PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

[terryc]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 02:06:21 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win
the day.

Horses for courses.
Given the right price, we'd buy a EV for local shopping and trips.

At one stage, we won a Nikki and I was briefly considering someoneelses
lead and converting it to an EV for shopping, but it was that or pay off
the mortgage.

 

[terryc]

On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:13:45 -0700, Joerg wrote:

Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win
the day.

Hydrogen? Where's that going to be coming from?

Exactly. My 2c is on a proper hybrid where the ICE(petrol or diesel)
simply runs a generator that tops up the battery bank.

I would really like to see if that works out more efficent that all the
inefficencies of current direct drive ICEs.

 

[Robert Adsett]

In article <njqXj.1135$BL6.119@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>, Joerg says...

Eeyore wrote:
Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win
the day.

Hydrogen? Where's that going to be coming from?

I believe he is using H to refer to Hybrid.

Robert
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

"Paul E. Schoen" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ieidnSvlPKQURrDVnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@earthlink.com...

Reality. There isn't enough generating capacity to convert to electric
cars.

It may not exist at the moment, but the switch to electric (as well as
other more efficient vehicles) must be accompanied by an overall reduction
in our total per-capita energy consumption. Even if new electric power
plants would be built, using the same fossil fuels that now power
automobiles, they would be much more efficient and cleaner than millions of
individual cars and trucks being driven in stop-and-go traffic. But the
ultimate resolution to this problem will involve people changing their
lifestyles, using more public transportation, living closer to jobs (or
telecommuting), and generally becoming a more cooperative society living
and working closely with other people, rather than isolationism, needless
competition, and broken families.

Paul

You will live where we (the central planning bureau) want you to. You
will shop where we tell you to.

Our region (the Seattle area) is going through a fiasco called light
rail that seems to be designed to feed customers and employees into one
area (downtown Seattle). Any attempts to relocate the route, even a few
blocks, to serve another major shopping mall (Southcenter) were shot
down by the downtown gang. We certainly can't have shoppers go to the
wrong mall.

The route was carefully designed to pass through neighborhoods (poor,
low income neighborhoods) where friends of the planners had made shrewd
real estate investments. A competing plan intended to serve existing
residential areas was shot down. We can't boost the property values in
areas where the good ol' boys haven't managed to corner the market.

The earliest incarnation of the project was supposed to run from
Everett, through downtown Seattle (and be funded by Everett residents as
well). Trouble was, the downtown Seattle planners refused to extend the
line into downtown Everett. Instead, there would be a park-and-ride a
mile or so south, where people could catch the train to Seattle. God
forbid that someone might actually take it in "the wrong direction" to
work, thereby propping up the economy of the Everett business district.

Don't get me wrong. I think mas transit is a decent idea. But only if
the central planners don't try to use it as a tool to divert my money
into the pockets of their favored business partners. Rail seems to be
favored by these folks because, after sinking billions into a fixed
system, they can argue for further tax funds to rescue the investment.
If they went with buses, they could just change the routes to match
demand.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yee-Ha!" is not an adequate foreign policy.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2008 15:19:06 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
No-one has killed electric cars. They simply died of lack of interest,
practicality and high cost.
Graham

In 1999, GM planned to produce only 465 EV1 cars. There was a 1000+
unofficial waiting list in case someone changed their mind or GM
decided to increase production. When GM refused to extend the leases,
many EV-1 owners send GM lease payment checks anyway (which GM did not
deposit). When GM discontinued the EV-1 in 2003, the unofficial
waiting list was over 2000+ names. Lack of interest was never a
problem.

The EV1 was a research project. The lease payments came nowhere close to
the cost of mantaining the vehicles. I doubt GM would have taken on the
additional losses.

Had they charged tha actual costs of the vehicles, I doubt even the
first 400 would have been leased.


--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Experience is the worst teacher. It always gives the test
first and the instruction afterward.

 

[Robert Baer]

David L. Jones wrote:

I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/

Fantastic!
Everyone should watch this one.
The IMDB user comment is spot on - " This film WILL frustrate you greatly"
In fact, it's enough to make you want to cry.

Can't believe I had never heard of the movie before the other day.

Dave.


Edison killed it by using the iron battery.

 

[Eeyore]

"David L. Jones" wrote:

I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/

Fantastic!
Everyone should watch this one.
The IMDB user comment is spot on - " This film WILL frustrate you greatly"
In fact, it's enough to make you want to cry.

Can't believe I had never heard of the movie before the other day.

No-one has killed electric cars. They simply died of lack of interest,
practicality and high cost.

Graham

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:59:06 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Quite a few people think it's worthwhile. One of the conversion
sites:
http://www.calcars.org/howtoget.html
lists the costs of converting a Prius to various plug-in power options
at:
- $6,000-10,000 for lead acid batteries
- $8,000 for NiMH
- $10,000 and up for Li-Ion

I wonder whether they all did a sober calculation including the rather
finite number of charge cycles. I've seen lots of enviro-fans get
carried away.

Probably just ballpark guesses. Since such conversions are not in
quantity production, estimating costs is tricky.

Well, here's the story I mentioned. He had to plunk down $32k but that
was with labor and not DYI:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may08/6174

Nice article. (I use a few Freewave data radios). Did you notice the
update at the end of the article?
<http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2008/05/hymotion_launches_more_afforda.html>
<http://www.a123systems.com/hymotion/products/N5_range_extender>
Hymotion plug in conversion for $10,000. Add a 2nd battery pack (as
was done in original article), and it will be perhaps $15,000. The
plug-in installation doesn't seem to be a major project and shouldn't
add much to the cost. The site says it only takes "a few hours" to
install. Anyway, it's much less than the original $32,000. I guess
it costs $$$$ to be a pioneer.

Well, maybe a nuclear powered home water heater (and sterilizer).

That would be nice. We (have to) use propane for water heating. Used to
be $35/mo. Now it's about $80/mo. I'd call that hyper-inflationary.

A friends son and former juvenile delinquent is building a hot water
boiling solar generator. Central boiler on a 50ft Rohn 25 tower (so
the intensified sunlight doesn't cook the neighbors) with some
tracking mirrors. So far, he hasn't produced much steam, but has
produced enough hot water to warrant serious consideration. So,
visualize your hot water heater sitting on top of a pole or tower with
squeaky reflectors all over the roof. It's not nuclear, but it's sure
better than $80/month. Otherwise, look into tankless flash water
heaters. They have a rather high initial cost, but pay for themselves
in about 2-3 years (depending on consumption) in reduced energy costs.

Let's play with the numbers. A gas hog SUV will get about 14mpg. An
economy mini-SUV will do about 28mpg. If I drive 15,000 miles per
year, at $4/gallon for regular, the gas costs are:
$4,300 /year for the 14mpg gas hog SUV
$2,100 /year for the 28mpg econo SUV
That's $2,200/year difference. If the economy SUV costs MORE than the
gas hog (due to dealer discounts and difference in demand), a customer
might be willing to pay the extra $2,100/year just to drive the bigger
SUV. I've been looking for a new vehicle and found that I can buy a
2003 gas hog SUV for about $5,000 and an economy mini-SUV for about
$12,000. If I plan to keep it for about 3 years, I'll break even. A
bit more than 3 years if I throw in time value of money.

Ok, my calcs are way different. I tend to keep cars for much longer than
a decade. Heck, my trusty Mitsubishi econo SUV is 11 years old now and
looks like new. I could imagine driving it another 10 years easily. Same
for my wife's 1995 Toyota, looks like new, runs like new.

Same here. My previous 1983 Dodge D50 diesel went for 285,000 miles
and 23 years. I still have it an plan to rebuild it some day.
However, my numbers and bad guesses are an effort to explain why the
US manufactories continue to produce gas hogs. The discounted gas
hogs continue to sell, while the overpriced economy cars just sit. It
would be nice to be proven wrong and therefore restore my faith in the
GUM (great unwashed masses).

My current 15mpg gas hog 1993 Isuzu Trooper SUV was purchased for
about $2,000 with 150,000 miles. Before that was a 14mpg 1970 Land
Rover Series IIa which I drove for about 135,000 miles. That was
preceeded by a 9mpg 1972 International 1210 3/4t 4x4 monster service
truck, which I bought new and drove for 140,000 miles. The plan was
to run the current Isuzu for "a few years" until I could afford
something better. Well, I'm now looking.

"New Car every 10 years or Used Car every 5 years"?
<http://www.milliondollarjourney.com/new-car-every-10-years-or-used-car-every-5.htm>

If I had my druthers I'd import one of those 16-horse Citroen 2CV I use
to drive back at the university. This one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Citroen2cvtff.jpg

You don't drive a 2CV. You wear it.

The modern versions of shrink to fit automobiles is the Smart Car:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo>
<http://www.smartusa.com>
About 50mpg for gas. 80mpg for the diesel hybrid version. There's a
rather large waiting list for one. I did a test drive in San Jose
about 2 weeks ago, but decided it wasn't for me. It's like riding an
enclosed motorcycle.

It always netted me around 50mpg on regular, didn't mind the transition
to unleaded and the engine was designed 70 (!) years ago. All they
really did later was up the horsepower once in a while.

That was before smog was an issue. For example, when it was new, my
1983 Dodge D50 diesel got 35 mpg. In the 1984 model, the same engine
was smogged to reduce soot emissions. The gas mileage dropped to
about 28 mpg. Kinda like dragging an anchor.

If you need some entertainment value, try calculating the REDUCTION in
CO2 emissions that would be produced by removing all the smog junk
from infernal combustion engines. The official rate is 8.8kg (19.4
lbs) of CO2 produced for each gallon of gasoline. If we suddenly used
perhaps 25% less gasoline, that would correspond to a reduction of
about a 1/4th of the 5 metric tons of CO2 produced by each car
annually.
<http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm>

So, at this time, economy cars are in demand, yet I'm sure if I quiz
the local used car dealers, the discounted gas hogs are still selling
equally as well.

Not out here. There is a reason why Toyota does so well and we can see
that reason in driveways every day when we take our dogs for a long
walk. Remember when the guys at Buick and other places scoffed and
laughed once they saw an ad for the VW Beetle? Pretty soon after they
were heard syaing things like "Oh s..t!". Anyhow, at the end of the day
the bottomline at the individual automaker speaks the truth. And that
truth is painfully clear.

In the 1970's I used to drive by the GM plant in Fremont CA and noted
the rather large number of imported cars in the employees parking lot.
In my recent search for a new vehicle, I ran a spreadsheet and graph
of the resale value history for various prospective vehicles. American
cars loose value much faster than imported cars. My guess is that if
American manufacturers will ever learn to make a reliable automobile,
that actually has some backing and support by the factory, then
perhaps they have a chance. Otherwise, I'm afraid that you're
generally correct.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Joerg]

terryc wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:13:45 -0700, Joerg wrote:

Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win
the day.

Hydrogen? Where's that going to be coming from?

Exactly. My 2c is on a proper hybrid where the ICE(petrol or diesel)
simply runs a generator that tops up the battery bank.

I would really like to see if that works out more efficent that all the
inefficencies of current direct drive ICEs.

That's how the Toyota Prius works. Gets between 40mpg and 60mpg
according to what owners told me.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Joerg]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:59:06 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Quite a few people think it's worthwhile. One of the conversion
sites:
http://www.calcars.org/howtoget.html
lists the costs of converting a Prius to various plug-in power options
at:
- $6,000-10,000 for lead acid batteries
- $8,000 for NiMH
- $10,000 and up for Li-Ion

I wonder whether they all did a sober calculation including the rather
finite number of charge cycles. I've seen lots of enviro-fans get
carried away.

Probably just ballpark guesses. Since such conversions are not in
quantity production, estimating costs is tricky.

True. But Li-Ion charge cycles are pretty well researched out by now. I
doubt one can ever get to 200k miles with one set. But one can on the
first engine, and then some.

Well, here's the story I mentioned. He had to plunk down $32k but that
was with labor and not DYI:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may08/6174

Nice article. (I use a few Freewave data radios). Did you notice the
update at the end of the article?
http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2008/05/hymotion_launches_more_afforda.html
http://www.a123systems.com/hymotion/products/N5_range_extender
Hymotion plug in conversion for $10,000. Add a 2nd battery pack (as
was done in original article), and it will be perhaps $15,000. The
plug-in installation doesn't seem to be a major project and shouldn't
add much to the cost. The site says it only takes "a few hours" to
install. Anyway, it's much less than the original $32,000. I guess
it costs $$$$ to be a pioneer.

Well, maybe a nuclear powered home water heater (and sterilizer).
That would be nice. We (have to) use propane for water heating. Used to
be $35/mo. Now it's about $80/mo. I'd call that hyper-inflationary.

A friends son and former juvenile delinquent is building a hot water
boiling solar generator. Central boiler on a 50ft Rohn 25 tower (so
the intensified sunlight doesn't cook the neighbors) with some
tracking mirrors. So far, he hasn't produced much steam, but has
produced enough hot water to warrant serious consideration. So,
visualize your hot water heater sitting on top of a pole or tower with
squeaky reflectors all over the roof. It's not nuclear, but it's sure
better than $80/month. Otherwise, look into tankless flash water
heaters. They have a rather high initial cost, but pay for themselves
in about 2-3 years (depending on consumption) in reduced energy costs.

I am not a fan of those. My sister has instant heaters and often you
either get pelted with an arctic shower or boiling water. Ok, that's an
exaggeration but it ain't comfy.

Let's play with the numbers. A gas hog SUV will get about 14mpg. An
economy mini-SUV will do about 28mpg. If I drive 15,000 miles per
year, at $4/gallon for regular, the gas costs are:
$4,300 /year for the 14mpg gas hog SUV
$2,100 /year for the 28mpg econo SUV
That's $2,200/year difference. If the economy SUV costs MORE than the
gas hog (due to dealer discounts and difference in demand), a customer
might be willing to pay the extra $2,100/year just to drive the bigger
SUV. I've been looking for a new vehicle and found that I can buy a
2003 gas hog SUV for about $5,000 and an economy mini-SUV for about
$12,000. If I plan to keep it for about 3 years, I'll break even. A
bit more than 3 years if I throw in time value of money.

Ok, my calcs are way different. I tend to keep cars for much longer than
a decade. Heck, my trusty Mitsubishi econo SUV is 11 years old now and
looks like new. I could imagine driving it another 10 years easily. Same
for my wife's 1995 Toyota, looks like new, runs like new.

Same here. My previous 1983 Dodge D50 diesel went for 285,000 miles
and 23 years. I still have it an plan to rebuild it some day.
However, my numbers and bad guesses are an effort to explain why the
US manufactories continue to produce gas hogs. The discounted gas
hogs continue to sell, while the overpriced economy cars just sit. It
would be nice to be proven wrong and therefore restore my faith in the
GUM (great unwashed masses).

My current 15mpg gas hog 1993 Isuzu Trooper SUV was purchased for
about $2,000 with 150,000 miles. Before that was a 14mpg 1970 Land
Rover Series IIa which I drove for about 135,000 miles. That was
preceeded by a 9mpg 1972 International 1210 3/4t 4x4 monster service
truck, which I bought new and drove for 140,000 miles. The plan was
to run the current Isuzu for "a few years" until I could afford
something better. Well, I'm now looking.

"New Car every 10 years or Used Car every 5 years"?
http://www.milliondollarjourney.com/new-car-every-10-years-or-used-car-every-5.htm

The rationale in that article is a bit on the naive side IMHO. One has
to factor in the pitfalls of used cars. What if the previous owner drove
it sans oil to reach a gas station but never told you? What if he never
slowed down at speed bumps?

If I had my druthers I'd import one of those 16-horse Citroen 2CV I use
to drive back at the university. This one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Citroen2cvtff.jpg

You don't drive a 2CV. You wear it.

The modern versions of shrink to fit automobiles is the Smart Car:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo
http://www.smartusa.com
About 50mpg for gas. 80mpg for the diesel hybrid version. There's a
rather large waiting list for one. I did a test drive in San Jose
about 2 weeks ago, but decided it wasn't for me. It's like riding an
enclosed motorcycle.

I saw lots of the in Germany. They call them "elephant shoes".

It always netted me around 50mpg on regular, didn't mind the transition
to unleaded and the engine was designed 70 (!) years ago. All they
really did later was up the horsepower once in a while.

That was before smog was an issue. For example, when it was new, my
1983 Dodge D50 diesel got 35 mpg. In the 1984 model, the same engine
was smogged to reduce soot emissions. The gas mileage dropped to
about 28 mpg. Kinda like dragging an anchor.

It's like oxygenation. I get 25mpg on California gas and 28mpg on Nevada
gas.

If you need some entertainment value, try calculating the REDUCTION in
CO2 emissions that would be produced by removing all the smog junk
from infernal combustion engines. The official rate is 8.8kg (19.4
lbs) of CO2 produced for each gallon of gasoline. If we suddenly used
perhaps 25% less gasoline, that would correspond to a reduction of
about a 1/4th of the 5 metric tons of CO2 produced by each car
annually.
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm

We all need to drive less. It's possible. I reduced from 10k+ miles per
year to under 3k miles per year and more than half of that is for
business. That's it. I often do oil changes based on age, not miles driven.

So, at this time, economy cars are in demand, yet I'm sure if I quiz
the local used car dealers, the discounted gas hogs are still selling
equally as well.

Not out here. There is a reason why Toyota does so well and we can see
that reason in driveways every day when we take our dogs for a long
walk. Remember when the guys at Buick and other places scoffed and
laughed once they saw an ad for the VW Beetle? Pretty soon after they
were heard syaing things like "Oh s..t!". Anyhow, at the end of the day
the bottomline at the individual automaker speaks the truth. And that
truth is painfully clear.

In the 1970's I used to drive by the GM plant in Fremont CA and noted
the rather large number of imported cars in the employees parking lot.

The NUMMI plant? They also produce Toyotas there, such as my wife's 1995
Corolla. I don't think it's onwed by GM but could be wrong.

In my recent search for a new vehicle, I ran a spreadsheet and graph
of the resale value history for various prospective vehicles. American
cars loose value much faster than imported cars. My guess is that if
American manufacturers will ever learn to make a reliable automobile,
that actually has some backing and support by the factory, then
perhaps they have a chance. Otherwise, I'm afraid that you're
generally correct.

It takes many, many years to build a reputation for reliability but less
than a year to destroy it.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Robert Adsett]

In article <fnFXj.506$mh5.166@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, Joerg says...

terryc wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:13:45 -0700, Joerg wrote:

Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win
the day.

Hydrogen? Where's that going to be coming from?

Exactly. My 2c is on a proper hybrid where the ICE(petrol or diesel)
simply runs a generator that tops up the battery bank.

I would really like to see if that works out more efficent that all the
inefficencies of current direct drive ICEs.


That's how the Toyota Prius works. Gets between 40mpg and 60mpg
according to what owners told me.

I was pretty sure the Prius was a parallel Hybrid (the electric motor
was in parallel to the ICE drive train). As opposed to a serial hybrid
where the final portion of the drive train is all-electric. Some of the
proposed hybrids appear to be of the latter.

The parallel hybrid does mean that neither motor needs to be sized large
enough for the full load.

Robert
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"David L. Jones" wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:482FA872.804C42A9@hotmail.com...


"David L. Jones" wrote:

I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/

Fantastic!

It completely misses the point.

Sounds like it's you who missed the point of the movie.

Everyone should watch this one.
The IMDB user comment is spot on - " This film WILL frustrate you
greatly"
In fact, it's enough to make you want to cry.

Can't believe I had never heard of the movie before the other day.

http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/11/the-ev-1-wasnt-killed-it-was-dead-on-arrival/

Required to do so, GM went on to make the EV-1. It used lead acid
batteries
which held 0.4% as much energy as the same weight of gasoline.

Irrelevant.

Thus the EV-1
weighed 2970 lbs, 1175 lbs of which were the batteries.

Also irrelevant.

The resulting range
was 90/70 miles hwy/city.

Plenty enough for the majority of people. Especially when you can
conveniently recharge at home, at work, or at a shopping centre etc.

To achieve this, the tiny two-seater also had to
have the record lowest CD, the most advanced powertrain of the day, and a
cost
of $80,000 (they were only leased to consumers).

So what? price would come down in time.
Thousands of people buy $80,00 cars every day.

No excuse for GM to go to ridiculous lengths to get back every one of the
cars and then crush them literally out of existence. Especially when there
were thousands who would have taken them off their hands and waived all
rights to support.
GM did an evil thing, just evil.

The article concludes:

"In the end, though, the price wasn't an issue. The reality is the EV1 was
hostage to a technology the engineers knew from the get-go just wasn't
able to
do the job Roger Smith and the California Air Resources Board believed it
could. That's what killed the electric car."

Everyone had better rush and get one of those Humvees with the $100,000 Bush
government tax rebate before the new government gets in. Or has that
fire-sale finished already?

Dave.

Sigh. Your are starting to sound as ignorant as the donkey and
Sloman. A lot of people don't get anything, and most will get $600. If
you are disabled, you MIGHT qualify for $300.



--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

 

[Joerg]

Eeyore wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:47:27 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

There is a major stumbling block in areas like ours: Monopoly, plus
baseline usage rules the monopoly imposes. The millisecond you exceed
baseline by IIRC as little as 30% electricity becomes painfully
expensive. Anyone who dared to use their A/C in summer knows that.
Unless this changes or one can line up a sweet and most of all longterm
night-time deal there won't be a realistic future for electric cars.
One former EV-1 owner has a solution to the electric power cost
problem:
http://www.solarwarrior.com
http://www.solarwarrior.com/why.html

A 30kW peak output PV solar array would cost somewhere in the region of
$120,000 in panels alone by my estimation yet would only provide around
120kWh of electricity daily (worth around $12) on average. Factor in
financing costs and it simply will NEVER 'pay back'

Scale that down to a 12kWh EV battery pack daily recharge and it would still
cost you $12,000 PLUS and the associated installation, inverter etc, say
$20k overall. Yet it would only cost about $1.20 for that daily recharge
from the mains.

Not if you live in an area where electricity cost versus monthly usage
has the I/V characteristic of a silicon diode. Out here when you reach
130% of baseline that would be the 600mV point. Go beyond that and
you'll hear a huge slurping sound. That sound would be coming from your
bank account. And that happens in a lot of other places, too.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:11:04 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 16, 5:54 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/

Fantastic!
Everyone should watch this one.
The IMDB user comment is spot on - " This film WILL frustrate you greatly"
In fact, it's enough to make you want to cry.

Can't believe I had never heard of the movie before the other day.

Dave.

The EV-1 is GM's Edsel. Except that it worked and they couldn't make
enough to satisfy demand.

Beancounters killed it. And they took away a marketing advantage GM
could still be milking.

Not the bean counters, the "executives".

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:21:51 -0400, "Paul E. Schoen"
<pstech@smart.net> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ieidnSvlPKQURrDVnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@earthlink.com...

Reality. There isn't enough generating capacity to convert to electric
cars.

It may not exist at the moment, but the switch to electric (as well as
other more efficient vehicles) must be accompanied by an overall reduction
in our total per-capita energy consumption. Even if new electric power
plants would be built, using the same fossil fuels that now power
automobiles, they would be much more efficient and cleaner than millions of
individual cars and trucks being driven in stop-and-go traffic. But the
ultimate resolution to this problem will involve people changing their
lifestyles, using more public transportation, living closer to jobs (or
telecommuting), and generally becoming a more cooperative society living
and working closely with other people, rather than isolationism, needless
competition, and broken families.

Paul

Silly boy. The conversion cannot happen quickly because of generation
and distribution issues. That kind of huge infrastructure changes
require major long term capital investment. Where is that going to
come from?

 

[Eeyore]

Joerg wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 15:19:06 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
No-one has killed electric cars. They simply died of lack of interest,
practicality and high cost.
Graham

In 1999, GM planned to produce only 465 EV1 cars. There was a 1000+
unofficial waiting list in case someone changed their mind or GM
decided to increase production. When GM refused to extend the leases,
many EV-1 owners send GM lease payment checks anyway (which GM did not
deposit). When GM discontinued the EV-1 in 2003, the unofficial
waiting list was over 2000+ names. Lack of interest was never a
problem.

The first major problem was liability issues due to a fire started
while charging in the Gen 1 models. Some interesting reading from
Phil Karn:
http://www.ka9q.net/ev/
http://www.ka9q.net/ev/ev1fire.html
Leaky electrolyte from a failed capacitor in the charging port.

GM setup the EV-1 to fail. They were very surprised when it became
quite popular and very much in demand, despite the high price, lousy
GM support, and leasing requirements.
http://www.cleanup-gm.com/


I wonder when car manufacturers (including European ones) will finally
wake up. Sometimes I wonder whether they'll wake up at all. A brief look
at Japan might help ...

Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win
the day.

Graham

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:43:25 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

True. But Li-Ion charge cycles are pretty well researched out by now. I
doubt one can ever get to 200k miles with one set. But one can on the
first engine, and then some.

Not really. The A123 Systems batteries are HD Nanophosphate
technology which is allegedly better than conventional Li-Ion and LiPO
batteries. Although commonly used in overpriced battery operated
power tools, there's really not enough field experience to predict
reliability and lifetime.
<http://www.a123systems.com/#/technology/power/pchart1/>

"Thousands and thousands" of charge cycles lifetime:
<http://www.a123systems.com/#/technology/life/>
Sounds a bit vague to me.

Fast Charging:
<http://www.a123systems.com/#/technology/power/pchart5/>

I am not a fan of those. My sister has instant heaters and often you
either get pelted with an arctic shower or boiling water. Ok, that's an
exaggeration but it ain't comfy.

That's high luxury compared to taking a shower with a rooftop solar
water heater. I got introduced to those in the 1970's in Israel.
Israel has lots of sun, lots of rooftops, and isn't insterested in
wasting power heating what water it pulls out of the Jordan River.
Haifa was literally covered with apartment buildings. The ground
floor was reserved for businesses. The rest were apartments which
were sold, not rented. Every apartment had its solar water heater on
the roof (along with multiple TV antennas at the time) which made
things rather crowded.

Anyway, when you first turn on the water, you get the somewhat warm
water that was sitting in the pipes. About 15 seconds later, you get
scalded by maximumly hot, near boiling, water directly from the solar
water heater. That slowly tapers off in temperature as the rooftop
heater slowly empties. I learned to take a shower with one hand on
the valves.

I've done the same with flash water heaters. They do a somewhat
better job of temperature regulation, but without a ballast tank,
constant adjustment is required. Still, it's more energy efficient
than a tank type water heater. Sacrifices must be made.

"New Car every 10 years or Used Car every 5 years"?
http://www.milliondollarjourney.com/new-car-every-10-years-or-used-car-every-5.htm

The rationale in that article is a bit on the naive side IMHO. One has
to factor in the pitfalls of used cars. What if the previous owner drove
it sans oil to reach a gas station but never told you? What if he never
slowed down at speed bumps?

Well, the assumption was made that the used car came from a "reputable
used car dealer" (a classic oxymoron) who checked out the vehicle,
prerformed any required maintenance, and offered some semblance of a
warranty. For used car buyers that buy their vehicles without running
the VIN number through CarFax, checking the DMV history, or having it
checked out by a mechanic, I suspect there will be problems. Todays
OBD-II diagnostics will often uncover signs of drive train abuse,
damage, and neglect. Many other things are obvious after driving a
few miles.

Slow down for speed bumps? My paved dirt road is nothing but speed
bumps.

I saw lots of the in Germany. They call them "elephant shoes".

Good name. I suspect the next step will be a true wearable
automobile. LIPO electric powered. You sit down on the drive train
and wheel platform, wrap the fenders, cowling, and roof around you,
and drive away merilly. Maybe an inflatable body for light weight and
crash resistance. When done driving, pack it back in it's case,
attach a handle to one ond of the wheel platform, and carry it away
like a hand truck.

It's like oxygenation. I get 25mpg on California gas and 28mpg on Nevada
gas.

They also oxygenated diesel in the early 1990's using 15% ethanol.
That raise the head temperature on my Dodge/Mitsubishi diesel
sufficiently to crack the head. What was interesting was that I was
driving it for about 6 months with a cracked head. There was no
obvious deterioration in performance other than a slight drop in
diesel mileage, and the mysterious disappearance of radiator water to
no obvious destination. I eventually figured I had a problem when I
ran the engine with the radiator cap removed, which simulated a
volcanic eruption of exhaust gasses belching from the radiator.

Welding the aluminium head was problematic so I opted for a factory
new replacement head. Those arrive a few thousands thicker than stock
which lowered the compression ratio slightly. The result was the
diesel milage dropped from about 30mpg to 28mpg, but the engine stayed
quite cool using the new diesel formulation.

We all need to drive less. It's possible. I reduced from 10k+ miles per
year to under 3k miles per year and more than half of that is for
business. That's it. I often do oil changes based on age, not miles driven.

Yep. I must admit that I haven't tried to economize very much. The
best I've done is bum rides from friends and customers. I'm still
somewhat in the service and repair biz doing service calls to
customers. That works out to about 12,000 miles per year for business
(i.e. deductable) and 5,000 miles per year for personal use. I can
probably cut both in half, but then I would have to juggle
appointments and errands by location. It's easier for me to just buy
a smaller economy car and not carry a warehouse full of parts with me.

In the 1970's I used to drive by the GM plant in Fremont CA and noted
the rather large number of imported cars in the employees parking lot.

The NUMMI plant? They also produce Toyotas there, such as my wife's 1995
Corolla. I don't think it's onwed by GM but could be wrong.

Yep. That's the one. However, this was in the 1970's, before 1984
when Toyota saved GM's ass by literally taking over the plant on GM's
behalf.
<http://www.nummi.com>
<http://www.nummi.com/timeline.php>
Sorry, it's not in Milpitas but Fremont. Anyway, across the street
from the parking lot was an excellent Chinese restaurant that we
frequented as often as practical. The only problem was that the drive
went by a cattle stock yard. The smell would ruin any lunch. The
yard was also very close to Altos Computers, which may explain their
premature demise.

It takes many, many years to build a reputation for reliability but less
than a year to destroy it.

The common observation is that American buyers are nearly clueless. I
guess the same applies to Australian buyers. See:

"Large car sales on the increase"
<http://www.themotorreport.com.au/752/large-car-sales-on-the-increase/>
This is from June 2007, but still interesting.

It’s encouraging to see a consolidation in the Large and Upper
Large segments which reflects both the introduction of exciting
new product and the response of brands to the competitive
challenges of the market. The resurgence in sales of SUVs and
Large cars demonstrates that family-sized vehicles continue to
meet the preferences of a significant number of Australian
consumers because they suit their lifestyles and transport
requirements,” said FCAI Chief Executive Andrew McKellar.

Yep. Lifestyle and image is everything.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 05:10:21 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:47:27 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

There is a major stumbling block in areas like ours: Monopoly, plus
baseline usage rules the monopoly imposes. The millisecond you exceed
baseline by IIRC as little as 30% electricity becomes painfully
expensive. Anyone who dared to use their A/C in summer knows that.
Unless this changes or one can line up a sweet and most of all longterm
night-time deal there won't be a realistic future for electric cars.

One former EV-1 owner has a solution to the electric power cost
problem:
http://www.solarwarrior.com
http://www.solarwarrior.com/why.html

A 30kW peak output PV solar array would cost somewhere in the region of
$120,000 in panels alone

I don't recall the exact total cost but I think it was about $150,000.
That did not include legal fees and time wasted dealing with PG&E
nonsense.

by my estimation yet would only provide around
120kWh of electricity daily (worth around $12) on average. Factor in
financing costs and it simply will NEVER 'pay back'

No financing that I know of on this system.

Typical production is about 15kw-hr/day. See graphs and visually
guess the average delivered power:
<http://www.solarwarrior.com/historical-data.html>

Non-tracking vverage hours equivalent to full sunlight is about 4.5
hrs in Santa Cruz County. That yields:
15kw * 4.5 hrs/day = 68kw-hr/day

PG&E rates vary with usage and season. The cost to charge the fleet
of electric vehicles would have placed them in nearly the highest
rates. See:
<http://www.pge.com/tariffs/ResElecCurrent.xls>
That's the current residential rates. My guess is that electricity
would cost about $0.30/kw-hr at the highest rate.
68Kw-hr/day * $0.30/kw-hr = $20/day

Scale that down to a 12kWh EV battery pack daily recharge and it would still
cost you $12,000 PLUS and the associated installation, inverter etc, say
$20k overall. Yet it would only cost about $1.20 for that daily recharge
from the mains.

The owner indicates that the calculated break even point is 18 years
out of a 30 year lifetime. The higher prices of electricity will make
the break even point somewhat sooner. I don't have all the numbers
necessary to verify that. I certainly won't buy into anything that
takes 18 years to break even as I don't expect to live that long. I
agree that it's not very practical (unless you include government
subsidies and rebates), but it's a start.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[Phil Hobbs]

David L. Jones wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:482FA872.804C42A9@hotmail.com...

"David L. Jones" wrote:

I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/

Fantastic!
It completely misses the point.

Sounds like it's you who missed the point of the movie.

Everyone should watch this one.
The IMDB user comment is spot on - " This film WILL frustrate you
greatly"
In fact, it's enough to make you want to cry.

Can't believe I had never heard of the movie before the other day.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/11/the-ev-1-wasnt-killed-it-was-dead-on-arrival/

Required to do so, GM went on to make the EV-1. It used lead acid
batteries
which held 0.4% as much energy as the same weight of gasoline.

Irrelevant.

Thus the EV-1
weighed 2970 lbs, 1175 lbs of which were the batteries.

Also irrelevant.

The resulting range
was 90/70 miles hwy/city.

Plenty enough for the majority of people. Especially when you can
conveniently recharge at home, at work, or at a shopping centre etc.

To achieve this, the tiny two-seater also had to
have the record lowest CD, the most advanced powertrain of the day, and a
cost
of $80,000 (they were only leased to consumers).

So what? price would come down in time.
Thousands of people buy $80,00 cars every day.

No excuse for GM to go to ridiculous lengths to get back every one of the
cars and then crush them literally out of existence. Especially when there
were thousands who would have taken them off their hands and waived all
rights to support.
GM did an evil thing, just evil.

The article concludes:

"In the end, though, the price wasn't an issue. The reality is the EV1 was
hostage to a technology the engineers knew from the get-go just wasn't
able to
do the job Roger Smith and the California Air Resources Board believed it
could. That's what killed the electric car."

Everyone had better rush and get one of those Humvees with the $100,000 Bush
government tax rebate before the new government gets in. Or has that
fire-sale finished already?

Dave.

A lot of assets get crushed on account of the corporate tax code and
accounting rules. I vividly remember 1992, when IBM got into the glue
really badly--we crushed a whole lot of brand new equipment, all paid
for and everything, because our budgets were being slashed and it was
either keep the people or keep the equipment--which had to have the
depreciation paid. The waste was astronomical, but the management was
in a bind and did their best with the choices available.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win
the day.

Horses for courses.
Given the right price, we'd buy a EV for local shopping and trips.

For many (indeed most) people, 2 cars aren't a practical option.

At one stage, we won a Nikki and I was briefly considering someoneelses
lead and converting it to an EV for shopping, but it was that or pay off
the mortgage.

What's a 'Nikki' ?

Graham