----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Bostwick" <[email protected]> To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:42 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
> On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Dan M wrote: > >>> The few >>> productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry >>> springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto >>> industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c >>> hange into a PHEV/BEV based market than they are into any real R&D or >>> new product development -- that they cost more than they generate in >>> value. To me, that seems unsustainable. Am I missing something >>> here? >> >> They don't have to put any energy into fighting it; the consumers are >> happily doing it for them. The sale of the hybrid Prias (sp) has >> fallen >> about 50%. Electric cars are toys for the rich. Battery technology >> has not >> improved much in the last 20 years, even though there is a multi- >> billion >> battery market where one can make a handy profit right now, outside >> of the >> car market, by marketing a better battery. > > Battery technology has matured to the point where it's definitely > possible to build a NiMH powered car with at least 140 mile range. If > it weren't, it probably would be only academic that Cobasys/Ovonics > holds patents to large format NiMH batteries that it refuses to > license for automotive use, primarily because it's a wholly owned > subsidiary of Chevron. Most of the electrics are using Lithium Ion batteries and getting ranges similar to what you posit here. Indeed, several exceed 140 MPC, though they generally are high end and expensive. Altairnano Technology has batteries that will work like "new" after 180,000 miles. There are plenty of amazing advances being made currently (NPI). > > Toyota lost the patent lawsuit over the EV-95 battery used in the RAV4- > EV, which is one major reason why it never made it to production, and > the only reason RAV4-EV's are still on the road is that their leases > weren't as airtight with the no-buyout language as those for the EV1, > which GM reposessed en masse and sent to the crusher the moment the > California ZEV mandate was effectively nullified. > > The demand is there, make no mistake about it. As soon as a 100-mile- > range battery powered car is available, there are plenty of people who > would much rather charge their cars overnight (on off-peak electrical > power, at home) and get the energy equivalent of 150 mpg (even > counting the overall 70% charge efficiency of the battery system) for > the daily commute. Enough that even one production generation will > bring the concept close enough to maturity for them to displace > gasoline-powered vehicles. > > The Prius isn't quite what it could be. In a plug-chargeable > configuration (which is sold, and legal, everywhere but the USA -- > ever notice that blank spot in the row of buttons on the dash? In > Japan, the "EV" button goes there -- the car runs entirely off the > battery for a significant distance, which could be substantially > improved with a different battery/charger/firmware arrangement.) a lot > of short-range commutes become grid-powered. It's not a hard > conversion if you don't mind voiding the warranty, people are doing it > successfully here. The demand is dropping mainly because a > substantial part of this country's population thinks gasoline prices > will never, ever go back up. Is that the best metric to go by when > forecasting demand? The Chevy Volt looks like it has a chance to be a Prius killer. It is just a better system. > >> Contrast this with the bioengineered biofuel market, which the US is >> clearly >> leading. European rules are so strict, they might as well prohibit >> bioengineering. But, in the US, costs for the tools of the trade are >> dropping faster than Moore's law: almost a factor of two per year. >> This >> isn't PC, because we're tampering with nature, but it has a much >> better >> chance of working than solutions that have a horrid cost/benefit >> ratio. > > If there's biofuel technology that doesn't significantly impact the > food stream as a source of motor vehicle fuel, then I'm all for it. > I'm not anywhere near PC myself, and if there's a GMO solution that > actually does provide a decent rate of return without investing more > energy in getting energy out of the fuel produced or cut too deeply > into the food supply, great. Hadn't heard of this. > These days I'm looking cynically at biofuels. they do nothing to reduce CO2 levels in most cases (most applications are for ICE), but there is some hope for a good fuel for Fuel Cells and there *will* be a long term need for diesels. xponent Watt?The Current News Is Shocking Mr Volta! Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
