Comments on: “The car of the perpetual future” — The Economist agrees with Climate Progress on hydrogen http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:48:27 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: shop http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-27351 shop Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:29:52 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-27351 Charging stations aren’t likely something that we’re going to see along highways. They’re more likely to be found at retail places where businesses will see a profit opportunity from a charging surcharge and the ability to create some foot traffic while the car is charging. Charging stations aren’t likely something that we’re going to see along highways. They’re more likely to be found at retail places where businesses will see a profit opportunity from a charging surcharge and the ability to create some foot traffic while the car is charging.

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19130 Earl Killian Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:41:10 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19130 Of course, if SF to LA gets high-speed rail, my example above would be rather obsolete. (California voters will decide in November.) I am rather envious of what Spain is doing after reading http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/rail/ Madrid–Barcelona in 2.5h today, 2h after the 2010 upgrade. 10,000 kilometers of high-speed track by 2020. Nice. Of course, if SF to LA gets high-speed rail, my example above would be rather obsolete. (California voters will decide in November.) I am rather envious of what Spain is doing after reading http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/rail/
Madrid–Barcelona in 2.5h today, 2h after the 2010 upgrade. 10,000 kilometers of high-speed track by 2020. Nice.

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19129 Earl Killian Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:33:32 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19129 Bob, we need to separate the analysis into PHEVs, low-range BEVs, and high-range BEVs. The highways are pretty much the only place one needs charging for high-range BEVs, since they have the range to handle anything except inter-city driving (e.g. SF to LA). With 10-minute recharge, and 150-mile range, one would probably recharge three times along the way from SF to LA, at 100 miles, at 200 miles, and 300 miles, and arrive in LA with 68 miles of range for around town (you would then get a conventional overnight charge at your destination). There would presumably be plenty of businesses at these three points, vying for your dollars while you got your 10-minute charge. Assuming you travel at 65 MPH, the total trip time is 6.4 hours, vs. 5.9 hours if you drove straight without stopping in a gasser. Most people would stop once in a gasser. PHEVs are different. There are people who might like the fuel cost of a PHEV but today park on the street. They are the sort of folks that Coulomb Tech is targeting. They think lightpoles are a particularly smart charging location, because they already have conduit and electrical wiring running to them (though the wiring might need upgrading). Bob, we need to separate the analysis into PHEVs, low-range BEVs, and high-range BEVs. The highways are pretty much the only place one needs charging for high-range BEVs, since they have the range to handle anything except inter-city driving (e.g. SF to LA). With 10-minute recharge, and 150-mile range, one would probably recharge three times along the way from SF to LA, at 100 miles, at 200 miles, and 300 miles, and arrive in LA with 68 miles of range for around town (you would then get a conventional overnight charge at your destination). There would presumably be plenty of businesses at these three points, vying for your dollars while you got your 10-minute charge. Assuming you travel at 65 MPH, the total trip time is 6.4 hours, vs. 5.9 hours if you drove straight without stopping in a gasser. Most people would stop once in a gasser.

PHEVs are different. There are people who might like the fuel cost of a PHEV but today park on the street. They are the sort of folks that Coulomb Tech is targeting. They think lightpoles are a particularly smart charging location, because they already have conduit and electrical wiring running to them (though the wiring might need upgrading).

]]> By: Bob Wallace http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19126 Bob Wallace Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:18:04 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19126 Charging stations - a steel pipe, a big three conductor wire, an outlet, some controlling electronics - are not big capital investments, don't require appreciable real estate, and aren't rocket science to install. It's not going to take much to rip a ditch down one lane of parking spaces and install a string of charging stations. Charging stations aren't likely something that we're going to see along highways. They're more likely to be found at retail places where businesses will see a profit opportunity from a charging surcharge and the ability to create some foot traffic while the car is charging. Remember that lots of gas stations make little money from selling gas. Having pumps is a way to get people into their convenience store. I see PHEVs as what most of us are going to drive for a while. But not for 20 years. Bring the price of batteries down so that we can afford a 100 mile or more range and the rush will be on. Charging stations – a steel pipe, a big three conductor wire, an outlet, some controlling electronics – are not big capital investments, don’t require appreciable real estate, and aren’t rocket science to install.

It’s not going to take much to rip a ditch down one lane of parking spaces and install a string of charging stations.

Charging stations aren’t likely something that we’re going to see along highways. They’re more likely to be found at retail places where businesses will see a profit opportunity from a charging surcharge and the ability to create some foot traffic while the car is charging.

Remember that lots of gas stations make little money from selling gas. Having pumps is a way to get people into their convenience store.

I see PHEVs as what most of us are going to drive for a while. But not for 20 years. Bring the price of batteries down so that we can afford a 100 mile or more range and the rush will be on.

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19123 Earl Killian Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:00:33 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19123 red, thank you for the mini-review of Energy Victory. It was helpful. On Ronald and Bob's comments, let me add the following: FWIW, until we have fast charging stations, I see PHEVs being the primary plug-in vehicles, and BEVs sometimes being the second vehicle in a 2-vehicle family. It may be that in 20 years, instead of manual vs. automatic being the primary choice when you buy a new car, that PHEV vs. BEV is the question you get asked. I mentioned range-extending trailers because some might prefer that middle ground. I agree they are not for everyone. When fast charging is available on highways (and mind you this won't be at home--it typically requires a 480V, 3-phase, 400-500A utility feed), we should see some PHEV sales convert to BEV sales. In case folks aren't aware, fast charging equipment is being produced and sold today, but it is primarily targeted at the warehouse market (electric forklifts). See http://www.posicharge.com/ for more information. red, thank you for the mini-review of Energy Victory. It was helpful.

On Ronald and Bob’s comments, let me add the following:

FWIW, until we have fast charging stations, I see PHEVs being the primary plug-in vehicles, and BEVs sometimes being the second vehicle in a 2-vehicle family. It may be that in 20 years, instead of manual vs. automatic being the primary choice when you buy a new car, that PHEV vs. BEV is the question you get asked. I mentioned range-extending trailers because some might prefer that middle ground. I agree they are not for everyone.

When fast charging is available on highways (and mind you this won’t be at home–it typically requires a 480V, 3-phase, 400-500A utility feed), we should see some PHEV sales convert to BEV sales.

In case folks aren’t aware, fast charging equipment is being produced and sold today, but it is primarily targeted at the warehouse market (electric forklifts). See http://www.posicharge.com/ for more information.

]]> By: Ronald http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19111 Ronald Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:53:22 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19111 Bob, You make good points. I'm sure these aren't things that haven't been asked already. I'm sure we will find a mix of full hybrids, PHEV's and BEV's and have to go thru these discussions again in the future. I suppose where I would work might also have a few of these like it has other vehicles for use. (but for company business) Or it would be easy enough to just steal one of these Gen-set trailors. (kidding, kindof) Bob,

You make good points. I’m sure these aren’t things that haven’t been asked already. I’m sure we will find a mix of full hybrids, PHEV’s and BEV’s and have to go thru these discussions again in the future.

I suppose where I would work might also have a few of these like it has other vehicles for use. (but for company business) Or it would be easy enough to just steal one of these Gen-set trailors. (kidding, kindof)

]]> By: Bob Wallace http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19097 Bob Wallace Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:26:37 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19097 Ronald - how often do those unusual desires to drive long distances really happen? Once a week, month, year? Don't you think that most people would rent a genset trailer at the edge of the city rather than own one full time? Are we going to see lots of dead BEVs along the road? I sort of doubt it. I think it's very likely that we'll have computers in our BEVs that tell us that we're low and give us the direction to the nearest available charge point. Ronald – how often do those unusual desires to drive long distances really happen? Once a week, month, year?

Don’t you think that most people would rent a genset trailer at the edge of the city rather than own one full time?

Are we going to see lots of dead BEVs along the road? I sort of doubt it. I think it’s very likely that we’ll have computers in our BEVs that tell us that we’re low and give us the direction to the nearest available charge point.

]]> By: red http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19093 red Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:21:03 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19093 Earl: I agree that there are a number of problems with Zubrin's book. There are more things in it that I'm sure you wouldn't agree with. He's mainly going after energy independence, specifically independence from OPEC oil. That's a great goal as far as I'm concerned. However, he downplays climate change as a problem to be dealt with later, which I suppose if you accept his argument enhances the focus on flex-fuel vehicles, but which I think is an issue he didn't even need to get into. It's not as if we can't take what he describes as a decisive step towards not needing OPEC oil while at the same time taking other steps to tackle climate change, or complimentary steps to get rid of oil for that matter. He does point out that methanol can be derived from coal, and that's his clincher if there was any doubt that we can't get a huge amount of the liquid fuel we need now from alcohol fuels. However, he does point out the polluting effects of coal -- he'd go for it before OPEC oil which he's totally against, but not as a first choice. His preference (in addition to ethanol from various sources) is methanol produced from biomass of all sorts, waste, and natural gas that in many cases is currently flared. In part he likes these for their environmental benefit compare to coal. He also likes the idea of methanol-inspired 'fuel agriculture" helping us take back areas that have been claimed by desertification, and generally promoting agriculture (which would presumably lead to better global lifestyles and thus lower global population growth). (He doesn't mention the opposite possibility - agriculture taking down rain forests and so on). All in all it's a mixture that's sure to please at times and infuriate at others, no matter where you stand on these issues. Anyway, he really does a job on what he calls the "Hydrogen Hoax". Earl: I agree that there are a number of problems with Zubrin’s book. There are more things in it that I’m sure you wouldn’t agree with. He’s mainly going after energy independence, specifically independence from OPEC oil. That’s a great goal as far as I’m concerned. However, he downplays climate change as a problem to be dealt with later, which I suppose if you accept his argument enhances the focus on flex-fuel vehicles, but which I think is an issue he didn’t even need to get into. It’s not as if we can’t take what he describes as a decisive step towards not needing OPEC oil while at the same time taking other steps to tackle climate change, or complimentary steps to get rid of oil for that matter.

He does point out that methanol can be derived from coal, and that’s his clincher if there was any doubt that we can’t get a huge amount of the liquid fuel we need now from alcohol fuels. However, he does point out the polluting effects of coal — he’d go for it before OPEC oil which he’s totally against, but not as a first choice. His preference (in addition to ethanol from various sources) is methanol produced from biomass of all sorts, waste, and natural gas that in many cases is currently flared. In part he likes these for their environmental benefit compare to coal. He also likes the idea of methanol-inspired ‘fuel agriculture” helping us take back areas that have been claimed by desertification, and generally promoting agriculture (which would presumably lead to better global lifestyles and thus lower global population growth). (He doesn’t mention the opposite possibility – agriculture taking down rain forests and so on).

All in all it’s a mixture that’s sure to please at times and infuriate at others, no matter where you stand on these issues.

Anyway, he really does a job on what he calls the “Hydrogen Hoax”.

]]> By: Ronald http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19092 Ronald Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:29:21 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19092 Earl, You say you don't need the engine stuff, but you do for the full functioning vehicle which the trailer gives you. If I drive to work, am I going to be marooned there if my plans change 1)airport instead of home 2)sick relative 100 or more miles away 3) want to go downtown to the new restaurant; all of which happened to me. Do I have to go home to get the trailer/genset first. Are we going to see a bunch of BEV vehicles on the side of the road from people thinking they could make it? My first thought criticism of the GM volt is that it's over propulsioned. What I read is a person can drive on only batteries for 40 miles then on only 2.2 liter engine for the rest of the trip and it cost 35 thousand. I think initial cost could be lowered by putting in 20 mile batteries and have the engine 1.1 liter and start running engine sooner in the trip. That might also reduce battery charge cycles. Lower initial cost would go a long way in how many would sell, even with lower fuel costs. My living in a northern colder state makes me want heat from the engine, even though as I understand it heat can come from an electricity driven heat pump. putting the engine on the trailer means that excess heat is wasted unless you can get the waste heat from trailer to vehicle. (not very gracefully I'm sure) Earl,

You say you don’t need the engine stuff, but you do for the full functioning vehicle which the trailer gives you. If I drive to work, am I going to be marooned there if my plans change 1)airport instead of home 2)sick relative 100 or more miles away 3) want to go downtown to the new restaurant; all of which happened to me. Do I have to go home to get the trailer/genset first. Are we going to see a bunch of BEV vehicles on the side of the road from people thinking they could make it?

My first thought criticism of the GM volt is that it’s over propulsioned. What I read is a person can drive on only batteries for 40 miles then on only 2.2 liter engine for the rest of the trip and it cost 35 thousand.

I think initial cost could be lowered by putting in 20 mile batteries and have the engine 1.1 liter and start running engine sooner in the trip. That might also reduce battery charge cycles. Lower initial cost would go a long way in how many would sell, even with lower fuel costs.

My living in a northern colder state makes me want heat from the engine, even though as I understand it heat can come from an electricity driven heat pump. putting the engine on the trailer means that excess heat is wasted unless you can get the waste heat from trailer to vehicle. (not very gracefully I’m sure)

]]> By: Bob Wallace http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19091 Bob Wallace Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:49:15 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/12/the-car-of-the-perpetual-future-the-economist-agrees-with-climate-progress-on-hydrogen/#comment-19091 And the Tesla has received its new transmission which boosts its range to closer to 240 miles per charge. Drive 4-5 hours, stop for lunch. I'll bet Burger King, McDonalds, and other fast food chains are early installers of charge posts. Earn a buck from hook up fee and sell some food. And the Tesla has received its new transmission which boosts its range to closer to 240 miles per charge.

Drive 4-5 hours, stop for lunch.

I’ll bet Burger King, McDonalds, and other fast food chains are early installers of charge posts. Earn a buck from hook up fee and sell some food.

]]>