----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan M" <[email protected]> To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 12:33 PM Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick >> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:42 PM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> 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. > > Hmmm, that sounds like the common conspiracy theory, like the 200 mpg > carburetor design that was held as a trade secret by an oil company (the > company varied with the theory) back in the '60s and '70s. > > We know that these batteries are buyable on the market in standard over > the > counter battery usage, and have found a good niche as a camera battery. > If > they were that good, why didn't they overtake this market? > > Second, if you look at at > > http://www.cobasys.com/news/20070313.shtml > > you will find the proud announcement of their use in automobiles. You > will > find a confirmation of this at > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_metal_hydride_battery > > > where their use in Saturns is mentioned. > >> >> The demand is there, make no mistake about it. > > That's a fairly strong statement. At a low enough price, I'd believe it. > But, there are real problems with batteries. > > Look at > > http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html > > and you'll see what I mean. We know that the energy density of gasoline > is > about 46 MJ/Kg. Compare this to the best, most expensive battery (Li > ion), > and we get a factor of 100. Electric cars are more efficient (90% vs > 20%), > so this gets down to a factor of 22 or so in power/weight. And, using the > highly efficient batteries has a cost, that's why the Tesla Roadster costs >>100k. Replacement cost on the batteries is 20k, but I suspect that a lot of that cost will eventually disappear when more manufacturers get into the game and the economies of scale come into play. Each Tesla requires 6831 laptop batteries and that is largely the reason for the cost. Query: IIRC ICE extract only 12% of the available energy from gasoline. Is that already factored into your comparison or is it something to still be considered? I think the best comparison you could make is cost/mile as it directly shows costs and savings for the additional premium one would outlay. > > We know that the modest amount of batteries in a hybrid raises the prices > 4-5k. We know that the Prius hybrid sales are now falling like a rock > (factor of 2 Dec-Dec, and probably significantly more June-Dec), due to > the > added cost and the cheap price of gas. So, why would there be extensive > demand for an expensive commuter car that can only be used for relatively > short trips? For exactly the same reasons people bought hybrids before gas prices started rising so much last year. (BTW the Tesla gets 244 miles between charges with the new transmission) All car dealers are experiencing a slump ATM, in large part due to a lack of available credit, so I think some fudging of expectation is allowed. So, after the economy starts moving towards something like a new normalcy, I'm thinking we will see some increases on gas taxes as a means to limit fuel usage (a small shunt on CO2 emissions?) and decrease national indebtedness. In the meantime competition should improve the abilities of BEVs (batteries too) and the more golfcart-like models will become unremembered history. > > > 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. > > They are available, they are much more expensive than ICE based cars, and > they are selling only in small numbers to those with _a lot_ of > discretionary income. > http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/11/active-wheel-affordable-electric-car.php?daylife=1 This is the kind of vehicle I expect to become common as an example of a BEV. No drive train, a waste of mass and energy, and a lot of electronic control. The car of the future should be much more like the Eliica than the Tesla. (Except pleasing to look at like the Tesla as opposed to the Eliica.) xponent Written In Haste, Apologies Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
