka:

___Do a quick search for the amount of Electricity and NG the CA refiners use vs. the rest of the state and you have your answer. Gasoline is an energy carriers nowadays and with each gallon of gas off the street, that much electricity and NG are available for the PHEV. It is ~ a 1:1 Ratio now given how much more efficient a few kWh’s are to make and use then a gallon of gasoline to drive an average vehicle the same distance.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

The problem in California is not about resource availability, its about capacity and in most cases its about reduced capacity due to greed or incompetence. As an example the rolling blackouts we experienced in the LA area back in the early '00s were pretty bad. The area I was working in was SCE and had rolling blackouts most of the summer, the neighbor down the street from my work was LA DWP. DWP had NOT blackouts and NO power supply problems. The rest of the state did.

I just don't see the current power grid handling a dramatic increase in EVs without some upgrades.

Dan Neil wrote in this article;

If it sounds as if I'm defending the automakers, I am, but I'm also proposing a course of action. Government needs to spend whatever it takes to help automakers develop battery technology and should grant consumers whatever tax breaks and incentives necessary to make the transition to electric vehicles, in a generation, all as a matter of supreme national interest.

I am 1000% with him. And I know where the government can get the money. Not from us, the taxpayers. They should regulate the oil cartel, tap the billions they are making in windfall profits every quarter, and use it to:

1. Subsidize the big three to develop & build their best PHEV (using these subsidities to work out the problems with the PHEV batterys) by December, 2008.

2. Subsidize Americans purchase of these vehicles by offering hudge discounts to the purchase price of their first two vehicles. Subsidize these purchases to the point that most all Americans could afford to get one or two.

And PRESTO! By 2009 we would reduce our oil consumption, massively, AND increase all American's standard of living immensely. Good-Good!

As I see it, there is no alternative. There is no where else that the government could go and get the amount of money necessary to fund such a program. But rules would have to be put in place to make sure the money was used for the purpose intended and independent watch dog agencies should be developed to oversee the project. Otherwise, our government will just steal the money (there good at that).

How's that for a good idea?

Bob.

I figure that everyone, like myself, will keep there dinosaurs and use them sparingly when needed. I am currently spending 7% of my personal income on gas. I figure that if I could get a vehicle that would go 10 miles on electric only, I would be able to cut it down to 2% (rough estimate). That would save roughly $100.00/mo, which would be nice.

If everyone did that our oil habit would dramatically shrink and our stamdard of living would all go up, some by much moer than mine.

There is so much I disagree with your ideas I don't know where to start.

First the money required to subsidize a new car purchase for everyone in the US would be hundreds probably thousands of times more money than what could be extracted from the "oil cartel".

Second, December 2008 deadline? to get the automatkers to turn their lines over to whatever currently unknown battery technology and infastructure would be required.

Third, I'm already at 1.7% of income on gas, why did you wait so long to decide this was important to you?

No time to go any further, but this is by far the worst shoot from the hip plan I've heard. Take an economics class before you suggest that taxing the **** out of oil will be good for the economy.:mad:

:flag:There is so much I disagree with your ideas I don't know where to start.

First the money required to subsidize a new car purchase for everyone in the US would be hundreds probably thousands of times more money than what could be extracted from the "oil cartel".

Second, December 2008 deadline? to get the automatkers to turn their lines over to whatever currently unknown battery technology and infastructure would be required.

Third, I'm already at 1.7% of income on gas, why did you wait so long to decide this was important to you?

No time to go any further, but this is by far the worst shoot from the hip plan I've heard. Take an economics class before you suggest that taxing the **** out of oil will be good for the economy.:mad:

Fortunately, we all live in America where disagreement is a right. But, on to answer your disagreements.

First, If we subsidized $1.00 toward the purchase of an energy efficient car for every American, that amount would NOT be "hundreds probably thousands of times" more than could be extracted from the oil cartel. Of course, that wouldn't do very much for America either. It would surely not even be 5% of what the oil cartel is cutting out of our hides in one quarter. As you know, good economics would dictate that one determine the amount that could be allocated to this CRITICAL ENDEVOR and then spread it where it would do the best good. How much would 1 years worth of 'windfall profits be? How many drivers could you get to buy one? That would be the amount you could subsidize.

Second, December, 2008 in my mind is an arbitrary deadline. Because Toyota and Honda happen to be two corporations that seem to me to be serious about the development of a PHEV and have been at it for years, I think they just might have something for us by 12/2008. The big three, however, have been busy in other areas. They, along with their partners in crime, the oil cartel, have been actively engaged in trying to keep America's blinders on as long as possible. They have been quite successfull. Most Americans ARE driving low mileage cars and most Americans subscribe to the driving philosophy that "a car in front of me is a jerk to be passed". The word "jerk" refers to the Auto industry's propoganda that is injected into us via their commercials that show graphically that our masculenity is directly connected to big muscle under the hood. Been there - done that.

Third, if you are at 1.7% of your income, or you make a lot of money (like say, over $250,000.00 a year, you personally will probably not be affected regardless how high gas goes up. But, in a larger sense, the way I see it, it is not really about weather or how much this effects you or me as an individual, but rather how the rapid esclation of a critical comodity such as oil has on America, its standard of living, and what we as a country are doing for oil. The rapid escalation of the cost of gasoline is raising everyones cost of living higher and faster than ever before. Overnite people are finding they can no longer afford their mortgage! That is why I see the Auto/Oil cartel as "economic terrorists".

Finally, what I propose is not "shooting from the hip". I, like you have been living thru this for a long time. For years and years I was a true velocity adict. I dragged at Union Grove Drag strip. About two years ago I personally figured out where all this price collusion, price fixing and ignoring anti-trust legislation is headed.

My last fill up on my R.R.S.B. Saturn scored me 56.18 MPG.

I'm trying.

Have a nice day.

Bob