Re: [EVDL] gas tax (EV transmission lines, not oil pipelines)
Lee, you said, Another example: If there's an arc, it self-extinguishes on AC at the next zero-crossing. On DC, the arc will *continue* until some external device interrupts the flow of current. Remember if there is any plasma in the arc the AC zero crossing will not exist long enough to break the arc . I was driving down a highway with paralleling high tension lines on 200 ft high towers. (3 phase) and a lightning bolt from an approaching thunder storm, hit the lines. for a few seconds there was a 30 ft ball of plasma between the lines and a loud hiss, with a 120 hz buzz, then the circuit was interrupted, by the electric utility, and it all was back to normal, but I saw the Sun on Earth for about five seconds... *Dennis Lee Miles * *Director **E.V.T.I. Inc.* *E-Mail:* *evprofes...@evprofessor.com* evprofes...@evprofessor.com *Phone #* *(863) 944-9913* Dade City, Florida 33523 USA On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Lee Hart via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Robert Bruninga via EV wrote: I can see that my original statement was confusing. What I meant was that for the same conductor and same I^2R loss, DC can deliver nearly 40% more power because the DC line can operate at the PEAK voltage rating of the line, whereas the AC line only delivers that same current power at RMS voltage, not peak. 40% increase is worth doing for long point-to-point transmission (with no taps) It's not that simple. Insulators have different voltage withstand capabilities on AC or DC. You can't easily compare them. One example: DC always has the same polarity, so leakage currents through the insulation cause corrosion and electrodeposition effects. This lowers the maximum voltage that an insulation can withstand on DC. Another example: If there's an arc, it self-extinguishes on AC at the next zero-crossing. On DC, the arc will *continue* until some external device interrupts the flow of current. Another example: On AC, corona is more likely to occur. The higher the frequency, the worse it gets. -- Engineers like to solve problems. If there are no problems handily available, they will create their own problems. -- Scott Adams -- Lee Hart's EV projects are at http://www.sunrise-ev.com/LeesEVs.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/NEDRA) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/ff4f56d8/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Gas tax is not working...(tolls and Park-N-ride)
You don't have property taxes to fund a local highway district? In Idaho, each county has a highway district. They levy a property tax to pay for road maintenance. This is in addition to fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, and impact fees to developers. It still isn't enough. Mike On June 25, 2014 5:36:41 PM MDT, Michael Ross via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: That real estate taxes cover roads is not true in North Carolina, although a municipality can pile on with more tax. I don't think there is much uniformity. In fact, here developers can get quite sweet deal and build subdivisions of larger tracts, and pay very little towards infrastructure beyond installing utilities. In my county developers pay almost nothing for the schools that must be built to support the residents. I am not saying this makes sense, but it is, once again, a case of who has influence, and who has the most immediate incentive to seek influence. It is no surprise that real estate developers covet seats on town councils and zoning commissions. On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: The story that gas tax is needed to pay for road maintenance and construction is a fallacy, most money for roads come from real estate taxes. So, whether you own or rent a home, you pay for roads even if you have no car. Bicyclists are subsidizing roads for large trucks, since bicyclists pay for the roads but don't cause any wear. Remember that next time someone yells at you to get off the road because you are not paying for it Off my soapbox now! Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info http://www.cvandewater.infom Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 From: Michael Ross [mailto:michael.e.r...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:23 PM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Gas tax is not working...(tolls and Park-N-ride) This works too - I have one and like it a lot http://organictransit.com/ for a 50 mile round trip commute. I still need someone to take care of the roads. On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: And that is also why I am so happy about the success of another EV, the e-Bike. You do not always need 3,000 pounds of dead weight around you to go for an errand or to bring your laptop to work. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 tel:%2B1%20408%20383%207626 -Original Message- From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Lee Hart via EV Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 11:48 AM To: Peri Hartman; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Gas tax is not working...(tolls and Park-N-ride) switching to EV's for commuting does nothing to solve congestion... Rick Woodbury's Tango EV does. See www.commutercars.com The Tango is a 4-wheel car that's only 3 feet wide and 8 feet long. It's the same size as a motorcycle. Four of them can park in the same parking place that holds just one normal car (4x the parking). They can lane-split on the highway (doubling the capacity of the roads). They can park crossways on a railroad flat car, allowing commuter trains with side drive-on / drive-off ramps. -- Engineers like to solve problems. If there are no problems handily available, they will create their own problems. -- Scott Adams -- Lee Hart's EV projects are at http://www.sunrise-ev.com/LeesEVs.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) -- Put this question to yourself: should I use everyone else to attain happiness, or should I help others gain happiness? Dalai Lama Tell me what it is you plan to do With your one wild and precious life? Mary Oliver, The summer day. To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. Thomas A. Edison http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed125362.html A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought. Warren Buffet Michael E. Ross (919) 550-2430 Land (919) 576-0824 https://www.google.com/voice/b/0?pli=1#phones Google Phone (919) 631-1451 Cell (919) 513-0418 Desk michael.e.r...@gmail.com mailto:michael.e.r...@gmail.com -- next part
Re: [EVDL] gas tax (EV transmission lines, not oil pipelines)
Michael, you said, Doesn't AC essentially has a lesser duty cycle at at the peak voltage - which is why RMS ends up being a more useful number? The DC has a 100% duty cycle - isn't this a mitigating factor when comparing them? The RMS of DC equals the peak and the RMS of a sine wave in AC is 0.707 times peak. but they are equivalent in making heat, (For magnetic force operated device the effectiveness is related to the average of the sine wave which is 0.636 times peak. The design consideration is the insulation voltage breakdown and semiconductor component breakdown voltages must be adjusted in the specifications for the larger peak voltage required to do a comparable amount of work. *Dennis Lee Miles * *Director **E.V.T.I. Inc.* *E-Mail:* *evprofes...@evprofessor.com* evprofes...@evprofessor.com *Phone #* *(863) 944-9913* Dade City, Florida 33523 USA On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Michael Ross via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Doesn't AC essentially has a lesser duty cycle at at the peak voltage - which is why RMS ends up being a more useful number? The DC has a 100% duty cycle - isn't this a mitigating factor when comparing them? On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Robert Bruninga via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: I thought I²R heating was greater for DC. NO, if the power factor is perfect, the losses due to current squared times circuit resistance, are... the same for AC and DC, I can see that my original statement was confusing. What I meant was that for the same conductor and same I^2R loss, DC can deliver nearly 40% more power because the DC line can operate at the PEAK voltage rating of the line, whereas the AC line only delivers that same current power at RMS voltage, not peak. 40% increase is worth doing for long point-to-point transmission (with no taps) -- Put this question to yourself: should I use everyone else to attain happiness, or should I help others gain happiness? *Dalai Lama * Tell me what it is you plan to do With your one wild and precious life? Mary Oliver, The summer day. To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. Thomas A. Edison http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed125362.html A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought. *Warren Buffet* Michael E. Ross (919) 550-2430 Land (919) 576-0824 https://www.google.com/voice/b/0?pli=1#phones Google Phone (919) 631-1451 Cell (919) 513-0418 Desk michael.e.r...@gmail.com michael.e.r...@gmail.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140625/462bc6bc/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/59686c05/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts
Mark, I asked you to give background for your absolute statement that an unproven technology is the only solution and all you offer is a hopelessly hopeful vision paper with possible scenarios, that has no background as to *how* they expect that the magical solution they hope to achieve can do what they promote it to be? Sorry, but the emperor still has no clothes. It really is telling to me when Fuel Cell promoting organisations are pulling out of Hydrogen Fuel Cell promotion, because they have done the math and concluded that there is no future in Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology, since it is an energy sink, besides its obvious problems, it is simple physics that make the Hydrogen Fuel Cell completely unattractive except in a few niche applications such as in space. And maybe in California, as long as the money is flowing into this promising technology... As always - time will tell. We will be left with a few nice EV conversions unless Toyota only leases it... Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info http://www.cvandewater.infom Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 7:21 PM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts Old news. http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/vision/docs/vision_for_clean_air_public_r eview_draft.pdf Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: - this is news to me. Care to elaborate? -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/f29cdb4d/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts
Hello Mark, My contention was not to w(h)ine but to point out the technical deficiencies that needed to be addressed. Have they been addressed??? In reading the latest ad from Toyota on their 2015 FCV, the tanks will store hydrogen at 70 mega-pascals which converts to slightly over 10,000 pounds (5 tons) per square inch. To me, this is a potential safety issue especially if a country's fleet was replaced with these tanks. In the USA, that would be 400+ million tanks produced and not a one with a defect? The stated ad range is 700 km based on the JC08 Cycle. http://www.toyota-global.com/innovation/environmental_technology/fuelcell_vehicle/ This is what green.autoblog had to say about the JC08 Cycle (http://green.autoblog.com/2009/12/15/what-does-the-prius-phev-mileage-really-mean-on-the-jc08-cycle/): On the JC08 test, the Prius is rated at a mere 76.7 mpg (U.S.). The EPA ranks the same car at just 50 mpg combined, a number in line with what most regular drivers will achieve. Prorating the 700 km based on the blog's statement, 700 km converts to about 285 miles (700*50/76.7/1.6). www.worldcarfans.com said: Toyota previously stated the 2015 FCV (name not final) will be able to perform the 0-62 mph (0-100 km/h) in a rather decent 10 seconds and will offer a maximum range of around 300 miles (482 km). Once the fuel is depleted, a complete fill will take only around three minutes which isn't half bad. I my opinion, Toyota is being deceptive by inflating the FCV range. At the bottom of the Toyota FCV ad, there is a picture of the secondary battery. It looks exactly like the Prius NiMH battery pack. I assume that the battery is there to provide boost for the 0 to 62 - 10 second acceleration time. While the ad says Sales, implying cash for a title, there were earlier articles mentioning only leases will be offered. Leases would mean that the Toyota FCV is not ready for prime time and I suspect that this is the case. I assume that Toyota has made advances that are not obvious but the numbers are not showing anything dramatic. On 6/25/2014 8:16 PM, Mark Abramowitz wrote: Sorry, finger slipped before I was done. ** Sounds like a very old analysis. Toyota will be selling their cars in California, which should be your first clue. BEV have had (and still do) their own challenges, too. But it's just not productive to focus on those as have all the negative Nellies for decades. I've heard over 30 years of can't, can't, can't about electric drive vehicles of all types. In the 80's, the agencies were saying that, too. They also said can't, can't, can't about cleaning up the air any further. So they got sued in federal court by a private citizen, who, to make a long story short, won. The air was supposed to get better until the early 90's, and then get worse due to growth. Check out the timing of clean air progress since the 80's, and also look at when the ZEV mandate was originally adopted. So, do you want some cheese to go with your w(h)ine? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Peter Eckhoff via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: AC Propulsion had a Power Point slide where they compared the efficiency of various fuels. Their standard was an EV with the equivalent of 50 MPG. A similar vehicle, powered by hydrogen produced from reformatted natural gas and fed into a fuel cell, was the equivalent of 30 mpg while hydrogen produced by electrolysis was the equivalent of 12 mpg. There a number of technical problems with fuel cells: 1) A fuel cell life expectancy was about 2,000 hours. Since my average driving speed is 30 mpg, I would have to replace my fuel cell every 60K miles. Therefore, a different fuel cell construction technique would have to be used. 2) A pack of battery or electrolytic capacitors or an ICE was needed to aid in acceleration. Therefore, a faster way of transferring the proton through the electrolyte is needed. Think of a proton as a person needed to run through air as opposed through water or molasses. 3) The storage of hydrogen to go 300 miles in a Toyota Camry needed 3 specially carbon wound tanks where the internal pressures reached 700 bar. A bar is 14.7 pounds per square inch. This equates to 5 tons per square inch in a 2 ton vehicle. Catastrophic failures would be catastrophic. The hydrogen, therefore, needs to be stored in a molecular sponge where the hydrogen freely flows in and out of storage without much energy inducements. One real scheme required 800 degree Fahrenheit temperatures to release the hydrogen from storage. Given the number of technical problems that need to be solved, I don't see hydrogen fuel celled vehicles coming into common use anytime soon. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts
Mark, Please stop wittering on and actually address some of the points the anti H2 FCV commentators have made here. Principally, please explain how you believe H2 FCVs will work in terms of efficiency Vs (real ie plug-in) EVs? MW On 26 Jun 2014, at 01:52, Mark Abramowitz via EV wrote: There are a number of you that think that this is a technology food fight. It's not. Any food fight is one way, and fortunately you're just shouting into your own echo chamber. That's a good thing, because despite the ignorance being espoused (much like I hear from the climate change deniers), we are in trouble unless fuel cells are successful. It is just not feasible to meet clean air requirements with just battery electrics. Sorry, but it's true. Anyone with any air quality planning competence will tell you that. And even with fuel cells, there still exists a major challenge. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Mark, Are the laws of Physics different in California? It is simply be design and following science that tells us that Hydrogen powered cars will never be cost-effective. Of course, a state can set up a grande grant-scheme and create an artificially unbalanced market that will collapse as soon as the money runs out or voters get fed up with the money being poured into a fallacy that is not sustainable. EVs have proven to be sustainable and efficient, they are subsidized via tax breaks to sweeten the deal and ramp up the market faster. But the Physics of a BEV tells us that it is efficient and effective. Limited, maybe but good enough for about 95% of most people's trips. The situation is quite different for FCV and that is why even organizations that promote Fuel Cell development have pulled out of the unsustainable Hydrogen Fuel Cell development. (Except those that are more interested in grants than in practical applications and progress) We will see where Toyota lands, time will tell. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Mark Abramowitz via EV Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:17 PM To: Peter Eckhoff; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts Sorry, finger slipped before I was done. ** Sounds like a very old analysis. Toyota will be selling their cars in California, which should be your first clue. BEV have had (and still do) their own challenges, too. But it's just not productive to focus on those as have all the negative Nellies for decades. I've heard over 30 years of can't, can't, can't about electric drive vehicles of all types. In the 80's, the agencies were saying that, too. They also said can't, can't, can't about cleaning up the air any further. So they got sued in federal court by a private citizen, who, to make a long story short, won. The air was supposed to get better until the early 90's, and then get worse due to growth. Check out the timing of clean air progress since the 80's, and also look at when the ZEV mandate was originally adopted. So, do you want some cheese to go with your w(h)ine? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Peter Eckhoff via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: AC Propulsion had a Power Point slide where they compared the efficiency of various fuels. Their standard was an EV with the equivalent of 50 MPG. A similar vehicle, powered by hydrogen produced from reformatted natural gas and fed into a fuel cell, was the equivalent of 30 mpg while hydrogen produced by electrolysis was the equivalent of 12 mpg. There a number of technical problems with fuel cells: 1) A fuel cell life expectancy was about 2,000 hours. Since my average driving speed is 30 mpg, I would have to replace my fuel cell every 60K miles. Therefore, a different fuel cell construction technique would have to be used. 2) A pack of battery or electrolytic capacitors or an ICE was needed to aid in acceleration. Therefore, a faster way of transferring the proton through the electrolyte is needed. Think of a proton as a person needed to run through air as opposed through water or molasses. 3) The storage of hydrogen to go 300 miles in a Toyota Camry needed 3 specially carbon wound tanks where the internal pressures reached 700 bar. A bar is 14.7 pounds per square inch. This equates to 5 tons per square inch in a 2 ton vehicle. Catastrophic failures would be catastrophic. The hydrogen, therefore, needs to be stored in a molecular sponge where the hydrogen freely flows in and out of storage without much energy inducements. One real scheme required 800 degree Fahrenheit temperatures to release the hydrogen from storage. Given
Re: [EVDL] $1.7 Trillion reinvested
Peter, You are very generous with install cost of $5 per Watt and I think that cost level is old. Today's solar panels are all under $1 per Watt with few exceptions and installation typically doubles or triples that with the man-hours and the inverter installation material costs. What I have heard is closer to $2 per installed Watt for standard residential systems. You flip twice (cancelling the error) between 7.2 and 7,200 Most EVs are better than 3 miles per kWh, a few are less. It is a safe (relatively low) number since the majority of EVs get closer to 4 miles/kWh. Just some quick feedback. Good thought-provoking issue. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Peter Eckhoff via EV Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 4:32 AM To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: [EVDL] $1.7 Trillion reinvested The purported cost of the Iraqi War so far has been $1.7 trillion (1.7 x 10^12).Whether this is war was worth it is **not** up for discussion here. This is strictly an exercise in examining what effect those funds would have had if applied differently. I would appreciate your vetting the thoughts and numbers below. The question is: What if those funds had been used for installing solar panels for recharging a fleet of electric vehicles? What does a back of the envelope set of calculations indicate as to whether such an investment would be viable and possibly pursued further? Assume for discussion purposes: 1)Each panel is rated at 250 watts. (Ref: http://www.suncityenergy.com/solarpanelratings/) This is in a common size (+/- a few watts).The rating assumes a standard irradiance of 1,000 whr /m^2. 2)Each panel costs $1250 installed which is $5/watt for a commercially installed panel. Some will self install and some will have a higher commercially installed array. 3)Each panel receives an average of 2 kwhr/m^2/day.This is doable in almost all parts of the lower 48 States and Hawaii in December, the worse month for solar over all.The Puget Sound - Portland (OR) and Alaska areas are the two exceptions.Most areas referenced below are well above 2 kwhr/m^2/day; some with a factor of 3 or greater. (Ref: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas) 4)How far will an electric vehicle go using 1 kwhr of electricity.? *Pickups can travel roughly 2 to 3 miles. *Sedans can travel roughly 3 to 5 miles. *A Tesla Model S with an EPA rated range of 265 miles with a 85 kwhr pack onboard produces a calculated average about 3 miles per kwhr. *A range of 3 miles per kwhr was used below as an average To derive the amount of mileage that can be driven in a day electrically, the above panels and factors were multiplied together like so: _$1.7 x 10^12 _* _250w panel_ * _1 kw _* 1 hr * _2 kwhr sol m^2/day_ * _3 mi_ $1250 panel10^3w 1 kwhr std m^2/daykwhr This produces a result of 2.04 billion miles. How does this equate to miles driven per day using an equivalent gasoline powered sedan? Assume for discussion purposes: 1)The USA uses 20 million Barrels of Oil Per Day (BOPD).In recent years, this figure has decreased to about 18 million BOPD. 2)Each barrel of oil can be refined to produce 18 gallons of gasoline.This is close to the actual production figure. To derive the amount of average car miles that can be driven in a day using gasoline, the above factors were multiplied together like so: 20 million BOPD * 18 gallons of gasoline/BOPD * 20 Miles/Gallon = 7.2 billion miles/day We drive roughly 7.200 billion miles per day. 21 million BOPD over 7.2 billion miles driven per day produces a rough factor of 3 (x10^-3).If we multiply 2.04 billion electric only miles driven times this factor, we would equate this to using about 6 million BOPD.This is roughly the amount of our oil imports. While a $1.7 trillion dollar investment in solar panels will not be a substitute for all the oil we use, it would likely reduce our energy consumption by 6 million BOPD; enough for us to be 'energy independent' with maybe a little conservation added. How long would it take to pay this investment off? If electricity, through net metering, is $1.00 per 10 kwhr and gasoline is $4 per gallon, and a vehicle can be driven the same amount of miles on either 10 kwhr of electricity or 1 gallon of gasoline, the difference is $3.00 which would be allocated to paying off the $1.7 trillion dollar investment. We use 360 million gallons of gasoline a day, (20 million BOPD * 18 gallons/Barrel).$1.7 x 10^12/(0.360 gallons x 10^9 * 3) = 1.574 x 10^3 days or 4.31 years.Not too shabby. This is a very simplistic scenario where a lot of details and other costs that have to be worked out such as the cost of a pack; electrical storage, production, and
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: Driving from Kung-Fu I passed a gas station had an EV moment
The accelerator pedal needs a shorter name for electric cars ... Its called the GO pedal? But, with EV's with strong regen (like the BMW i3) it’s the GO/slow pedal. But when pronounced, no one wants to think of an EV as being driven with a go slow pedal, so maybe it is a go/stop pedal? ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
[EVDL] power lines, fule cells, pipe lines?
as far as I am concerned, I could care less, I build EV conversions but drive a gas guzzling ICE, I have built many EVs for my self and sold them all. I do this because its a business , and a damn good business. Im not a tree hugger, a environmentalist, or some one that gives a shit . Im opinionated , grouchy, old, and could care less what people think of me . Every one here has the correct answer ,but they dont even knows the real question !!. The planet has to damn many people on it, by at least 3 billion, and its getting worse every day, no one ever brings that up, NO !! that would be to simple, people use power, the more people the more power they use, the worse the air gets, the worse the water gets, the forests get cut down, where the hell do you think O2 comes from, Green plants, and yes at night they reverse the process . If this makes me a cynic so be it If this is political, Im sorry -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/e6a886d3/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (relax)
Folks, EV's and Hydorgen fuel cell cars are NOT in competition. (except in Toyota's fantasy dreams).. There is no need to get worked up. EV's are far, far better for local travel and daily commuting (80% of our miles). But in the long run, when all the oil is gone, we will still need the density of chemical fuel for the long-haul interstate travel. And Hydrogen is one technology worth looking at. As everyone points out, Hydrogen makes no sense compared to an EV in *all* aspects for what EV's do best. But we need to continue to explore it for when HYDROGEN might become a byproduct of daily peak grid excess renewable energy capture (no matter how inefficient). EVs and FCV's are completely different applications. And only the media and others who think anything with 4 wheels and a GO pedal should do everything-for-everyone sees them as both very limited and the same... Bob -Original Message- From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Martin WINLOW via EV Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:25 AM To: Mark Abramowitz; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts Mark, Please stop wittering on and actually address some of the points the anti H2 FCV commentators have made here. Principally, please explain how you believe H2 FCVs will work in terms of efficiency Vs (real ie plug-in) EVs? MW On 26 Jun 2014, at 01:52, Mark Abramowitz via EV wrote: There are a number of you that think that this is a technology food fight. It's not. Any food fight is one way, and fortunately you're just shouting into your own echo chamber. That's a good thing, because despite the ignorance being espoused (much like I hear from the climate change deniers), we are in trouble unless fuel cells are successful. It is just not feasible to meet clean air requirements with just battery electrics. Sorry, but it's true. Anyone with any air quality planning competence will tell you that. And even with fuel cells, there still exists a major challenge. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Mark, Are the laws of Physics different in California? It is simply be design and following science that tells us that Hydrogen powered cars will never be cost-effective. Of course, a state can set up a grande grant-scheme and create an artificially unbalanced market that will collapse as soon as the money runs out or voters get fed up with the money being poured into a fallacy that is not sustainable. EVs have proven to be sustainable and efficient, they are subsidized via tax breaks to sweeten the deal and ramp up the market faster. But the Physics of a BEV tells us that it is efficient and effective. Limited, maybe but good enough for about 95% of most people's trips. The situation is quite different for FCV and that is why even organizations that promote Fuel Cell development have pulled out of the unsustainable Hydrogen Fuel Cell development. (Except those that are more interested in grants than in practical applications and progress) We will see where Toyota lands, time will tell. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Mark Abramowitz via EV Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:17 PM To: Peter Eckhoff; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts Sorry, finger slipped before I was done. ** Sounds like a very old analysis. Toyota will be selling their cars in California, which should be your first clue. BEV have had (and still do) their own challenges, too. But it's just not productive to focus on those as have all the negative Nellies for decades. I've heard over 30 years of can't, can't, can't about electric drive vehicles of all types. In the 80's, the agencies were saying that, too. They also said can't, can't, can't about cleaning up the air any further. So they got sued in federal court by a private citizen, who, to make a long story short, won. The air was supposed to get better until the early 90's, and then get worse due to growth. Check out the timing of clean air progress since the 80's, and also look at when the ZEV mandate was originally adopted. So, do you want some cheese to go with your w(h)ine? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Peter Eckhoff via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: AC Propulsion had a Power Point slide where they compared the efficiency of various fuels. Their standard was an EV with the equivalent of 50 MPG. A similar vehicle, powered by hydrogen produced from reformatted natural gas and fed into a fuel cell, was the equivalent of 30 mpg while hydrogen produced by electrolysis was the equivalent of 12 mpg. There a number of technical problems
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: Driving from Kung-Fu I passed a gas station had an EV moment
How novel, a gas station being built :) I don't think I've seen a new
gas station in years. In fact a number of them have disappeared over
the last 10. Some of that is due to consolidation but demand is going
down!
Peri
-- Original Message --
From: brucedp5 via EV ev@lists.evdl.org
To: ev@lists.evdl.org
Sent: 26-Jun-14 4:23:15 AM
Subject: [EVDL] EVLN: Driving from Kung-Fu I passed a gas station had
an EV moment
'Unplugging the other car triggered an alarm which made me jump'
http://scholarsandrogues.com/2014/06/21/two-weeks-of-owning-an-electric-car-renewable-journal-for-6212014/
Two weeks of owning an electric car - Renewable Journal for 6/21/2014
By Brian Angliss
[image
http://scholarsandrogues.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/nissanleafba.jpg
NissanLeafBA
]
Today I had what can only be described as an “electric car moment.” I
was
driving back home from my kung fu lesson and passed by a gas station
that’s
under construction. As I passed it, I thought was “hey, that’s getting
close. I’ll be able to get gas there… wait a second….”
No. No, I won’t need to get gas at that station.
There have been other interesting moments over the last two weeks as
well. I
was out of town for some of the last couple of weeks, and I left my car
at
the airport while I was out. But the distance from my home to DIA is
more
than half a charge on my Leaf, especially with the AC running, so I
needed
to make sure I parked near a charger.
Thankfully, Canopy Parking on Tower Road has chargers in both valet and
covered parking, and I was able to find a charger to plug in to. I did
have
a moment of panic, however, when I pulled up and found that the charger
had
only a single plug, and it was already plugged into another car.
Thankfully,
however, that car was done charging, so I unplugged it and plugged the
charger into mine. Unfortunately, doing so triggered the alarm, which
made
me jump a bit.
And how do I know the charging was done? The charger was off, which
means
that the computer in the car turned the charger off. Had the charger
been on
still, I’m not sure what I would have done, since I forgot my own
personal
charger…. Never again.
For the record – if a Leaf is plugged in and all three blue lights are
either solid on or off, the Leaf is fully charged. And if the Leaf’s
owner
is polite, he or she has set the car into “auto lock” mode, which means
that
the charger is locked into the charging port until the car is doing
charging, at which point the charger unlocks and someone else can pull
the
charger out. That’s what I did. The only time I’d lock the charger
completely is if I needed to use my own charger, and that’s to prevent
someone from stealing my charger. Those things are expensive.
Since that scare, however, I’ll be taking my own personal charger to
the
airport from now on. Along with a nice long, 15+ amp rated extension
cord.
One more electric car moment to share today – I was driving with my
wife
last weekend, and I was talking about how the Leaf can out accelerate
most
cars when I put my foot on the gas. She pointed out that it’s not the
“gas”
at all – it’s the “accelerator.”
The accelerator pedal needs a shorter name for electric cars ...
[© scholarsandrogues.com]
For all EVLN posts use:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=search_pagenode=413529query=evlnsort=date
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/19/google-hosts-experience-electric-event-for-employees/
Google Hosts Experience Electric Event For Employees
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/gadgets/104501-the-skunk-sas-bad-ass-riot-control-drone.html
Skunk riot-control e-drone lights,lasers,warnings,80-pepper-balls/sec
http://www.automotiveit.com/gm-demonstrates-en-v-2-0-in-test-of-city-driving/news/id-009293
Chevy EN-V is Segway/GM's networked/autonomus-version of a Twizy EV
http://gas2.org/2014/06/21/chevy-en-v-pod-thing-shows-china/
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrowland_%28film%29
Chevy EN-V's in Disney's 2016 Tomorrowland movie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EN-V#Chevrolet_EN-V
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/harley-davidson-livewire/
Harley LiveWire ecycle importance downplayed ?planning for a flop?
http://evfleetworld.co.uk/news/2014/Jun/San-Francisco-International-Airport-to-install-high-speed-charging-stations/0438015085
4 L3 EVSE coming to SFO's free/60min-limit Cell-Phone-Waiting Lot
...
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/06/19/san-francisco-international-airport-receives-grant-for-high-speed-electric-vehicle-charging-stations/
...
http://www.flysfo.com/to-from/parking/cell-phone-waiting-lot
+
EVLN: Why Lithium-Ion Batteries Degrade Over Time
{brucedp.150m.com}
--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVLN-Driving-from-Kung-Fu-I-passed-a-gas-station-had-an-EV-moment-tp4670107.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts
On Jun 26, 2014, at 12:09 AM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Mark, I asked you to give background for your absolute statement that an unproven technology is the only solution I did not, and have never said that. I said: It is just not feasible to meet clean air requirements with just battery electrics. And you really think I said unproven technology? If you want to to say I made an absolute statement, you ought to get it at least partially right. You've signed the note as a Chief Scientist. Is that how exacting you do science? and all you offer is a hopelessly hopeful vision paper with possible scenarios, that has no background as to *how* they expect that the magical solution they hope to achieve can do what they promote it to be? Sorry, but the emperor still has no clothes. It really is telling to me when Fuel Cell promoting organisations are pulling out of Hydrogen Fuel Cell promotion, because they have done the math and concluded that there is no future in Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology, since it is an energy sink, besides its obvious problems, it is simple physics that make the Hydrogen Fuel Cell completely unattractive except in a few niche applications such as in space. And maybe in California, as long as the money is flowing into this promising technology... As always - time will tell. We will be left with a few nice EV conversions unless Toyota only leases it... Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info http://www.cvandewater.infom Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 7:21 PM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts Old news. http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/vision/docs/vision_for_clean_air_public_r eview_draft.pdf Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: - this is news to me. Care to elaborate? -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/f29cdb4d/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (relax)
On Jun 26, 2014, at 7:32 AM, Robert Bruninga via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Folks, EV's and Hydorgen fuel cell cars are NOT in competition. (except in Toyota's fantasy dreams).. There is no need to get worked up. EV's are far, far better for local travel and daily commuting ... Except for the comment about Toyota, and the far, far better comment, I can personally agree with that. (Though fuel cell cars *are* electric vehicles) Short term, BEVs are the best solution for shorter trips, and have recently moved into the realm of having range enough for medium trips. Medium and longer range favor FCEVs. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
[EVDL] High Water
I just saw a picture online of what I thought was a Nissan Leaf driving through a flood. It made me think that electric cars could be (or are now) much more water resistant than ICE cars. Especially cars with AC or brushless motors. Is that possible? -- Geoff Pullinger http://www.evalbum.com/2445 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/0558ff7f/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] $1.7 Trillion reinvested
Here's a parallel way to look at it, except with wind generation: According to the US DOE, in table 1: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/pdf/updated_capcost.pdf the cost to build a wind farm is $2213/kW to build + $40/kW-yr to operate. Add to that pumped storage of the same capacity: $5288/kW to build + $14.13/kW-yr to operate and you would have about $7500/kW to build + about $54/kW-yr to operate. $1.7T would build 226,000,000kW or The US used about 1000MW peak during summer of 2012 - see table 4.2.B in http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_02.html To build out with 100% wind, that would cost: wind generation = $7500/kW to build or $7500k / MW to build 1000MW would cost 1000 * $7500k = $7,500,000k = $7,500M = $7.5B That's about 0.4% of the $1.7T. In other words, we could completely replace our existing power generation with zero-carbon production and have plenty of money left over for operations, hyper-quick chargers everywhere, and just about every other government expense conceivable! By the way, you can do the math, but wind is substantially cheaper than building nukes if you include the operating costs of nukes. (ok, now who wants to vet my math? I make lots of mistakes :) Peri -- Original Message -- From: Peter Eckhoff via EV ev@lists.evdl.org To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List ev@lists.evdl.org Sent: 26-Jun-14 4:32:21 AM Subject: [EVDL] $1.7 Trillion reinvested The purported cost of the Iraqi War so far has been $1.7 trillion (1.7 x 10^12).Whether this is war was worth it is **not** up for discussion here. This is strictly an exercise in examining what effect those funds would have had if applied differently. I would appreciate your vetting the thoughts and numbers below. The question is: What if those funds had been used for installing solar panels for recharging a fleet of electric vehicles? What does a “back of the envelope” set of calculations indicate as to whether such an investment would be viable and possibly pursued further? Assume for discussion purposes: 1)Each panel is rated at 250 watts. (Ref: http://www.suncityenergy.com/solarpanelratings/) This is in a common size (+/- a few watts).The rating assumes a standard irradiance of 1,000 whr /m^2. 2)Each panel costs $1250 installed which is $5/watt for a commercially installed panel. Some will self install and some will have a higher commercially installed array. 3)Each panel receives an average of 2 kwhr/m^2/day.This is doable in almost all parts of the lower 48 States and Hawaii in December, the worse month for solar over all.The Puget Sound - Portland (OR) and Alaska areas are the two exceptions.Most areas referenced below are well above 2 kwhr/m^2/day; some with a factor of 3 or greater. (Ref: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas) 4)How far will an electric vehicle go using 1 kwhr of electricity.? ·Pickups can travel roughly 2 to 3 miles. ·Sedans can travel roughly 3 to 5 miles. ·A Tesla Model S with an EPA rated range of 265 miles with a 85 kwhr pack onboard produces a calculated average about 3 miles per kwhr. ·A range of 3 miles per kwhr was used below as an average To derive the amount of mileage that can be driven in a day electrically, the above panels and factors were multiplied together like so: _$1.7 x 10^12 _* _250w panel_ * _1 kw _* 1 hr * _2 kwhr sol m^2/day_ * _3 mi_ $1250 panel10^3w 1 kwhr std m^2/daykwhr This produces a result of 2.04 billion miles. How does this equate to miles driven per day using an equivalent gasoline powered sedan? Assume for discussion purposes: 1)The USA uses 20 million Barrels of Oil Per Day (BOPD).In recent years, this figure has decreased to about 18 million BOPD. 2)Each barrel of oil can be refined to produce 18 gallons of gasoline.This is close to the actual production figure. To derive the amount of average car miles that can be driven in a day using gasoline, the above factors were multiplied together like so: 20 million BOPD * 18 gallons of gasoline/BOPD * 20 Miles/Gallon = 7.2 billion miles/day We drive roughly 7.200 billion miles per day. 21 million BOPD over 7.2 billion miles driven per day produces a rough factor of 3 (x10^-3).If we multiply 2.04 billion electric only miles driven times this factor, we would equate this to using about 6 million BOPD.This is roughly the amount of our oil imports. While a $1.7 trillion dollar investment in solar panels will not be a substitute for all the oil we use, it would likely reduce our energy consumption by 6 million BOPD; enough for us to be ‘energy independent’ with maybe a little conservation added. How long would it take to pay this investment off? If electricity, through net metering, is $1.00 per 10 kwhr and gasoline is $4 per gallon, and a vehicle can be driven the same amount of miles on either 10 kwhr of electricity or 1 gallon of gasoline, the difference is $3.00 which
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
Are you saying that the main problem with battery electrics is also that most of the power it uses is not renewable? Careful: Studies have shown that about HALF of EV buyers also have SOLAR or sign up for 100% solar/wind from their utilities. It is -not- a coincidence that those who want to be part of the future of clean energy do both. SO -never- use the published utility mix to derive carbon impact of EV's without dividing it at least in HALF even today to account for the demographics of EV buyers 50% of which use 100% emissions free energy. What % of electricity comes from solar right now? Though the grid maybe 40% coal in some places, you must apply these corrections for EV electricity: 1) 50% of EV buyers use only 100% renewable energy for charging 2) The EV is about 3 times more efficient in total energy per mile than gasoline As a result 40% times 50% times 33% gives only about 7% of EV energy comes from coal (and it only gets better every day). Not the 100% stack emissions that the climate change deniers want you to believe. Right now, there is NO silver bullet. YES there is! and it is EV's and solar/wind. When you say right now you are pessimistically using today's pitiful 2% contribution of solar on the grid, but that includes 98% of decades old LEGACY systems. When I see right now I don't see the 2%, I see the 400% annual growth *rate* of renewables and EV's and the 20% decline of coal, and gasoline imports! I see the 93% instant *average* reduction in carbon emissions for each new EV on the road. Or, for half of us that subscribe to 100% renewable energy, a 100% reduction. Bob, WB4aPR ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
On Jun 26, 2014, at 8:20 AM, Robert Bruninga via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Are you saying that the main problem with battery electrics is also that most of the power it uses is not renewable? Careful: Studies have shown that about HALF of EV buyers also have SOLAR or sign up for 100% solar/wind from their utilities. It is -not- a coincidence that those who want to be part of the future of clean energy do both. SO -never- use the published utility mix to derive carbon impact of EV's without dividing it at least in HALF even today to account for the demographics of EV buyers 50% of which use 100% emissions free energy. Very interesting and promising statistic. Do you have a cite? This is the low-hanging fruit. Great to see what people will do given a choice. Good sign for future of renewables. As an aside, an OEM rep told me point blank our customers want renewable fuels. What % of electricity comes from solar right now? Though the grid maybe 40% coal in some places, you must apply these corrections for EV electricity: 1) 50% of EV buyers use only 100% renewable energy for charging 2) The EV is about 3 times more efficient in total energy per mile than gasoline As a result 40% times 50% times 33% gives only about 7% of EV energy comes from coal (and it only gets better every day). Not the 100% stack emissions that the climate change deniers want you to believe. I don't think that's right either. Too simplistic. GREET model data is better. Right now, there is NO silver bullet. YES there is! and it is EV's and solar/wind. When you say right now you are pessimistically using today's pitiful 2% contribution of solar on the grid, but that includes 98% of decades old LEGACY systems. No, I'm not using that assumption. I am talking about vehicles, not the source of the energy. I am assuming that one size does not fit all. If you don't provide a ZEV that works for them, they will use an ICE. Even for existing ZEV users. A recent post had a died-in-the-wool BEV user talking about how they reluctantly had to use their ICE to take someone to the airport. Point is, you need every emission reduction you can get, and every possible way to change out the fleet to ZEV. BEVs are just one part of a mix that will change over time. FCEVs are an important part, too, and in fact expected to exceed BEVs in the mix. The market and advances in technology will determine how that eventually looks. When I see right now I don't see the 2%, I see the 400% annual growth *rate* of renewables and EV's and the 20% decline of coal, and gasoline imports! I see the 93% instant *average* reduction in carbon emissions for each new EV on the road. Or, for half of us that subscribe to 100% renewable energy, a 100% reduction. Bob, WB4aPR ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts
Peter Eckhoff wrote: Catastrophic failures would be catastrophic. To me, this is it in a nutshell. A gasoline tank explosion would pale in comparison On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Peter Eckhoff via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: AC Propulsion had a Power Point slide where they compared the efficiency of various fuels. Their standard was an EV with the equivalent of 50 MPG. A similar vehicle, powered by hydrogen produced from reformatted natural gas and fed into a fuel cell, was the equivalent of 30 mpg while hydrogen produced by electrolysis was the equivalent of 12 mpg. There a number of technical problems with fuel cells: 1) A fuel cell life expectancy was about 2,000 hours. Since my average driving speed is 30 mpg, I would have to replace my fuel cell every 60K miles. Therefore, a different fuel cell construction technique would have to be used. 2) A pack of battery or electrolytic capacitors or an ICE was needed to aid in acceleration. Therefore, a faster way of transferring the proton through the electrolyte is needed. Think of a proton as a person needed to run through air as opposed through water or molasses. 3) The storage of hydrogen to go 300 miles in a Toyota Camry needed 3 specially carbon wound tanks where the internal pressures reached 700 bar. A bar is 14.7 pounds per square inch. This equates to 5 tons per square inch in a 2 ton vehicle. Catastrophic failures would be catastrophic. The hydrogen, therefore, needs to be stored in a molecular sponge where the hydrogen freely flows in and out of storage without much energy inducements. One real scheme required 800 degree Fahrenheit temperatures to release the hydrogen from storage. Given the number of technical problems that need to be solved, I don't see hydrogen fuel celled vehicles coming into common use anytime soon. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/NEDRA) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/ed8d97fd/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts
Mark, The fact that you shifted from the technical discussion about Hydrogen Fuel Cells into a discussion about person, I conclude that you have no other defense and thus I will leave the issue as it is - unsupported. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 7:51 AM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts On Jun 26, 2014, at 12:09 AM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Mark, I asked you to give background for your absolute statement that an unproven technology is the only solution I did not, and have never said that. I said: It is just not feasible to meet clean air requirements with just battery electrics. And you really think I said unproven technology? If you want to to say I made an absolute statement, you ought to get it at least partially right. You've signed the note as a Chief Scientist. Is that how exacting you do science? and all you offer is a hopelessly hopeful vision paper with possible scenarios, that has no background as to *how* they expect that the magical solution they hope to achieve can do what they promote it to be? Sorry, but the emperor still has no clothes. It really is telling to me when Fuel Cell promoting organisations are pulling out of Hydrogen Fuel Cell promotion, because they have done the math and concluded that there is no future in Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology, since it is an energy sink, besides its obvious problems, it is simple physics that make the Hydrogen Fuel Cell completely unattractive except in a few niche applications such as in space. And maybe in California, as long as the money is flowing into this promising technology... As always - time will tell. We will be left with a few nice EV conversions unless Toyota only leases it... Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info http://www.cvandewater.infom Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 7:21 PM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts Old news. http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/vision/docs/vision_for_clean_air_public_r eview_draft.pdf Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: - this is news to me. Care to elaborate? -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/f29c db4d/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
Careful: Studies have shown that about HALF of EV buyers also have SOLAR or sign up for 100% solar/wind from their utilities. Very interesting and promising statistic. Do you have a cite? Yes. Thanks for making me look it up. Its actually 60% in this study if you include those that would signup if they could: Many PEV owners have solar panels on their roofs. 42% of respondents have solar panels, 18% consider installation, and 40% have no plan to install. This compares to a statewide average for solar of less than 1% of the housing units [20]. From: http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/download_pdf.php?id=1839 SO -never- use the published utility generation mix to derive carbon impact of EV's without dividing it at least in HALF even today to account for the demographics of EV buyers 50% of which use 100% emissions free energy. Bob, Wb4aPR ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
[EVDL] opps
I see my meds are working over time. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/7b0db0b0/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
-- Forwarded message -- From: Monica Arman mar...@my.smccd.edu Date: Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:12 PM Subject: possible car donation for electric conversion Hello, My name is Monica. I am the owner of a 2000 Hyndai Accent Hatchback GS. It has served me for 14 years and more than 176,666 miles. Unfortunately, the vehicle no longer passes smog. Some time ago, I recall listening to a story on NPR about mechanics who love to convert gas cars to electric. I thought I would inquire if your club of mechanics could benefit from acquiring a care like mine. I figured that it would be a shame to junk a car that still runs and just needs a little TLC (tender loving care). Does your group accept donations (i.e. maybe for your next class or workshop)? Please let me know. I need to make a decision this week. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. My phone number is 408 771 6381. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Monica p.s. attached is the print screen of my Condition results for my vehicle. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140625/728b5255/attachment.htm -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Hyndai Condition Check.gif Type: image/gif Size: 71206 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140625/728b5255/attachment.gif ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
We are located in Central Florida, near Orlando. the cost of donating to us and shipping it 2000 miles would be unreasonable. A GREAT Alternative Fueled Vehicle School is located in San Jose, California. perhaps you could contact them... *Dennis Lee Miles * *Director **E.V.T.I. Inc.* *E-Mail:* *evprofes...@evprofessor.com* evprofes...@evprofessor.com *Phone #* *(863) 944-9913* Dade City, Florida 33523 USA On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Monica Arman via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Monica Arman mar...@my.smccd.edu Date: Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:12 PM Subject: possible car donation for electric conversion Hello, My name is Monica. I am the owner of a 2000 Hyndai Accent Hatchback GS. It has served me for 14 years and more than 176,666 miles. Unfortunately, the vehicle no longer passes smog. Some time ago, I recall listening to a story on NPR about mechanics who love to convert gas cars to electric. I thought I would inquire if your club of mechanics could benefit from acquiring a care like mine. I figured that it would be a shame to junk a car that still runs and just needs a little TLC (tender loving care). Does your group accept donations (i.e. maybe for your next class or workshop)? Please let me know. I need to make a decision this week. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. My phone number is 408 771 6381. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Monica p.s. attached is the print screen of my Condition results for my vehicle. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140625/728b5255/attachment.htm -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Hyndai Condition Check.gif Type: image/gif Size: 71206 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140625/728b5255/attachment.gif ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/a5236a6c/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: Driving from Kung-Fu I passed a gas station had an EV moment
from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/5a5b652c/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
BEVs will run on electricity you can make on your rooftop or back yard. Try that with an ICEV or FCV. It can be done (veggie van anyone?), but the cost and complexity can be daunting and it's not for the average guy. The big energy companies like the idea of FCVs because it preserves their effective monopoly (polyopoly?) on supplying motive energy well into the future, even as petroleum production declines. Remember, hydrogen is not really a fuel. You can't pump it out of the ground. You have to make it from some other fuel. Most often that's natural gas (and IIRC the process produces more CO2 than getting an equivalent amount of energy by directly burning the gas). If it's made by electrolysis, the energy still has to come from somewhere. Even if it's a renewable energy source, electrolysis + a fuel cell makes for a painfully inefficient battery. Don't forget that you have to transport the H2 from the production facility to the filling station. The notion that an ICEV's exhaust can be cleaner than its intake is ludicrous on its face. Some ICEVs have managed to reduce EPA-regulated compounds in the exhaust admirably. However, there are many unregulated pollutants in ICEV exhaust. I remember when Detroit hung the first catalytic converters on cars in 1974. There were reported cases in which women wearing nylon stockings and standing behind big idling gas hogs later found holes in their stockings. The EPA didn't set a limit on sulfuric acid vapor. David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to evpost and etpost addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] High Water
If the quality of the insulation is good and the motor is not vented and the bearings are well sealed the electric car's electrical components can survive immersion however, an ICE car's axles and transmission are usually damaged by driving thru water only a foot deep, and the EV has the same problems where water displaces the oil or grease in the bearings and they fail a short time after the water immersion. *Dennis Lee Miles * *Director **E.V.T.I. Inc.* *E-Mail:* *evprofes...@evprofessor.com* evprofes...@evprofessor.com *Phone #* *(863) 944-9913* Dade City, Florida 33523 USA On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Geoff Pullinger via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: I just saw a picture online of what I thought was a Nissan Leaf driving through a flood. It made me think that electric cars could be (or are now) much more water resistant than ICE cars. Especially cars with AC or brushless motors. Is that possible? -- Geoff Pullinger http://www.evalbum.com/2445 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/ attachments/20140626/0558ff7f/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/NEDRA) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/428e6e8b/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] $1.7 Trillion reinvested (emissions free travel forever-corrected)
[corrected! And results are 10 times better!] Remember this solar investment is the upfront cost. From then on, it has paid for free transportation energy for emissions free EV's forever... Lets try this $1.7T divided by $3.30/Watt cost of solar = 500 BWatts of capacity. In Maryland each kW of solar capacity delivers about 1200 kWh of energy per year. So the result is $1.7M generates 600 B kWh per year forever. An average EV drives say 10k mi/yr at 3miles per kWh or 3,000 kWh per car (corrected) But remember this investment buys continuous FREE power from the sun FOREVER (25-to-50 yrs anyway) So the $1.7T investment would power 200 million EV's FOREVER and, we'd be 70% transportation emission free by now. BUT we didn’t. BUT, we ALSO spend over $1B per DAY for foreign oil, that is another 40 million EVs PER YEAR that can be added to the list of continuously powered (forever) emission free transportation from the sun. If we just started NOW investing the $1B per day we spend on foreign oil and spent it on solar for EV's we'd get to the same drive-forever on solar for 70% of our transportation in 5 y ears. Why aren't we doing this? Bob, WB4APR -Original Message- From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Peter Eckhoff via EV Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 7:32 AM To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: [EVDL] $1.7 Trillion reinvested The purported cost of the Iraqi War so far has been $1.7 trillion (1.7 x 10^12).Whether this is war was worth it is **not** up for discussion here. This is strictly an exercise in examining what effect those funds would have had if applied differently. I would appreciate your vetting the thoughts and numbers below. The question is: What if those funds had been used for installing solar panels for recharging a fleet of electric vehicles? What does a “back of the envelope” set of calculations indicate as to whether such an investment would be viable and possibly pursued further? Assume for discussion purposes: 1)Each panel is rated at 250 watts. (Ref: http://www.suncityenergy.com/solarpanelratings/) This is in a common size (+/- a few watts).The rating assumes a standard irradiance of 1,000 whr /m^2. 2)Each panel costs $1250 installed which is $5/watt for a commercially installed panel. Some will self install and some will have a higher commercially installed array. 3)Each panel receives an average of 2 kwhr/m^2/day.This is doable in almost all parts of the lower 48 States and Hawaii in December, the worse month for solar over all.The Puget Sound - Portland (OR) and Alaska areas are the two exceptions.Most areas referenced below are well above 2 kwhr/m^2/day; some with a factor of 3 or greater. (Ref: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas) 4)How far will an electric vehicle go using 1 kwhr of electricity.? ·Pickups can travel roughly 2 to 3 miles. ·Sedans can travel roughly 3 to 5 miles. ·A Tesla Model S with an EPA rated range of 265 miles with a 85 kwhr pack onboard produces a calculated average about 3 miles per kwhr. ·A range of 3 miles per kwhr was used below as an average To derive the amount of mileage that can be driven in a day electrically, the above panels and factors were multiplied together like so: _$1.7 x 10^12 _* _250w panel_ * _1 kw _* 1 hr * _2 kwhr sol m^2/day_ * _3 mi_ $1250 panel10^3w 1 kwhr std m^2/daykwhr This produces a result of 2.04 billion miles. How does this equate to miles driven per day using an equivalent gasoline powered sedan? Assume for discussion purposes: 1)The USA uses 20 million Barrels of Oil Per Day (BOPD).In recent years, this figure has decreased to about 18 million BOPD. 2)Each barrel of oil can be refined to produce 18 gallons of gasoline.This is close to the actual production figure. To derive the amount of average car miles that can be driven in a day using gasoline, the above factors were multiplied together like so: 20 million BOPD * 18 gallons of gasoline/BOPD * 20 Miles/Gallon = 7.2 billion miles/day We drive roughly 7.200 billion miles per day. 21 million BOPD over 7.2 billion miles driven per day produces a rough factor of 3 (x10^-3).If we multiply 2.04 billion electric only miles driven times this factor, we would equate this to using about 6 million BOPD.This is roughly the amount of our oil imports. While a $1.7 trillion dollar investment in solar panels will not be a substitute for all the oil we use, it would likely reduce our energy consumption by 6 million BOPD; enough for us to be ‘energy independent’ with maybe a little conservation added. How long would it take to pay this investment off? If electricity, through net metering, is $1.00 per 10 kwhr and gasoline is $4 per gallon, and a vehicle can be driven the same amount of miles on either 10 kwhr of electricity or 1 gallon of gasoline, the difference is $3.00 which would
Re: [EVDL] $1.7 Trillion reinvested (emissions free travel forever-corrected)
On 06/26/2014 02:02 PM, Robert Bruninga via EV wrote: $1.7T divided by $3.30/Watt cost of solar = 500 BWatts of capacity. Around here, we are getting roof top turn key installations of around 5kw for about $2.25/watt before the income tax credit and without any local incentives. I've heard of DIY panels below $.50/watt. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] gas tax (EV transmission lines, not oil pipelines)
I am not sure you want to have unbroken thousand mile transmission. If for no other reason than it lacks flexibility. Shorter segments allow you to tap some here and raise the level of a lake or respond to a heat wave there. The if you need power somewhere far away the delivery can be like one of those desktop hanging ball toys. On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Robert Bruninga via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: The AC and the DC losses can be equal in the best case but if the AC is degraded then the DC will have less losses than AC. I lectured on AC/DC basics... and worked with it for about 50 years... We may be comparing apples and oranges. Everyone since Tesla and Edison knows that AC wins over DC (for local and regional transmission lines). But the topic was the need for very long distance thousand mile transmission systems for wind energy from the great planes and other wind sources into the national grid. For the last decade, modern DC utility scale electronics have evolved to where for long distances (thousand miles in the air or just 100km or less underground or undersea) it is now more efficient and economical to do DC. Everyone is right as long as we clarify the application. Bob, WB4APR ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) -- Put this question to yourself: should I use everyone else to attain happiness, or should I help others gain happiness? *Dalai Lama * Tell me what it is you plan to do With your one wild and precious life? Mary Oliver, The summer day. To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. Thomas A. Edison http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed125362.html A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought. *Warren Buffet* Michael E. Ross (919) 550-2430 Land (919) 576-0824 https://www.google.com/voice/b/0?pli=1#phones Google Phone (919) 631-1451 Cell (919) 513-0418 Desk michael.e.r...@gmail.com michael.e.r...@gmail.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/4f09a173/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
[EVDL] Gasless on Greenwood Ave 6/28
One of the largest Hot Rod, and Custom Car Shows in the Pacific NW, is held annually on Greenwood Ave in NW Seattle Over 800 cars participate, and it is not uncommon to have a 10,000 spectator count. The Seattle EV Association feels strongly that it may be the most significant meeting between the general public and the EV community in all the West. For the third year in a row, our club is the largest car club in the whole show at 40 electric cars. Here is a partial list: VIA Motors Silverado, Cadillac ELR, Leaf's, Tesla roadsters, and S's, Mitsubishi Mi-EV ( pronounced My EV ), Ford Ranger EV, Custom Honda Del-Sol EV, Custom 85 Corvette Electric, Custom Lotus Elite EV, The Famous White Zombie, Custom 1950 Studibaker Pick Up EV, Custom late model BMW EV, Ford Transit EV, Toyota RAV4 EV by Tesla, Fiat 500e, to name just a few. We will take LOTS of pictures, and Post a LINK to the photo album early next week. -- Steven S Lough President EMERITUS Seattle EV Association 206 524 1351 WEB: www.seattleeva.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/96f15e59/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] $1.7 Trillion reinvested
Big mistake! (I knew something was wrong). US peak in 2012 was 1,000,000MW (not 1000MW). So, total build-out cost would be $7.5T. Ok, that exceeds the challenge. How about just looking at coal? US peak in 2012 (same table) was about 300,000MW. The build-out to replace coal would be: 300,000MW * ($7,500M/1000MW) = 300 * $7,500M = $2,250,000M = $2.25T. That's not so far off the challenge. So we could replace 75% of US coal power plants! Who-hoo! That would pretty much eliminate the pundits' claim that EVs simply displace the CO2 output. Peri -- Original Message -- From: Peri Hartman pe...@kotatko.com To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List ev@lists.evdl.org Sent: 26-Jun-14 8:20:44 AM Subject: Re: [EVDL] $1.7 Trillion reinvested Here's a parallel way to look at it, except with wind generation: According to the US DOE, in table 1: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/pdf/updated_capcost.pdf the cost to build a wind farm is $2213/kW to build + $40/kW-yr to operate. Add to that pumped storage of the same capacity: $5288/kW to build + $14.13/kW-yr to operate and you would have about $7500/kW to build + about $54/kW-yr to operate. $1.7T would build 226,000,000kW or The US used about 1000MW peak during summer of 2012 - see table 4.2.B in http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_02.html To build out with 100% wind, that would cost: wind generation = $7500/kW to build or $7500k / MW to build 1000MW would cost 1000 * $7500k = $7,500,000k = $7,500M = $7.5B That's about 0.4% of the $1.7T. In other words, we could completely replace our existing power generation with zero-carbon production and have plenty of money left over for operations, hyper-quick chargers everywhere, and just about every other government expense conceivable! By the way, you can do the math, but wind is substantially cheaper than building nukes if you include the operating costs of nukes. (ok, now who wants to vet my math? I make lots of mistakes :) Peri -- Original Message -- From: Peter Eckhoff via EV ev@lists.evdl.org To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List ev@lists.evdl.org Sent: 26-Jun-14 4:32:21 AM Subject: [EVDL] $1.7 Trillion reinvested The purported cost of the Iraqi War so far has been $1.7 trillion (1.7 x 10^12).Whether this is war was worth it is **not** up for discussion here. This is strictly an exercise in examining what effect those funds would have had if applied differently. I would appreciate your vetting the thoughts and numbers below. The question is: What if those funds had been used for installing solar panels for recharging a fleet of electric vehicles? What does a “back of the envelope” set of calculations indicate as to whether such an investment would be viable and possibly pursued further? Assume for discussion purposes: 1)Each panel is rated at 250 watts. (Ref: http://www.suncityenergy.com/solarpanelratings/) This is in a common size (+/- a few watts).The rating assumes a standard irradiance of 1,000 whr /m^2. 2)Each panel costs $1250 installed which is $5/watt for a commercially installed panel. Some will self install and some will have a higher commercially installed array. 3)Each panel receives an average of 2 kwhr/m^2/day.This is doable in almost all parts of the lower 48 States and Hawaii in December, the worse month for solar over all.The Puget Sound - Portland (OR) and Alaska areas are the two exceptions.Most areas referenced below are well above 2 kwhr/m^2/day; some with a factor of 3 or greater. (Ref: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas) 4)How far will an electric vehicle go using 1 kwhr of electricity.? ·Pickups can travel roughly 2 to 3 miles. ·Sedans can travel roughly 3 to 5 miles. ·A Tesla Model S with an EPA rated range of 265 miles with a 85 kwhr pack onboard produces a calculated average about 3 miles per kwhr. ·A range of 3 miles per kwhr was used below as an average To derive the amount of mileage that can be driven in a day electrically, the above panels and factors were multiplied together like so: _$1.7 x 10^12 _* _250w panel_ * _1 kw _* 1 hr * _2 kwhr sol m^2/day_ * _3 mi_ $1250 panel10^3w 1 kwhr std m^2/daykwhr This produces a result of 2.04 billion miles. How does this equate to miles driven per day using an equivalent gasoline powered sedan? Assume for discussion purposes: 1)The USA uses 20 million Barrels of Oil Per Day (BOPD).In recent years, this figure has decreased to about 18 million BOPD. 2)Each barrel of oil can be refined to produce 18 gallons of gasoline.This is close to the actual production figure. To derive the amount of average car miles that can be driven in a day using gasoline, the above factors were multiplied together like so: 20 million BOPD * 18 gallons of gasoline/BOPD * 20 Miles/Gallon = 7.2 billion miles/day We drive roughly 7.200 billion miles per day. 21 million BOPD over 7.2 billion miles
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
Thanks. ITS does lots of interesting stuff. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 26, 2014, at 10:24 AM, Robert Bruninga via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Careful: Studies have shown that about HALF of EV buyers also have SOLAR or sign up for 100% solar/wind from their utilities. Very interesting and promising statistic. Do you have a cite? Yes. Thanks for making me look it up. Its actually 60% in this study if you include those that would signup if they could: Many PEV owners have solar panels on their roofs. 42% of respondents have solar panels, 18% consider installation, and 40% have no plan to install. This compares to a statewide average for solar of less than 1% of the housing units [20]. From: http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/download_pdf.php?id=1839 SO -never- use the published utility generation mix to derive carbon impact of EV's without dividing it at least in HALF even today to account for the demographics of EV buyers 50% of which use 100% emissions free energy. Bob, Wb4aPR ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts
No, you made a straw man argument, responding to something I never said. And this wasn't a technical discussion. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 26, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Mark, The fact that you shifted from the technical discussion about Hydrogen Fuel Cells into a discussion about person, I conclude that you have no other defense and thus I will leave the issue as it is - unsupported. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 7:51 AM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts On Jun 26, 2014, at 12:09 AM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Mark, I asked you to give background for your absolute statement that an unproven technology is the only solution I did not, and have never said that. I said: It is just not feasible to meet clean air requirements with just battery electrics. And you really think I said unproven technology? If you want to to say I made an absolute statement, you ought to get it at least partially right. You've signed the note as a Chief Scientist. Is that how exacting you do science? and all you offer is a hopelessly hopeful vision paper with possible scenarios, that has no background as to *how* they expect that the magical solution they hope to achieve can do what they promote it to be? Sorry, but the emperor still has no clothes. It really is telling to me when Fuel Cell promoting organisations are pulling out of Hydrogen Fuel Cell promotion, because they have done the math and concluded that there is no future in Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology, since it is an energy sink, besides its obvious problems, it is simple physics that make the Hydrogen Fuel Cell completely unattractive except in a few niche applications such as in space. And maybe in California, as long as the money is flowing into this promising technology... As always - time will tell. We will be left with a few nice EV conversions unless Toyota only leases it... Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info http://www.cvandewater.infom Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 7:21 PM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts Old news. http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/vision/docs/vision_for_clean_air_public_r eview_draft.pdf Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: - this is news to me. Care to elaborate? -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/f29c db4d/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
On Jun 26, 2014, at 11:37 AM, EVDL Administrator via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: BEVs will run on electricity you can make on your rooftop or back yard. Try that with an ICEV or FCV. It can be done (veggie van anyone?), but the cost and complexity can be daunting and it's not for the average guy. Very true. The big energy companies like the idea of FCVs because it preserves their effective monopoly (polyopoly?) on supplying motive energy well into the future, even as petroleum production declines. Your premise is wrong. The big energy companies do *not* like FCVs. Their response to rules requiring the installation of fueling was along the lines of why should we facilitate our own demise. Remember, hydrogen is not really a fuel. You can't pump it out of the ground. You have to make it from some other fuel. Not necessarily, unless you wish to call water a fuel. Most often that's natural gas (and IIRC the process produces more CO2 than getting an equivalent amount of energy by directly burning the gas). The process produces less than the petroleum we're trying to replace it with. And the tailpipe emissions (the main driver for the regs) are zero. If it's made by electrolysis, the energy still has to come from somewhere. Even if it's a renewable energy source, electrolysis + a fuel cell makes for a painfully inefficient battery. Don't forget that you have to transport the H2 from the production facility to the filling station. The notion that an ICEV's exhaust can be cleaner than its intake is ludicrous on its face. Some ICEVs have managed to reduce EPA-regulated compounds in the exhaust admirably. However, there are many unregulated pollutants in ICEV exhaust. Not so ludicrous, though I didn't say it did. I had a client whose small gas turbine with innovative controls had some emission levels lower at the stack than ambient. I remember when Detroit hung the first catalytic converters on cars in 1974. There were reported cases in which women wearing nylon stockings and standing behind big idling gas hogs later found holes in their stockings. The EPA didn't set a limit on sulfuric acid vapor. David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to evpost and etpost addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
On 26 Jun 2014 at 13:00, Mark Abramowitz via EV wrote: Your premise is wrong. The big energy companies do *not* like FCVs. I suspect that they'd much prefer them to BEVs. Remember, hydrogen is not really a fuel. You can't pump it out of the ground. You have to make it from some other fuel. Not necessarily, unless you wish to call water a fuel. Now cut that out. You know fulll well that water is not a fuel any more than hydrogen is. The fuel is the energy input to the electrolysis, or the natural gas input to the steam reforming. The hydrogen is just an energy carrier, and not a very efficient one at that. Dream on. I don't know why you're so keen on hydrogen (maybe you'd like to tell us about your involvement with it?), but it's a loser. Most often that's natural gas (and IIRC the process produces more CO2 than getting an equivalent amount of energy by directly burning the gas). The process produces less than the petroleum we're trying to replace it with. Citation needed. And the tailpipe emissions (the main driver for the regs) are zero. If the anti-BEV crowd can flog the old canard that BEVs just transfer emissions to powerplant stacks, then they should also note that FCVs transfer emissions to the hydrogen production plants. Do they? David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to evpost and etpost addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
On Jun 26, 2014, at 4:04 PM, EVDL Administrator evp...@drmm.net wrote: On 26 Jun 2014 at 13:00, Mark Abramowitz via EV wrote: Your premise is wrong. The big energy companies do *not* like FCVs. I suspect that they'd much prefer them to BEVs. Remember, hydrogen is not really a fuel. You can't pump it out of the ground. You have to make it from some other fuel. Not necessarily, unless you wish to call water a fuel. Now cut that out. You know fulll well that water is not a fuel any more than hydrogen is. Right. You said that you have to make Hydrogen out of a fuel. The fuel is the energy input to the electrolysis, or the natural gas input to the steam reforming. The hydrogen is just an energy carrier, and not a very efficient one at that. Yes, an energy carrier. I won't argue efficiency with you. Dream on. I don't know why you're so keen on hydrogen (maybe you'd like to tell us about your involvement with it?), but it's a loser. I've always been keen on electric drive vehicles. Whether you're talking BEVs or FCEVs, I don't care. My first involvement (and the first ZEV mandate work) came before H2 was even discussed, so it was all BEVs. H2 came later. They both have pros and cons. Personally, my view is that hybridization of the two will likely be where we end up, with the dominant element changing with technology. My first involvement? Probably just prior to that private citizen lawsuit I mentioned in an earlier post, responding to can't, can't, can't . I was that private person, who also happened to be air quality director for an environmental group. And in still do this for a living, supporting ZEVs of all types as a consultant, as part of a trade association, on boards, etc. all towards cleaning the air. I've been doing this in one form or another for over 30 years. Better hope that H2 is not a loser, because then we are all losers. Most often that's natural gas (and IIRC the process produces more CO2 than getting an equivalent amount of energy by directly burning the gas). The process produces less than the petroleum we're trying to replace it with. Citation needed. And the tailpipe emissions (the main driver for the regs) are zero. If the anti-BEV crowd can flog the old canard that BEVs just transfer emissions to powerplant stacks, then they should also note that FCVs transfer emissions to the hydrogen production plants. Do they? David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to evpost and etpost addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
Yes, an energy carrier. I won't argue efficiency with you. But that is the biggest problem of Hydrogen and the reason that everyone who understands Physics draws the conclusion that there is no future in Hydrogen as fuel because it is worse than just using the source energy (that what is used to generate the Hydrogen in the first place). Converting to Hydrogen is just creating a loss and a headache. (headache of containing and transporting this aggressive element) So, except for a few niches, there is no place for Hydrogen. Of course, in a world void of scientists and filled with people who make vision papers based on someone else's fantasies, there is only one bright future - everything will be converted over to Hydrogen soon. Better hope that H2 is not a loser, because then we are all losers. Hope has never changed the laws of Physics that I am aware of. That is the reason that you get such a push-back on this list, because there are plenty people here who do not have an opinion about Hydrogen (opinions have also not changed Physics) but who *understand* how efficiency work in terms of Physics and therefor they can *calculate* that Hydrogen is a losing proposition. It was a clear red flag when you avoided at all cost to discuss the technical details or Physics, you are now even blatantly saying that you do not want to discuss that topic. Either you *know* that this is the biggest problem of FCV and you prefer to avoid that subject, or you are truly unaware of the hot air balloon that is being passed around and which will cost the Californian taxpaers many millions of dollars without resuting in anything that will actually help to improve clean air. All the more troubling that you, 30 year clean air activist, are pursuing this non-option with so much vigor!!! For the record - I have no vested interest in or outside Hydrogen. I just have a BEV as daily driver and I am passionate about energy efficiency, because the best way to clean up pollution is to avoid creating it in the first place. And my background allows me to understand laws of Physics, which often leads me to clash with opinions that are based on anything but reality. In case I came across as argumentative, please excuse me, I am passionate about these subjects but I am always open to discuss the data and the Physics of possible solutions to evaluate what would be the best possible solution and which one does not fly. I have heard too many fantasies about Hydrogen Fuel Cell that it sometimes gets me on my soapbox. If you do not want to discuss data or Physics of FCV then I will take that you have a reason to hide the truth about Hydrogen's dark side and possibly you have a vested interest - I have seen those. But I have also seen Fuel Cell development councils that cancel the meetings on Hydrogen Fuel Cell, because they saw the light that it was just a hype, misleading governments worldwide to try and generate grants without chance of ever producing an energy efficient solution that would make a business case work. I applaud people who are flexibel and transparent enough to take new input and realize that they must change something, because what they were doing was not good. I, for one, hope that we can avoid strugging through H2 as loser and immediately go for a viable option as future. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 Most often that's natural gas (and IIRC the process produces more CO2 than getting an equivalent amount of energy by directly burning the gas). The process produces less than the petroleum we're trying to replace it with. Citation needed. And the tailpipe emissions (the main driver for the regs) are zero. If the anti-BEV crowd can flog the old canard that BEVs just transfer emissions to powerplant stacks, then they should also note that FCVs transfer emissions to the hydrogen production plants. Do they? David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to evpost and etpost addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
Mark Abramowitz, I finally did what I should have done when I heard you avoid the real topics about Hydrogen: I looked up your profile, because somehow your name sounded familiar from earlier discussions about this topic. You are board member of SCAQMD (Board Consultant to Governor's Appointee, Dr. Joseph K. Lyou) and at the same time you are the president of the California Hydrogen Business Council That clarifies a lot. Their own words: Our members implement and use technology and services that are taking the hydrogen economy into the mainstream.Our goals are to: * Promote growth of the hydrogen business economy * Provide hydrogen business information * Create a forum that facilitates strategic alliances * Encourage customers to adopt hydrogen products in their businesses * Provide access to regulatory bodies * Assist members with education and information Nowhere does it indicate that you should make sure that Hydrogen is a viable solution, you are simply pushing it at any cost and if the future is doomed because Hydrogen is worse than what we have today then that is no concern. Thank you, I have had enough. Can I get off this train? I'm sick. Oh, by the way, just in case you did not get it: David Roden asked you your involvement with this subject. You never mentioned that you are president of the Californian organisation promoting Hydrogen. I call that a lie. I see that you have a BA from UCLA in Ecosystems. So, I take it that you *do* understand Physics and that you were active here on the EVDL to try to gain traction for Hydrogen and cover up your background, hoping that we would not find out why you avoid some subjects and continue to make unsustainable claims. It is clear now, unfortunately that has always been the case in the Hydrogen business model because the Physics do not work out, so the truth must not be known or understood. Unfortunately you met the wrong crowd here. Goodbye. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Cor van de Water via EV Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:21 PM To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions) Yes, an energy carrier. I won't argue efficiency with you. But that is the biggest problem of Hydrogen and the reason that everyone who understands Physics draws the conclusion that there is no future in Hydrogen as fuel because it is worse than just using the source energy (that what is used to generate the Hydrogen in the first place). Converting to Hydrogen is just creating a loss and a headache. (headache of containing and transporting this aggressive element) So, except for a few niches, there is no place for Hydrogen. Of course, in a world void of scientists and filled with people who make vision papers based on someone else's fantasies, there is only one bright future - everything will be converted over to Hydrogen soon. Better hope that H2 is not a loser, because then we are all losers. Hope has never changed the laws of Physics that I am aware of. That is the reason that you get such a push-back on this list, because there are plenty people here who do not have an opinion about Hydrogen (opinions have also not changed Physics) but who *understand* how efficiency work in terms of Physics and therefor they can *calculate* that Hydrogen is a losing proposition. It was a clear red flag when you avoided at all cost to discuss the technical details or Physics, you are now even blatantly saying that you do not want to discuss that topic. Either you *know* that this is the biggest problem of FCV and you prefer to avoid that subject, or you are truly unaware of the hot air balloon that is being passed around and which will cost the Californian taxpaers many millions of dollars without resuting in anything that will actually help to improve clean air. All the more troubling that you, 30 year clean air activist, are pursuing this non-option with so much vigor!!! For the record - I have no vested interest in or outside Hydrogen. I just have a BEV as daily driver and I am passionate about energy efficiency, because the best way to clean up pollution is to avoid creating it in the first place. And my background allows me to understand laws of Physics, which often leads me to clash with opinions that are based on anything but reality. In case I came across as argumentative, please excuse me, I am passionate about these subjects but I am always open to discuss the data and the Physics of possible solutions to evaluate what would be the best possible solution and which one does not fly. I have heard too many fantasies about Hydrogen Fuel Cell that it sometimes gets me on my soapbox. If you do not want to discuss data or Physics of FCV then I will take that you have a reason to
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
On Jun 26, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Yes, an energy carrier. I won't argue efficiency with you. But that is the biggest problem of Hydrogen and the reason that everyone who understands Physics draws the conclusion that there is no future in Hydrogen as fuel because it is worse than just using the source energy (that what is used to generate the Hydrogen in the first place). Converting to Hydrogen is just creating a loss and a headache. (headache of containing and transporting this aggressive element) So, except for a few niches, there is no place for Hydrogen. I will ignore the condescending comments. If you are saying that using natural gas directly in an ICE as opposed to converting it to Hydrogen is a more efficient use, I would tell you that you are missing my point. Of course, in a world void of scientists and filled with people who make vision papers based on someone else's fantasies, there is only one bright future - everything will be converted over to Hydrogen soon. Better hope that H2 is not a loser, because then we are all losers. Hope has never changed the laws of Physics that I am aware of. That is the reason that you get such a push-back on this list, because there are plenty people here who do not have an opinion about Hydrogen (opinions have also not changed Physics) but who *understand* how efficiency work in terms of Physics and therefor they can *calculate* that Hydrogen is a losing proposition. It was a clear red flag when you avoided at all cost to discuss the technical details or Physics, you are now even blatantly saying that you do not want to discuss that topic. Either you *know* that this is the biggest problem of FCV and you prefer to avoid that subject, or you are truly unaware of the hot air balloon that is being passed around and which will cost the Californian taxpaers many millions of dollars without resuting in anything that will actually help to improve clean air. All the more troubling that you, 30 year clean air activist, are pursuing this non-option with so much vigor!!! For the record - I have no vested interest in or outside Hydrogen. I just have a BEV as daily driver and I am passionate about energy efficiency, because the best way to clean up pollution is to avoid creating it in the first place. And my background allows me to understand laws of Physics, which often leads me to clash with opinions that are based on anything but reality. In case I came across as argumentative, please excuse me, I am passionate about these subjects but I am always open to discuss the data and the Physics of possible solutions to evaluate what would be the best possible solution and which one does not fly. I have heard too many fantasies about Hydrogen Fuel Cell that it sometimes gets me on my soapbox. If you do not want to discuss data or Physics of FCV then I will take that you have a reason to hide the truth about Hydrogen's dark side and possibly you have a vested interest - I have seen those. But I have also seen Fuel Cell development councils that cancel the meetings on Hydrogen Fuel Cell, because they saw the light that it was just a hype, misleading governments worldwide to try and generate grants without chance of ever producing an energy efficient solution that would make a business case work. I applaud people who are flexibel and transparent enough to take new input and realize that they must change something, because what they were doing was not good. I, for one, hope that we can avoid strugging through H2 as loser and immediately go for a viable option as future. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 Most often that's natural gas (and IIRC the process produces more CO2 than getting an equivalent amount of energy by directly burning the gas). The process produces less than the petroleum we're trying to replace it with. Citation needed. And the tailpipe emissions (the main driver for the regs) are zero. If the anti-BEV crowd can flog the old canard that BEVs just transfer emissions to powerplant stacks, then they should also note that FCVs transfer emissions to the hydrogen production plants. Do they? David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA EVDL Administrator = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Note: mail sent to evpost and etpost addresses will not reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ . = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
Mark Abramowitz wrote: If you are saying that using natural gas directly in an ICE as opposed to converting it to Hydrogen is a more efficient use, I would tell you that you are missing my point. That is exactly what I am saying and I love to hear your point. In contrast to you, I love discussing data and understanding how the Physics of one solutoin is better than the other. So, please - bring it on! Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
[EVDL] Congratulations, Mr. Van de Water
Cor, As my ancestors from Wales could say JOLLY GOOD SHOW, THAT! The man, Mark Abramowitz, was and is a Hydrogen TROLL These people, attempt to confuse the general population, to further their Secret Agenda. You Tenaciously, Ferreted Out, his true nature and exposed him to us all. We Thank You for the Enlightenment ! *Dennis Lee Miles * -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/69e1ca22/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
Sorry, got interrupted and accidentally sent it. On Jun 26, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Yes, an energy carrier. I won't argue efficiency with you. But that is the biggest problem of Hydrogen and the reason that everyone who understands Physics draws the conclusion that there is no future in Hydrogen as fuel because it is worse than just using the source energy (that what is used to generate the Hydrogen in the first place). Converting to Hydrogen is just creating a loss and a headache. (headache of containing and transporting this aggressive element) So, except for a few niches, there is no place for Hydrogen. I will ignore the condescending comments. If you are saying that using natural gas directly in an ICE as opposed to converting it to Hydrogen is a more efficient use, I would tell you that you are missing my point. I will take the blame for not communicating well enough. The purpose of the ZEV mandate is to transform the fleet to *Zero* emission vehicles. We have public health standards that mandate these reductions. There is no method that I am currently aware of that can directly use natural gas (in an automobile) without combusting the fuel. Right there you have lost the design objective. Emissions are no longer zero. Of course, in a world void of scientists and filled with people who make vision papers based on someone else's fantasies, there is only one bright future - everything will be converted over to Hydrogen soon. I'll ignore the condescending and insulting comments you've just made about the physicists and other scientists working on this. Better hope that H2 is not a loser, because then we are all losers. Hope has never changed the laws of Physics that I am aware of. That is the reason that you get such a push-back on this list, because there are plenty people here who do not have an opinion about Hydrogen (opinions have also not changed Physics) but who *understand* how efficiency work in terms of Physics and therefor they can *calculate* that Hydrogen is a losing proposition. It was a clear red flag when you avoided at all cost to discuss the technical details or Physics, you are now even blatantly saying that you do not want to discuss that topic. Either you *know* that this is the biggest problem of FCV and you prefer to avoid that subject, or you are truly unaware of the hot air balloon that is being passed around and which will cost the Californian taxpaers many millions of dollars without resuting in anything that will actually help to improve clean air. All the more troubling that you, 30 year clean air activist, are pursuing this non-option with so much vigor!!! For the record - I have no vested interest in or outside Hydrogen. I just have a BEV as daily driver and I am passionate about energy efficiency, because the best way to clean up pollution is to avoid creating it in the first place. And my background allows me to understand laws of Physics, which often leads me to clash with opinions that are based on anything but reality. In case I came across as argumentative, please excuse me, I am passionate about these subjects but I am always open to discuss the data and the Physics of possible solutions to evaluate what would be the best possible solution and which one does not fly. I have heard too many fantasies about Hydrogen Fuel Cell that it sometimes gets me on my soapbox. If you do not want to discuss data or Physics of FCV then I will take that you have a reason to hide the truth about Hydrogen's dark side and possibly you have a vested interest - I have seen those. But I have also seen Fuel Cell development councils that cancel the meetings on Hydrogen Fuel Cell, because they saw the light that it was just a hype, misleading governments worldwide to try and generate grants without chance of ever producing an energy efficient solution that would make a business case work. I applaud people who are flexibel and transparent enough to take new input and realize that they must change something, because what they were doing was not good. I, for one, hope that we can avoid strugging through H2 as loser and immediately go for a viable option as future. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 Most often that's natural gas (and IIRC the process produces more CO2 than getting an equivalent amount of energy by directly burning the gas). The process produces less than the petroleum we're trying to replace it with. Citation needed. And the tailpipe emissions (the main driver for the regs) are zero. If the anti-BEV crowd can flog the old canard that BEVs just transfer emissions to powerplant stacks, then they should also note that FCVs transfer emissions to the hydrogen
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
Ah, that clarifies a lot. So, you are saying that the laws that you are helping to craft will mandate zero tail pipe emissions, even if the consequence is that the total energy consumption increases due to the inefficiency of the conversion to Hydrogen? But simply the fact that natural gas combusts with a certain level of pollutants and CO2 while Hydrogen produces only water vapor, allows you to push Hydrogen at any cost, even if the total amount of CO2 increases as a result and the cost of vehicles and infrastructure goes up unnecessarily? That is one reason why I dislike those local suboptimizing laws that allow only a single solution - effectively creating a monopoly. Thanks for clarifying what you are working on and why you are here. I'll see if I can write representatives to warn for the boondoggle that you are helping to create. I suggest others with representatives in California do the same. Promoting the use of natural gas in cars (which is normal in many countries) would be a worthy clean air goal, reducing the pollutants and the CO2 but the use of Hydrogen as intermediate storage is going to make everyone's life difficult for a while, until we truly see that the emperor has no clothes on. I am afraid that I can't wish you success. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 6:14 PM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions) Sorry, got interrupted and accidentally sent it. On Jun 26, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Yes, an energy carrier. I won't argue efficiency with you. But that is the biggest problem of Hydrogen and the reason that everyone who understands Physics draws the conclusion that there is no future in Hydrogen as fuel because it is worse than just using the source energy (that what is used to generate the Hydrogen in the first place). Converting to Hydrogen is just creating a loss and a headache. (headache of containing and transporting this aggressive element) So, except for a few niches, there is no place for Hydrogen. I will ignore the condescending comments. If you are saying that using natural gas directly in an ICE as opposed to converting it to Hydrogen is a more efficient use, I would tell you that you are missing my point. I will take the blame for not communicating well enough. The purpose of the ZEV mandate is to transform the fleet to *Zero* emission vehicles. We have public health standards that mandate these reductions. There is no method that I am currently aware of that can directly use natural gas (in an automobile) without combusting the fuel. Right there you have lost the design objective. Emissions are no longer zero. Of course, in a world void of scientists and filled with people who make vision papers based on someone else's fantasies, there is only one bright future - everything will be converted over to Hydrogen soon. I'll ignore the condescending and insulting comments you've just made about the physicists and other scientists working on this. Better hope that H2 is not a loser, because then we are all losers. Hope has never changed the laws of Physics that I am aware of. That is the reason that you get such a push-back on this list, because there are plenty people here who do not have an opinion about Hydrogen (opinions have also not changed Physics) but who *understand* how efficiency work in terms of Physics and therefor they can *calculate* that Hydrogen is a losing proposition. It was a clear red flag when you avoided at all cost to discuss the technical details or Physics, you are now even blatantly saying that you do not want to discuss that topic. Either you *know* that this is the biggest problem of FCV and you prefer to avoid that subject, or you are truly unaware of the hot air balloon that is being passed around and which will cost the Californian taxpaers many millions of dollars without resuting in anything that will actually help to improve clean air. All the more troubling that you, 30 year clean air activist, are pursuing this non-option with so much vigor!!! For the record - I have no vested interest in or outside Hydrogen. I just have a BEV as daily driver and I am passionate about energy efficiency, because the best way to clean up pollution is to avoid creating it in the first place. And my background allows me to understand laws of Physics, which often leads me to clash with opinions that are based on anything but reality. In case I came across as argumentative, please excuse me, I am passionate about these subjects but I am always open to discuss the data and the Physics of possible solutions to evaluate
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
BTW, I *did* read that old news that you posted some time back. That vision paper for California clearly states that all types of low and zero emissions solutions are needed. So, the only reason that you are focusing and pushing the ZEV mandate can mean that you do not care about the best solution for California, but you are after your own business interest. Nothing wrong with the businens interest, only that it directly conflicts with some statements about objectives that you claim you have. Unnecessarily increasing CO2 generation does not give me the idea that you are after Clean Air, since CO2 is a pollutant and has strong consequences that we are already starting to suffer from in every increasing levels. Since the California visoin includes low emission vehicles, a natural gas powered car would be a very good fit in that vision and a Hybrid electric-natural gas would be even better. The only reason that *you* are now the one claiming can't, can't, can't satisfy the regulations is because you are now helping to create a ZEV mandate that causes this blockade. I fear that in turn, you now must face a lawsuit to change your course of action since you have now become the new obstruction. I hope you consider this well and occasionally look in the mirror to see if you can still see yourself in the eye and tell that you are doing what is best for the environment. I am afraid that I already know the answer. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: Mark Abramowitz [mailto:ma...@enviropolicy.com] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 6:14 PM To: Cor van de Water; Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions) Sorry, got interrupted and accidentally sent it. On Jun 26, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Yes, an energy carrier. I won't argue efficiency with you. But that is the biggest problem of Hydrogen and the reason that everyone who understands Physics draws the conclusion that there is no future in Hydrogen as fuel because it is worse than just using the source energy (that what is used to generate the Hydrogen in the first place). Converting to Hydrogen is just creating a loss and a headache. (headache of containing and transporting this aggressive element) So, except for a few niches, there is no place for Hydrogen. I will ignore the condescending comments. If you are saying that using natural gas directly in an ICE as opposed to converting it to Hydrogen is a more efficient use, I would tell you that you are missing my point. I will take the blame for not communicating well enough. The purpose of the ZEV mandate is to transform the fleet to *Zero* emission vehicles. We have public health standards that mandate these reductions. There is no method that I am currently aware of that can directly use natural gas (in an automobile) without combusting the fuel. Right there you have lost the design objective. Emissions are no longer zero. Of course, in a world void of scientists and filled with people who make vision papers based on someone else's fantasies, there is only one bright future - everything will be converted over to Hydrogen soon. I'll ignore the condescending and insulting comments you've just made about the physicists and other scientists working on this. Better hope that H2 is not a loser, because then we are all losers. Hope has never changed the laws of Physics that I am aware of. That is the reason that you get such a push-back on this list, because there are plenty people here who do not have an opinion about Hydrogen (opinions have also not changed Physics) but who *understand* how efficiency work in terms of Physics and therefor they can *calculate* that Hydrogen is a losing proposition. It was a clear red flag when you avoided at all cost to discuss the technical details or Physics, you are now even blatantly saying that you do not want to discuss that topic. Either you *know* that this is the biggest problem of FCV and you prefer to avoid that subject, or you are truly unaware of the hot air balloon that is being passed around and which will cost the Californian taxpaers many millions of dollars without resuting in anything that will actually help to improve clean air. All the more troubling that you, 30 year clean air activist, are pursuing this non-option with so much vigor!!! For the record - I have no vested interest in or outside Hydrogen. I just have a BEV as daily driver and I am passionate about energy efficiency, because the best way to clean up pollution is to avoid creating it in the first place. And my background allows me to understand laws of Physics, which often leads me to clash with opinions that are based on anything but reality. In case I came across as
Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions)
On Jun 26, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Cor van de Water via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Mark Abramowitz, I finally did what I should have done when I heard you avoid the real topics about Hydrogen: I looked up your profile, because somehow your name sounded familiar from earlier discussions about this topic. You are board member of SCAQMD (Board Consultant to Governor's Appointee, Dr. Joseph K. Lyou) and at the same time you are the president of the California Hydrogen Business Council No, I am not a board member of the SCAQMD, though I am a former member and chairman of their Hearing Board. And yes, I've already posted on this list that I am Board president of the CHBC, though I am a volunteer. That clarifies a lot. Their own words: Our members implement and use technology and services that are taking the hydrogen economy into the mainstream.Our goals are to: * Promote growth of the hydrogen business economy * Provide hydrogen business information * Create a forum that facilitates strategic alliances * Encourage customers to adopt hydrogen products in their businesses * Provide access to regulatory bodies * Assist members with education and information I didn't write them, but those seem to be typical goals of an association. Nowhere does it indicate that you should make sure that Hydrogen is a viable solution, you are simply pushing it at any cost and if the future is doomed because Hydrogen is worse than what we have today then that is no concern. Check the EV associations. Or any others. You'll not find that there either. It would be pretty silly, particularly since it is a viable solution, and many are betting their livelihood on their judgement that it is. By the way, I am and have been part of pro-BEV groups, and have pushed for that technology, too (not to mention donating hard earned dollars to pro-EV groups. Have you?). But you left that out, as well as the fact that I make recommendations to spend millions on BEVs and BEV technology development. Feeling silly? Thank you, I have had enough. Can I get off this train? I'm sick. Oh, by the way, just in case you did not get it: David Roden asked you your involvement with this subject. You never mentioned that you are president of the Californian organisation promoting Hydrogen. I call that a lie. Fine, call me a liar, even though I did - at least twice, recently on this list. But I'll bet you'll feel better if you say the word physics three times while clicking your heels. Sheesh! I see that you have a BA from UCLA in Ecosystems. So, I take it that you *do* understand Physics and that you were active here on the EVDL to try to gain traction for Hydrogen and cover up your background, hoping that we would not find out why you avoid some subjects and continue to make unsustainable claims. It is clear now, unfortunately that has always been the case in the Hydrogen business model because the Physics do not work out, so the truth must not be known or understood. Unfortunately you met the wrong crowd here. Goodbye. Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.com Private: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water Tel: +1 408 383 7626 -Original Message- From: EV [mailto:ev-boun...@lists.evdl.org] On Behalf Of Cor van de Water via EV Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:21 PM To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen/EV thoughts (EV emissions) Yes, an energy carrier. I won't argue efficiency with you. But that is the biggest problem of Hydrogen and the reason that everyone who understands Physics draws the conclusion that there is no future in Hydrogen as fuel because it is worse than just using the source energy (that what is used to generate the Hydrogen in the first place). Converting to Hydrogen is just creating a loss and a headache. (headache of containing and transporting this aggressive element) So, except for a few niches, there is no place for Hydrogen. Of course, in a world void of scientists and filled with people who make vision papers based on someone else's fantasies, there is only one bright future - everything will be converted over to Hydrogen soon. Better hope that H2 is not a loser, because then we are all losers. Hope has never changed the laws of Physics that I am aware of. That is the reason that you get such a push-back on this list, because there are plenty people here who do not have an opinion about Hydrogen (opinions have also not changed Physics) but who *understand* how efficiency work in terms of Physics and therefor they can *calculate* that Hydrogen is a losing proposition. It was a clear red flag when you avoided at all cost to discuss the technical details or Physics, you are now even blatantly saying that you do not want to discuss that topic. Either you *know* that this is the biggest problem of FCV
Re: [EVDL] Congratulations, Mr. Van de Water
Troll? Hardly. I support both BEVs and FCEVs. This little food fight you imagine is a food fight of one. We need many technologies to solve some problems. If you're a hobbyist just interested in BEVs or that's your livelihood? Fine. But as long as you're enjoying yourself Sent from my iPhone On Jun 26, 2014, at 6:11 PM, Dennis Miles via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Cor, As my ancestors from Wales could say JOLLY GOOD SHOW, THAT! The man, Mark Abramowitz, was and is a Hydrogen TROLL These people, attempt to confuse the general population, to further their Secret Agenda. You Tenaciously, Ferreted Out, his true nature and exposed him to us all. We Thank You for the Enlightenment ! *Dennis Lee Miles * -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20140626/69e1ca22/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
