Darryl: I thought this response you put forth came out nicely and that Martin's made sense too. You put some work into it, and I'm going to forward to the evworld.com group. I don't mind that some folks disagree, but I just don't react well to worthwhile ideas being dismissed wholesale without any real honest consideration. I can't field a response as good as the one you gave.
An offbeat aside: while fans of faster EVs may look down their nose at most of the NEV efforts as having been obviously partly a sham put on by the car companies to get out of building faster EVs, when I spoke to a GEM rep at EVS20, it became clear that they were saying things were going quite well, and they were looking at modifying and improving things, and maybe leaving the door open for faster vehicles in the future. Their sales are not so paltry.... evidently a few thousand per year is enough for them to be in the black or claim to be near it, and so a few thousand more GEM EVs are (I guess) hitting the roads in the States each year. Maybe not what we had in mind when we were wowed by an EV1 or a RAV4 EV, but many are in the hands of satisfied customers nonetheless. MM On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:35:06 -0500, you wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> In a message dated 3/9/2004 6:40:38 PM Central Standard Time >> >> >If Battery EVs continue to be conspicuously and unfairly excluded from >> >consideration, based on disingenuous and partly-false claims about >> >lack of demand and lack of performance of advanced batteries and >> >what-not, .... >> >> OK, suppose we mandated 1 Million EVs to be built next year. > >Amusing premise. I presume you mean the the United States, or some portion >thereof, by "we mandated". Let's see, during the decade of the 1990's, all of >the >world's major automakers managed to produce less than 2,000 EVs in response to >the >CARB mandate. Each of them made comments to the effect that this took a >serious >and conscientious effort on their part. Today, none of them have an on-road >BEV in >production. It has been reported that GM, after producing 1,000 EV-1s, have >destroyed the means of producing more, and are sending many of those that were >built to the crusher as they are returned from leases. In short, there is no >way >the automakers are going to make 1,000,000 BEVs next year, or permit it to >happen. >That fight is over. The automakers (and big oil) won. CARB and the planet >lost. > >I suspect Murdoch chose the smarter path in declining to respond to your straw >man, >yet I can't seem to help myself from responding. > >> They would >> probably have to use lead-acid batteries, as they are the only off-the-shelf >> technology available. > >Sorry, but I disagree. NiMH are available off the shelf today, and are being >used >by Honda and Toyota in their "hybrids". NiCd are available off the shelf, and >were >being used by Peugeot in their EVs, at least up until last year. NiFe were a >mass- >produced technology almost a century ago, and are not complicated to build, so >could be in mass production from a zero start sooner than the cars that would >need >them. NiZn are in mass production in China for export to the world and have >been >used in a small number of EVs. I'm sure there are others, either in >production >today, proven and no longer mainstream, or waiting in the wings if there were >an >enticing market. However, I agree that lead-acid will remain a contender for >at >least part of the EV market. > >> They are already expensive, but what will happen to the >> price of lead when GM tries to buy another million tons? > >Lead-acid batteries don't fit my definition of expensive. A car's worth of >deep- >discharge golf-cart batteries can be had for as little as US$500 - retail. >Supposing the batteries last 5 years in regular commuting use (possible with >reasonable care, a good charger and reasonable use, i.e. discharge levels). >That's >$100/year. Probably less than the cost of oil and filter changes on a gasser. > I >expect the automakers might be able to negotiate a better deal than that. > >Interesting figure (million tons). At least double what would be required if >your >premise of 1,000,000 new lead-acid BEVs hit the road in a single year. > >However, let's suppose the automakers completely surprise me and manage to >produce >100,000 on-road EVs in the next five years (requiring they produce EVs at a >rate >100 times greater than they have managed at any time in the past 90 years). >Further, let's suppose half of those use lead-acid batteries. Let's assume >each of >those vehicles using lead-acid batteries have 300 kgs of lead in them. Total >annual demand - 20,000 vehicles per year x 300 kgs per vehicle = 6,000,000 kgs >= >6,000 tonnes. Compared to the current world market for lead; a drop in the >bucket. >Consider one specific market segment for lead today; automotive accessory >batteries. I don't have the accurate figures handy, but let's guess that >there are >over 50,000,000 new on-road vehicles built each year (world-wide). Each one >has a >15 kg (or larger) starting battery, of which about 12 kg is lead. That's >600,000 >tonnes, or 100 times the demand of my posited 20,000 BEVs per year. And that >doesn't include replacement accessory batteries, or off-road applications >(golf- >carts, materials handling, airport ground support, existing on-road BEVs, UPS >batteries, emergency lighting, recreational market, submarines and on and on). > And >that doesn't even address uses for lead outside of batteries. If you want to >pursue this further, I expect the Lead Industries Association could provide >some >figures, but I'm not taking the time to chase them down. > >> How will they get the >> permission to open new lead mines? The environmental impact statements >> would take >> years to get thrrough the courts. And the lead smelters? Worse. > >Not required. See figures above. > >> Battery >> recycling? We already ship automobile batteries offshore for recycling, >> because >of >> EPA and OSHA. What will we do with an extra half million tons a year? > >Same as is done today. Some will get recycled in the U.S., some will get >recycled >off-shore. > >> How much >> space will they evacuate when a train hits an EV, spilling toxic materials >> over a >> quarter mile or so of track? > >None. Same as the current practice for dealing with the content of a starting >battery which is damaged in a collision today. Fire departments in California >addressed this issue when the OEM BEVs did get on the road in the 1990's. No >special measures required. (They did like having orange sheathing on the high >current cables, which some, but not all, the OEMs had already implemented.) > >> Or the hydrogen explosion, after a traffic accident? > >If we are still talking about lead-acid batteries, there will be no hydrogen. >Hydrogen is formed in small quantities when lead-acid batteries are being >overcharged, not when they are being discharged in operation. (If you want do >discuss hydrogen powered vehicles, let's start another thread.) > >> Then there's the infrastructure, more than a million charging stations. > >Yup. Up here we call them houses. Charge the EVs overnight, ready to go in >the >morning. I know it works, because I've done it for years. Interestingly, when >CARB >did manage to get almost 2,000 OEM BEVs on the road by the late 1990's, there >were >less than 100 public charging stations in the entire state. California EV >owners >(mostly those not built by the OEMs), still maintain an inventory of those >that are >still in place and operational. That list is shrinking by the month. > >> They'll be >> tearing up half the streets in LA, and the folks in Utah and Nevada will >> protest the >> building of new coal-burning (or nuclear) electric generating plants there >> to charge >> the million cars. > >Actually, there have been several studies that have shown that time-of-use >pricing >of electricity to encourage charging of EVs during off-peak periods (e.g. >overnight) will mean no additional generating or transmission infrastructure >would >be required for at least the first million BEVs on the road in California >alone. I >think EPRI and (US)DOE commissioned such studies. > >> Who will pay for the huge cost? The poor folks in West Virginia >> won't like being taxed to pay for toys for Green geeks on the west coast. > >No such costs. See above. > >> Suppose >> you are running for congress in West VA. How are you going to sell your >> "energy >> plan"? > >Potential new market for "clean" coal? (And it is definitely not _my_ energy >plan.) > > >I think the automakers and their allies have sufficiently skewed the >perceptions of >BEVs in the minds of the great majority of North American consumers that it >will >take the passing of at least a generation (i.e. 25 years) before they will >ever be >taken seriously again, no matter what battery technology can be deployed. I >hope >that plug-in hybrids become a reality before that, in sufficient numbers to >make a >difference to our fossil-fuel consumption and environmental damage. > >Darryl McMahon > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
