PDA

View Full Version : Fascinating Documentary: "Who Killed the Electric Car?"



Jerry Jones
27th August 2006, 17:10
Just finished watching it at a local independent movie theatre:

http://tinyurl.com/l4nd9

Fascinating stuff.

Great photography and editing.

Electric cars, meanwhile, are making a comeback, according to USA Today, in an article at the following link:

http://tinyurl.com/zpyoh

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Dr Mordrid
27th August 2006, 17:48
Half of which is rubbish....

Greebe
27th August 2006, 19:14
Sarasota Film Society is showing that one here. Good stuff, but a bit dated. I doubt it's half wrong... more like 10% rubbish, 20% speculation and 70% fact.

Two major points they don't mention is the extreme cost of replacement batteries and the distance traveled per charge decreases drastically over time ie say after ~1-2 years of operation.

Greebe
27th August 2006, 19:34
Li-ION battery... ~$10,000. Yeah that's expensive... costs won't drop by 50% maybe 20%. Also they have a max cycle limit of 500-1000 (real life says below the lower spec) and it's time to buy new!!!

Toshiba reciently announced they have resolved the cycle limit and will maintain 99% storage capacity after sitting unused for times >30days. But what will the cost of these puppies be and when can we actually see them on the market? God only knows!

The Li Ion Polymer (Lipo) cells I'm currently using have discharge rates of 30C (C=capacity rating of the cell in AmpHours) and are the best industry have atm. Pushing them to these extremes will limit the cells life to ~100 cycles! Of course it's awesome seeing a battery that can weigh as little as 2oz (or less) handle 30amps of current or a 12oz battery do 140 amps sustained (3 cell pack =~1500 watts) :D

Also current experience dictates that discharging the cells to less than 80%C also limits it's life expectancy even further or operating them @ temps >130f decreases it's life

Some guys only get ~10cycles in competition use, chuck it in the (dispose of properly) bin and buy anew.

KRSESQ
27th August 2006, 20:38
I'm still a little fuzzy on how this is any improvement over a nice, efficient 4-stroke internal compustion engine.

All electric motors do is switch the source of greenhouse gasses from the motor itself to a power plant which will likely be using fossil fuels, since no one wants nuclear in the neighborhood. Not to mention the load on the power grid, which no one wants to expand because no one wants high-tension power lines running through their back yards.

Kevin

Nowhere
27th August 2006, 21:15
But even "conventional" power plants are much more energy efficient. Of course one would have to do actual number crunching to see if this isn't nullified by transmitting and storing all that energy...
And - it could end up polluting less...aren't filtering methods on powerplants better already than in cars? (even if it would end up similarly...citites would get rid of smog)

BTW, personally I'd gladly live close to nuclear power plant. Actually, if life situtation permits, I'll probably want to move into a place that is as close as possible to the construction site of such power plant. (PL will need to build one in next 15 years...which will be funny because even our current, populist gov knows this, but most people are against such power plunt)

Jerry Jones
27th August 2006, 22:06
All electric motors do is switch the source of greenhouse gasses from the motor itself to a power plant which will likely be using fossil fuels.

Yes -- but as the film explains -- burning coal would still be more efficient than burning Middle East oil and we still have vast American supplies of coal and here's a G-R-E-A-T Web page about the forthcoming plug-in hybrids that confirms:

http://tinyurl.com/pgmqz

POPULAR MECHANICS recently *ran the numbers comparing all types of alternative fuel vehicles.

*LINK: http://tinyurl.com/hzhov

"A strong appeal of the electric car--and of a hybrid when it's running on electricity--is that it produces no tailpipe emissions. Even when emissions created by power plants are factored in, electric vehicles emit less than 10 percent of the pollution of an internal-combustion car."

But the film also points out that we haven't even begun to tap the power of wind.

In addition, the charging of the electric cars would take place largely at night when demand would -- in theory -- be relatively low.

Nuclear waste is still the elephant in the room that no country -- not even France -- seems able to resolve.

I don't agree with Doc on this one.

Sorry, Doc.

:p

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
27th August 2006, 22:10
By the way, the film features actress Alexandra Paul who explains more about her electric car experience to CNN here:

http://tinyurl.com/lxzxe

"Even if it were getting power solely from electricity derived from coal -- a common criticism of electric cars -- my vehicle (produces) 50 percent less carbon dioxide than a 24 mpg gas car (for a summary of more than 30 studies on the emissions of electric cars, hybrids and plug in hybrids, go to www.sherryboschert.com/FAQ.html). When I have to get new batteries, which I expect I will be when my car is 10 years old, the old ones will be over 90 percent recyclable."

...Ms. Paul's Web site follows...

http://tinyurl.com/ptt88

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
27th August 2006, 22:22
By the way, the film exposes a scandal in the way our country doled out tax deductions to encourage - YES ENCOURAGE - massive American consumption.

When I became a consultant for Ulead, I had to seek the advice of a CPA (certified public accountant) to setup my LLC.

I was STUNNED to find out from my CPA that I could buy a huge SUV (above 6000 gross vehicle weight) and realize a HUGE tax advantage.

Let me tell you it was sick and twisted.

I was almost persuaded to buy one because the financial incentive was so incredible.

Now I understand Congress has finally changed the law to reduce this type of windfall tax benefit.

But when I learned about that stinking loophole, I was really angry.

Because it was all about ordinary Americans being FORCED to subsidize these types of purchases.

:mad:

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
27th August 2006, 22:42
George Schultz, former United States Secretary of State under former GOP President Ronald Reagan -- hardly a "screaming liberal" -- had this to say:

http://www.pluginamerica.com/media/george_schultz.wmv

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Brian Ellis
28th August 2006, 00:50
Have a look at http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv/files/cars.htm and the links from it. The only acceptable way of making electric cars mainstream is to have 4-5 seaters + baggage space with a 500 km autonomy. The downside is that, in most countries, the generating capacity and grid infrastructure are largely insufficient and would, in fact, require doubling or tripling with nuke power stations (almost no CO2). Is this acceptable to the populace?

As for coal-powered stations feeding the charging circuits, it is not true what the lady pretends. A Prius uses the fossil fuel energy much more efficiently, hence lower CO2 emissions, than an equivalent-sized EV. Did you know that an average coal-fired power station has an overall fuel efficiency even worse than an IC engine? I can quote facts and figures, if required. Viewed holistically, natural gas is even worse for climate change than coal!

However, this thread is not appropriate here; Moderator, please move it to The Lounge. Better still, discuss it at http://www.cypenv.org/smf/index.php where there are already a number of threads discussing EVs, hybrids, fuel efficiency, electricity infrastructure etc.

Nowhere
28th August 2006, 01:07
Oh...so coal power plants actually have smaller efficiency than current car engines?

Brian Ellis
28th August 2006, 03:16
Yes. typically 30-35% from the boiler fuel feed to the electricity output, and that does not account for the enormous energy costs in mining the coal, sorting it, transporting it from the mine to the power plant and grinding it, not to mention transporting the fly ash out and disposing of it. Some of the more modern plants may get slightly higher, possibly up to 38%.

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 08:20
As for coal-powered stations feeding the charging circuits, it is not true what the lady pretends. A Prius uses the fossil fuel energy much more efficiently, hence lower CO2 emissions, than an equivalent-sized EV. Did you know that an average coal-fired power station has an overall fuel efficiency even worse than an IC engine? I can quote facts and figures, if required.

Please do.

Here are references that seem to contradict you, Brian.

http://tinyurl.com/pgmqz

http://www.pluginamerica.com/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/jvfjn

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 08:29
...and that does not account for the enormous energy costs in mining the coal, sorting it, transporting it from the mine to the power plant and grinding it, not to mention transporting the fly ash out and disposing of it. Some of the more modern plants may get slightly higher, possibly up to 38%.

And... Middle East oil costs... by comparison?

C'mon.

You can do better than that.

POPULAR MECHANICS recently *ran the numbers comparing all types of alternative fuel vehicles.

*LINK: http://tinyurl.com/hzhov

"A strong appeal of the electric car--and of a hybrid when it's running on electricity--is that it produces no tailpipe emissions. Even when emissions created by power plants are factored in, electric vehicles emit less than 10 percent of the pollution of an internal-combustion car."

PDF CHART: http://tinyurl.com/gfkfg

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Brian Ellis
28th August 2006, 09:12
And... Middle East oil costs... by comparison?

C'mon.

You can do better than that.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

This is a total non-sequitur: we're talking about emissions, not costs.

You will notice I said equivalent-sized car, and I understood by this, with ± equivalent performance and autonomy.

The comparisons in your article made no mention of the design of the EV. All EVs produced up to now have been short-production concept runs. Ask any Californian who scrapped his leased vehicle as soon as he could what he thought about it.

Please read the posts in the forum I cited. There is a guy there (Darin) who is an EV fanatic. Read what he has to say. His EV concept is not, IMHO, a practical one, but he cites an ultra-light two-seater for everyday use. You simply cannot compare this with a Prius, an SUV or a Hummer. And then he requires a conventional car as a backup.

If you have similar size/weight/performance EV and fossil fuel cars, you'll inevitably have more CO2, Nox, SOx, Hg emissions with a coal-fired electricity supply, taken holistically.

I don't have time to sort out facts and figures just now.

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 10:18
Ask any Californian who scrapped his leased vehicle as soon as he could what he thought about it.

Before you make misleading statements like this one, please see the movie.

Significant numbers of those who leased the electric vehicles from GM begged -- begged -- for the opportunity to keep them, but they were denied.

In the end, not even the museums were allowed to preserve a working electric vehicle!

I'll read your references, but much of what you've written so far seems to be quite incorrect.

Plug-in hybrids and more:

http://tinyurl.com/pgmqz

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 10:29
If you have similar size/weight/performance EV and fossil fuel cars, you'll inevitably have more CO2, Nox, SOx, Hg emissions...

Non sequitur.

http://tinyurl.com/zqk92

In fact, the studies (6) suggesting LESS CO2 from EVs appear to outnumber the studies (2) suggesting MORE CO2 from EVs.

"EVs reduce CO2 by 11%-100% compared with ICEs and by 24%-54% compared with
HEVs, and significantly reduce all other greenhouse gas emissions, using the U.S. grid
mix."

"If all U.S. cars were EVs, we’d reduce global warming emissions."

"Using electricity strictly from coal, EVs still would reduce CO2 by 0%-59% compared with
ICEs (one analysis found 0% change; six others found reductions of 17%-59%) and
might produce 30%-49% more CO2 than HEVs (based on only two analyses)."

"On the other hand, if electricity comes from solar or wind power, EVs eliminate all emissions."

"Using natural gas to make electricity, emissions fall in between those from coal and
renewable power."

This debate reminds me of the salmon tragedy here in Idaho and the rest of the Pacific Northwest.

There was a day when Idaho's rivers teemed with salmon.

Now we have a situation where we're lucky to have one or two individual salmon make it back to Idaho's native spawning grounds.

Yet, there are still those who argue "bad science" every time a sincere attempt is made to solve the problem.

By the way, I was reading about Cyprus on the CIA's Web site and it seems environmental degradation is significant on that island.

Plug-in hybrids:

http://tinyurl.com/pgmqz

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Dr Mordrid
28th August 2006, 10:40
Jerry;

The main reason for EV's to even exist is to reduce carbon emissions; mainly CO2. Sure the EV itself is 'clean' at the tailpipe, but if the electricity used by it is produced in a dirty manner what's the use? As long as most all of the US's grid is using coal, oil or natural gas to generate power EV's will be anything but 'carbon neutral'. As it is now the 'carbon neutral' production methods (nuclear, hydro, wind & solar) amount to <30% of the total. Until this reverses (at the very least) EV's are more politically correct than environmentally relevant.

Yes, with newer Li Ion power packs like those in the Tesla charging is cheap & fast, but power isn't the only cost. Recycling/replacing those batteries will be expensive and you know who'll pay for it; the user. As such the end cost to the driver may actually increase unless this part of the mix changes.

Even pie-in-the-sky systems like fuel cells have problems; permeable membrane/matrix replacement, fuel storage & transport (at least for hydrogen) etc.

Yes, EV's are cool. They can also be fast as hell (100% torque from 0 RPM), but as a practical way to save money for transportation...only so long as only a few people are using them. If even 10% of the public used them the power grid would be strained and plug costs would skyrocket to pay for the extra fuel used to meet the demand.

As to why GM's EV1 was taken off the road; economics. Those cars were heavily subsidized both by GM and a Federal research grant that had a fixed lifetime. When the Federal contribution ran out GM was left with two choices; double their subsidy or end the program.

Given the state of the US car market at the time GM felt other projects with more immediate results was the better option. They were correct, and when the leases ran out the EV1's reverted back to GM, just like any leased car today. Not being re-leaseable they were recycled, again just like any unusable car today save for a few that were given to EV researchers.

Why not sell them to the leaseholders? Liability. The lawyers do rule after all.

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 10:54
but if the electricity used by it is produced in a dirty manner what's the use?

Doc,

There are six (6) studies that suggest LESS CO2 would be produced EVEN IF WE GOT ALL OF OUR ELECTRICITY FROM COAL, which isn't the current reality.

See study summary:

http://tinyurl.com/zqk92

POPULAR MECHANICS recently *ran the numbers comparing all types of alternative fuel vehicles.

*LINK: http://tinyurl.com/hzhov

"A strong appeal of the electric car--and of a hybrid when it's running on electricity--is that it produces no tailpipe emissions. Even when emissions created by power plants are factored in, electric vehicles emit less than 10 percent of the pollution of an internal-combustion car."

The reality is we get our electricity from a mix of sources, including coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, wind, and solar.

Naturally, those who advocate EVs are suggesting we can increase our wind power generation in a significant way and even the most rabid pro-nuclear advocates concede that wind power is competitive from a cost/benefit standpoint.

There are only two (2) studies suggesting that MORE CO2 would be produced if we produced all our electricity from coal-fired power plants.

Now it seems reasonable to me that if there are SIX (6) studies suggesting LESS CO2 vs. TWO (2) studies suggesting MORE CO2, then I'm inclined to disbelieve the OIL COMPANIES and the AUTO MANUFACTURERS.

If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, then you are certainly free to do so.

I admit I don't trust oligopolies.



Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 11:06
As to why GM's EV1 was taken off the road; economics. Those cars were heavily subsidized both by GM and a Federal research grant that had a fixed lifetime. When the Federal contribution ran out GM was left with two choices; double their subsidy or end the program. Given the state of the US car market at the time GM felt other projects with more immediate results was the better option. They were correct.

If you believe GM -- and I don't.

I gave GM a chance.

I bought the notorious Pontiac Fiero -- brand new -- in 1987.

Within two years, the dealer -- with a grave look on his face -- gave me the bad news.

"Your Pontiac Fiero -- only two years old -- needs an engine replacement."

I was in shock.

Incredulous, I asked the dealer "How could this possibly happen?"

"I've changed the oil every month for the past two years," I pointed out.

"I've never raced the engine," I said.

He couldn't explain it.

But then I read all of the news reports about the engine fires and the maintenance nightmares by other owners of GM's Pontiac Fiero.

Such a shame.

I really loved the outer appearance of the car.

The fact GM is going broke tells me the management of that company has failed to adapt to change.

1. My first car was a British car... disaster.

2. My second car was an American car... disaster.

3. My third car was a German car... disaster.

4. My current car is a Japanese car... NO PROBLEMS!!!

I gave all of the others a chance and they screwed me.

My current car has been SUCH AN AMAZING CONTRAST.

Virtually, no maintenance costs.

Simple.

It's a little Suzuki with great fuel economy.

That's been my personal experience.

If you watch the documentary, you'll learn that GM's EV marketing manager -- himself -- tells the interviewer that he was "cannibalized" by the marketing managers of the gasoline product lines.

:p

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 11:13
Tesla's new EV is simply amazing with the latest battery technology:

http://tinyurl.com/qn6um

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Dr Mordrid
28th August 2006, 11:20
If you believe GM -- and I don't.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net
I have a close relative who was involved in the program and I trust him, not GM, and he confirms the version I related. They were expensive to produce, a pain to maintain the batteries etc. etc. Yes, the drivers loved them, but only because they weren't footing the maintenance bills.

My relative had an EV1 so his/my experiences are real world, not theoretical.

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 11:25
I have a close relative who was involved in the program and I trust him, not GM, and he confirms the version I related. They were expensive to produce, a pain to maintain the batteries etc. etc. Yes, the drivers loved them, but only because they weren't footing the bills.

The film also features an interview with one of the GM EV mechanics.

He stands in front of a long banquet table covered with the parts normally associated with internal combustion engines... oil, filters, carburetors, etc... and he explains "All of this filthy crap was never necessary with the EVs."

Then he shows his hands to the camera.

The EV mechanic then smiles and says he could go home with no dirt on his hands.

The EV mechanic then smiles -- again -- and says maintenance was far easier with the EVs than with typical combustion engines.

Apparently the mechanic featured in the film holds a viewpoint that differs from the viewpoints of those with whom you are acquainted.

Fascinating interview by PBS with the fellow who produced the film:

http://tinyurl.com/elk8c

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Hulk
28th August 2006, 12:18
As a Mechanical Engineer (and I state this with all humility as I know I'm not the sharpest blade in the drawer) I am so frustrated by the amount of misunderstanding that exists among the general population when it comes to electric cars, fuel cells, nuclear power, geothermal power, active and passive solar, wind power, internal combustion engines, hydroelectic power, tidal power, etc....

The issue is so much more complicated than electric good, internal combusion bad or vice-versa.

Perhaps we should move this discussion to the lounge and really explore it.

- Mark

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 12:31
As a Mechanical Engineer

As a journalist, I've noted -- with disturbing frequency -- there is vast disagreement and internal strife EVEN WITHIN THE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING PROFESSION.

The same is true within the medical profession.

The same is true within the legal profession.

Consensus within scientific fields is often elusive.

Yes -- there is also tremendous disagreement within the journalism profession.

For example, I believe the "wheels are falling off" of the private sector, commercial journalism outlets in the United States.

Here in Idaho, I was arguably the TV reporter with the most longevity at a single network affiliate with the most daily beat reporting experience.

I observed all manner of pressure from private sector corporations to SILENCE those within their own companies who were attempting to warn us about management incompetence, anti-consumer corporate behavior, etc.

And when I attempted to report many of the ABUSES within the corporations, the corporations would hire lawyers who would pounce on my managers -- frighten them -- and force me to back off.

It's a cycle that happens again and again and again and again and again.

Yet, many of my own colleagues -- most of them anchors who never spent any significant time actually REPORTING (digging for facts, interviewing key people, seeking truth) -- would stare you in the face even today and insist there's nothing wrong with the journalism profession and that all is well and we should all smile and be happy.

Well, those types of "pure anchor" journalists -- with their relatively high salaries and low workloads -- are phonies, in my view.

There are lots of phonies in the journalism business and especially in the TV journalism field.

I think John Stossel of ABC is a phony, for example.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 14:25
Quote from the PBS interview with the creator of "Who Killed the Electric Car."

INTERVIEW:

http://tinyurl.com/elk8c

INTERVIEWER DAVID BRANCACCIO:

"I mean, given the price of gas these days -- given the uncertainty in the Middle East and so forth -- one wonders if these car companies are having second thoughts about their decisions involving the electric car."

FILM DIRECTOR CHRIS PAINE:

"I think they really are."

"I mean, car companies have all of these big cars sitting in their lots right now."

"And even last week, Rick Wagoner at GM said that axing the EV1 was probably the worst decision he made on his watch."

:glasses:

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Dr Mordrid
28th August 2006, 15:05
Perhaps we should move this discussion to the lounge and really explore it.

- Mark

Agreed and done.

Hulk
28th August 2006, 15:05
Okay I guess I'm going to allow myself to be dragged into this.

Jerry, there is some amount of disagreement in every field but it's not that hard to find the truth when science rules the day.

Just a few facts about the movie.

Let's review the greenhouse effect which has everyone up in arms as of late.

The atmosphere is basically composed of 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.93 percent argon, and 0.04 percent carbon dioxide.

Nitrogen are not greenhouse gases and do not contribute to global warming. In addition the Kyoto Protocol rated other contributors and carbon dioxide as the lowest warming ability according to Kyoto. It's relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 78 percent of Kyoto warming.

In addition, nature contributes about 30 times more carbon dioxide than from man made sources.

Finally, according to Richard S Lindzen of MIT carbon dioxide and methane account for less than 2 PERCENT of the greenhouse effect. Lindzen is a world renowned climatologist. The rest and most significant portion of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor in the atmosphere.

So when put in perspective man made carbon dioxide accounts for less than 0.1 percent of the total global warming effect!

As for the GM EV1 electric car.

GM spent approximately $1 million per car into the program and was unwilling to put more money into a program that appeared to have little chance for sucess. But they did put A LOT of money behind it and did try to make it work.

The EV1 had a range of less than 100 miles. In addition you have to take into account the long charge time and the fact that on a cold day when heating, defroster, lights, and windshield wipers might be needed the range would probably be less than 15 or 20 miles.

Now don't get me wrong. I do NOT want to imply that we should drive around 3 or 4 tons of steel just to carry a few kids to soccer practice. I personally will not buy a car that can't get at least 25mpg average. But we do need to keep things in perspective. There is no conspiracy out there hiding the workable electric cars or 200mpg carburators.

The fact is that manufacturers will sell what people want to buy and most people will buy as big a vehicle as they can afford, not what they NEED. And I think that is the real problem.

Electric cars will most likely have niche uses, just as hybrids, and fuel cell vehicles will. There will probably be a diversification of the transportation marketplace to accomodate a variety of transportation needs.

Perhaps hydroelectic, wind, active solar, and nuclear can be use to extract hydrogen from water to make fuel cell vehicles more appealing? Of course there will always be the problems of safely storing hydrogen but it does have a much higher energy density than current battery technology.

- Mark

Gurm
28th August 2006, 18:16
Yes -- but as the film explains -- burning coal would still be more efficient than burning Middle East oil and we still have vast American supplies of coal.BITUMINOUS!


But the film also points out that we haven't even begun to tap the power of wind.And we won't, as long as it remains ridiculously expensive and inefficient to do so.


In addition, the charging of the electric cars would take place largely at night when demand would -- in theory -- be relatively low.Unless everyone got an ... electric ... car. D'oh!


Nuclear waste is still the elephant in the room that no country -- not even France -- seems able to resolve.We can ship it all to RedRed.

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 18:25
Jerry, there is some amount of disagreement in every field but it's not that hard to find the truth when science rules the day.


Mark,

How can you honestly write a statement like this?

I mean -- wow.

Mark, I have a LIFETIME of experience covering topics involving engineers, biologists, physicians, etc.

They not only ARGUE over what constitutes "truth" -- they really bash each other in a never-ending game that usually revolves around competition to get the most grant funding or competition to be considered the "expert" in the field or they may be used as "hired guns" by various private interests.

Look at court cases.

I've covered literally dozens of trials.

The juries are exposed to a huge number of so-called "experts" with contrasting viewpoints.

The defense attorneys present their expert witnesses.

The prosecuting attorneys present their expert witnesses.

In both cases, they claim to use SCIENCE to support their expert opinions, which contradict each other.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have many scientists who argue that our salmon runs are destroyed primarily due to the presence of human-engineered dams.

Yet, those who oppose tearing the dams down have their own scientists who argue that the salmon runs have been degraded by other causes.

And they fight each other.

And nothing gets done.

And the salmon are now almost gone.

Before we even get to the point you made about the individual from MIT, let's agree that scientists often don't agree.

In fact, they often flatly contradict each other.

Can we at least agree on that point?

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 18:47
As for the GM EV1 electric car. GM spent approximately $1 million per car into the program and was unwilling to put more money into a program that appeared to have little chance for sucess. But they did put A LOT of money behind it and did try to make it work. The EV1 had a range of less than 100 miles.

Mark,

Everything you've written here (except for the RANGE of the EV1) is flatly CONTRADICTED by key people in the documentary, including Ph.D. scientists with credentials you earlier seemed to revere.

Here's an NPR (National Public Radio) transcript of an interview with a U.S. Postal Service environmental compliance manager... a fellow named Ray Levinson:

http://tinyurl.com/hw83f

Q: What made you lease your Ford Ranger EV in the first place?

I had been aware of various alternate fuel vehicles the USPS has used to deliver mail over the years: electric, compressed natural gas, ethanol, etc. We've tried them all.... While attending various Clean Cities expos in the 1990s, I got to drive the General Motors EV1, Toyota RAV4 EV, Honda EV+, Chrysler EPIC minivan and many others. I became more interested in EVs as a personal vehicle when a Toyota RAV4 EV passed me on the San Diego Freeway at about 80 mph, with large "EV" decals on its side!

It was interesting to note that few, if any, of the manufacturers actually advertised the fact that these EVs were available when they had them, and then claimed nobody wanted them. You really had to know where to find them in order to get one. The few EVs built became available mainly to fleets, but I used my knowledge of the existence of these vehicles to track one down for my own use.

Q: What's involved with recharging the car?

I received a residential charging station when I obtained the vehicle, which had to be wired to my house, for about a couple hundred dollars. The beauty is you get to charge the EV overnight, when electric rates are cheapest. I have been paying about a nickel per kilowatt hour for six years, and it takes about 25 kilowatt hours to get a full charge. That is $1.25 to go 50 miles, or about $6.25 to go 250 miles, about the same as a $50 tankful of gas for everyone else.

Q: You say that when you leased your EV in 2000, it was only for a three-year term. But you're in your sixth year of driving the car. Why?

Because so few were built, nobody really new how EVs would work over time. A replacement battery pack could cost as much as $20,000, as they were all handmade. So the manufacturers only leased them, and only for three years. Everyone was surprised when they kept going and going and going. My Ranger has more advanced Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries, [which are] more expensive and longer lasting than the lead-acid batteries used in earlier EVs. The original range for a full charge when I got my EV was about 60 miles, and then you needed about a five-hour charge. Other, more advanced EVs like the EV1 or Toyota RAV4 EV got more than 100 miles to a charge. After six years and 30,000 miles, my range has deteriorated to about 45 miles, which is still plenty for my daily routine. I refused to give the car up when the lease was terminated and ended up buying it from Ford for $1!

Q: What do you love about driving an electric car?

Everything. It is quiet, pollution free, cheap to operate, absolutely no maintenance or smog checks. No oil changes or air/oil filter changes, either. The only maintenance required over 30,000 miles is to rotate the tires! I get tax breaks, and do not have to pay gas or road taxes when I recharge my batteries. Also, in California, you get to use the car pool lanes and cross the toll bridges for free during rush hour. EVs are the perfect commuter car, if you have a reasonable distance to travel. Remember, most of the pollution from internal combustion engines comes from the morning "cold starts" and stop-and-go traffic. This is where EVs perform best, as the motor is not running at every stop, just like an electric drill. You just use the energy when you need it; there is no idling for an electric vehicle.

Q: What are some not-so-great things about EVs, or things that would take some getting used to?

Of course, the range and time to recharge are the biggest limits. It is sort of like driving with a quarter tank of gas, and all the gas stations are closed, so you'd better know your limits. But it is perfect as a second car or commuter vehicle. The EV industry was working on longer-range batteries and quicker chargers when the whole technology was dumped. Recall how big cell phone and laptop batteries were just six years ago? Had proper research and development continued on EVs, who knows what we may have had today?

Q: When your EV does finally kick, what will you do next?

Some of my EV-driver friends have staged "funerals" for their EVs when they were forced to turn them in because their short-term leases expired or were terminated by the car makers. Others have actually bought replacement batteries from overseas and have hand-built replacement packs, which requires a lot more knowledge, skill and courage than I have to accomplish. Who knows, with the right TLC maybe my truck will last for another 10 years? The motors are estimated to last 250,000 miles.

I would like to say that Ford has been great about continuing to support my truck, when I have brought it in for the occasional check-up. They (and the other manufacturers) made some really great EVs when they were forced to, and had a lot of really talented engineers and designers on their payrolls. It is so hard to accept the manufacturers' (and oil companies') assertion that we can't make improvements on these wonderful vehicles.

_____________


Now, let's talk about the EV1.

If you watch the actual ADVERTISING used by GM to promote those specific cars, you got the impression you were watching a product designed for a so-called "nuclear winter."

Now I never saw these ads in the 90s.

In fact, I was a reporter in the 80s and the 90s and THERE WAS NO STORY EVER DONE HERE IN BOISE about EV1s and not because I wasn't interested in the topic.

It was because I never got even a simple press release from GM or any of GM's local dealers.

The documentary confirms what I have long suspected.

Sure, GM claims to have spent "billions."

But when you ask GM to produce the paperwork confirming just how that money was spent... well... you begin to run into more than just a few inconsistencies.

Even GM CEO Rick Wagoner confesses his worst decision was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids." (Motor Trend, June 2006)

If the CEO of GM is making a statement like that, then I'm inclined to believe he regrets the decision that he made.

And his own admission seems to contradict your own claim.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 20:04
Given the state of the US car market at the time GM felt other projects with more immediate results was the better option.

Not according to GM's own CEO, Rick Wagoner.

In the June 2006 issue of Motor Trend magazine, Wagoner admits his biggest mistake was "axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids."

How can one rationalize what GM did when GM's own CEO now admits it was a MISTAKE?

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
28th August 2006, 20:09
Why not sell them to the leaseholders? Liability. The lawyers do rule after all.

Not FORD's lawyers, apparently:

Ray Levinson of the U.S. Postal Service leased a FORD Ranger EV.

According to Levinson's interview with NPR (National Public Radio) here...

http://tinyurl.com/hw83f

"I refused to give the car up when the lease was terminated and ended up buying it from Ford for $1!"

So we have a situation where FORD's lawyers obviously felt it was OK to let a customer keep his EV... for only a dollar!!

Here's the full question/answer with Levinson.

Driving Electric: What's It Like?

Ray Levinson is an environmental compliance manager for the U.S. Postal Service in California and Hawaii and has been driving a Ford Ranger electric vehicle (EV) for six years. The self-labeled "EVangelist" describes the ups and downs of gasoline-free driving.

Q: What made you lease your Ford Ranger EV in the first place?

I had been aware of various alternate fuel vehicles the USPS has used to deliver mail over the years: electric, compressed natural gas, ethanol, etc. We've tried them all.... While attending various Clean Cities expos in the 1990s, I got to drive the General Motors EV1, Toyota RAV4 EV, Honda EV+, Chrysler EPIC minivan and many others. I became more interested in EVs as a personal vehicle when a Toyota RAV4 EV passed me on the San Diego Freeway at about 80 mph, with large "EV" decals on its side!

It was interesting to note that few, if any, of the manufacturers actually advertised the fact that these EVs were available when they had them, and then claimed nobody wanted them. You really had to know where to find them in order to get one. The few EVs built became available mainly to fleets, but I used my knowledge of the existence of these vehicles to track one down for my own use.

Q: What's involved with recharging the car?

I received a residential charging station when I obtained the vehicle, which had to be wired to my house, for about a couple hundred dollars. The beauty is you get to charge the EV overnight, when electric rates are cheapest. I have been paying about a nickel per kilowatt hour for six years, and it takes about 25 kilowatt hours to get a full charge. That is $1.25 to go 50 miles, or about $6.25 to go 250 miles, about the same as a $50 tankful of gas for everyone else.

Q: You say that when you leased your EV in 2000, it was only for a three-year term. But you're in your sixth year of driving the car. Why?

Because so few were built, nobody really new how EVs would work over time. A replacement battery pack could cost as much as $20,000, as they were all handmade. So the manufacturers only leased them, and only for three years. Everyone was surprised when they kept going and going and going. My Ranger has more advanced Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries, [which are] more expensive and longer lasting than the lead-acid batteries used in earlier EVs. The original range for a full charge when I got my EV was about 60 miles, and then you needed about a five-hour charge. Other, more advanced EVs like the EV1 or Toyota RAV4 EV got more than 100 miles to a charge. After six years and 30,000 miles, my range has deteriorated to about 45 miles, which is still plenty for my daily routine. I refused to give the car up when the lease was terminated and ended up buying it from Ford for $1!

Q: What do you love about driving an electric car?

Everything. It is quiet, pollution free, cheap to operate, absolutely no maintenance or smog checks. No oil changes or air/oil filter changes, either. The only maintenance required over 30,000 miles is to rotate the tires! I get tax breaks, and do not have to pay gas or road taxes when I recharge my batteries. Also, in California, you get to use the car pool lanes and cross the toll bridges for free during rush hour. EVs are the perfect commuter car, if you have a reasonable distance to travel. Remember, most of the pollution from internal combustion engines comes from the morning "cold starts" and stop-and-go traffic. This is where EVs perform best, as the motor is not running at every stop, just like an electric drill. You just use the energy when you need it; there is no idling for an electric vehicle.

Q: What are some not-so-great things about EVs, or things that would take some getting used to?

Of course, the range and time to recharge are the biggest limits. It is sort of like driving with a quarter tank of gas, and all the gas stations are closed, so you'd better know your limits. But it is perfect as a second car or commuter vehicle. The EV industry was working on longer-range batteries and quicker chargers when the whole technology was dumped. Recall how big cell phone and laptop batteries were just six years ago? Had proper research and development continued on EVs, who knows what we may have had today?

Q: When your EV does finally kick, what will you do next?

Some of my EV-driver friends have staged "funerals" for their EVs when they were forced to turn them in because their short-term leases expired or were terminated by the car makers. Others have actually bought replacement batteries from overseas and have hand-built replacement packs, which requires a lot more knowledge, skill and courage than I have to accomplish. Who knows, with the right TLC maybe my truck will last for another 10 years? The motors are estimated to last 250,000 miles.

I would like to say that Ford has been great about continuing to support my truck, when I have brought it in for the occasional check-up. They (and the other manufacturers) made some really great EVs when they were forced to, and had a lot of really talented engineers and designers on their payrolls. It is so hard to accept the manufacturers' (and oil companies') assertion that we can't make improvements on these wonderful vehicles.

_______

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

TransformX
29th August 2006, 00:17
Question: How much pollution does Lithium battery production costs?
I know that the semiconductor industry (places with clean rooms) pollutes extreme amounts of water, I don't suppose Lithium batteries are produced without polluting the area as well.

About wind power, talk to those preserving nature. In many many cases, wind power = dead birds.

Brian Ellis
29th August 2006, 01:11
OK, I wrote the following in the other forum I quoted earlier about the possibility of EVs becoming mainstream in, say, 15 years or so:


I try to be more pragmatic. The average family in most countries requires a car that can seat 4-6 persons, even if only a single person is in it for most of the time. It is far too expensive to have a different car to suit all occasions, so a compromise is necessary. The ultra-economic concept car is therefore not a practical compromise. The family car in W. Europe is driven, on average, 48 km/day over an average engine-running time of 98 minutes with an average of 28 kW generated during this time, or about 45 kWh of energy required.

Let us imagine that an EV is twice as efficient, so "burning" 22 kWh/day, even with aircon, headlights, and all the other electric accessories,, which has to be replaced. There are approximately 200 million cars in W Europe so, if every owner - in 20 years from now - has an electric car and he gets home from work at 6.30 pm and plugs in his car for a slow trickle charge taking, say, 4 hours, that means that from 6.30 - 10.30 there will be a new peak consumption of 200x106 x 22/4 or 1,100 GW, on top of the base consumption of dinner being cooked, TV being switched on, aircon still being on and so on.

This extra demand is roughly twice the total current electricity supply today of the whole of W. Europe (http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/jelsample.pdf) and would require about 700 EPR nuke stations to supply. OK, this may be a worst-case scenario, but I can't see anything better than 50% of this being able to supply the necessary energy, even by staggering the charging hours and I assumed the batteries and their chargers to be 100% efficient, which they aren't!

On a pragmatic scale, I don't think that we are anywhere near being able to cope with EVs as mainstream transport, in its modern form, without at least doubling power and grid infrastructure.

Note that I guestimated 22 kWh/charge, not 25 kWh as your article cited but it's near enough. OK, I cited the European situation. The US is different: its grid is less stable than Europe's and there is less reserve capacity, so you would need more infrastructure to support EVs.

Now to get back to pollution, US coal-fired power stations emit into the air we breathe, on an average, for every 100 MWh produced, 718.6 lbs of SOx, 313.1 lbs of NOx, 185,566.50 lbs of CO2 and 3.93 lbs of mercury. For ease of calculation, let's say 25 kWh/car/day, so 40 cars require 1 MWh. If they became semi-mainstream with 100 million cars, multiply these figures by25,000 for the daily pollution emissions. Compare these figures with 100 million Prius averaging 45 miles/day and you will see who wins, handsomely. In particular, there is practically no mercury in refined petrol (gasoline), because it would kill the catalytic converter in a few minutes and the sulfur levels are extremely low. The cat pot would reduce the NOx levels to about ¼.

If the EV became really mainstream, with 200,000,000 cars, with these figures, you would require an EXTRA annual production of between 2,000 and 3,000 TWh, counting for grid losses. Current (no pun intended) electricity production is 3,900 TWh. Unfortunately, this does not give the whole story, as there is also a question of capacity. When the guy in Seattle gets home from work at, say, 1900 h and plugs in his car to charge it, there are already the great majority of the nation's cars being charged, on top of the evening peak when wifey is cooking the dinner, 3 TVs are on, 3 aircons are on, the chillers in all the buildings are working at full capacity to evacuate the accumulated heat of the day, the 2- and 3-shift factories are still working. etc., so this new peak demand will require more than the TWh would imply. To avoid black-outs, the whole infrastructure would need to be more than doubled. This is why I say that the EV would require many hundreds of new nuclear power stations, complemented by thousands of wind farms.

TransformX
29th August 2006, 01:42
Bleh, make those pesky EV even more expensive and fit them with solar panels. At least during the sunny seasons, park them outside so they recharge while you're at work.

Gurm
29th August 2006, 05:10
If you believe GM -- and I don't.

I gave GM a chance.

I bought the notorious Pontiac Fiero -- brand new -- in 1987.

Within two years, the dealer -- with a grave look on his face -- gave me the bad news.

"Your Pontiac Fiero -- only two years old -- needs an engine replacement."

I was in shock.

Incredulous, I asked the dealer "How could this possibly happen?"

"I've changed the oil every month for the past two years," I pointed out.

"I've never raced the engine," I said.

He couldn't explain it.

But then I read all of the news reports about the engine fires and the maintenance nightmares by other owners of GM's Pontiac Fiero.

Such a shame.

I really loved the outer appearance of the car.

The fact GM is going broke tells me the management of that company has failed to adapt to change.

1. My first car was a British car... disaster.

2. My second car was an American car... disaster.

3. My third car was a German car... disaster.

4. My current car is a Japanese car... NO PROBLEMS!!!

I gave all of the others a chance and they screwed me.

My current car has been SUCH AN AMAZING CONTRAST.

Virtually, no maintenance costs.

Simple.

It's a little Suzuki with great fuel economy.

That's been my personal experience.

If you watch the documentary, you'll learn that GM's EV marketing manager -- himself -- tells the interviewer that he was "cannibalized" by the marketing managers of the gasoline product lines.

:p

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

If you didn't have luck with German cars, you did something horribly wrong. My BMW was the best car I, or anyone I know, has ever owned. Period. Full stop.

Hulk
29th August 2006, 06:04
Jerry,

Of course there is disagreement but there is much MORE agreement.

Is DNA used in court cases every day? Yes.

Do all scientists believe in Newton's Laws, Einstein's theory of Relativity, Maxwell's Equations? Of course.

The very fact that you are typing on that computer of yours show tremendious concensus among scientists and engineers.

Don't twist my words. There is much more agreement than disagreement. The scientific community uses discussion to move forward, they challenge each other, but in the end science moves ahead and the truth is discovered. That is the basis of real science. You can (and usually do) find the negative in everything and then search out all antecdotal evidence to support your claims.

That movie is propaganda. Don't be sucked in by the "great conspiracy theory."

The creators had an agenda and there will always be a few people fooled by these things, don't be one of them.

Like I said an $80 million loss was enough for GM when they saw nothing good coming from it.

Please please please just remember GM is trying to make money. If there was reasonable profit there they would have stayed with it.



- Mark

Brian Ellis
29th August 2006, 06:44
Now to get back to pollution, US coal-fired power stations emit into the air we breathe, on an average, for every MWh produced, 718.6 lbs of SOx, 313.1 lbs of NOx, 185,566.50 lbs of CO2 and 3.93 lbs of mercury.

I'm surprised no one picked me up on these figures! They are for every 100 MWh. I admit I was surprised at the nearly 4 lbs of mercury/MWh.

I'll correct the figures in the original by Edit!

Sorry!

BTW, the annual emissions of mercury from all US coal-fired power stations total 5050 tons. And mercury is a helluva sight more toxic than lead!

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 12:27
Jerry,

Of course there is disagreement but there is much MORE agreement.

Is DNA used in court cases every day? Yes.

Do all scientists believe in Newton's Laws, Einstein's theory of Relativity, Maxwell's Equations?

Mark,

The scientific community has been doing what during the past week?

Debating whether or not Pluto is or is not a "planet."

And that's a relatively SIMPLE question, isn't it?

In addition, you mentioned Newton, Einstein, Maxwell.

Remember when the scientists of old ARGUED about whether the Earth was or was not "flat?"

Today they argue about global warming.

Today they argue about salmon recovery.

Today they argue about whether the medicines we throw away as consumers might make their way into the natural environment and lead to the evolution of "super bugs."

You mentioned your reluctance to believe in so-called "conspiracy theories."

Mark, conspiracy theories often turn out to be TRUE -- especially where CORPORATE GREED is concerned.

Example: TOBACCO CORPORATIONS.

Does that ring a bell?

TOBACCO CORPORATIONS used SCIENTISTS WITH CREDENTIALS -- HIRED GUNS -- to delay and delay and delay and cloud the truth regarding the health impacts of cigarettes.

FAST FOOD CORPORATIONS have used SCIENTISTS WITH CREDENTIALS -- HIRED GUNS -- to suggest the meals they serve in their restaurants really have nothing to do with America's disgusting obesity crisis.

Check out this belly:

http://tinyurl.com/mgjsm

I would suggest you watch the documentary "The Corporation."

Here:

http://tinyurl.com/96qa2

You'll be amazed to learn how large corporations employ psychologists to craft advertising messages that hook children -- yes children -- to become consumers at age 5 and younger.

You'll see how large corporations manipulate the news in this country.

You'll see how large corporations engage in amazingly disgusting behavior.

It's not about "right" or "left."

It's about stupid G-R-E-E-D, Mark.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to accept this as a reality.

But I do.

And this is where we seem to disagree.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 12:32
Like I said an $80 million loss was enough for GM when they saw nothing good coming from it.Please please please just remember GM is trying to make mo1 ney. If there was reasonable profit there they would have stayed with it.- Mark

Mark,

Why do you simply DISMISS the quote from GM's CEO Rick Wagoner?

The fact that you DISMISS that quote tells me something about whether your mind is "open" or "closed."

You see, Mark, the CEO of General Motors, Rick Wagoner has ADMITTED to Motor Trend magazine that axing the EV1 was his worst decision.

Motor Trend: June 2006 issue

How do you reconcile Wagoner's statement?

:question:

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Tjalfe
29th August 2006, 12:58
You see, Mark, the former CEO of General Motors, Rick Wagoner has ADMITTED to Motor Trend magazine that axing the EV1 was his worst decision.

http://www.jonesgroup.net

according to wikipedia, the quote is


According to the interview with Rick Wagoner in the June 2006 issue of Motor Trend magazine, the cancellation has been the worst decision of his tenure from an image standpoint

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

just to be picky :)

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 13:28
according to wikipedia, the quote is



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

just to be picky :)

Well, if you read the entire quote, you learn that the EV1 did not threaten GM's financial position at all, which is contrary to Mark's contention that the EV1 was a "losing proposition."

That -- I submit -- is the nail in the coffin of Mark's casual dismissal of the EV1's market potential.

The fact is that General Motors management did not anticipate CHANGE.

What changed?

1. America went to war in Iraq;

2. Gas prices soared to THREE DOLLARS a gallon and higher -- A FACT -- a fact so critically important that it's now obvious that the obsolete, pure internal combustion SUVs are relics of the past and are dramatically losing traction in the marketplace and GM never saw it coming.

Many of America's formerly great corporations have withered because they failed to anticipate CHANGE.

RCA, for example.

RCA was a giant in the electronics industry -- arguably the world leader.

What happened?

Management failed to anticipate CHANGE.

We live in what some call the "Quantum Age" -- where CHANGE is so rapid that it's literally creating new paradigms and business models.

The Japanese firms -- Sony, Panasonic -- are today's electronics leaders, but many are saying that Sony is losing its edge.

I predict that plug-in hybrids will be the next "hot" automobile technology!

READ ABOUT NEW PLUG-IN HYBRIDS HERE:

http://tinyurl.com/k2drd
http://tinyurl.com/z3mez
http://tinyurl.com/jvfjn

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 13:36
That movie is propaganda.

Well, this reveals your own unwillingness to have an "open" mind on the subject, Mark.

But let's assume your claim isn't an error.

Let's assume that you are correct and the movie is propaganda as you claim.

Who -- then -- are the "mysterious conspirators" behind this "propaganda?"

POPULAR MECHANICS recently *ran the numbers comparing all types of alternative fuel vehicles.

*LINK: http://tinyurl.com/hzhov

"A strong appeal of the electric car--and of a hybrid when it's running on electricity--is that it produces no tailpipe emissions. Even when emissions created by power plants are factored in, electric vehicles emit less than 10 percent of the pollution of an internal-combustion car."

Who do you accuse?

1. hippies?

2. liberals?

3. environmentalists?

4. Hollywood actors?

5. All of the above?

Who do you think are the bad guys behind this film, Mark?

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 14:16
OK, I wrote the following in the other forum I quoted earlier about the possibility of EVs becoming mainstream...

Brian,

The most OPTIMISTIC scenario for pure electric cars gaining traction in the marketplace does not anticipate "mainstream" usage, in my view.

Instead, I see the same thing happening in the automotive marketplace that's happening in the American "news" marketplace.

Splintering of the market, in other words.

In the news marketplace, consumers tend to separate and they watch cable news channels that present news in a way that conforms with their political views.

For example, the "red state" news consumers here in the Rocky Mountain West turn on FOX News and they get the news and opinion that conform to their political view of the world.

In "blue states," they tend to seek out PBS, NPR, Salon.com, etc.

I suspect the same will be true for the automobile industry.

I see one segment of the market strongly pushing for all-electric vehicles.

I see another segment of the market strongly pushing for hybrids.

I see another segment of the market clinging to traditional gasoline internal combustion engine vehicles.

I see another segment of the market pushing for hydrogen.

The point of the film, "Who Killed the Electric Car," is that the people who wanted all-electric vehicles -- in reality -- did not truly get the benefit of a "free market."

Why?

Because the all-electric vehicles were a threat to the traditional business models of various politically powerful interest groups... oil oligopolies... auto manufacturers with business models based on internal combustion engine vehicles... regulators... etc.

So when you argue, Brian, that "mainstream adoption" for electric cars would do "this" or "that," you seem to be setting up a STRAW MAN.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 14:42
Don't twist my words. There is much more agreement than disagreement. The scientific community uses discussion to move forward, they challenge each other

They seem to be challenging YOU, Mark.

Dr. Andy Frank, Professor of Engineering at the University of California at Davis is strongly pushing an EV "plug-in" hybrid concept where the driver is given the option of plugging-in the car and driving entirely on battery power.

Here's the link:

http://tinyurl.com/k2drd

Dr. Frank holds a Ph.D. in engineering, Mark.

Here are his official credentials:

http://tinyurl.com/on6ac

His viewpoint seems opposite of your own.

What are the naysayers saying about plug-in hybrids?

* The extra batteries will weigh too much.
Dr. Frank's Response: The extra weight of the batteries will be offset somewhat by the reduced weight of the gas engine. At high speeds in particular, fuel efficiency is affected primarily by aerodynamics—the added weight of the equivalent of one or two additional passengers reduces MPG minimally.

* The extra batteries will cost too much.
Dr. Frank's Response: If sold in high volumes by carmakers, more powerful and cheaper nickel metal hydride or lithium ion batteries could be sold at prices only a few thousand dollars above that of today’s hybrids. Recharging will take place mostly at night during cheaper off-peak hours. Counting purchases, fuel and service, total lifetime cost of ownership will be lower than a gas car.

* Producing power from the grid (to charge the cars) will produce additional emissions.
Dr. Frank's Response: What the industry calls "well-to-wheel" emissions (including greenhouse gases) for grid-powered vehicles is far lower than gasoline, even for the American power grid (which is 50 percent coal). Cars charging off-peak will use power from plants that can't turn off at night. Many parts of the country get most of their power from cleaner sources such as natural gas and hydropower. It's far easier to improve centralized power stations than millions of aging cars. Finally, plug-in hybrids recharged from rooftop photovoltaic systems would have virtually zero emission.

OK, Mark.

Those are the points being made by Dr. Frank, a Ph.D. engineer who teaches at the University of California at Davis.

Do you accuse Dr. Frank of being a fraud?

Do you feel Dr. Frank is guilty of pushing propaganda on us?

By the way, Toyota has already confirmed they are working on plug-in hybrid models.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 15:03
Now check out the latest comments from the car-makers, themselves.

These comments suggest that the car-makers are detecting a change in public opinion... growing interest in the concept of EVs and so-called "plug-in" hybrids.

Here are their comments:

http://tinyurl.com/pbke5

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 15:56
Finally, according to Richard S Lindzen of MIT carbon dioxide and methane account for less than 2 PERCENT of the greenhouse effect. Lindzen is a world renowned climatologist. The rest and most significant portion of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor in the atmosphere. So when put in perspective man made carbon dioxide accounts for less than 0.1 percent of the total global warming effect!

These statements from you, Mark, are the most shocking I've read so far.

OK, let's talk about Richard Lindzen.

1. His official MIT credentials are listed here:

http://tinyurl.com/e5tho

2. Richard Lindzen does *NOT* respresent the consensus of the scientific community.

3. Richard Lindzen disputes global warming as part of a MINORITY, according to this Web page from the Center for Media & Democracy here:

http://tinyurl.com/gh33a

According to the preceding Web page by the Center for Media & Democracy, HARPER's published a scathing criticism of Mr. Lindzen by investigative journalist Ross Gelbspan, alleging he (Lindzen) charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

The full text of the Harper's Magazine article about Lindzen is here:

http://tinyurl.com/lk5as

"For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics—Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others—who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis."

"Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns."

Now I can't believe you think that Lindzen's views represent the consensus of the scientific community.

Do you really expect me to believe that, Mark?

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 16:02
By the way, Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote that 1995 article in Harper's Magazine and he argues that the climate change sceptics "assert flatly that their science is untainted by funding."

"Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded campaign of global warming denial they have become interchangeable ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation."

"Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized."

Did you ever get a chance to read that last sentence in the Harper's article, Mark?

"The dominant MAJORITY of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized" by contrarians such as Lindzen.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 16:04
Here are Ross Gelbspan's credentials, FYI:

http://tinyurl.com/ksbyf

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 16:33
And we won't, as long as it remains ridiculously expensive and inefficient to do so.

You seem to have been sleeping during the past five years.

A lot has happened in the wind power industry as you can read at the following link:

http://tinyurl.com/kyg8u

"Over the last 20 years, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80%."

"In the early 1980s, when the first utility-scale turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour."

"Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants can generate electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh with the Production Tax Credit in many parts of the U.S., a price that is competitive with new coal- or gas-fired power plants."

Texas eclipses California:

http://tinyurl.com/f9pz8

"As of the end of 2004, there were over 47,000 megawatts of generating capacity operating worldwide, producing some 100 billion kilowatt-hours each year—as much as 9 million average American households use, or as much as a dozen large nuclear power plants could generate."

"Yet this is but a tiny fraction of wind's potential."

SOURCE: http://tinyurl.com/h5pm6

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 16:45
About wind power, talk to those preserving nature. In many many cases, wind power = dead birds.

"While no studies have been done of this question, anecdotal evidence indicates that birds occasionally collide with small wind turbines, as they do with any other type of structure."

"However, such events are rare and very unlikely to have any impact on bird populations."

"House cats in the U.S., by contrast, are estimated to kill roughly one billion birds each year."

"Statistically, a single house cat is a much greater threat to birds than a small wind turbine."

SOURCE: http://tinyurl.com/lx9lo

Also:

"No matter how extensively wind is developed in the future, bird deaths from wind energy are unlikely to ever reach as high as 1% of those from other human-related sources such as hunters, house cats, buildings, and autos. (House cats, for example, are believed to kill 1 billion birds annually in the U.S. alone.)"

"Wind is, quite literally, a drop in the bucket."

"Still, areas that are commonly used by threatened or endangered bird species should be regarded as unsuitable for wind development."

"The wind industry is working with environmental groups, federal regulators, and other interested parties to develop methods of measuring and mitigating wind energy's effect on birds."

http://tinyurl.com/z262f

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 17:01
Toyota Optimistic About Plug-In Hybrids

http://tinyurl.com/pubfs

"In March, Toyota engineers said the concept of a car that can be recharged at home overnight and uses gasoline only when its batteries run low was interesting."

"But they said then that the high-tech batteries needed to make it work could take as long as 10 years to develop."

"But yesterday, Cuneo said the automaker is more hopeful that the batteries could be ready soon."

"Speaking at the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce's annual meeting at the Galt House, he said Toyota believes it could have a plug-in hybrid ready sooner."

"We're a little more optimistic now of breakthroughs that would make (lithium-ion batteries) viable in the near term," Cuneo said. "We're working on this, and a lot of other companies are tackling this problem."

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Gurm
29th August 2006, 17:25
I think I just figured something out. Garry Denke commits online suicide, and then...

Jerry Jones
29th August 2006, 18:22
If you didn't have luck with German cars, you did something horribly wrong. My BMW was the best car I, or anyone I know, has ever owned. Period. Full stop.

Before you make such statements, you should read Business Week Online and educate yourself about the J.D. Power and Associates' 2006 Vehicle Dependability Survey.

The title of the 2006 article: Japanese cars top list of dependable vehicles

Guess what the article says about European vehicles?

"Europe gets shut out completely."

Although BMW did OK, I wasn't talking about BMW.

I was talking about Volkswagen, which ranks very low in the survey.

Read it and weep:

http://tinyurl.com/nnpxs

CHECKMATE!

:D

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Brian Ellis
30th August 2006, 02:03
Jerry

You have FAR too much time on your hands! :) I'm retired but certainly do not have time to write (or even read) your diatribes.

TransformX
30th August 2006, 02:33
"While no studies have been done of this question, anecdotal evidence indicates that birds occasionally collide with small wind turbines, as they do with any other type of structure."

"However, such events are rare and very unlikely to have any impact on bird populations."

"House cats in the U.S., by contrast, are estimated to kill roughly one billion birds each year."

"Statistically, a single house cat is a much greater threat to birds than a small wind turbine."

SOURCE: http://tinyurl.com/lx9lo

Also:

"No matter how extensively wind is developed in the future, bird deaths from wind energy are unlikely to ever reach as high as 1% of those from other human-related sources such as hunters, house cats, buildings, and autos. (House cats, for example, are believed to kill 1 billion birds annually in the U.S. alone.)"

"Wind is, quite literally, a drop in the bucket."

"Still, areas that are commonly used by threatened or endangered bird species should be regarded as unsuitable for wind development."

"The wind industry is working with environmental groups, federal regulators, and other interested parties to develop methods of measuring and mitigating wind energy's effect on birds."

http://tinyurl.com/z262f

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net
Well, Israel has several wind farms. Best place for locating wind farms are places where constant wind currents exist, as it happens, birds use those same currents when migrating and more than just a few of them find their death from those huge blades.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05906.pdf

wind power facilities in northernCalifornia and in Pennsylvania and West Virginia have killed large numbers of raptors and bats, respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Ecological_Footprint

* Windmills kill birds, especially birds of prey. Siting generally takes into account known bird flight patterns, but most paths of bird migration, particularly for birds that fly by night, are unknown. Although a Danish survey in 2005 (Biology Letters 2005:336) showed that less than 1% of migrating birds passing a wind farm in Rønde, Denmark, got close to collision, the site was studied only during low-wind non-twilight conditions. A survey at Altamont Pass, California conducted by a California Energy Commission in 2004 showed that turbines killed 4,700 birds annually (1,300 of which are birds of prey). Radar studies of proposed sites in the eastern U.S. have shown that migrating songbirds fly well within the reach of large modern turbines. Many more birds are killed by cars, and this is a widely accepted cost {POV}.

A wind farm in Norway's Smøla islands is reported to have destroyed a colony of sea eagles according to the British Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.[36] The society said turbine blades killed nine of the birds in a 10 month period, including all three of the chicks that fledged that year. Norway is regarded as the most important place for white-tailed eagles.

In 1989, Smøla was designated as having one of the highest densities of white-tailed eagles in the world. But the society now fears the 100 or so more wind farms planned in the rest of Norway could have a similar impact.

"Smøla is demonstrating the damage that can be caused by a wind farm in the wrong location. The RSPB strongly supports renewable energies including wind, but the deaths of adult birds and the three young born last year make the prospects for white-tailed eagles on the island look bleak," said Dr. Rowan Langston, senior research biologist at the RSPB.

* The numbers of bats killed by existing facilities has troubled even industry personnel.[37] A six-week study in 2004 estimated that over 2200 bats were killed by 63 turbines at two sites in the Eastern US.[38] This study suggests some site locations may be particularly hazardous to local bat populations, and that more research is urgently needed. Migratory bat species appear to be particularly at risk, especially during key movement periods (spring and more importantly in fall). Lasiurines such as the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and red bat (Lasiurus borealis) along with semi-migratory silver-haired bats (Lasionycteris noctivagans) appear to be most vulnerable at North American sites. Almost nothing is known about current populations of these species and the impact on bat numbers as a result of mortality at windpower locations.

Nowhere
30th August 2006, 02:45
Bleh, we should all just be using those (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon) by now. :p

Brian Ellis
30th August 2006, 03:56
I'll back up TX on the question of birds.

The so-called billion birds are mainly small things which proliferate like sparrows. The problem with wind farms is that they kill much larger and rarer birds like raptors and waders, less able to take quick evasive action when a blade comes hurtling round at 200 km/h.

There has been a proposal to build a wind farm at Kouris Dam, a known migration route. Let me quote sightings by birdwatchers (Birdlife Cyprus) in the vicinity in 2003
Great Crested Grebe 1 M
Black Necked Grebe 1 M
Cormorant 34 M
Red Breasted Merganser 2 M
Egyptian Vulture 2 M
Griffon Vulture 2 R
Short-toed Eagle 1 M
Marsh Harrier 1 M
Bonelli's Eagle 1 M
Red-footed Falcon 2 M
Hobby 1 M
Peregrine Falcon 2 R
Common Crane 2 M
Barn Owl 1 R
Cyprus Scops Owl 1 R
Little Owl 3 R
Bee Eater 12 M
etc.

(M=migrant visitor, some breeding, R=resident)

Every single one of the above birds is highly protected. In particular, the Griffon Vulture population has been reduced from 10s of thousands to just 27 on the island today. The numbers of the above species are such that the loss of just one could be catastrophic. Unfortunately, Kouris Dam is not regularly visited by numbers of birdwatchers, unlike, e.g. Akrotiri Salt Lake, just a few km away, where we have much more accurate sighting figures, including many species not mentioned above, like the Greater Flamingo, the Demoiselle Crane, the Mute Swan, the White Pelican etc. With the exception of the Greater Flamingo, with numbers in the lower thousands, all these are in small numbers. The sightings at Kouris are therefore sporadic and less accurate. Notwithstanding, a wind farm at such a site would be ill-advised, IMHO.

Gurm
30th August 2006, 04:47
I've read those reliability surveys. They're rubbish and don't reflect the real-world experiences of anyone I've ever met. They ALSO fail to take into account that you can have the most reliable vehicle in the world but if it's a misery to own and drive, what good is that?

The most DEPENDABLE car I've ever owned? 1995 Volvo 960. For a solid 10 years, we were never ONCE stranded. I can't make the same claim about our Toyota Corolla, our Acura Integra, or (God help us) the Ford Escort.

We once drove the 960 to Florida. Around about Connecticut (3 hours in) I noticed that when we stopped, the car idled rough. But I didn't think much of it at the time, nothing was leaking, etc. Drove all the way to Florida (24 hours of highway driving). Drove around Florida. Drove all the way back. Took the car to the dealership. "It idles rough..."

IT HAD A CRACKED HEAD GASKET. And all it did was idle rough!

Our Ford Escort developed a crack in the head gasket... and we had to replace the entire car!

My Volvo 850 has a hole in the exhaust manifold. It's loud, but runs fine. My Corolla had a hole in the exhaust manifold, and after making a loud banging noise when driving for a few miles, NEVER RAN PROPERLY AGAIN.

So don't go telling me how "reliable" Japanese cars are. I know they supposedly have low repair costs. But then show me a Toyota that still runs nice and has 300,000 miles on it, and I'll show you both of my Volvos and the BMW that I only sold because it was a coupe. All with 300,000+ and still running smooth and strong.

You're very good at finding studies that show what you want them to show, and very bad at providing any sense of realism. Stop with the diatribes and join the really real world. In the really real world people care whether their car SUCKS or not. In the really real world, the state of Massachusetts has REPEATEDLY rejected wind farms as a viable source of power due to them not being cost effective. In the really real world, coal is just as bad as oil, if not worse.

Grow up and join the really real world.

TransformX
30th August 2006, 05:50
I'd like to state that I have nothing personal against electric cars or wind power. My problem is that some (many) people are so overzealous about the environment, that while dressing some issues that they see as a problem, they create bigger, worse ones due to lack of proper investigation and planning.
Want to produce an electric car? Great, I'm all for it, but only after you have a FULL study about:
1. Manufacturing costs
2. Recycling
3. Pollution produced during manufacturing and recycling, not many people know how polluting a clean room is.
4. Amount of raw materials consumed by your project during production, maintenence and recycling, also in comparison with the other alternatives.
Example: Is your new car heavier than the alternative? What effect will it have on the tires etc? Will I need special ones? Will I need to replace them more often etc. etc. etc.

Rushing to do something because its 'cool' can be disastrous. Best example is those 'enviromentalists' that torched brand new SUVs, creating more pollution than those cars would create in a lifetime of horrid maintenence.

Jerry Jones
30th August 2006, 14:12
Jerry

You have FAR too much time on your hands! :) I'm retired but certainly do not have time to write (or even read) your diatribes.

I'd never ask you to write a diatribe, Brian.

:laugh:

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
30th August 2006, 14:26
I've read those reliability surveys. They're rubbish and don't reflect the real-world experiences of anyone I've ever met. They ALSO fail to take into account that you can have the most reliable vehicle in the world but if it's a misery to own and drive, what good is that?

They're statistically valid surveys.

That said, one should never base one's buying decisions entirely on such surveys.

Still, they're helpful.

I agree they're not 100% accurate measurements.

For example, Suzuki is ranked near the bottom.

Yet, my own experience -- and the experience of my relatives -- has been extremely positive with Suzuki.

One of my brothers owned one that lasted for well over 200,000 miles with extremely low maintenance costs.

He bought a second Suzuki two years ago and has enjoyed trouble-free driving with that model as well.

I've owned a Suzuki for the past few years and the maintenance costs have been ridiculously low; I've never had a mechanical problem with my Suzuki.

With my Volkswagen GTI and my Pontiac Fiero, I had mechanical problems on a weekly basis.

Still, the J.D. Powers surveys do give me confidence in the Toyotas -- in addition to my experience with those cars.

I'd even take a look at the Buick and the Mercury models as they were the only American lines that made it into the top of the list.

When I worked for the City of Boise, I drove a Toyota Prius.

The City of Boise began to purchase Prius models instead of heavy, gas-guzzling trucks.

The Prius cars are amazing.

When you pull out of the parking garage, the car makes no noise.

It's startling, at first.

Then when you gain speed, the gasoline engine starts.

It's all automatic.

We tracked our mileage and the Prius models delivered well above 40 mpg.

I believe the very people who argue that the marketplace killed the electric car still don't seem to understand that it will, in fact, be the marketplace that will allow the electric car to make a huge comeback -- in spite of sluggish and/or complacent management structures in contemporary big business.

In other words, the very people who claim to believe in the free enterprise system often seem to have no real faith in it.

I do.

It will be the free enterprise system that will lead to newer, better electric cars.

The film "Who Killed the Electric Car" will help generate interest in the subject, but it will be the free enterprise system that will make it a reality, especially as the research and development on battery technology advances.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
30th August 2006, 14:50
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05906.pdf

1. I share your concern about raptors and bats.
2. Never rely on Wikipedia for definitive information.
3. Your GAO PDF (above) is excellent.

However, if you read the FULL text of the GAO study that you cited, you will find -- on page 10 -- the following information:

"Specifically, studies showing raptor mortality in California and bat mortality in Appalachia have elicited concerns from scientists, environmental groups, and regulators because of the large number of kills in these areas and the potential cumulative impact on some species."

"Thus far, documented bird and bat mortality from wind power in other parts of the country has not occurred in numbers high enough to raise concerns."

"However, gaps in the literature make it difficult to develop definitive conclusions about the impacts of wind power on birds and other wildlife."

"Notably, only a few studies have been conducted on strategies to address the potential risks wind power facilities pose to wildlife."

"Our review of the literature and discussions with experts revealed that, thus far, concerns over direct impacts to wildlife from wind power facilities have been concentrated in two geographic areas -- Northern California and Appalachia."

"While bird and bat kills have been documented in many locations, biologists are primarily concerned about mortality in these two regions."

I agree that the issue is one that must be weighed against the the costs of our current oil dependence.

Even President Bush conceded recently that "Americans are addicted to oil"...

http://tinyurl.com/zous7

Quotation:

“America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world,” Bush said as he sought to drive the election-year agenda in his annual State of the Union address.

...and I agree with him on that point.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
30th August 2006, 15:05
I'd like to state that I have nothing personal against electric cars or wind power. My problem is that some (many) people are so overzealous about the environment, that while dressing some issues that they see as a problem, they create bigger, worse ones due to lack of proper investigation and planning.
Want to produce an electric car? Great, I'm all for it, but only after you have a FULL study about:
1. Manufacturing costs
2. Recycling
3. Pollution produced during manufacturing and recycling, not many people know how polluting a clean room is.
4. Amount of raw materials consumed by your project during production, maintenence and recycling, also in comparison with the other alternatives.
Example: Is your new car heavier than the alternative? What effect will it have on the tires etc? Will I need special ones? Will I need to replace them more often etc. etc. etc.

Rushing to do something because its 'cool' can be disastrous. Best example is those 'enviromentalists' that torched brand new SUVs, creating more pollution than those cars would create in a lifetime of horrid maintenence.

These are all good points.

However, I worked for the City of Boise Public Works Department marketing for several years.

Our primary job -- as a department -- was to protect the environment of the City of Boise.

1. We specialized in building and operating huge wastewater treatment facilities.
2. We specialized in curbside recycling.
3. We specialized in household hazardous waste collection and recycling.

But we also worked directly with industry.

Here in Boise, we have the headquarters of one of the largest chip producers on planet Earth... Micron Technology... which is a giant employer:

http://tinyurl.com/g2ra7

Our relationship with Micron was an ongoing relationship.

Our specialists worked directly with Micron to develop on-site treatment facilities.

These facilities essentially clean Micron's waste to specifications that we constantly measure to make certain that our municipal treatment plant is not overwhelmed.

Virtually all household products are hazardous to the environment in some way.

You name it.

1. oil
2. paint
3. paint thinner
4. cleaning solutions
5. PDAs
6. monitors

...and so on.

Here, we have established a network of collection sites and we publicized those through various media, including local TV advertising and the Web:

http://tinyurl.com/lmumc

If electric cars continue to gain traction in the marketplace, then I am certain that municipal programs such as those of the City of Boise will make it easy to recycle the batteries.

And I would be willing to bet that the nation will realize a net savings over what we're spending now on unsustainable sources of energy.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

TransformX
30th August 2006, 15:18
Well, if that system works as well as you wrote and you manage to convert even a single city at a time, more power to you. :)

Jerry Jones
31st August 2006, 10:23
POPULAR MECHANICS recently *ran the numbers comparing all types of alternative fuel vehicles.

*LINK: http://tinyurl.com/hzhov

"A strong appeal of the electric car--and of a hybrid when it's running on electricity--is that it produces no tailpipe emissions. Even when emissions created by power plants are factored in, electric vehicles emit less than 10 percent of the pollution of an internal-combustion car."

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
31st August 2006, 10:31
POPULAR MECHANICS CONCLUSION:

"Before we see our national fleet running on hydrogen, we believe that many households might have an electric or plug-in hybrid for short trips, an E85/electric hybrid sedan, SUV or minivan to squire the whole team, and a diesel pickup fueled by B30 or B50 to haul most anything else."

LINK: http://tinyurl.com/gao7z

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Jerry Jones
31st August 2006, 10:52
You're very good at finding studies that show what you want them to show, and very bad at providing any sense of realism. Stop with the diatribes and join the really real world.

Thanks.

I would suggest you read the studies and try to become more informed.

POPULAR MECHANICS recently crunched the numbers on alternative fuels and electric cars did very well:

PDF CHART: http://tinyurl.com/gfkfg

According to Popular Mechanics:

"Vehicles that operate only on electricity require no warmup, run almost silently and have excellent performance up to the limit of their range."

"Also, electric cars are cheap to "refuel."

"At the average price of 10 cents per kwh, it costs around 2 cents per mile."

"Electric cars can be recharged at night, when generating plants are under-utilized."

"Vehicles that run on electricity only part of the time and on internal-combustion power at other times--hybrids--have even greater promise."

"As hybrids gain in popularity, there is a growing interest in plug-in hybrids that allow owners to fully recharge the vehicle's batteries overnight."

"A strong appeal of the electric car--and of a hybrid when it's running on electricity--is that it produces no tailpipe emissions."

"Even when emissions created by power plants are factored in, electric vehicles emit less than 10 percent of the pollution of an internal-combustion car."

LINK: http://tinyurl.com/hzhov

Did you know you could power your own home using WIND and SOLAR?

If you doubt that, then read this POPULAR MECHANICS article:

http://tinyurl.com/jdozy

It's excellent. It's titled "OFF THE GRID."

Cheers.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net