|
Seven blogs I meant to do
Sunday | June 14, 2009
June
12 2009:
Here
is my list of blogs that I haven’t been able to get to:
Blog 1:
Why
Environmentalism?
This is perhaps the most overdue topic.
I don't have solar panels or support EVs or engage in analysis of alternative
energy organizations because of some generic broad desire to “help out
people” or “make the world a better place”. It is as though there is a
standard set of bland altruistic motives that are projected upon advocates of
better practices and technologies, and this act of projection I think in some
ways gets in the way of progress itself.
I engage in advocacy of better energy policy, protection of inventors’ rights
and consideration of their inventions for reasons including:
-
US Energy Policy, particularly as it relates to US Foreign Policy, is,
and has been for several decades, an enormously destructive sham, a grotesque
absurdity, and has been totally unworthy of many of the citizens who have
been paying for it to be formulated.
-
I’d like to see improvement in protection of the rights of the
creative inventors who come up with better transportation and energy devices.
At present, those rights are not adequately protected.
-
I love efficiency. I’m not sure why, but I do.
-
Global Warming appears to be a life-and-death issue, or there is at
least sufficient possibility that it might be life-and-death so that the
precautionary principle indicates action is warranted to forestall global
warming.
-
The folks who often seem to sneer at consumer rights, alternative
energy technologies and businesses often do so under the pretext that “if the
market wanted such products, then they would exist and be doing well”.
In my view, the markets have for some time now been unhealthy,
weighed down in part by corporations hawking old, dirty, inefficient energy
technology. The problem has been in part not just that the markets,
left to their own devices, have given us the answers they have given us, but
that rights, procedures and principles of free markets have not been fully
enforced. For example, consumers are not always treated properly in
their contracts with large organizations. For another example,
environmental (property) damages resulting from use of some products
are not reflected in the price of those products… property rights are not
fully enforced, and when this happens damaging products can thrive where
less-damaging products are not able to shine in price and effectiveness.
There
are other good reasons to discuss energy policies and businesses and
technologies, but I guess the main point here was to articulate that it gets
enervating always to hear some versions of “so you’re interested in doing
what’s good for the environment” or some such. I’m just never sure how
to respond to that. I think that many of us who are inspired to immerse
ourselves in some aspect of the world of EVs and solar energy and related are
not exactly driven by this bland formulation.
Blog
2:
Auto Industry Chaos, Billy Durant, 100 years
As we have watched GM on its descent, it seems that the auto industry has
returned (in a way) to its earliest days. In the late 19th and
early 20th century we saw fervent competition. From what
little I understand, there were dozens of car companies competing for our
dollars in a nascent industry. GM, I guess, was in a way formed as a
response to this competitive chaos (with Billy Durant famously having that
vision of consolidating many companies into one?)
It
would be interesting to hear from a capable auto industry academic It
might make for a decent EVWorld.com article, I suppose, if someone wanted to
distill their knowledge of 100-years-ago Auto-industry so as to give readers
perspective? Are there parallels to the present situation?
Important differences? Can many small companies rise from the
ashes? Must the results be another round of global consolidation?
Have US
efforts fallen behind? Isn’t this a good thing, in a sense, if one is a
fan of global competition and better technology, in general?
The
commitment of Detroit
to old technology has hurt them. Will new technology bring a new race toward
transportation innovation worthy of the hairy-scary days of the early auto industry?
If we do nothing to improve protection of the rights of innovative engineers
in the US,
how can we expect them to help us move toward a renewed vehicle-making
industry?
One of the reasons that many of us have thought there was something wrong over
the last 20 years has not so much been that our favorite technology did not
win (if we even had a favorite) but that real competition seemed to be
somewhat stultified. Are we now seeing a renaissance of competition?
Blog 3:
Continuing discussion of Global Transportation Safety and
preventable deaths
Intense competition amongst many smaller companies seems to have been a
hallmark of the early auto industry. So too, there seems to have been a
lack of safety. I don’t know enough about the history of this other
than to blurt out that I’m hoping we can, finally, start to get a handle on
the terrible lack of safety that (I think) was a distinct problem of the
early auto industry.
As I blogged
last month, there are more than 1,000,000 traffic deaths per year, on
Earth. These are largely preventable deaths since there is much room
for further safety improvements of transportation systems, vehicles, and our
use of them. The topic of transportation safety is, in my view, ripe
for more coverage by auto journalists, finance industry journalists covering
the insurance and transportation industries, internet entrepeneurs
seeking web-page topics, and by others.
I think that one overall cause of accidents in some transportation systems is
the introduction of comparatively modern technology (the car) into
comparatively established older-technology systems. This isn’t just a
matter of recent introduction of vehicles in emerging societies and
developing markets. This also describes the introduction of the
automobile into late-19th- Eartly-20th- century US
Society. Did cars (and relatively inexperienced drivers and perhaps
under-developed laws?) mix well on roads shared with horse-drawn carriages, pededstrians and trains which
were in many cases there first?
It
isn’t that any given developing-world country can’t be brought into a modern
transportation era, with motorized vehicles and rail and all the fixings.
It is that it perhaps cannot be done suddenly and in an unplanned way
without “a lot” of preventable deaths. I’m not quite sure how to put a
number on “a lot”. So, as we address the topic of transportation
safety, I guess a subset of that topic is how to address transportation
safety in developing nations that have such a broad mixture of transportation
methods and customs and technologies.
Blog
4: GP
(Gold Peak) Batteries emerges as another
Battery-Maker going into ownership of vehicle production
Along
with BYD, this is at least the second time that we have seen an established
and credible battery-maker move to get involved in the vehicle production
business. Both happen to be China-based (or at least based in Hong Kong
or Singapore).
I am thinking there could have been other instances involving battery-makers
moving into making lower-weight vehicles (basically: 2-wheelers), but the
examples of GP and BYD involve heavier vehicles (basically: 4 wheelers).
GP
not only has a stake in Vectrix, for whom they make NiMH batteries (and said
they were to make Lithium Ion Batteries), but also has a stake in Prius PHEV modifier PICC.
GP not only has a grandfathered right to make NIMH traction batteries
suitable for highway-capable plug-in vehicles, that ECD can’t seem to stop,
but they have their alliance with Nickel
industry company Hunan Corun New Energy to make batteries suitable for EVs
and have also indicated that they are seeking to make Lithium Ion batteries
for EVs. So, they seem to have a lot of bases covered.
Hunan
Corun in theory is limited from making Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries for
full-power EVs by this
typical OBC/ECD/Chevron restrictive agreement from 2006 (if I have the
right company, and if they didn’t make any other agreements), but I
hypothesize that maybe the alliance with GP was struck in part because GP is
not so restricted. GP, for example, been
making the 30 amp-hour NIMH battery for the Vectrix.
Yes,
Vectrix is on the brink of bankruptcy if they do not score some
funding. The stock has been suspended for some time now.
I
am not making any investment comment, one way or the other, as to GP, BYD,
Vectrix or any other compan.
What I am saying is that this is a somewhat recent and noteworthy
trend… battery makers, outside the control and purview of the US Oil companies
and others… going into the vehicle business whether anyone likes it or not.
This
is very good to see, in my view.
I
disclaim an interest in the fortunes of BYD.
Blog
5: I
Am In Favor Of Higher Fossil Fuel Taxes
I
have done a bit to try to understand exactly what legislators and the White
House are going for with the latest Waxman-Markey legislation, but if the
gist of some of it is to find a way to move us to a lower-carbon affordable
solution, couldn’t we just get to the point and have higher taxes on gasoline
and diesel transportation fuels? Isn’t that the best and most direct
and most principled way to address:
- The
property-damage and health-damage costs (including damage resulting from
global warming) of burning non-renewably-derived hydrocarbons?
- The national security ramifications of
shipping money overseas for oil?
- The national economic ramifications of
blindly sending Roman-Empire-Sized wealth out of the country to buy energy?
When
we had higher oil prices last year, it provided a long-overdue boost to the
nascent EV business, and the recent comparative decline of oil prices has
momentarily hurt demand for EVs. How about a price floor on gasoline
and diesel, via a tax mechanism so that we can get more steadily on-track toward
alternatives to oil? If taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill on
subsidizing various types of vehicles, perhaps it would be helpful if we were
certain there will be comparative demand for those vehicles?
If
higher oil prices helped spur demand for vehicles that used oil-alternatives,
then so too I think higher coal and natural gas prices would help spur demand
for alternatives to those power plant fuels, such as solar and wind energy.
It
can be counter-argued that while price floors for damaging fossil fuels might
have been a good idea in the past, in the present economy they might be
simply too much. I think there is some merit to that argument,
considering the fragility of the economy, but it should I think these
concerns should be weighed against the urgency of addressing global warming,
national security concerns and the issue of costs to the economy if we don’t
move away from the damages being caused by non-renewably-derived
hydrocarbons.
Blog
6: The
silence of the lamb finance journalists and policy-makers
Or (Alternative Title #1):
Will no one call DCFS to save NiMH
technology from its neglectful parents?
One
of the latest developments in the saga of NiMH traction battery technology is
that in the most recent
ECD quarterly report it was finally revealed that GM was the customer who
had been propping up Cobasys and (surprise) GM had backed out of any
aspiration to buy them. Mercedes Benz US International, Inc. (MBUSI)
has re-asserted itself as suing Cobasys and its two neglectful parents.
This makes two potential comparatively large customers for NiMH Traction
Battery Technology who have apparently got the runaround from Cobasys, going
by the ECD reports. Innovative Transportation Systems AG (I blogged about
that situation here) was also seemingly blown off a year or two ago,
though I can’t find information yet as to how that situation was resolved
(the lawsuit is no longer mentioned in the ECD reports).
It
seemed for years that we were told that ECD/OBC and Cobasys wanted to do
business with big-time companies, and large-volume
orders and so this was one of the reasons they gave us for shunning the
developers and small-time shops who sought to be allowed to develop vehicles
around NiMH technology. Meanwhile, when push came to shove, I guess
Cobasys either gave the runaround to those who wanted to order batteries or
loused it up.
I
mention Cobasys possibly lousing things up because GM appears to have been
cost valuable momentum in its own much-criticized push for
can’t-be-plugged-in-hybrids:
GM
Hybrid Sales Hurt by Recall of 9,000 Faulty Batteries
Posted by
Scott Doggett June 2, 2008, 3:07 PM
General Motors Corp. won't sell as many hybrid cars as it
had hoped this year due to 9,000 defective batteries the automaker is in the
process of recalling, a company spokesman said today.
[…]
Automotive News reported that GM had planned to sell at
least 27,000 of the hybrid cars in 2008. If that figure were true, it means
that fully a third of the 2007 Aura and Vue hybrids GM had hoped to sell were affected.
[…]
Ovonic Battery Company may have been formed in 1982 to try to
commercialize and bring to market this wonderful technology, but where is the
highway-capable plug-in vehicle that we can buy, nearly 30 years later?
It is as though the parties to pay the most attention back then were the Oil
companies, and it is as though someone has done a magnificent job of
orchestrating a nearly 3-decade-long foot-dragging ceremony toward viable
highway-capable electric vehicles.
To
this day, I have never heard one single policy-maker or government official
so much as mention the plight of NiMH traction battery
technology. There was one online non-subscription (freely available)
business journal that seems to have covered the most recent Cobasys side of
things:
Michigan
advanced battery maker Cobasys on edge of bankruptcy
by Sven Gustafson | Michigan Business
Review
Thursday May 21, 2009, 10:19 AM
The
news was covered by at least one subscription (non-free) business journal,
run by my colleagues at NEF.
I
disclaim an interest in the fortunes of ECD.
Blog
7: Where is the
competition for Lithium Ion?
I
like Lithium Ion and think it will shake out to be a worthy competitor and
quite possibly will solve many of our issues. In the meantime it
strikes me as an unhealthy economic and political situation that:
-
Policy-makers seem to be crossing their fingers and hoping that Lithium Ion
will indeed solve all our problems. They are not doing anything about
clearing up any competition problems with NiMH. They have never
mentioned any such issues.
-
Any time that policy makers (through action or inaction) are making our
technology decisions, rather than the marketplace, then I think we should be
concerned.
The
point of keeping NiMH in mind for plug-in vehicles, and not just for non-pluggable Hybrids (NPHEVs),
is not to say that NiMH should be regarded as necessarily superior. It
is to say that:
There are concerns about finite materials resources
(limited amounts of key ingredients) for Lithium Ion batteries, NiMH and
other chemistries. Critics of Lithium Ion ask whether there will be
enough lithium ion production and recycling in Critics of NiMH have
similar things to say about the resource constraints we find with the Rare
Earth metals that are an important part of good NiMH batteries. Nickel
is not exactly super-cheap when it is in demand for the making of stainless
steel and batteries and other things. So, if both battery chemistries have
some unanswered resource constraint question-marks hanging over them,
wouldn’t it be best for both chemistries to compete and any problems that
emerge with resource limitations can be spread across the competition?
Competing technologies should get a fair hearing and level playing field
in the global marketplace. At present Lithium is competing largely with
itself. NiMH isn’t being allowed to compete fully by its own parents
and patent owners. Heck, I’ve never heard of key EV makers like Think
Global even considering NiMH. I’m guessing some of those ev makers knew that the “fix was in” against real-world
NiMH availability.
Automakers have often discussed real-world concerns about cost and
durability and reliability. NiMH has a somewhat-more-proven record than
Lithium in durability and reliability (depending on how the chemistry is set
up and charged and used over its lifetime). Yet, automakers seem to be
ignoring it for their plug-in vehicle efforts.
The
thing for policy-makers to do, I think, would be to rescue NiMH technology on
grounds of restraint-of-free-trade, or some-such. That, I think, would
be an accurate and correct assessment of the situation.
Originally published: June 14, 2009
| Total Page Views: 640
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Recent declines in monthly average global Oil Production
Tuesday | May 26, 2009
If I go to this
Energy Department web page, and if I specifically download this spreadsheet, I can
get a US
government estimate of gobal oil production as
recently as February 2009. I check this sheet for updates every once in
awhile to get a sense of whether or not global oil production (by one defininition) is peaking, and more broadly to get a
general sense of global fuel production.
Of course, as fans of considering alternative fuels (boron,
electric-charge-as-a-form-of-fuel, etc.) we can say that it would be nice
also to have data on the extent to which other forms of energy are being
increasingly tasked to transportation use and occupying a higher percentage
of the mix.
In any event, what seems worth noting here today is that according to the
data in the links there are signs that global oil production has for the
moment declined a bit.
[all numbers revised except February 2009 which is preliminary estimated
data]
Some Annual numbers:
2005 Average: 84.573 million barrels per day
2006 Average: 84.538 mbpd
2007 Average: 84.413 mbpd
2008 Average: 85.462 mbpd
2008 Monthly Numbers:
January 2008 Average: 85,544 mbpd
February 2008 Average: 85,734 mbpd
July 2008 Average: 86,697 mbpd
(This July average appears to be an all-time monthly
average production high by EIA's measurements. It also seems to correlate to
the high in prices that we saw last summer, such as we can see at this
chart.)
2009 Monthly Numbers:
January 2009 Average: 83,112 mbpd
February 2009 Average: 83,650 mbpd (preliminary
estimated data)
So, there are signs that we are "not off to a good start" for
global production in 2009. Does this mean we have peaked? Anyone
who states that we have reached a peak is more-or-less engaging in speculation,
whether they admit this or not, whether their speculation is informed or
not. I am wary of here-in-this-blog trying to figure out if this is a
peak, but I have to speculate at least a little bit.
As to monthly average peaks, will our production again reach last July's
average of 86,697? I do think it is important to note the apparent
power of pricing to draw increased production back into the
market. Last July, the price was pretty high. If it gets up there
again, perhaps we will see similar levels again (though the ability of
producers to meet quite that level of production has I think been called into
question by people with some knowledge of global production issues).
So, I'd like to believe that we have peaked, because I'm a bit tired of waiting,
but I'll say that it's perhaps more possible than people realize that we
could see some last-hurrah global conventional oil production above that July
number. Production sure did seem to be responsive to pricing.
Will our annual peak turn out in hindsight to have been in
2008? Again, I don't know. If we see another month or two
of this moderated global production, then 2009 will likely be a decline from
2008. Whether or not 2008 will be an interim sort of peak annual average
should become a bit more clear over the next quarter or two as we examine
whether the global producers are able to respond to a rise in global prices
or whether they can't take advantage of the revenue opportunity. If the
latter is the case, and if we (somewhat less-informed analysts like myself,
as peak oil is not my main thing) gain more knowledge that investment in new
production cannot reasonably be expected to result in 87+ mbpd
for the foreseeable future, then I think 2008 will amount to a peak, or at
least an interim one, unless-until the world shifts to different sources for
oil.
I say "at least an interim peak" because I think if we look
further out into the future, we may see producers able to meet demand for oil
via different methods (such as oil from shale, tar, and maybe forms of oil
from such sources as coal and biomass via Fisher-Tropsch
processes?). So, going further out into the future, producers may
recover some of their presently-questioned ability to be responsive to swings
in demand. In that case, there may be a sense in which "some of
the bets are called off" as to defining peak oil or gauging whether it
has happened. If we confine ourselves more narrowly to conventional
definitions of crude oil derivations, then I think we can say with more
confidence that there will soon be (or has been) a peak in production.
If we take broader definitions of oil production then the question of a peak
I think becomes somewhat different.
Anyway, global demand for oil will (hopefully) be mitigated by global
carbon legislation efforts, but if we keep putting vehicles and drivers in place that need oil to get where
they need to go, then I think we'll keep having strong global demand for oil,
and producers will try to follow the money, whether by past conventional
means of production or otherwise.
All peak oil debates aside, I think it is valuable to make sure we are
aware that for the moment, while 2008 appears to have been another global
record production year, on avearge, there are signs
that 2009 will be a year of decline.
Perhaps the EIA and DOE could start also displaying the percentage of
global electricity production estimated that is tasked to transportation, and
the percentage of other fuels consumed in transportation rather than in
general energy production. For fuels producing electricity onboard
vehicles, this "overlapping" number I think should be attributed to
the fuel and not electricity.
To wrap up for the moment, I should note that some attribute little
credibility to the US EIA (Energy Information Administration) government data
and point us to Matt Simmons and other experts' websites. A colleague
told me flat-out last year that we peaked in 2005 and that this is
demonstrated by data outside of EIA. I don't know yet. I am more
familiar with the EIA data. The EIA data does seem to show a recent
decline, though it is wel away from showing a peak
in annual average peak in 2005. Rather it seems to show that we continued
upward in 2008 when taking the annual average as a whole. I wonder what
the differences are about in this claimed dispute between information
sources? I haven't checked Simmons site yet to understand better what
he is or is not claiming. I have spent some time at the oil drum in the past, which is a
site that has a nice fanatlcal air to it but is a
little hard for me to navigate. Maybe there are some differences here
in definitions of oil production?
Originally published: May 26, 2009 |
Total Page Views: 857
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
jim stack:
a MAJOR point is the USA already
peaked in 1970 and we import over 60% of our oil. World peak will hit
everyone and Matt Simmons and many otehrs figure we
already hit that in 2005. Many far east oil producers don't verify their
numbers.
28/May/2009
[66918]
Max Reid:
Please read that EIA
article again.
It says "Total Oil Supply [Includes
Crude Oil, Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Other Liquids, and Refinery Processing
Gain]"
and the Other Liquids includes Bio-fuels,
if we exclude bio-fuels, the increase in Oil is much lesser.
Last year, Ethanol production increased
40 % in US and Brazil
also increased a lot.
Again the oil prices are increasing. Lets
see where the production goes.
31/May/2009
[66935]
|
|
osh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Recent declines in monthly average global Oil Production
Tuesday | May 26, 2009
If I go to this
Energy Department web page, and if I specifically download this spreadsheet, I can
get a US
government estimate of gobal oil production as
recently as February 2009. I check this sheet for updates every once in
awhile to get a sense of whether or not global oil production (by one defininition) is peaking, and more broadly to get a
general sense of global fuel production.
Of course, as fans of considering alternative fuels (boron,
electric-charge-as-a-form-of-fuel, etc.) we can say that it would be nice
also to have data on the extent to which other forms of energy are being
increasingly tasked to transportation use and occupying a higher percentage
of the mix.
In any event, what seems worth noting here today is that according to the
data in the links there are signs that global oil production has for the
moment declined a bit.
[all numbers revised except February 2009 which is preliminary estimated
data]
Some Annual numbers:
2005 Average: 84.573 million barrels per day
2006 Average: 84.538 mbpd
2007 Average: 84.413 mbpd
2008 Average: 85.462 mbpd
2008 Monthly Numbers:
January 2008 Average: 85,544 mbpd
February 2008 Average: 85,734 mbpd
July 2008 Average: 86,697 mbpd
(This July average appears to be an all-time monthly
average production high by EIA's measurements. It also seems to correlate to
the high in prices that we saw last summer, such as we can see at this
chart.)
2009 Monthly Numbers:
January 2009 Average: 83,112 mbpd
February 2009 Average: 83,650 mbpd (preliminary
estimated data)
So, there are signs that we are "not off to a good start" for
global production in 2009. Does this mean we have peaked? Anyone
who states that we have reached a peak is more-or-less engaging in
speculation, whether they admit this or not, whether their speculation is
informed or not. I am wary of here-in-this-blog trying to figure out if
this is a peak, but I have to speculate at least a little bit.
As to monthly average peaks, will our production again reach last July's
average of 86,697? I do think it is important to note the apparent
power of pricing to draw increased production back into the
market. Last July, the price was pretty high. If it gets up there
again, perhaps we will see similar levels again (though the ability of
producers to meet quite that level of production has I think been called into
question by people with some knowledge of global production issues).
So, I'd like to believe that we have peaked, because I'm a bit tired of
waiting, but I'll say that it's perhaps more possible than people realize
that we could see some last-hurrah global conventional oil production above
that July number. Production sure did seem to be responsive to
pricing.
Will our annual peak turn out in hindsight to have been in
2008? Again, I don't know. If we see another month or two
of this moderated global production, then 2009 will likely be a decline from
2008. Whether or not 2008 will be an interim sort of peak annual
average should become a bit more clear over the next quarter or two as we
examine whether the global producers are able to respond to a rise in global
prices or whether they can't take advantage of the revenue opportunity.
If the latter is the case, and if we (somewhat less-informed analysts like
myself, as peak oil is not my main thing) gain more knowledge that investment
in new production cannot reasonably be expected to result in 87+ mbpd for the foreseeable future, then I think 2008 will
amount to a peak, or at least an interim one, unless-until the world shifts
to different sources for oil.
I say "at least an interim peak" because I think if we look
further out into the future, we may see producers able to meet demand for oil
via different methods (such as oil from shale, tar, and maybe forms of oil
from such sources as coal and biomass via Fisher-Tropsch
processes?). So, going further out into the future, producers may
recover some of their presently-questioned ability to be responsive to swings
in demand. In that case, there may be a sense in which "some of
the bets are called off" as to defining peak oil or gauging whether it
has happened. If we confine ourselves more narrowly to conventional
definitions of crude oil derivations, then I think we can say with more
confidence that there will soon be (or has been) a peak in production.
If we take broader definitions of oil production then the question of a peak
I think becomes somewhat different.
Anyway, global demand for oil will (hopefully) be mitigated by global
carbon legislation efforts, but if we keep putting vehicles and drivers in place that need oil to get where
they need to go, then I think we'll keep having strong global demand for oil,
and producers will try to follow the money, whether by past conventional
means of production or otherwise.
All peak oil debates aside, I think it is valuable to make sure we are
aware that for the moment, while 2008 appears to have been another global
record production year, on avearge, there are signs
that 2009 will be a year of decline.
Perhaps the EIA and DOE could start also displaying the percentage of
global electricity production estimated that is tasked to transportation, and
the percentage of other fuels consumed in transportation rather than in
general energy production. For fuels producing electricity onboard
vehicles, this "overlapping" number I think should be attributed to
the fuel and not electricity.
To wrap up for the moment, I should note that some attribute little
credibility to the US EIA (Energy Information Administration) government data
and point us to Matt Simmons and other experts' websites. A colleague
told me flat-out last year that we peaked in 2005 and that this is
demonstrated by data outside of EIA. I don't know yet. I am more
familiar with the EIA data. The EIA data does seem to show a recent
decline, though it is wel away from showing a peak
in annual average peak in 2005. Rather it seems to show that we
continued upward in 2008 when taking the annual average as a whole. I
wonder what the differences are about in this claimed dispute between
information sources? I haven't checked Simmons site yet to understand
better what he is or is not claiming. I have spent some time at the oil drum in the past, which is a
site that has a nice fanatlcal air to it but is a
little hard for me to navigate. Maybe there are some differences here
in definitions of oil production?
Originally published: May 26, 2009 |
Total Page Views: 858
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
jim stack:
a MAJOR point is the USA already
peaked in 1970 and we import over 60% of our oil. World peak will hit
everyone and Matt Simmons and many otehrs figure we
already hit that in 2005. Many far east oil producers don't verify their
numbers.
28/May/2009
[66918]
Max Reid:
Please read that EIA
article again.
It says "Total Oil Supply [Includes
Crude Oil, Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Other Liquids, and Refinery Processing
Gain]"
and the Other Liquids includes Bio-fuels,
if we exclude bio-fuels, the increase in Oil is much lesser.
Last year, Ethanol production increased
40 % in US and Brazil
also increased a lot.
Again the oil prices are increasing. Lets
see where the production goes.
31/May/2009
[66935]
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Improve Home Dashboards to Monitor Air, Water, Energy
Tuesday | May 19, 2009
Just as the display of a dashboard in a car affects how we drive the car,
so too the display of a dashboard in a home or building affects how we use
the home or building.
When can't-be-plugged-in hybrids (NPHEVs) first came to the US from Japan, it became clear that
well-designed dashboards in a Honda hybrid were causing some drivers to find
it fun to drive for energy savings rather than for speed.
Likewise, a well-designed dashboard in a home could give us improved
knowledge of our resource use and allow us to make adjustments.
Energy Use
Instead of having to walk outside to a relatively uninformative electric
meter reading, we could stay inside, glance at a great deal of useful
information (how much energy did the fridge use last month?… would it be best
to replace or repair it?) and start to see where much of the least necessary
energy waste is in our home. We could monitor electricity, propane, natural
gas and any other energy use. In theory, we could even get that valuable
thermal imaging information that consultants charge hundreds of dollars to
provide. If it costs that much, maybe this is a signal that it would be worth
it to install some permanent thermal monitoring capability on the home?
Air, Water
My friend Elisa (who has contributed ideas to this and a couple of
previous blogs) shares with me a long-time habit: always crack a window for
fresh air. To our surprise, not everyone does this. Why not? If you keep your
home or building so well-sealed off and insulated that energy is preserved,
do you think it's safe to assume that you have sufficient oxygen for
long-term health? Carbon Monoxide monitors may detect buildup of that
dangerous gas and sound an alarm, but there is no way at present for an alarm
to sound to let us know that there is simply the buildup of CO2 and a
concomitant depletion of O2. Well, maybe there is some way this sort of alarm
could be rigged, but I'm not sure what it is. Should we ghetto-rig some
overly-expensive CO2 detection device. I think they're around… I think
marijuana and other indoor gardeners use these to ensure good crops. Even
then, what about O2 detection? What about other gases such as Nitrogen (about
80% of day-to-day air) and who knows what else?
Ideally, entrepreneurial chemical engineers with an eye toward making
money for ingenious new green devices for the home would get on the ball and
start to sell us devices that provide us with an improved array of
information about our indoor air composition … not just the usual
smoke/CO/Radon detection.
Ideally, entrepreneurial engineers also could look to provide us with the
ability to detect water composition. If we are taking measures and spending
extra money to purify the water in our homes and sometimes to buy bottled
water, why shouldn't we be able to monitor the chemical composition of our
water Why not just run the water through some good monitoring equipment and
find out everything we need to know?
We have all manner of information on a wide variety of other aspects of our
lives. A person can test and research their internet connectivity
information, for example, even if they are not particularly technologically
savvy. A person can run their finances and portfolio through all manner of
systems (good or bad) and get an evaluation.
Yet, the most basic health-related information that we need to give us
feedback on our air and water quality in our homes is available to us only in modest
bits and pieces.
So, I think we could use some improvement of home dashboards.
I also want to include food here, to some extent, yet it seems hard to
include it in ideas for improving home dashboards. Some of us already spend
more than a bit of extra time and-or money buying or growing organic. A
primary reason we do this (among several) is to improve our confidence that
we are not buying and consuming poison. Yet, how many of us have ever really
had the ability to test our food and find out what is really in it?
Food testing seems a bit more complex and so I don't know that it would be
possible to carry out at the home level.
There are probably quite a few companies who would prefer that we not know
that much about the quality and quantity of the water, air, energy and food
that we consume. I wonder what our local water utilities would say if all of
a sudden every home could actually figure out the exact good and points of
water quality? In many cases it might turn out that they are simply doing a
good job. Shouldn't we be able to find out better?
Our local energy utilities have sure taken awhile, haven't they, to
partner with us to provide us with more information about our home energy
use? Smart meters are popping up. They're still at inconvenient spots on the
outside of the house in many cases. They're not appliance-specific for us to
always know how to reduce use, though this is asking a bit much.
While there is no company that sells us our air, there is still the need
for us to breathe clean air, and while many do not seem to care (at all) if a
window is cracked or if they know the composition of the air they breathe,
others of us are left wondering … will an engineering outfit ever step
forward with improved affordable home detection equipment?
As to food companies miffed when we finally figure out the poisons and
various other unsuitable items in our food, that wonderful process of
revelation has been taking place over the last 20 years, though it still has
quite far to go. If we look at the somewhat-improved nutritional and other
labeling on food at US supermarkets, and some of the nutrition issues that
have been partly addressed (Hydrogenation of food for example has been
recently somewhat addressed) then we can see a path to improved knowledge of
what is in our food.
Originally published: May 19, 2009 |
Total Page Views: 524
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Solid State Gravitational Energy Storage
Saturday | May 16, 2009
If improved Energy Storage is one of a few important Achilles Heel points of
the Global Alternative Energy Paradigm (with others including waste disposal
including particularly improved carbon capture and sequestration) , and if we
are therefore scouring the global seeking any and all possible Energy Storage
alternatives at large and mid-sized levels of scale, then I sometimes wonder
why we are not considering a very simple and basic approach:
For large-scale power storage, why have we not built large-scale weights
(many hundreds and thousands of pounds each) that could slide up and down
tracks on hillsides (or go up and down existing mine shafts, or follow other
methods)? As they go up, they could accumulate potential energy, and as
gravity later brings them back down, they could put their potential energy
back into the grid. For purposes of this particular blog, I will call this
SSGES (Solid-State Gravitational Energy Storage).
I can find little discussion of this sort of idea on the web, and so I am
finding it a bit difficult to find a toe-hold for discussion or blogging
about it. This
page, for example, discusses “Gravitational (potential) energy storage”,
so the idea is out there… I have at least been able to verify that.
Perhaps I am not using the right key words in my searches? Another problem
of doing an initial web-search into this sort of thing is that unrelated
non-simplistic scientific theories come up that have little to do with the
simple business idea of loading weights in a way that they could store and
release energy when needed.
One possible important environmental advantage of SSGES is that it is not very
chemical-oriented, as batteries are. So, a solid-state gravitational energy
storage device would perhaps not raise the same levels of environmental
concern as a battery factory’s waste chemical outflow or the waste disposal
of used batteries.
Another possible important environmental advantage is that SSGES does not
have the same water resource issues that go along with liquid (hydroelectric
dam and reverse pumped hydro storage) energy storage solutions. We must
unfortunately associate many dams with significant environmental concerns
including the harming of fish, fouling of traditionally clean water in some
cases, out-gassing of methane from lakes behind dams, and so-on. These
concerns would not seem to apply to the simple method of pushing solid-state
weights up and down hillsides.
Of course, every technology has its drawbacks and I’m sure that fault
could be found with SSGES. Safety, for example, could be an issue if-and when there
were seismic or other disruptions to a facility storing thousands of kWh in
the tracked-elevation of weights each weighing tons or more. If we are to
follow the precautionary principle better than our forebearers have done, we
must try to anticipate the problems the technology could bring. I guess a
SSGES device on a hillside could be regarded as a controlled avalanche of
heavy bolders going up and down. Of course, there
are other variants of SSGES devices we could consider, such as buildings
constructed to house a modest level of SSGE storage.
Part of following alternative energy is to notice that some folks get
overly seduced by new technologies simply by their newness and advanced
scientific principles. Tried-and-true older technologies and principles will
also have a role to play in the future energy systems we will use. For
example, I think there is a lot to be said for returning some focus to
hydroelectric power storage and delivery and asking what can be done to do
this in improved ways that have a smaller environmental footprint.
In the end, there are many technologies we are looking at for energy
storage. They include ingenious new batteries, established hydroelectric technologies,
various fuels such as Methanol, Boron and Hythane,
flywheels, compressed air and thermal storage. Heck, I think it’s interesting
in principle to follow spring-makers since after all that is technically an
ancient and workable energy storage method, of a sort.
So, I think we should add SSGES to the long list open for discussion. In
the years I’ve been following alt energy tech, I have heard little or nothing
of policy makers or business people stopping to give consideration to this
concept.
Sure, absolutely, I could be missing much here.
Lastly for now:
If the weight machines that we use at work-out centers (24 hour fitness
and such) are in some cases miniature examples of energy storage and
conversion devices, some of them miniature SSGES, then surely some
enterprising would-be green company could modify such machines (particularly
certain ones such as the bicycles which presently throw away all their energy
to friction and heat). The modifications could involve converting them so
they shunt their energy into the grid and help power our lives. Sure, it’s
only some tiny amount of energy, but why throw it away? In some cases it is
being used productively such as when weights are lowered and the person
working out is able to lower them slowly and control them and thus get a
workout on the way down as well as on the way up. However, in some cases the
energy could be used not only to power a tiny portion of our lives but
perhaps to re-work how one approaches using the machine.
I noticed when hybrids first started coming out that some drivers (such as
Honda hybrid drivers) remarked that the re-worked dashboards were allowing
them to re-work how they approached driving and that instead of thinking
maybe about going a little faster they found themselves enjoying challenging
themselves to drive for energy savings. Maybe, along the same lines, users of
workout machines with re-worked LCD readouts could find a way to see putting
a bit of energy back into the grid as an interesting challenge that might be
fun for their workout.
It turns out that in fact there are some workout machine approaches which
do seek to bring the "wasted" energy of working out back into the
grid. Here,
for example, is news in February 2009 of a very large installation of
such technology at Oregon
State University.
Ok, so, back to my main point: is SSGES a solution that is right in front
of us waiting to be exploited? Or are there myriad reasons why we have not
gone down this path? I don't know the answers to these questions and there
seems, at first glance, so little serious business discussion of it on the
web that I am hard-pressed to find a toe-hold for discussion, so I am just
putting the question out there as-is. Maybe the answers are in part
that the technology and business efforts are already making some headway, and
I just need to learn more about it.
Originally published: May 16, 2009 |
Total Page Views: 598
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
David Loll:
In a place or two you
mentioned hydro power. Instead of building a dam,backing
up water to get the vertical drop needed to run a power generating plant,why not use a floating water wheel. A round tank
like one of those LP Gas storage tanks with small paddles ( maybe 6" by
the length of the tank) on the outside to catch the normal flow or the water
it is floating on would turn the wheel and that could be used to turn a high
pressure pump to pump water to the generator turbine,then
dumped right back into the flow from which it was drawn. The water wheel
could be sized to fit nearly any waterway. I am not an engineer,and
this is not intended to be an engineering letter,but
an idea that has been overlooked,for what ever
reason. There are millions of existing dams with waterways that are not used
for any purpose that would lend themselves to a project of this type with
little or no impact on the enviroment. If the water
flow below the dam were used,you wouldn't even have
a problem with the water freezing in the winter. As the water wheel would be
floating on the water it could adjust itself to stay at the proper level as
the river level raises and falls through the seasons. Simple and effective.
17/May/2009
[66811]
Bill Funderburk:
We have damn few
mountains here in the flatlands of Texas (Houston) but every town
has a water tower. I'm not a scientist or engineer so I will leave the
feasibility of using them as some sort of gravitational hydroelectric device
to others with greater technical understanding of what might be involved.
Just a thought. Enjoyed the article. Bill
18/May/2009
[66814]
Warren Heath:
Using weights to store
energy is one of those ideas that sounds wonderful, until you work the
numbers. Fortunately for EV fans, it takes only a small amount of energy to
raise a heavy weight up thousands of feet, otherwise you would never be able
to drive your EV through the mountains. Raising a heavy 1000 kg mass up 1000
vertical meters only requires 2.7 kwh of energy, in Li-ion that’s 21 kg, and
in future Li-ion, more like 8 kg. Much simpler, smarter and cheaper to use
batteries for energy storage.
Paddlewheels, or other devices that
capture the energy of flowing water do not produce a lot of energy. The
energy of Hydro is almost entirely due to elevation change between the water
levels at Forebay to that of the Turbine. For
instance a large river with 10,000 cu-meters per second of flow, @ 10 meters
per second, would have 22 MW of power contained in the flowing water, but if the
same river had an elevation change through a dam of 150 meters, it would have
14.7 GW of power contained in the gravitational potential energy of the
falling water.
I must admit to being perplexed by all
this Energy Storage Hype. I would call it the Energy Storage Scam. We already
have huge amounts of cheap Energy Storage – its called fossil fuels. Energy
of the Sun stored over millions of year. We’re burning them up anyways, so
the obvious thing is to avoid burning fossil fuels for baseload
power or non-essential applications – like city transportation.
There is an advantage to short term
energy storage for Grid Stabilization and to reduce peak late afternoon
demand – one to four hours of battery storage is suffice for those
applications – batteries are likely the best way to do that.
The vast majority of energy storage needs
are for distance transportation, summer cooling energy and winter heating
energy. Also renewable energy varies substantially over long periods of
weeks, months and even years. Batteries, pumped storage, molten salt or
compressed air storage are utterly useless for those applications. A much
wiser use of our existing supplies of stored energy is by far and away the
most efficient and cost effective way to achieve energy storage.
We need fossil fuels, in particular, Oil
& Gas, for three essential purposes:
1) to make chemicals, including
fertilizer
2) for compact energy storage for
transportation
3) to supply peak energy over cycles of
weeks or months, mostly air conditioning in the summer in the South and heat
in the winter in the North.
Major use of fossil fuels for any other
application, is absolute stupidity, a total waste of a valuable, inexpensive
energy storage resource. Wind Energy is becoming the #1 offender in the absolute
senseless waste of Natural Gas, used to complement Wind’s fluctuating energy
output. 70-80% of the energy of a Wind / Natural Gas Electricity system comes
from Natural Gas. And since that Natural Gas is burned in single cycle gas
turbines rather than the more efficient combined cycle gas turbines – the
essential fact is that Wind Energy does not reduce fossil fuel consumption or
GHG emissions one iota. A criminal waste of a precious clean burning fuel,
that can be converted to Methanol for 7 cents a liter and used in Engines at
double the efficiency of Gasoline Engines.
18/May/2009
[66815]
Eric Marshall:
PUMPED HYDRO is
essentially SSGES ... I guess it would be LSGES (Liquid State Gravitational
Energy Storage), but it uses the same concept, pump water to a higher
altitude when extra electricity is available, increasing it's potential
energy. Then when demand is high, reverse the process (using a traditional
hydro-electric turbine generator). Check out the Wikipedia article, PUMPED
HYDRO is already being used for utility-scale electrical energy storage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
18/May/2009
[66816]
Warren Heath:
Just like for the weight
system you have to move enormous amounts of mass to get significant energy
storage. Pumped storage requires a rare mountainous storage site, and is
extraordinarily environmentally destructive and also carries danger of
devastating floods. The GHG absorbing ability of the flooded landscape is
lost. Much worse than even Hydro installations, and has only a 50% round trip
efficiency – thus effectively doubling costs – even before you add the $2,000
to $4,000 cost per kw to the capital cost of the Solar or Wind installation.
Unlike Hydro, in order to utilize the Pumped Storage you have to flood a huge
area of pristine wilderness, and instead of a pristine man-made lake (like
lake Mead), you get a giant reservoir that must be raised and lowered dozens
or even hundreds of feet by the day or week. And that is good for at most one
month energy storage for a very large (environmentally destructive) volume
site, at a cost of say $3,000 per kw pk output @
50% duty cycle and 50% efficiency, yields an ADDED cost of about $12,000 per
kw. About double the cost of new USA Nuclear power plants, just for a very
days or weeks of energy storage. And any such installations will commonly go
through a nightmare of environmental opposition, lawsuits, land buyouts,
aboriginal land claims etc. Absolutely untenable for any significant amount
of energy storage.
18/May/2009
[66817]
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Approximately 137,000 Traffic Injuries Per Day On Earth?
Saturday | May 09, 2009
I ended my last
blog by making some addendum-level attempt to research global traffic
safety statistics. Those statistics, it turns out, are somewhat
mind-boggling. When we look at global traffic safety, it is hard to get
the numbers straight. Is every accident reported in some developing
countries? Every injury or death? How do we adjust official
statistics to account for under-reporting? We should not let the
statistical counting issues get in the way when the bigger picture is not
that difficult to see. Not only are global traffic deaths at around
1,200,000 people per year (roughly one out of every 5,600 people on Earth)
but accidents (and the accompanying capital losses and injuries) are also
very high.
This Nordic site
seems like a decent starting point for looking into this matter. It is
called “Nordic Road And Transport Research: A joint publication
in English with the latest research findings of six public research
organizations in Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Norway and Sweden”.
It says:
Global Traffic Safety
Traffic accidents kill 1.2 million people every year, while an
additional 50 million are injured. 86 per cent of these accidents
occur in developing countries, where the cost of traffic accidents
equals all bilateral aid. Traffic in the developing world is becoming a
disaster.
Ok: 1.2 million
deaths per year? 50 million injured? How many accidents without
injuries? These numbers seem perhaps a bit on the high side, but I
don’t know. They lose a bit of credibility by saying (an apparent typo)
1.5m deaths per year elsewhere on the very same page. I like their
attempt to bring some global cost accounting, as well as health concerns,
into the discussion.
Traffic accidents
[…] This is a Tsunami of death with 100,000 killed every month. 85
per cent of the victims, and 96 per cent of all traffic accidents involving
children, occur in the developing world.
The costs of traffic accidents are staggering. In
2005, traffic accidents in the developing world equalled all bilateral aid received that same year. Even
worse, this represents only the direct costs of the accident, in terms of the
value of lost labour.
The World Health
Organization seems roughly to confirm the 1.2m per year number on
their website with a slightly more conservative number:
Road traffic injuries
More than 3000 people die on the world's roads every day.
Doing the quick
math, this means that they are saying that there are more than 1,095,000
fatalities every year, a number roughly in the same ballpark as the Nordic
site’s 1.2m per year.
Another place to
check is that we have some 10-year-old 1999 estimates here:
A
REVIEW OF GLOBAL ROAD ACCIDENT FATALITIES
By G D Jacobs and Amy Aeron-Thomas
For 1999, they appear to estimate between 745,769 and
876,539 deaths worldwide, making some attempt to take into account
under-reporting and other counting issues. These numbers I think rely
all or in part on WHO data, so I make note of that.
I suppose it is
possible that the 1,000,000 road-accident-deaths-per-year line was passed
sometime in the 2000s. This New
York Times article from 2002 seems to give some indication that the line
had been crossed, and also gives some indication of costs (keeping in mind
that if we were to get even more serious about this, we’d have to delve
deeper into “where are they getting these numbers?” questions).
Global Traffic Deaths Put at Million a Year
Published: Thursday, August 29, 2002
Traffic accidents kill more than a million
people each year, injure additional tens of millions and cost developing
countries twice as much as they receive in international aid, a public health
expert said today.
[…]
'This is a neglected health problem,' the
expert, Dr. Adnan Hyder, interim secretary of the
Road Traffic Injury Research Network, said at a news session. 'The global
cost of road accidents in developing and emerging nations is at least $100
billion a year.'
I can’t seem to
get estimates for total numbers of global vehicle accidents, (including ones
without injuries). Here we are all schmoozing for a decade on
EVWorld.com about vehicles, usually with respect to their energy use and not
safety, but how about getting some broad overview perspective on the health
and also economic costs of accidents in our global transportation
system? If we want zero, or near-zero fatalities, don’t we need zero,
or near-zero, traffic accidents? If we don’t know how many accidents
there are, how can we get perspective on the importance of eliminating them?
We can get this
data for US total accidents, if not for the world:
Transportation
Statistics Annual Report 2007 (PDF)
2006
US Highway Fatalities:
42,642
All other forms of transportation
(including airplanes, trains):
2,814
2006 Highway Injuries:
2,575,000
All other forms of transportation:
32,080
2006 Total Highway
Accidents: 5,973,000
All other forms of transportation:
27,030
So, there were 5,973,000 highway accidents in 2006 in the US
alone. 16,364 per day(!) How many for the world? I can’t
yet seem to find data.
Can we interpolate and do a proportional estimate based on US
population? That might be quite tricky and potentially
misleading. In the US,
we have to remember that it is a “highly motorized country” and many of the
fatalities are occurring in countries with different proportions of cars to
pedestrians… that sort of thing. In the US we have in 2006 roughly
140 accidents, and 60 injuries, for every fatality, according to the NHTSA
data. Looking at the global data posted at the Nordic website, we have
a claimed proportion of about 43 injuries for every fatality. The
proportions are not really the same, which makes some sense. In the
developing world we’re not talking so much about the same number of vehicles
as in the US…
it’s more about introducing more and more cars into established patterns of
pedestrians and bicyclists?
If we take the estimate of 1.2m fatalities per year, and the US proportion
of 140 accidents per fatality, then we would estimate 168,000,000 accidents
per year (460,000 per day). I think this number is high since in
the developing world, there seems to be a higher fatality rate per injury and
since the accidents there reportedly more often involve mass transit (going
by the Nordic site). For now I really think that I don’t have enough to
work with to estimate this critical number, so I am going to fall back to
using a round number: I will pencil in, for my own working purposes (to
be revised later) that I am guessing there are something like 100,000,000
accidents per year (in the general vicinity of a quarter million per day) on
Earth. I look forward to fixing my probably-wrong numbers. Also,
we should have an idea of other forms of transportation (planes, trains,
etc.) and whether they factor into the WHO and other global transportation
safety numbers.
My 100m estimate comes from this being roughly twice the 50m injury
estimate from the Nordic number, and the US total accident estimate was
roughly twice its injury estimate. The number could be dramatically
lower if the number injured per accident in the developing world turns out to
be much different than in the US.
As I said, I will revise the number later, when I find some data on
this (any data).
…. A quarter million (or so) motor vehicle accidents per day, on
Earth?
How are we ever going to get to zero, or near-zero, injuries and
fatalities if we are looking at these sorts of accident numbers and not
getting them to zero or near-zero. When then-US-Transportation-Secretary
addressed representatives of other nations on this topic in 2004 he said:
“I have invested both my time and influence to
provide for the safety of the traveling public in the United States,”
Secretary Mineta said. “We must take what we’ve
learned in the United
States and export best practices to help
emerging countries deal with this growing epidemic. Over the past 40 years,
we have gained tremendous experience in the area of road safety and are
willing to share this successful formula for reducing traffic fatalities.”
I think taken in isolation this sounds somewhat impressive. Here is
a top-level official willing to call this situation a “growing epidemic”.
In 2005 he said
when talking about the US
situation:
“We are in the midst of a national epidemic,”
said Secretary Mineta. “If this many people were to
die from any one disease in a single year, Americans would demand a vaccine.
[...]
This continues to sound good, doesn’t it? Mr. Mineta
then went on to say:
The irony is we already have the best vaccine
available to reduce the death toll on our highways – safety belts.”
Now, it seems true that safety belts would help reduce the US fatality
toll from highway accidents. However, are they a cure-all or even “the
best vaccine” for the global accident epidemic? I doubt it. As
with Global New Energy, I think too we see with Global Advanced
Transportation: it is necessary to put many pieces into place to solve the
puzzle… a daunting challenging puzzle. So, I’m not sure what Mr. Mineta would say if we specifically shifted the
conversation from US Highway Fatalities to Global Accidents, but to make my
own point of view clear, I don’t think we should be discussing only safety
belts when there are so many other partial imperfect solutions to discuss
which, if taken together, can imperfectly but significantly help us make a
real dent in this global problem.
The imperfect solutions to this terrible epidemic include building cars
which help drive themselves and which sense pedestrians and other upcoming
problems in the road, traffic systems designed to handle cars which can
communicate with each other and which can help drive themselves, better
traffic engineering and design, and a commitment to integrating and
coordinating cars, bicycles, pedestrians, trolleys and all other vehicles and
people that may occupy the roads (or to selectively keeping some vehicles
from some roads, for the right-minded sake of safety). These solutions
no doubt include some enforcement of existing laws against drunk driving,
speeding, following too closely, driving too slowly, and other laws
pertaining to vehicle conduct. They include a respect by traffic
engineers and vehicle drivers for the roles of walking, bike-riding and
mass-transit in urban and other environments. They include the need for
awareness that pedestrians and bicycle-riders do not end up killing and
terribly injuring people when there is a collision. It is cars and
trucks and buses and the like which, when they collide with pedestrians and
others end up harming those in and outside the vehicles.
These are just a few of the many ideas we need to address this problem.
We should also buckle up, but while seatbelts may help somewhat reduce
US highway deaths, I think if we want to get serious about the global traffic
accident epidemic, it will take a lot more than buckling up.
Originally published: May 09, 2009 |
Total Page Views: 663
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
Warren Heath:
The solution is to seperate our transportation systems - from one that
combines the movement of typically one person, much less commonly two
persons, from point A to point B, with the movement of heavy loads of goods
& people. It is sheer insanity to moving a 150 lb person around in huge
steel monstrosities that weigh 2000 to 5000 lbs, designed to go over 100 mph,
but end up only going an average of 20 mph.
My favorite idea is the ultalight
BEV with 4 wheel motors. Since you have no mechanical drivetrain - you can
have drive-by-wire and steer-by-wire - and the frame can be made from
composites that can distort in a collision, absorbing the energy of impact.
Composites have up to 13 times the energy absorbing ability of steel. Top
speeds can be limited to a pragmatic 50-60 mph. Except the small vehicles can
be moved onto carriers and high speed, lightweight rail for rapid transit to
a dozen or so nodes within a city or between cities. These vehicles, could
gradually evolve into a sophisticated PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) or PAT
(Personal Automated Transit) without huge expenditures by cash-strapped
cities.
11/May/2009
[66759]
Josh Landess:
Hi Warren: Thanks for
the input. I did really leave out the idea of reducing the weight per vehicle
where it is not necessary to have a 2000 pound vehicle hauling around a 150
pound human being, and so I think it's great that you got that in there. We
could save not only energy but also perhaps improve safety if we take an
approach of lightening and strengthening our four-wheel vehicles.
This is a double-edged sword because when very
heavy vehicles collide with the lightened vehicles we envision, the lightened
vehicles will sustain more damage than we want. Even if they are strengthened
using composites and such, ideally they would not have to share the road with
accident-prone unnecessarily-heavy vehicles. So, it's perhaps an
under-discussed paradox of our global transportation system (in need of
working out). Some will say that a person must buy an ever-bigger-and-heavier
vehicles to protect themselves. This logic would lead to everyone driving
around a 60,000 pound tank. There must be a better way.
Anyway, I like your focus on lightening the
vehicle while at the same time making it stronger and safer to the occupant
and taking into account some idea of a limitation on speed. Years ago I saw a
blurb in a magazine about a motorcycle that was very enclosed, so as to much
better protect the rider's body from any contact with the road and other
things in the event of an accident, and this sort of design attempt was
somewhat along the same line of thinking. It probably wasn't as safe as what
you envision, but was in somewhat the same line.
12/May/2009
[66768]
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Approximately 137,000 Traffic Injuries Per Day On Earth?
Saturday | May 09, 2009
I ended my last
blog by making some addendum-level attempt to research global traffic safety
statistics. Those statistics, it turns out, are somewhat
mind-boggling. When we look at global traffic safety, it is hard to get
the numbers straight. Is every accident reported in some developing
countries? Every injury or death? How do we adjust official
statistics to account for under-reporting? We should not let the
statistical counting issues get in the way when the bigger picture is not
that difficult to see. Not only are global traffic deaths at around
1,200,000 people per year (roughly one out of every 5,600 people on Earth)
but accidents (and the accompanying capital losses and injuries) are also
very high.
This Nordic site
seems like a decent starting point for looking into this matter. It is
called “Nordic Road And Transport Research: A joint publication
in English with the latest research findings of six public research
organizations in Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Norway and Sweden”.
It says:
Global Traffic Safety
Traffic accidents kill 1.2 million people every year, while an
additional 50 million are injured. 86 per cent of these accidents
occur in developing countries, where the cost of traffic accidents
equals all bilateral aid. Traffic in the developing world is becoming a
disaster.
Ok: 1.2 million
deaths per year? 50 million injured? How many accidents without
injuries? These numbers seem perhaps a bit on the high side, but I
don’t know. They lose a bit of credibility by saying (an apparent typo)
1.5m deaths per year elsewhere on the very same page. I like their
attempt to bring some global cost accounting, as well as health concerns,
into the discussion.
Traffic accidents
[…] This is a Tsunami of death with 100,000 killed every month. 85
per cent of the victims, and 96 per cent of all traffic accidents involving
children, occur in the developing world.
The costs of traffic accidents are staggering. In
2005, traffic accidents in the developing world equalled all bilateral aid received that same year. Even
worse, this represents only the direct costs of the accident, in terms of the
value of lost labour.
The World Health
Organization seems roughly to confirm the 1.2m per year number on
their website with a slightly more conservative number:
Road traffic injuries
More than 3000 people die on the world's roads every day.
Doing the quick
math, this means that they are saying that there are more than 1,095,000
fatalities every year, a number roughly in the same ballpark as the Nordic
site’s 1.2m per year.
Another place to
check is that we have some 10-year-old 1999 estimates here:
A
REVIEW OF GLOBAL ROAD ACCIDENT FATALITIES
By G D Jacobs and Amy Aeron-Thomas
For 1999, they appear to estimate between 745,769 and
876,539 deaths worldwide, making some attempt to take into account
under-reporting and other counting issues. These numbers I think rely
all or in part on WHO data, so I make note of that.
I suppose it is
possible that the 1,000,000 road-accident-deaths-per-year line was passed
sometime in the 2000s. This New
York Times article from 2002 seems to give some indication that the line
had been crossed, and also gives some indication of costs (keeping in mind
that if we were to get even more serious about this, we’d have to delve
deeper into “where are they getting these numbers?” questions).
Global Traffic Deaths Put at Million a Year
Published: Thursday, August 29, 2002
Traffic accidents kill more than a million
people each year, injure additional tens of millions and cost developing
countries twice as much as they receive in international aid, a public health
expert said today.
[…]
'This is a neglected health problem,' the
expert, Dr. Adnan Hyder, interim secretary of the
Road Traffic Injury Research Network, said at a news session. 'The global
cost of road accidents in developing and emerging nations is at least $100
billion a year.'
I can’t seem to
get estimates for total numbers of global vehicle accidents, (including ones
without injuries). Here we are all schmoozing for a decade on
EVWorld.com about vehicles, usually with respect to their energy use and not
safety, but how about getting some broad overview perspective on the health
and also economic costs of accidents in our global transportation
system? If we want zero, or near-zero fatalities, don’t we need zero,
or near-zero, traffic accidents? If we don’t know how many accidents
there are, how can we get perspective on the importance of eliminating them?
We can get this
data for US total accidents, if not for the world:
Transportation
Statistics Annual Report 2007 (PDF)
2006
US Highway Fatalities:
42,642
All other forms of transportation
(including airplanes, trains):
2,814
2006 Highway
Injuries:
2,575,000
All other forms of transportation:
32,080
2006 Total Highway
Accidents: 5,973,000
All other forms of transportation:
27,030
So, there were 5,973,000 highway accidents in 2006 in the US
alone. 16,364 per day(!) How many for the world? I can’t
yet seem to find data.
Can we interpolate and do a proportional estimate based on US
population? That might be quite tricky and potentially
misleading. In the US,
we have to remember that it is a “highly motorized country” and many of the
fatalities are occurring in countries with different proportions of cars to
pedestrians… that sort of thing. In the US we have in 2006 roughly
140 accidents, and 60 injuries, for every fatality, according to the NHTSA
data. Looking at the global data posted at the Nordic website, we have
a claimed proportion of about 43 injuries for every fatality. The
proportions are not really the same, which makes some sense. In the
developing world we’re not talking so much about the same number of vehicles
as in the US…
it’s more about introducing more and more cars into established patterns of
pedestrians and bicyclists?
If we take the estimate of 1.2m fatalities per year, and the US proportion
of 140 accidents per fatality, then we would estimate 168,000,000 accidents
per year (460,000 per day). I think this number is high since in
the developing world, there seems to be a higher fatality rate per injury and
since the accidents there reportedly more often involve mass transit (going
by the Nordic site). For now I really think that I don’t have enough to
work with to estimate this critical number, so I am going to fall back to
using a round number: I will pencil in, for my own working purposes (to
be revised later) that I am guessing there are something like 100,000,000
accidents per year (in the general vicinity of a quarter million per day) on
Earth. I look forward to fixing my probably-wrong numbers. Also,
we should have an idea of other forms of transportation (planes, trains,
etc.) and whether they factor into the WHO and other global transportation
safety numbers.
My 100m estimate comes from this being roughly twice the 50m injury
estimate from the Nordic number, and the US total accident estimate was
roughly twice its injury estimate. The number could be dramatically
lower if the number injured per accident in the developing world turns out to
be much different than in the US.
As I said, I will revise the number later, when I find some data on
this (any data).
…. A quarter million (or so) motor vehicle accidents per day, on
Earth?
How are we ever going to get to zero, or near-zero, injuries and
fatalities if we are looking at these sorts of accident numbers and not
getting them to zero or near-zero. When
then-US-Transportation-Secretary addressed representatives of other nations
on this topic in 2004
he said:
“I have invested both my time and influence to
provide for the safety of the traveling public in the United States,”
Secretary Mineta said. “We must take what we’ve
learned in the United
States and export best practices to help
emerging countries deal with this growing epidemic. Over the past 40 years,
we have gained tremendous experience in the area of road safety and are
willing to share this successful formula for reducing traffic fatalities.”
I think taken in isolation this sounds somewhat impressive. Here is
a top-level official willing to call this situation a “growing epidemic”.
In 2005 he said
when talking about the US
situation:
“We are in the midst of a national epidemic,”
said Secretary Mineta. “If this many people were to
die from any one disease in a single year, Americans would demand a vaccine.
[...]
This continues to sound good, doesn’t it? Mr. Mineta
then went on to say:
The irony is we already have the best vaccine
available to reduce the death toll on our highways – safety belts.”
Now, it seems true that safety belts would help reduce the US fatality
toll from highway accidents. However, are they a cure-all or even “the
best vaccine” for the global accident epidemic? I doubt it. As
with Global New Energy, I think too we see with Global Advanced
Transportation: it is necessary to put many pieces into place to solve the
puzzle… a daunting challenging puzzle. So, I’m not sure what Mr. Mineta would say if we specifically shifted the
conversation from US Highway Fatalities to Global Accidents, but to make my
own point of view clear, I don’t think we should be discussing only safety
belts when there are so many other partial imperfect solutions to discuss
which, if taken together, can imperfectly but significantly help us make a
real dent in this global problem.
The imperfect solutions to this terrible epidemic include building cars
which help drive themselves and which sense pedestrians and other upcoming
problems in the road, traffic systems designed to handle cars which can
communicate with each other and which can help drive themselves, better
traffic engineering and design, and a commitment to integrating and coordinating
cars, bicycles, pedestrians, trolleys and all other vehicles and people that
may occupy the roads (or to selectively keeping some vehicles from some
roads, for the right-minded sake of safety). These solutions no doubt
include some enforcement of existing laws against drunk driving, speeding,
following too closely, driving too slowly, and other laws pertaining to
vehicle conduct. They include a respect by traffic engineers and
vehicle drivers for the roles of walking, bike-riding and mass-transit in urban
and other environments. They include the need for awareness that
pedestrians and bicycle-riders do not end up killing and terribly injuring
people when there is a collision. It is cars and trucks and buses and
the like which, when they collide with pedestrians and others end up harming
those in and outside the vehicles.
These are just a few of the many ideas we need to address this problem.
We should also buckle up, but while seatbelts may help somewhat reduce
US highway deaths, I think if we want to get serious about the global traffic
accident epidemic, it will take a lot more than buckling up.
Originally published: May 09, 2009 |
Total Page Views: 663
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
Warren Heath:
The solution is to seperate our transportation systems - from one that
combines the movement of typically one person, much less commonly two
persons, from point A to point B, with the movement of heavy loads of goods
& people. It is sheer insanity to moving a 150 lb person around in huge
steel monstrosities that weigh 2000 to 5000 lbs, designed to go over 100 mph,
but end up only going an average of 20 mph.
My favorite idea is the ultalight
BEV with 4 wheel motors. Since you have no mechanical drivetrain - you can
have drive-by-wire and steer-by-wire - and the frame can be made from
composites that can distort in a collision, absorbing the energy of impact.
Composites have up to 13 times the energy absorbing ability of steel. Top
speeds can be limited to a pragmatic 50-60 mph. Except the small vehicles can
be moved onto carriers and high speed, lightweight rail for rapid transit to
a dozen or so nodes within a city or between cities. These vehicles, could
gradually evolve into a sophisticated PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) or PAT
(Personal Automated Transit) without huge expenditures by cash-strapped
cities.
11/May/2009
[66759]
Josh Landess:
Hi Warren: Thanks for
the input. I did really leave out the idea of reducing the weight per vehicle
where it is not necessary to have a 2000 pound vehicle hauling around a 150
pound human being, and so I think it's great that you got that in there. We
could save not only energy but also perhaps improve safety if we take an
approach of lightening and strengthening our four-wheel vehicles.
This is a double-edged sword because when very
heavy vehicles collide with the lightened vehicles we envision, the lightened
vehicles will sustain more damage than we want. Even if they are strengthened
using composites and such, ideally they would not have to share the road with
accident-prone unnecessarily-heavy vehicles. So, it's perhaps an
under-discussed paradox of our global transportation system (in need of
working out). Some will say that a person must buy an ever-bigger-and-heavier
vehicles to protect themselves. This logic would lead to everyone driving
around a 60,000 pound tank. There must be a better way.
Anyway, I like your focus on lightening the
vehicle while at the same time making it stronger and safer to the occupant
and taking into account some idea of a limitation on speed. Years ago I saw a
blurb in a magazine about a motorcycle that was very enclosed, so as to much
better protect the rider's body from any contact with the road and other
things in the event of an accident, and this sort of design attempt was
somewhat along the same line of thinking. It probably wasn't as safe as what
you envision, but was in somewhat the same line.
12/May/2009
[66768]
|
osh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
US-Oriented Transportation Safety & Fuel Statistics Of Note
Thursday | May 07, 2009
[Note to start: I've been online 17 years and I just suffered one of my
all-time 2-or-3 worst blogging data losses of composing in a web browser and
accidentally closing. So, I will attempt to recreate what I just wrote,
and not make that stupid lousy rookie error again. I must confess
severe frustration... I thought I had really succeeded in laying out what I
wanted to say.]
Each year I tend to revisit transportation statistics, particularly safety
statics for motor vehicles. Each year the situation is similar: the
NHTSA and FARS do provide useful good
information, but it can be difficult to get at. Each year we seem to
accept that so many have their lives changed dramatically for the worse by
experiencing a traffic accident, but what can any one individual do about the
amount of time it is taking the US and the world to improve
transportation safety?
We are in the midst of concerns about the H1N1 flu virus. As of this
writing about 2 people have died in the US,
while about 102 people, on average, die in the US every day in traffic
crashes. The point here is not to criticize our concerns about H1N1 (on
balance, considering what a very real killer influenza has been and will be
again, we are I think very right to be cautious); rather, the point is that
we should take very seriously that the deaths, injuries, financial burdens
and general misery from traffic crashes are an ongoing epidemic and we are
not doing enough in the face of this epidemic. The word
"epidemic" was used by then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta in 2004
"“I have invested both my time and influence to provide for the
safety of the traveling public in the United States,” Secretary Mineta said. “We must take what we’ve learned in the United States
and export best practices to help emerging countries deal with this growing
epidemic. Over the past 40 years, we have gained tremendous experience in the
area of road safety and are willing to share this successful formula for
reducing traffic fatalities.”
and again in 2005:
“We are in the midst of a national epidemic,” said Secretary Mineta. “If this many people were to die from any one
disease in a single year, Americans would demand a vaccine. [...]
Mr. Mineta went on to say:
The irony is we already have the best vaccine available to reduce the
death toll on our highways – safety belts.”
I disagreed with what I took to be Mr. Mineta's
over-emphasis on safety belts. I personally don't think safety belts
are anything more than one tool among many to help reduce traffic accidents,
injuries and deaths. Other important progressive safety measures I
think include cars that help drive themselves, redesign of roads and traffic
systems and intersections to address real-world immediate problems, long-term
better design of roads and systems, reduction in congestion, safer cars in
general (not just safety belts), and so-on. Of course, I could be wrong and
maybe safety belts are "the best vaccine". I guess I will
look forward to learning more about whether Mr. Mineta
was on the money.
In any event, here are some of the statistics of which we can take note,
from March 2009, an
“early release” of the 2008 NHTSA data.
The “Fatality Analysis Reporting System” (FARS)
of NHTSA gives us this:
US Crash Fatalities (this doesn’t include such things as airplanes and
trains… just conventional road or “highway” (why do they call it highway if
it includes slower-speed roads?) transportation and related.
2007 41,059
2008 37,313
US Fatalities per 100-million
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) from the Federal Highway Authority:
2007
1.36
2008:
1.28
So, we see a good improvement here. “Only” 37,313 Americans died
last year in crashes.
As I have noted elsewhere, I have had a question in my mind, as we have
gone through the global economic downturn and oil price problems, as to
whether folks would travel fewer vehicle miles, or travel more slowly, or
take more care. I haven’t yet concluded that the reason for the
downturn in deaths per 100m VMT is one of these. I’m just saying: if
some of us are driving a bit more carefully, or amidst a bit less traffic,
and if this leads to lower numbers of crashes and injuries, it’s not a bad
thing. It’s still nowhere near where we need to be (near-0 crashes,
near-0 deaths). It is merely a matter of taking a bit of a clue from
events and trends. I think in order to get to near-zero, near-zero we
will need cars that drive themselves or help do so, redesign of traffic and
I-don’t-know-what-else.
What about the bigger picture. How many non-fatal injury and
non-injury crashes were there in 2008? The best I can do for now is
find the 2005 and 2006 numbers. The NHTSA tends to make it a bit harder
to find these bigger-picture numbers. I found this obscure and helpful-seeming
University of Minnesota site that leads to this link where we get the
juicy bigger-overview information, albeit a few years delayed:
Transportation
Statistics Annual Report 2007 (PDF)
U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2007
This annual statistical report presents data on the nation's transportation
system that includes safety, economic performance, energy use, and
environmental impact data.
Stats of note:
2005, Total Registered highway vehicles: 247,421,120
(Apparently we did not have enough vehicles in 2004, so we increased the
number by 4,410,571 from 243,010,549…. It’s interesting to remind
ourselves, using the population
data available at census.gov, that the US with 306,376,462 has only abour 4.5% of the world’s population. If we project
US vehicle numbers out over the entire global population (ignoring for the
moment the imperfections of the 2005 source of our vehicle data) then we
would get something like 5,480,000,000 total registered highway vehicles for
the globe… not that there are such numbers, but if the entire world carried
the same number of vehicles per person as the US).
2006 Fatalities:
Highway
42,642
All other forms of transportation
(including airplanes, trains):
2,814
2006 Injuries:
Highway:
2,575,000
All other forms of transportation: 32,080
2006 Total Accidents (including ones where there was only property damage but
no injury):
Highway:
5,973,000
All other forms of transportation:
27,030
If these numbers seem a bit skewed, I think it can be interpreted only with
some additional perspective. Accidents and injuries and fatalities per
passenger-mile traveled and vehicle mile traveled do not seem to be part of
this report, although I may have missed them. We do have these summary
quotes and stats which help us understand the dominant role of conventional
motor vehicle travel:
[…]
• Passenger-miles of travel (PMT)
in the United States
exceeded 5.0 trillion in 2005, or about 17,800 miles for the average person.
• 86 percent of PMT in 2005 was
in personal vehicles (passenger cars and light trucks, which include sport
utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans). Air carriers accounted for
another 11 percent of PMT.
• Vehicle-miles of transit grew
by 25.9 percent between 1995 and 2004, to almost 4.5 billion miles, while
passenger-miles on transit grew 23.3 percent to over 49 billion.
• Freight ton-miles within the United States
amounted to over 4.5 trillion in 2005, compared to about 4.1 trillion in
1995.
Turning from the NHTSA safety-oriented statistics, and looking at Fuel
statistics:
We can note that we in the US
used less oil last year, even
dipping below 19m bpd during Q3 2008. Overall we use less than
22.7% of the world's oil now, down from such numbers as 2004's 25.2%.
Wahoo. It's progress, but by some measures, pathetic, when we
contemplate how far along the US
should be in disengaging from the global merry-go-round of oil dollars,
terror and pollution. The Energy Department has generally, in my view,
provided a well-run website with useful information. From this document
we can also glean that according to the Energy Department, as of the end of
2008, we had not yet reached peak global production. Sure, there are folks
who may disagree. I am just pointing this out: total global production
in 2008, on average, per day:
85.46 mbpd
In Q3 2008, the world seems to have produced 85.72 mbpd,
and demanded (same thing as "used" sort of?) 84.73 mbpd while the US used only demanded 18.84 mbpd. US demand may seem high, but for
a country that has long had roughly 5% of the world's population while using
something like 25% of the world's oil production, this sort of made an
impression on me.
Lastly for now, I sometimes revisit the statistics on Iran’s oil production, and the extent to which
Japan is buying from Iran.
What difference does it make if some countries boycott other countries in the
global oil markets if in the end both buyers and sellers can find people to
deal with? It probably makes a bit of difference (at an inconvenience
level) but not enough to put anyone out of business.
US Oil Imports
2007:
From Persian Gulf:
16.1%
From OPEC:
44.5%
Top Oil Importers
2007:
The US, Japan and China
ranked 1,2,3
In 2007, 12% of
Japan’s oil imports came from Iran,
their third-largest supplier after Saudi Arabia and UAE.
While the US will not
purchase oil from Iran, in
2007, Iran was able
to export Oil to these countries:
Top Iranian Crude Oil Export Destinations, 2007
Country thousands bbl/day
Japan
523
China 411
India 374
South
Korea 258
Italy
197
France
131
South Africa 128
Greece 113
Netherlands
93
Spain
79
Other 151
Toal: 2,458
Global Trade Atlas, FACTS, EIA
So, for example, at a rough
estimate of $80 per barrel in 2007, Japan
was sending about $41,840,000 per day to Iran. I wonder what
Iranians did with the money?
There is no direct relation between the fuel statistics and transportation
safety statistics I have cited. If there is arguably some parallel, of
some sort, I think it is something like this:
Our lack of sufficient response to 100+ highway deaths per day epidemic in
the US, and 16,000+ highway accidents of all sorts, is roughly in some way
akin to the lunacy of spending decades exporting Roman-Empire-Sized wealth on
a weekly basis outside the US, some of it directly to the Middle East, and
then acting mystified that the US Economy has suffered, jobs are gone and in
some cases our global security (and many others') has been made much more
expensive in lives and money. The latter problems in the end have
always seemed to me the most crazy part, but then I come back to considering
the plain old dangers of driving and it becomes a debate. I guess
driving is (statistically) one of the most dangerous things, if not the most
dangerous thing, that many of us do in our normal daily lives. It would
be good if we could get the injuries, deaths and property loss to zero, or at
least near-zero, from their present levels of 100+ deaths and 16,000+ crashes
per day in the US
alone.
[Addendum May 8, 2009: I got to talking with Jim (below) and I figured why
not just go and look up and find out how many fatalities there are around the
globe from road accidents? Based on one helpful-seeming bit of
research:
A
REVIEW OF GLOBAL ROAD ACCIDENT FATALITIES
By G D Jacobs and Amy Aeron-Thomas
It looks like my first guess may have unfortunately been better than my
second. Even though there are so many more cars in certain countries,
the fatality rates are still high in "Low Motorized countries"
. For 1999, the study appears to estimate between 745,769 and 876,539
deaths worldwide, making some attempt to take into account under-reporting
and other counting issues.]
Originally published: May 07, 2009 |
Total Page Views: 453
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
jim stack:
Good research. We kill
over 40,000 people on the highways each year yet it is accepted. Like I have
written vehicles are the WMD Weapons Of Mass Destruction right in front of us
and don't see it. The injuries you listed is also big. Somehow we just don't see
it and change. Driving slower and a lot less is a big part of the answer.
Mass transit also makes a huge difference. I ride a bicycle most of the time
and I've never heard of a bicycle running into someone and killing them. They
don't make pollution or use imported fuel. It even makes you healthier than
riding in a vehicle. Even a clean electric car can be driven unsafe and hurt
someone. Always drive slow and be careful for everyones
sake.
08/May/2009
[66735]
Josh Landess:
jim
stack: Good research. We kill over 40,000 people on the highways each year
yet it is accepted. [...]
Thanks for making those
various points Jim. I think in the US the official figure for 2008
dipped below 40,000 to 37,313, but I think even one death is too many, and
clearly more than 37 is still outrageous. That's just in the US!!
I just now revised the paragraph on this blog
where I quoted Secretary Mineta. I wanted to point
out that while I was very glad to see him discuss the problems of auto safety
as an "epidemic", I thought he did not serve us well in naming
"safety belts" as "the best vaccine". I believe that
proper use of safety belts does help save lives, but I also believe that it
is only one tool among many to address the terrible safety problems of
automobiles, and so singling out safety belt use is in my view wrong since it
draws too much (in my view) attention away from the multifaceted required
other measures we must take to improve safety.
Your points about bicycles not killing people and
helping with our health are thought-provoking to me as I am not a bike rider.
As soon as automobiles were introduced into human
society more than 100 years ago, I think they started taking lives and
injuring people, and even when people aren't hurt in accidents, they lose
some measure of economic standing (capital) when they experience an accident.
I don't know enough specifics about the history of automobiles to speak
authoritatively, but I think this is what happened.... and here we are with
still almost 40,000 people dying in the US alone. If the US has about
4.5% of the world's population, and if it has a similar proportion of traffic
deaths, then the number of global deaths attributable to traffic accidents
per year would be something like 829,000 per year. I have no idea though if
the proportion of accident-related-deaths in the global population is similar
to that of the US
population.
08/May/2009
[66737]
Josh Landess:
whoops, I said
"37", where I meant "37,000" in the previous comment.
08/May/2009
[66738]
Josh Landess:
Also, my estimate for
global deaths, while off-the-cuff, was probably so far off that I have to
disclaim. If there are only 3
or 4 x the number of cars globally that there are in the US, then
maybe there are only 3 or 4
times the number of deaths (between 150,000-200,000?) Anyway, it seems likely
that it is nowhere near the population-based number I came up with before.
Maybe the World Health Organization, or some other similar body has reliable
figures.
08/May/2009
[66739]
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Comparing Possible Bankruptcies: GM Versus Think Global AS
Saturday | April 18, 2009
Where the hell is GM's sense of urgency? Why aren't they rolling
plug-in vehicles out the door by the dozens right now, with some
ramp-up later this year?
I ask these guestions because at least one other
company (BYD) seems to be selling decent plug-ins to consumers in China.
I ask because a company in a country that is supposedly at "war"
would be rolling out electric vehicles to citizens so they could reduce their
use of an important strategic fuel (oil). A company in a country
struggling for its economic life would be fast-tracking technologies designed
to compete for consumer dollars. A company in a global economy
endangered by global warming would be rolling out answers to global warming
rather than causes of global warming. A company fearful of a brain
drain would be begging forgiveness from the hundreds and thousands of
engineers they have betrayed over the years when the company feigned interest
in top technologies and then literally crushed those techologies
for sham business reasons.
Even if we entertain the idea that GM's possible bankruptcy would be
"surgical" so that many of the jobs and plants and customer
relationships could survive, I am still left asking... are they going to get
it going or not? My father says they sound like a patient on Oxygen who
is smoking a cigarette. I think that description will do. When
they quit their anti-innovative technology-scuttling habits, and when they
roll out an EV widely for-sale without all the bogus excuses (never mind
whether it is the old GM or a bankrupted-and-resuscitated GM 2.0), then maybe
we can say they have made a last-ditch desperate-patient effort to quit their
form of cigarettes.
In the meantime, there is one EV Corporate story that particularly bothers
me, and it is the fact that Think Global AS, makers of the wonderful 62 mph
top-speed THINK CITY electric vehicle, are seeming to struggle to get the loans they
need to continue to survive. While billions of US Taxpayer dollars have
been funneled to the grey or black hole of GM's anti-innovative top management,
just 25 or 50
million in Venture Capital or similar dollars would seemingly be of help to
the struggling Norwegian carmaker.
I have not had time to do a proper look at Think Global's latest situation,
and with the amount of time the company is spending touting their possible or
probable US production ramp-up, it is perhaps not right of me to mention
Think Global's financial struggles in the same breath as the GM bankruptcy.
Nonetheless, there have been reports of halted production in Norway over the
last six months, and some bridge financing just to keep them going.
Some of my information is coming from a discussion forum, from posts such as
this:
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/think_ev/message/3487
I think what they need is a new funding round of at least
$40M or so, so that they can pay employees, pay suppliers, and buy more parts
for new cars. This whole planning to open a factory in
the USA has been exciting, but it seems Th!nk is still stuck in debt
consolidation, has not raised the needed funds to get the factory in Norway
running, and is will only move forward on their USA factory plans if they
receive low interest loans from the US government. :-/
When I post to this blog, I usually like to do a better job of
investigating than some discussion forum post, but unfortunately I simply
haven't had time to keep up with the Think Global AS situation. What
bothers me, and prevents me from quite shutting up about this, is this:
Ever since GM put off the pressure by claiming they would build a plug-in but
not until 2010, there has also been this race to see which small EV companies
would come through while the big companies were messing around. Tesla
is nice to hear about, but they make expensive luxury cars for people with
lots of money. I'd like also to see what we all know would be possible
which is a highway-capable well-made durable reliable EV that can be used by a family for something
resembling a reasonable price and with decent support from the
manufacturer. Think Global already showed us nine years ago (or so)
that they were to some extent the makers of one of those cars (unfortunately
only going 62 mph, so not really a highway-capable vehicle). So,
instead of just following the glamor cars (Tesla, Fisker) I think we should
also keep track of the workhorse lesser-priced vehicles and see how it's
going.
Think Global AS has been a mystery over the last year, seeming to start up
production last summer to some limited extent (yea!), then seeming to stop
production and fall into some sort of semi-bankrupt state last fall (boo!),
then seeming to get bridge financing to move out a few remaining cars (ok)
and then making a big push to talk about US production (ok). Normally,
if you're financially in bad shape in Norway,
then you're going to have a hard time becoming a successful US automaker,
but I guess if the company can win some of the Obama-dollars, then good for
them. If only it will lead to mass-production. When do we get
mass-production and the real-world chance to buy.
In the meantime, I think their cessation (if it is still stopped) of
Norwegian production is incredibly frustrating to those of us who are rooting
for them. So, they are presenting us with a paradox. Here's hoping that
their decisions are made with a greater sense of urgency and less complacency
than the verge-of-bankruptcy decisions made by GM over the last few years.
jl
18 April 2009
Originally published: April 18, 2009
| Total Page Views: 900
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
d sakarya:
a country that is
supposedly at "war" LOL ! That
"War" was waged so Americans could go on pissing away gasoline in
their fat-ass SUVs.
22/Apr/2009
[66577]
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Pollution & War Taxes On Gasoline & Other Fossil Fuels
Wednesday | March 25, 2009
I read this week that Smart
Car sales have for the moment tailed off (some who placed orders have
chosen to cancel). This has taken place in part
Cheaper fuel prices blunt the appeal of Smart's 36 mile-per-gallon rating,
and the recession has scared off some who ordered.
I take this as a warning sign. Never mind that we
have more-or-less reached peak oil; this does not mean that fuel pricing is
guaranteed to remain firm, since demand cannot be counted upon to remain firm
. In fact, according
to some theories, oil and refined fuel pricing may oscillate rather than
massively going up, since demand also may go a bit back and forth.
So, we cannot count on steady high fuel pricing being a
steady inducement to purchase of vehicles and alternative transportation systems that
offer energy conservation and alternative fuels. We were “lucky” in a
way when fuel prices went up last year, because at least this gave us a
needed wake-up call, and finally allowed consumers to see price signals that
would help motivate them to buy energy-conserving vehicles, but those market
forces which finally brought about that fuel price rise cannot (apparently)
be counted upon to provide a steady incentive to purchase of
energy-conserving vehicles.
I have previously suggested that we should arrange, via
increased oil-derived-fuel taxation, to have a base on the price of
fuel. I reiterate this suggestion.
Taxes on gasoline, diesel, propane and the like fall under
the heading of both war and pollution taxes.
They are war taxes because some of our enemies are funded
in part by our oil and other energy expenditures. So, if we really mean
business and are really fighting a war, we should do what nations do in
wartime and do everything in our power to reduce the flow of funding to our
enemies.
They are pollution taxes because the products of burning
oil-derived fuels are polluting and it will cost our government a great deal
to mitigate (clean up) that pollution. It is appropriate to fund this
cleanup by taxing the fuels causing the pollution problems.
The Obama Administration has offered up a
steady-stream of progressive legislation oriented toward purchasing EVs and
better transportation systems. It has been impossible for me to follow,
and it is great. Nonetheless, they clearly have a funding issue, with
overall government deficits soaring into the stratosphere. If it has
taken them a form of courage and initiative to propose paying for bold clean
energy alternate paths, why have they not exercised the courage and
initiative to propose an improved funding of these paths, via taxation of the
problem-causing old-technology fuels, so that we can have a steady inducement
toward purchase of clean energy alternatives? It will cost US taxpayers
a great deal over the next decade if so many tax breaks are given for the
purchase of EVs and other clean energy solutions. Why not offset some
of the inadequate funding of tax breaks by taxing fossil-derived fuels?
As
I’ve previously written, the idea is to provide a steady price in fuel,
not an egregiously high one. So, I think a subtlety here is that
fossil-derived motor fuels should be taxed sufficiently at the low end of
their pricing to provide a price floor, but not enough to singlehandedly
cause unnecessarily high prices.
The issue here, it seems to me, is in part that the Obama
administration is not taking the opportunity to press for appropriate partial
funding of their clean energy proposals. I call it “appropriate”
because if we are to collect taxes on fossil-derived fuels, then let those
taxes go to remediate the problems caused by fossil-derived fuels. In
an actual free-market-oriented economy, this I think is an appropriate use of
the mechanism of taxation. Fossil-derived fuels are causing US
Taxpayers a large amount of presently-unfunded expense, both in pollution
cleanup and in increased war risks and expenses. If we provide a price
floor for fossil-derived fuels, via a no-apologies direct taxation mechanism,
this will I think finally repair our system to more of a true free-market
situation where property-damaging pollution and exceptional national security
(war) situations are addressed with no apologies. By insufficiently
taxing and addressing these matters, to the point where the price of fuel
still sometimes drops to the point of consumers going back to choosing
vehicles that needlessly waste fuel, I think we are refusing to put a proper
market system in place. I think we need to put a system in place that
is appropriate to our war situation and that is appropriate to our pollution
cleanup situation.
Originally published: March 25, 2009
| Total Page Views: 1025
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Oil Price Gyrations And Peak Oil
Thursday | March 05, 2009
I was discussing with a colleague the question of to what extent some
folks have lost focus on or forgotten last year's high oil prices. Will
we see high prices again, going forward? How soon?
Then I remembered that last quarter Charles Whalen came up with some
pretty interesting math to try to figure out what is going on with Oil
Prices. I asked, and he gave me permission to pass along his comments.
Charles is the one who had come up with some very helpful-seeming ideas
and information that helped me and others to try understand what happened
with the confidential ECD-Chevron-Toyota-Matsushita agreements that appeared
to contribute strongly to delays in global progress toward plug-ins.
I am a bit skeptical that it's as simple as saying we're going to see oil
go to $200 (or whatever) per barrel and stay very high.
What if demand is quashed by an economic downturn or other global
events? Won't this be a damper on prices? Of course, a certain
amount of demand is in place for the near future because (by and large)
global consumers have not been allowed to purchase and use vehicles that use anything other than fossil fuels.
Yet, if I am looking at both supply and demand and asking about pricing, and
if supply is somewhat constrained going forward in my peak-oil-believer point
of view, then I am still left with some variables as far as demand, and
gauging global reaction to constrained supply.
Charles's views appear to try to claim, with some mathematical backing,
that we are seeing gyrations in Oil prices, and that these gyrations were and
are to some extent predictable. I'm not sure I buy everything he has
said, and at the time I specifically disagreed with the somewhat narrow point
as to whether we had reached peak oil. I didn't t think that was clear
yet. It didn't seem like a large matter though.... if we are not there,
I think we are all-but-there. I guess to some extent this depends on
where one gets one's oil production data.
As to any other points where I thought I might voice agreement or
disagreement, it's hard to do that on mathematical points if I am
acknowledging a lack of proper or full understanding.
Anyway, for those who follow energy pricing and supply, I thought I would
put it out there to a wider audience in case there are those who wish to take
it much further, and in mathematical terms. I can't keep up, but it
might be worth it for others to chew over these ideas.
Here are Charles's views on this:
---------------Begin Quotation Of Others' work----------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Whalen
whalenc@bellsouth.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 7:05 PM
Very complex subject. Peak Oil is not about running out of oil; it's
about having reached maximum supply and production. There's a big
difference. Basically what Peak Oil does is that it puts a cap on GDP,
where the only way GDP can grow any further is through efficiency
gains. The practical effect of this is that we will see repeated cycles
of rolling recessions (or worse, depressions) and recoveries, but without a
longer term trendline of growth. The longer
term trendline will be flat. This is exactly
what we are seeing. Global oil extraction and production peaked in 2005
and has fallen slightly since then. We are now on a very slightly
decreasing plateau and will likely not see larger declines in oil output for
a few years, possibly until 2012-15, when the declines will get
steeper. There can be, and will be, lots of oil price volatility within
this paradigm, with price basically determined by demand. What we now
have is a demand-destruction dynamic, where price will moderate demand and
vice-versa, but where total supply is limited and capped by the global peak
that is now clearly visible behind us in the rear-view mirror back in
2005. Peak Oil is only visible in hindsight, and we've now got that
hindsight to clearly see it.
There are mathematical models which explain the extreme price volatility we
are seeing and will continue to see in the oil market. In the absence
of any widely developed and available, competing substitute for oil and with
the supply of oil constrained and limited to the peak we have already seen
behind us and unable to expand any further, I see mathematical queueing models as a good proxy and theoretical construct
for explaining this price volatility. In a queueing
model, you have a demand rate and a supply rate, just as in the case of the
oil market. Mathematical queueing models do
not directly incorporate price into them, but this can be done by proxy, as
the length of the queue -- or equivalently, the waiting time in the queue
(which is proportional to the length of the queue) -- can be thought of as a
proxy for price, since price will likely be directly proportional to the
length of the queue (or equivalently, waiting time in the queue). This
may be somewhat counter-intuitive to those without mathematical training, at
least on first thought, but the length of the queue (and waiting time in it),
and hence, by proxy, the price of oil, takes off exponentially and skyrockets
as the demand rate approaches the limited, constrained, fixed supply
rate. In fact, the length of the queue, and hence price of oil,
actually goes to infinity (in the mathematical model) as slack capacity
completely disappears and the demand rate reaches 100% of supply, bumping up
against the fixed supply constraint. This can be seen mathematically,
for the simplest M/M/1 queue, with the formula:
L(t) = 1/[µ(t)-?(t)]
where
L(t) = length of the queue (as a proxy for price) at time t
?(t) = demand rate at time t
µ(t) = supply rate at time t
This mathematical model is a good proxy in explaining the demand-destruction
dynamic in a supply-constrained environment, as we now have with the oil market having
reached maximum global ouput, and the resulting
repeated cycles of rolling recessions and recoveries that we are seeing and
will continue to see, with a flat longer-term GDP trendline,
where demand continues to bump up against this fixed ceiling at the height of
each recovery, causing the price of oil to skyrocket, which then results in
demand destruction, leading to another recession and then subsequent
recovery, and so on and so on.
As demand backs off of the fixed, constrained supply going into each
recession, the mathematical model explains and demonstrates how the price of
oil will drop precipitously with the more slack capacity that is freed up
through demand destruction. Basically what will happen is that with
sufficient slack capacity (of supply over demand) in the global oil market,
the price of oil will start to drop back down towards its cost of extraction
and production, which is exactly what we are now seeing.
The only way we can get out of the vicious cycle of this paradigm (explained
reasonably well by mathematical queueing models),
which has stalled and flatlined long-term economic
growth, is to develop a widely available competitive substitute for oil,
which of course would be electrically-powered transportation, i.e. EVs.
That would remove the constraint and ceiling on economic growth and allow the
global economy to once again expand.
Charles
[Someone responded]:
"...The problem with this analysis is it assumes that the price of
oil is demand-driven.
"Unfortunately, it's not. Oil is a "managed market",
the price seems set by a cabal analogous to DeBeers, which runs the diamond
trade.
"But we'll find out, so no need to belabor the point."
[Charles responded]:
[...] I don't disagree with you. In fact I agree with you on this point
you make below. We are both right. What you are saying is not
inconsistent with my analysis nor the model I have used. Your point is
really just a specific elaboration into the details of my model, ... a point
which in fact I had already considered and implicitly allowed for but did not
specifically elaborate and expand upon in my original post.
That I had indeed considered what you are saying and implicitly allowed for
that is demonstrated by the fact that I did not use a fixed supply rate, µ ,
but rather considered the supply rate as one that can and does change with
time, µ(t), which clearly implies that the supply rate is managed -- or
manipulated, if you prefer -- as you suggest.
The only addition to the model that is required to specifically address and
incorporate this point is to add the condition that:
µ(t) < µmax
where µmax = 85 million barrels per day.
What you are saying below is something that is very obviously to me, you, and
all observers, which is that OPEC is clearly not going to leave the current
global production and supply rate, µ(t), pegged at its absolute maximum, µmax
, of 85 million barrels per day, simply because the enormous slack capacity
that leaves over the current (recession-induced) greatly reduced demand rate,
?(t), results in such a huge decrease in the market price of oil, as the
mathematical queueing model explains, which indeed
is confirmed by what we are seeing in the market. Therefore, there is
no question that the OPEC cartel will want to take a good deal of this excess
slack capacity (aka "slop") out of the market by shutting in
capacity to bring the global production and supply rate, µ(t), down closer to
the current global demand rate, ?(t), in order to provide a higher floor of
support underneath the global market price of oil.
So all of that is entirely consistent with the model. The most salient
point here is that although OPEC can actively manage and manipulate the
global production and supply rate, µ(t), it cannot, however, increase µ(t)
beyond its absolute maximum, µmax , of 85 millions barrels per day, which was
the all-time global peak in oil extraction and production achieved back in
2005, from which we have fallen and are now starting down the backside
downslope of the curve.
In fact, in order to be mathematically correct, one really needs to expand
the variables and parameters of the model a bit further by realizing that
µmax itself is not a constant but rather is a function of time, call it µmax(t)
, which follows a bell-shaped curve (similar to a Normal, log-Normal, or
Gamma distribution curve), where µmax(t) reached its all-time maximum, µmax´
, called "Peak Oil", back in 2005 at 85 million barrels per day.
So, the fully-elaborated, mathematically-correct addition to the model,
allowing for a variable (managed or "manipulated") global
production and supply rate, would add the following conditions:
µ(t) < µmax(t)
µmax(t) < µmax´
where µmax´ = 85 million barrels per day.
What this analysis and mathematical model explains and demonstrates is that
the price of oil is *both* supply-driven *and* demand-driven. That is
something which I would obviously completely agree with. But if you are
trying to suggest that the price of oil is *only* supply-driven and not a
function of both supply *and* demand, then I would clearly disagree with you.
Didn't mean to belabor the point, but sometimes the devil is indeed in the
details.
Charles
-------- [end quotation] ------------
Originally published: March 05, 2009
| Total Page Views: 1001
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Hunan
Corun New Energy Seeks To Produce NiMH Propulsion Batteries (Yay!)
Sunday | March 01, 2009
Will they succeed? Will Chevron and its business partners find a way
to stall them? Has the battery chemistry been rendered
less-than-competitive, and arguably moot by advances advances and
development of other battery chemistries including various types of Lithium
Ion?
[Note: I do not, as of the publication of this blog, have a vested
interest in the companies below, except a very minor indirect interest in
ECD.]
This Chinese company, Hunan Corun
New Energy, has been making signs for some time that they intend to make
Nickel Hydrogen batteries for vehicles.
For some years they appeared to be a Nickel producer with an unusual angle
of gearing their production toward batteries (under the present global
economy, the leading use of Nickel is I believe stainless steel). In
2006, they obtained a license from Ovonic Battery that appeared
to restrict them to non-propulsion batteries:
"[...] Under the consumer battery license grant,
Hunan Corun has a royalty-bearing, nonexclusive right to make, use and sell
NiMH batteries for consumer, nonpropulsion
applications."
Indeed, if we look at their web page, they appear even now 2 or 3 years later to offer NiMH batteries under 10
amp-Hours. This under-10-amp-hours is a number that I have seen put
around as a guideline for the sort of restriction placed on companies (by the
Chevron-Cobasys-Ovonic-Battery-Energy-Conversion-Devices Unholy Alliance) so
they do not get into making NIMH for propulsion purposes. I don't know
if it's really true or not\, but the Hunan Corun offerings do seem to fit the
pattern.
Something is odd though because Hunan Corun's
mission statements, particularly over the last year as they have changed
their name and made their goals quite clear, seem to indicate a direct intent
of getting into the business of batteries for EVs. For example, in
their "about us" page,
here is what they emphasize:
"...provide complete power solutions for all types of batteries
tools and electric vehicles..."
If they observe their agreements with the Unholy Alliance, then do they
have the legal right to get into Nickel Hydrogen Battery-Making for Electric
Vehicles?
The catch seems to be, all or in part, a co-venture that they entered into
last year with GP Batteries, a company traded on the Singapore exchange which
already makes NiMh batteries for the Vectrix (side
note that I've heard Vectrix is talking about moving on to LiOn but I don't know how far that has progressed).
GP has an old license to make NiMH for propulsion purposes (is it even legal
for anyone to restrict the purposes to which licensed products are put?) that
they signed with Ovonic Battery (or one of the related entities) years ago,
before the oil companies seemed to get ovetly
involved, and before the global agreements signed for NiMH battery production
seemed to tighten up in a way that was more restrictive of making batteries
for vehicles. So, even though the technology might be a bit long in the tooth, it would
appear that Hunan Corun has found a way to get some NiMH batteries for
electric vehicles into production.
This is potentially excellent news not only for EVs but specifically for
Chinese EVs. Many of us do not focus on hoping for companies to deliver
vehicles to the US
so much as rooting for companies to bypass the anti-EV machinations of some
US and other companies. If Hunan Corun can help build EVs for the
Chinese consumers who will then burn less oil, isn't that great? Check
out this press
release:
Corun signed with GP company on 18th, July, 2008 when Corun changed
company name from Changsha Lyrun New Material CO., LTD. to Hunan
Corun New Energy Co., LTD. at the same time. New company name is Hunan
Copower EV Battery CO., LTD which is a venture company. It is a symbol
of Corun entering automobile new energy industrial. The venture company
produce and plan to achieve our sale goal is 0.8 billion RMB in firstly
project and rapid realization of electric vehicle battery power
industrialization.
[...]
They have also made clear that they are seeking to address
some of the much-discussed (particularly by Lifton)
Rare Earth Metal materials requirements for NiMh
battery production.
2008-8-12
Nickel and molybdenum mineral resources exporting agreement was signed by
Hunan Corun new materials company and Zhang Jiajie
government at the Lantian Hotel on 12th, August, 2008.
Meanwhile, all is still a bit too quiet on the Western Front. We are
through about 1 out of 48 months of the Obama Administration. Despite
the excellence and smartness of some of their green legislation (for example,
finally finding a way to get solar energy installations credited into home
valuations, I'm told), there has as yet not been any word (so far as I know)
from the Obama administration as to finding a way to rescue the jobs in
Ohio's Cobasys plant and rescue NiMH plug-in-vehicle battery technology from
its two seemingly uncaring parents. ECD and Chevron continue to bicker
and fight, seeking some sort of divorce, while Cobasys loses money and a
customer (possibly GM) supports them.
Here is news
concerning the job losses.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
(Springboro, Ohio) – Cobasys, which manufactures
batteries for hybrid electric vehicles, says it has indefinitely laid off 119
workers from its plant here just south of Dayton. [...]
Here is a quarterly
report which contains information as to the joint venture parents
bickering while the company plods along. "CTV" is
"Chevron Technology Ventures". "OBC" is
"Ovonic Battery Company", a 91% or so subsidiary of Energy
Conversion Devices.
[...] Cobasys had losses of
approximately $74 million and obtained funding of approximately $84 million
in 2007, and in January 2008 Cobasys management forecast losses of
approximately $82-86 million and funding requirements of approximately $92-94
million for 2008. Cobasys management has not provided CTV and OBC with
a forecast for 2009. Until September 2007, CTV historically funded
Cobasys’ loss-generating operations through the purchase of preferred
interests. From October 2007 through January 2008, CTV declined to purchase
preferred interests and funded Cobasys in a manner that in OBC’s view
violated the Operating Agreement and applicable Michigan law. Since February 2008, Cobasys
has received funding support from a customer in the form of a loan for
capital equipment purchases and a price increase on products sold to the
customer. While Cobasys has been receiving this funding support from its
customer, Cobasys management has not sought any funding from the members of
Cobasys. There is no assurance that this customer funding support will
continue on these or other terms or otherwise be sufficient to permit Cobasys
to continue as a going concern.
During the years when we were all searching for battery solutions, on
through today, has anyone at Cobasys been trying to make NiMH sales into the
plug-in EV market while this fighting is going on? This is not a
rhetorical question on my part. I don't know the answer.
How often does it happen that a customer is so desperate to take delivery
of a product that they will in effect fund the producer? And not get an
ownership stake? And continue to tolerate the apparently neglectful
business postures of the producer's owners? While someone (possibly GM)
supports Cobasys, others (Daimler and ITS) have filed suit.... bringing some
attention to the idea that in practice something has gone awry with how
ECD-Cobasys-CTV-etc. have delivered or not delivered.
If GM is the customer that is propping up Cobasys, and if we taxpayers are
now propping up GM, then we taxpayers have a right to demand more say-so in
the resolution of the Cobasys situation. Cobasys should be divested
from its neglectful parents and placed into foster care with an ambitious
profit-oriented company that wants to make batteries for EVs. Also, an
investigation should be made to determine if global NiMH licensing has been
done in order to maintain a profitable situation for American patent holders
or in order to restrict and stop all progress in NIMH technology.
Sure, it's probable that LiOn batteries will
likely soon render all or much of this discussion moot. That will be
great. In the meantime, my hat is off to Hunan Corun. I hope they
bend or break every rule in sight and succeed in making many batteries, of
all types, for plug-in vehicles.
There is a school of thought that unless EV Batteries and vehicles are
exported to the US,
then from the standpoint of a US EV fan we must be disappointed. I do
not subscribe to this school of thought. If Hunan Corun makes many
great batteries and vehicles for the Chinese markets, then that will be
fantastic.
Originally published: March 01, 2009
| Total Page Views: 937
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
jim stack:
this NiMH company seems
to be doing ok. http://www.nilar.com/index.php?pageID=33&languageID=1
02/Mar/2009
[65978]
Report abuses to: editor@evworld.com
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Reducing and eliminating some energy expenditure related to
transportation.
Thursday | February 12, 2009
What causes us to need (or want, or choose) to use
transportation? We use transportation when we need or want to transport
ourselves or goods to some location other than the one presently occupied by
ourselves or the goods to be moved.
A lot of the writing and reporting at EVWorld.com is
focused on improving individual transportation vehicles and their energy use,
but this focus is not always to the exclusion of focusing on improving other
aspects of transportation (safety, comfort), and on improving (in energy use and
otherwise) other aspects of our present global transportation system.
Once a transportation system of roads and paths and
refueling stations is in place, a variable that is easier (in energy, money
and effort) to change than the larger infrastructure and fuel type is simply
to change the vehicles. Individual consumers have purchasing
power to change which vehicles they use, but do not have quite as much power
readily to change the overall system of roads and such. Sure, you can
change which fuel you use, but it takes some doing. So, it is
perhaps understandable in some ways that we look first at individual vehicles
and how we use them when we want to figure out some energy-saving ideas.
Still, in addition to focusing on the energy efficiency of
individual vehicles, let’s also take a look at a few of the other big-picture
high-ticket global transportation items and considerations that we will write
about and change over the coming decades:
- Mass-Transit:
The vehicles themselves may use more energy, per mile, per vehicle, but when they are loaded with passengers,
then overall less energy is used per passenger-mile-traveled.
A web page which does a good job of bringing out the
energy savings to be discovered by using mass transit is this one, by netizen James Strickland, M.Sc.
http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html
This page stands out in that it presents us not just with
miles-per-megajoule figures but some in-depth
passenger-miles-per-megajoule figures. It
takes into account the “extreme carpooling” that is inherent to the taking of
buses, trains, planes and other forms of mass
transit. Mr. Strickland has done the legwork to research the different
mass-passenger type vehicles and provide credible estimates that help us to
understand their passenger loads.
Nearly a decade ago, I posted some calculations here for
vehicular energy efficiency:
http://www.herecomesmongo.com/ae/comptab.html
However, I did not actively maintain my page and I did not
really focus on taking into account the varying number of passengers per
vehicle. So, James Strickland’s research helps us more today, in terms
of widening our focus away from the same-old vehicular energy efficiency
calculation.
Also, I have recently tried to expand my own page to
include cycling and walking, and, like it or not, these are activities that
are going to remain in the mix for our transportation options, particularly
if we go through a period of constrained global energy and resource supply.
- Location
of our homes and businesses: A building can be said to have a
“transportation energy efficiency” that is co-dependent on the
transportation needs and wants of the denizens.
If I move to a highly energy efficient home, that’s
wonderful, but if many of my typical daily and weekly destination points
(places of food shopping, work, worship, education, entertainment,
transportation refueling, other shopping, etc.) are dozens of miles away, and
if I have few or no mass transit options, then I have chosen to locate to a
home that has a comparatively high transportation energy use for me. It
might have a comparatively lower use for someone who found that the same
building was closer to their own destination points than it is for me.
In my own case, I may live in a home that is comparatively
energy efficient, but it is far away from some of my destination
points. Sometimes this makes me want to consider living in a structure
that, for me, would be closer to my destination points and that, in general, would
allow me to use my car less (such as if I could live closer to mass transit,
bicycling and walking options).
Purchase options for more transportation-energy-efficient
homes and business buildings would be also affected by different and better
planning, and I think this is an inherently much-discussed topic amongst
Green Planners, but it could take some years or decades to bring about strong
change of the US and Ex-US infrastructures and directions, away from
conventional car-oriented suburb-oriented planning and toward reduced
transportation energy use. (If people simply move to the cities as part
of our economic upheaval, to get away from some car expenses, needs and
energy use, it won't necessarily take decades in that sense, but will result
in the old less-useful infrastructure and planned communities being partly
abandoned, I guess).
Another offbeat policy angle here is this:
We have heard much in the news recently about Congress’s
role in dealing with the mortgage companies, yet I have heard nothing about
whether our (taxpayer) involvement in the mortgage business has been done
with an eye toward resource conservation. Why not require that
energy efficient mortgages be emphasized, if we are to be in the mortgage
business? Why not start to incorporate transportation options into the
calculation of whether a mortgage is energy efficient. Well, I don’t
know enough about this, but am hopeful these considerations can be be taken into account by bankers and policy-makers.
- Advances
in the internet and telecommunications allow us to save transportation
energy.
-- In some cases, we should consider that it is possible
to have the complete elimination of the need for transportation at all.
We can telecommute and have teleconferences and phone calls rather than
traveling long distances.
-- Also, in some instances we can even eliminate the need
for the existence of goods that need transporting. We can replace those
goods with files and telecommunication (electronic transportation, as it were)
of those files. This principle applies to such obvious candidates as
hardcopies of CDs, DVDs and Books. In the old days, we could go to such
stores as amazon.com and order conventional delivery (via UPS and the like)
of those hardcopies. These days we can arrange for transfer or
streaming of files. Sure, there are some energy costs that are negative
to this (such as the energy to maintain an MP3 file on one’s hard drive for
some years, if one chooses to take delivery of a file rather than deal with streaming
it) but I think in the final analysis the transportation energy costs, and
perhaps the overall energy and resource use, is reduced by a societal
transition away from hardcopies and toward purchase of rights to files and
streams.
Investment and culture closing comment:
Some years ago I started following alternative energy
investments. In some ways, I was too early. To be sure, I never
thought that the full batch of all investments at the time would come into
their own, but in the end, like some investors in internet and
telecommunications, I had to wait for the inevitable weeding out of early
investments and for the maturation of some of the other investments.
The tie-in here for me is that as we watch Amazon.com and
other internet companies taking on more strongly some of the competitive
aspects first discussed by original investment enthusiasts 10 or 15 years ago, we can
more firmly appreciate that while investment riches may not be consistently
at the end of the discussion for all those internet .com investments, we can
see that eventually some of the far-sighted visions do bear out for shoppers
and businessmen. In the end, many customers are saving dollars and time
and energy by shopping online instead of by going to the store. Lately,
some retailers are adding to the energy savings by offering downloading or
streaming rather than just selling a disc or book to be delivered by a
gasoline-burning freight-hauling organization like USPS or UPS.
In the face of a global economy suffering many different
blows from different angles, I don’t think it’s possible to be too broad and
say that a company like Amazon is doing better than many conventional
retailer becauses of the reduced transportation
energy footprint that might be ascribed to a transaction. Yet, we can
say I think that some of their success is attributable to the basics pointed
out by investors years ago… increased convenience, quick access to what you
want, reduced shopping energy expenditure and now in some cases the elimination
of the need for transportation energy expenditure.
Originally published: February 12,
2009 | Total Page Views: 1092
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
A Criticism Of Nuclear Energy On Economic Grounds
Friday | February 06, 2009
This particular blog of mine will not contain my own direct
commentary. I spotted a post highly critical of Nuclear Energy on
Economic (not directly Environmental) grounds, and I thought this post would be
worth memorializing and bringing to a wider audience, via blog, so to get
straight to the point, here it is:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SustainableTucson/message/2677
I am copying and pasting only the portion claimed to be from Russell Lowes
[russ3lowes@netscape.net] of SafeEnergyAnalyst.ORG.
--------------begin copy & paste--------------
To: SustainableTucson@yahoogroups.com
From: russ3lowes@netscape.net
Re: [SustainableTucson] Rethinking Nuclear Power
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:24:20 -0500
Hi [...],
I will put it bluntly, I was amazed that someone who is interested in
sustainability issues has been so bamboozled by the misinformation spread by
the government/nuclear industry complex.
I have been giving talks on nuclear energy and alternatives in Pima and
Maricopa (Phoenix
area) Counties. Over the last year, I have spoken before hundreds of people.
A bit about me:
My most specialized background is in nuclear energy and its alternatives,
mostly from an economic perspective. I am the key author on a book on the
Palo Verde plant, published in 1979, "Energy Options for the Southwest,
Nuclear and Coal Power." In our book, we projected the three reactors
at Palo Verde to be $6.1 billion, and Arizona Public Service Co., the plant
manager, projected $2.8 billion. We were within 4% off of the final cost,
having used statistical regression analysis combined with other modeling. APS
was 111% off the mark. They used sales pitches. Our book was used as the main
document in successful municipal campaigns in California to kill Units 4&5 at Palo
Verde. Our book was part of the strategy that killed those two projects.
Other things I have done include financial management, general management,
accounting and financial turnarounds for companies in distress, with a
turnaround success rate of 6 out of 6 companies. I love to analyze the
future. Crazy as it may sound, I even have projected both of the last
presidential races with less than a 2%=2 0error margin.
You say you have a friend that says nuclear energy is viable. In what way is
it viable. I would hope that you equate viable with sustainable. How is it
sustainable? You say that reprocessing is "recycling," when it
clearly is not like the recycling of glass or aluminum cans or other metals.
It is not recycling at all in reality. Nuclear spent fuel is separated
mechanically, with chemicals, and with electricity. Reprocessing of spent
fuel creates 10-20 times the volume of nuclear waste that you begin with. It
creates a huge opportunity for terrorist and accidental diversion of
materials for nuclear weapons and ecological nightmares, and reprocessing has
been illegal in this country for about 30 year because of that. (See nirs.org
and look at their reprocessing reports.)
You refer to eia.doe.gov which is a general clearinghouse of information on energy.
The EIA unscrupulously promotes nuclear power. For example, look at this
little tidbit of information they put out, from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/energybasics101.html
Fuel Cost: nuclear vs. fossil steam 0.49 cents/kwh vs. 2.32 cents/kwh
Note that nowhere near this information is the capital cost of the plant in
cents/kwh. The CAPITAL COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER ARE ABOUT 80% -- THAT'S 80% --
OF THE COST OF NUCLEAR POWER. (Capital costs are those costs associated with
the construction cost of the plant.) That means that they are
ignoring the vast majority of the cost with this consumer information tidbit.
Nuclear power, which was estimated at $1500/kilowatt of installed capacity in
2006, is now estimated to cost well over $5000/KW. My estimate is currently
$9400/KW for a plant completed in 2019. Seattle Power & Light estimated
$10,000. No nuclear plant has ever come in on budget in the U.S. (See
"Power Plant Cost Escalation," Charles Komanoff.)
That brings me to the next issue, 2019. American Electric Power said it won't
invest in nukes because they estimate the court rulings about nuclear power
will go on until the early 2020s. There are a lot of unresolved problems with
nukes -- many things to sue over, before the industry hits any kind of stride
in construction. Nukes take about 10 years to license and build, if they are
lucky (some have taken over 15 years). There is a 250 megawatt windfarm in Mexico recently begun that will
be done by the end of 2009, they say. Energy efficiency is already growing at
a high rate, and we have barely put any money into it in a concerted way.
(See “Carbon Free and Nuclear Free,�
ieer.org.)
Water at Palo Verde's three 1270 MW reactors evaporate 63,000 acre-feet of
water a year, 45% of Tucson Water's total use of 140,000 a.f.
That does not count the water for mining or the other 18 steps of the total
20 steps of the nuclear energy cycle.
GHG, or as most on this listserve will know also as
greenhouse gases, are emitted by many steps of the fuel cycle for nuclear
energy. At least 103 lifecycle anlayses (LCA) of
nuclear energy have been done. Sovac ool put out a study that pared the list down due to some
studies using unverifiable information, some being too old, and others just
referring to other studies. When he averaged the remaining studies, the
nuclear energy cycle was projected as spewing over 60 grams of CO2 into the
atmosphere per kilowatt-hour. Now that figure is much higher than for wind,
solar, energy efficiency, but much lower than coal's 960 and combined cycle
natural gas at about 400. But take a closer look at the future. Uranium ore
has gone down in quality, and is plummeting in ore content. In 1979, ore
quality was 0.3% uranium typically. Today it is 0.15%. It is expected to go
down to about 0.014% by 2045 or so. The CO2 from mining and milling so much
more ore will skyrocket. At some point, around 2045, nuclear will pass CO2 of
combined cycle natural gas and shoot toward coal.
Economics is a big part of sustainability. Estimates for nuclear electricity
have been increasing radically. A 2007 study, by the Keystone Center,
of which the nuclear industry was a part, put the cost per kilowatt-hour at
about 10 cents for generation (plus transmission and distribution). This was
before the true-up in nuclear quintupled construction costs. A more recent
study estimates 25-30 cents per kilowatt-hour (at
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/).
With wind averaging 3-10 cents (depending on siting) and with energy
efficiency costing less than and average of 3 cents per kilowatt, and with photovoltaics for industry a t 15 cents (including
T&D), nuclear has already become economically obsolete. My estimate of
nuclear is at 24 cents production cost, currently. Nuclear costs have been
rising, while the other options mentioned are coming down in cost.
Nuclear energy is not sustainable, economically, in regards to water waste,
in regards to nuclear proliferation, nor in regards to greenhouse gas
emissions. I don't blame you for not getting the facts straight. The industry
is not making it easy, with their multi-million dollar PR blitzes. However,
the information is there. You have to dig for it, but it is there. All of my
information comes from government and industry sources, either directly, or
through well-documented studies that I spend a great deal of time with,
analyzing the validity.
I would be happy to make a presentation to S.T. There is a lot at stake here
in making the best energy choices. Best of luck to us all!
Russell Lowes
Research Director
www.SafeEnergyAnalyst.org
---------end copy & paste-----------
Originally published: February 06,
2009 | Total Page Views: 825
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
Larry Agee:
Interesting article, but
not very realistic in comparing solar, wind and nuclear costs. I don't know
if reprocessing using modern methods would produce as huge a volume of waste
as it would have 20 years ago. The amount of land put out of comission for nuclear waste would be a miniscule amount
compared to the destructive forces of solar and wind farms for the same
amount of power.When you get a solar plant
producing enough electricity to power a city 24 hours a day continuously for
18 months without shutdowns, then the comparison will be more valid.
06/Feb/2009
[65737]
John Hurt:
No one could argue
against these facts except a very unrational
person.
09/Feb/2009
[65761]
jim stack:
Excellent facts on the
real cost of nuclear. I totally agree with Russ. The G8 summit agreed with an
estimate of 50 cents a KwH. The water use alone
should stop their use. Not to mention safety, storing waste and capitol cost
of building and fueling. These are the facts people need to hear everyday.
Thanks for providing this data.
10/Feb/2009
[65768]
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
The 198+ MPGE ElectricMotorCycle Solution, For Sale Right Now
Friday | January 30, 2009
Last year I authored a blog
asking if the Vectrix really gets 340 MPGE.
The company itself, while struggling with difficult global market
conditions and a stock price under 5 pence per share (!), and struggling
against the markets and probably the petroleum-powers-that-be to get their
product out there, unfortunately has done a very poor job of getting their
proper mileage data out there.
(They seem to be doing a good job in some other ways, but on the issue of getting
their mileage data out there via a simple statement on their web page, I wish
that we had more help from the company itself. I just took another
quick glance at their page, and there is updated information about new
models, but at a glance I still can't seem to find a clear miles-per-kWh
statement).
As owner and tester reports have trickled in, it has been possible to
piece together a bit more. We have this data from a review last summer that
gives us a sort of "valuable conservative estimate". I like
the fact that this data is apparently from someone who generally reviews
gasoline 2-wheelers but who was apparently trying to be clear in their
measurements.... perhaps not the usual EV-reviewer-person.
I ran several tests and found that it takes about 4.67 KwH
to recharge the Vectrix from a very low battery condition.
[...]
In my riding, the Vectrix showed a range of capabilities that was directly
tied to the average constant speed. At low speeds, say about 35 MPH, the
Vectrix should give you about 50 miles before needing a charge. At higher
speeds, like 55 MPH, it falls off to 28 miles before needing juice.
Going by this review, the Vectrix is getting something like:
28/4.67-50/4.67
= about 6.00-10.71 mpkWh range
Estimating mpge, using a round number estimate of
about 33 kWh in a gallon of gasoline (in reality, this varies):
197.86-353.32 mpge (pump or socket to wheel).
So, we have a low-end estimate. We can get a high end estimate by
using the usual published estimate of 35-55 miles range. The 4.67
recharge statement is just one data point from one reviewer, and I'm not sure
what to do about that. Battery
capacity for the NiMh version is 3.7 kWh, but we
know there will be charging losses. For purposes just of this article,
I guess I will use 4.67. So, if we go 55 on 4.67 kWh, that is about
388.65 mpge.
So: I estimate somewhere between 198 and 389 MPGE, with a caveat that we
need more data for real-world charging and associated range.
The number of dealers carrying this vehicle seems to have gone up as the company has changed
their buiness approach, and the asking price seems
to have fallen, though it is still very high. One review I read
recently quoted something like just under $10k USD.
Still: it's available. Even if you carpool a 50 mpg hybrid with one or two passengers, you will still use
more energy than if you drive a Vectrix. Many of us cannot
realistically consider buying the vehicle, either for reasons of cost or
practicality. In my case, the cost is prohibitive, but also I foolilshly chose to live so far from most of my
destination points that it is best for me to maintain ownership of a more
conventional vehicle. This separate issue (distance from destination
points and expenditure of energy to get from a given building) is one that I
hope to discuss in other blogs).
I wish Vectirx would do a bit more to get the
information out there that during a global financial tightening and amidst
global energy concerns they may be selling the world's highest-mileage
vehicle in its speed class, but at the same time, we can help them get this
information out by discussing it, and by striving to maintain credibility by
not exaggerating the data, but simply assimilating it properly, as more data
comes in. We can also continue to bring attention to it, as to the
owners of these vehicles and whether and to what extent they are
satisfied.
Originally published: January 30,
2009 | Total Page Views: 737
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
Jim Stack:
try adding a little
human power. Bicycling 0.4 L/100 p·km (653 p·MPGeUS) 0.4 L/100 p·km (653 p·MPGeUS) 0.4 L/100 p·km (653 p·MPGeUS) Electric bicycle (single test)[11] 0.5 L/100 p·km (496 p·MPGeUS) 0.4 L/100 p·km (631 p·MPGeUS)
02/Feb/2009
[65695]
Josh Landess:
Hi Jim:
My following of a high-mileage vehicle
like the Vectrix should definitely not be construed as any denial that there
are even more efficient ways to transport people and goods. I have updated a
page this week on this topic that I originally posted approximately
2000-2002:
http://www.herecomesmongo.com/ae/comptab.html
I have tried to insert miles-per-megajoule data for walking, biking some mass-transit
vehicles, and so-on. A good link for mass-transit (in particular) is here:
http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html
When you build your spreadsheets on this
sort of data, it requires additional research to take into account number of
passengers, so as to have a true passenger-miles-per-megajoule
figure, and that's one reason that page is good.
The author of that page makes many good
points, including this obscure gem:
"My Plea
[...]
"# shifting spending on
infrastructure. Diverting even as little as 1% of the road budget to support
cycling would make it possible for cycling to be much safer and more
comfortable. Imagine covered, completely grade-separated weather-protected
cross-town bicycle "highways"!
"[...]"
I could have sworn there was a decent wikipedia or other page which gets more to the point of
taking into account the very low energy use of walking and biking in its
table, but I can't find it just this moment. My page does a poor job for now
of taking passenger miles into account, but I am getting walking and cycling
in there and eventually there will be a page that will try to bring all of
this together. As I say, I think that Strickland.CA page is excellent,
reflecting decent upkeep, and I wonder if she or he will do this, or may have
already.
There are a number of inter-related
issues that have been coming up recently in my reading and work as to
transportation energy efficiency, business, policy, and the importance of
realizing very clearly that getting a bunch of non-pluggable HEVs (NPHEVs)
out there is not in any way sufficient to meet our needs for dramatic change
in the energy and emissions profile of all global transportation activities.
I will try to blog more on some of this,
and since you're a regular EVWorld.com blogger also, we can generally make a
note to work more in this general area of thinking and writing and advocacy,
to bring attention to even more radical energy savings possible in
transportation.
12/Feb/2009
[65783]
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
The Ratio Of Air To Fuel
Tuesday | January 27, 2009
One of the less prominent issues in trying to engineer more
energy-efficient automobiles is (I'm told) that the US Federal Government
requires, by law, that all vehicles have an air-to-fuel ratio of 14.7 to
1. Apparently the reason(s) for this include control over emissions and
safety.
So, apparently, if some innovator wants to come along and try other
ratios, then they are out of luck. This has the gas-vaporization crowd
very unhappy.
I have not found the name of this law itself. But it is often
referenced by mentioning "OBD II" rules ('OBD = Onboard
Diagnostics" I believe) and is discussed in yahoo's
alternative energy politics discussion group by an innovator named on the
group as Gary Kirkland. Gary
writes, for example (I did some minor editing for layout & punctuation
clarity.):
[...] I'm sure that the EPA-OBD II Rules will remain in effect for the
foreseeable future. This Rule mandates that all Gasoline powered
Vehicles from 1996 to the present must operate at 14.7 parts of Air to 1 part
of Fuel. Any change whatsoever, even if Fuel Economy is improved, and Emissions are lowered, will
result in a failed Annual Vehicle Emissions Inspection. The point is,
it's entirely possible to safely convert Gasoline into a clear, dry Vapor
that is 100 parts of Air to 1 part of Fuel.Even the
largest SUV could easily get 50+ MPG, and emit a fraction of the Emissions of
a 14.7 / 1 Fuel System, with an increase in Power, and much longer Engine Life.I'm not the first to realize this. Far from it ! For
proof, do a search on [the late] Tom Ogle, and Charles Nelson Pogue.Then, go to http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.html.
But, even if it is not to be believed that Fuel Vaporization is entirely
possible, the Fact remains that it's illegal to even attempt to do so. When a
Vehicle is given it's Annual Emissions Inspection, it's connected to an OBD
II Emissions Analyzer.All such Vehicles have on
board Oxygen [O2] Exhaust Sensors.If a Vehicle is
running too Rich, and emitting a great deal of Polluting Exhaust Emissions,
it will fail it's Emissions Inspection, as well it should.But,
with a 100 / 1 Vapor Fuel Mixture, O2 Sensors will detect nothing, since they
must detect a 14.7 / 1 Air / Fuel Mixture, in order to function, according to
established Original Equipment Manufacturer's Specifications, which are input
into the OBD II Emissions Analyzer, that all such Vehicles must be connected
to, for inspection. Vaporized Fuel will result in an O2 Sensor Failure Code
during Emissions Inspections.O2 Sensor Waivers are granted for Vehicles that
have legally been converted to operate on Natural Gas, Propane, or Hydrogen.
But not for Vaporized Gasoline.Thus, it is entirely
possible for a Gasoline powered Vehicle, 13 Years old, or newer, to fail an
Emissions Test, for not emitting enough Polluting Exhaust Emissions! As
long as this insane Law, that only benefits Big Oil, remains in effect, the
only way to legally make a Gasoline Powered Vehicle "more efficient" is to make it more compact, and lighter.And I am confident that the new Administration
will do nothing to "Rock the Boat", as long as Big Oil remains in
firm control!
I have never really known if Gary is exactly on the money with this issue,
but have always thought that he might be onto something. Sure, he is
trying to get his own gas vaporization engineering out there and make a buck,
but that isn't the only thing of interest here. If he is right, then
there is some low hanging fruit here for policymakers to change. They
could call into question whether US emissions and related laws, particularly
those that apparently result in a de facto legal number for
air-to-fuel-ratio, are resulting in over-use of fuel in the US.
If we try to google around on this issue, we can
see that part of the discussions are focused on engineering and on the policy
side.
Part of the discussions are occupied by an inventor named Tom Ogle who
claimed to have developed a 100 mpg vehicle. Mr. Ogle descended into personal problems
and died a few years later. It is hard to say if he was really onto
something or not. Here is one link that
comes up.
Also, perhaps part of the reason for any laws in this area is not just
engineering rules (or hubris) in setting the ratio at the claimed stochiometric ideal. It is also perhaps (in one or
two of the things I've read) that vaporization of some fuels might have
safety issues? If so, I question whether it would be enough to warrant
holding up significant progress in global efforts to save energy in the form
of fuel. Safety concerns in energy and transportation should always be
taken seriously, but arguably sometimes result in being used as an excuse to
hold up all effort at progress.
If Gary is correct about US auto emissions laws getting in the way of
energy-efficiency innovation and progress, then this would seem to beg the
question of why cars manufactured in and for other countries are not
engineered to sidestep these claimed-nonsensical US laws.
Last point for now, on a scientific note: in most (if not all) of the
discussions I have read about saving conventional gasoline and diesel fuel, I
have not seen a point made that the air, as well as the gasoline, is in a
sense used up. We do not pay for air nor sequester it in any sort of
economic sense and yet from an engineering standpoint perhaps we should be
careful not to forget about it. It is part of the process and is needed
for propulsion to take place if the power for propulsion comes from
combustion. I've always thought that a side-note for plug-in power was
that since it did not require air for combustion (but only for cooling) then
it would allow for some interesting overall vehicle design changes. A vehicle
that does not have to breathe air may be perhaps optimized in a way that an
air-breathing vehicle does not need to be optimized.
It's difficult to get on top of this obscure issue of air-to-fuel-ratio
policy and engineering, and collect all the links, and lay out where I stand
on it. I just wanted to bring a bit more atention
to it. To my knowledge, to this day, there is still not even any good
summary web page about the policy side of this. Now there is at least a
blog or two. Maybe at some point someone in the Obama administration
(i.e.: the administration that does not put the interests of the American
Petroleum Institute above the interests of American Taxpayers) can examine
the issue in a solid and persevering way.
Originally published: January 27, 2009
| Total Page Views: 466
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
Gary Kirkland:
Mr. Josh Landess ;
Thanks for the commentary on my vaporizer.How can I
go about sending a Photo to you ? Thanks again ! Gary
04/Jul/2009
[67237]
Josh Landess:
Hello Gary. You're welcome for the commentary. I
look forward to verifying the laws in question. Feel free to post a link to
your photo. If you need help finding free services on which to post the
photo, I've heard the flickr.com is a leading such service.
07/Jul/2009
[67260]
Thomas Dodd:
I think Gary is a bit off. He doesn't seam to
understand what the O2 sensor measures.Also, is he
talking about a wide band sensor or a narrow band sensor? As for lean
mixtures, too lean, and you get lots of nitrogen oxides in the exhaust. The
whole EGR system was originally developed to reduce NOx
emissions which cause smog. If one can show, using an gas analyze that a
vapor fuel vehicle can meet the limits on emissions of other gases than I'm
sure the EPA would make an allowance.
24/Aug/2009
[67826]
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
The comparisons of Microsoft to Detroit
Automakers always seemed to have some validity, didn't they?
Thursday | January 08, 2009
I see this wonderfully to-the-point headline on pcworld.com:
Windows
7 Is Less of a Resource-Hog than Vista
James Niccolai, IDG News Service
Jan 8, 2009 1:30 am
Great news! It is humorous that such good news comes in the form of
such a blunt comparison, but for those of us who have used Microsoft
operating systems for so many years, is it possible that they have FINALLY
realized even 20% of what they needed to realize as to the horrible bloatware tendencies? Why does "Microsoft
Operating System Upgrade" seem to be a prominent (if debatable) oxymoron
in our culture? Mr. Miccolai writes:
When Vista shipped it was seen as too
resource hungry for the systems some customers were trying to run it on,
resulting in sluggish performance. [...]
Microsoft has now learned its lesson for Windows 7.
So, it took Microsoft 10
or 20 years to learn that lesson, and they have probably only
learned it enough to survive, and not as much as they should have, but at
least they have half-learned something.
Wouldn't it be great if GM, Ford and Chrysler had learned the same
thing? If they would stop selling us bloatware
and then spending millions to change our tax policies to induce us to buy
more bloatware, and then begging for our tax
dollars or they will die? Wouldn't it be great if they would stop
promising that the building of non-bloated vehicles was just around the corner while Asian companies
are selling them NOW in other parts of the world? (Our wealthiest
investor, Warren Buffett, has chosen to invest in one of the gutsy Asian
manufacturers rather than the unworthy on-life-support Detroit Band-of-Three).
Wouldn't it be great if the Detroit Mediocre-3 would stop using taxpayer
funding to research less-bloated vehicles, and promising their engineers that
"this time" the technologies would see the light of day, and then
scuttling the most energy-saving parts of the technologies for another
decade, or two, or more?
Wouldn't it be great if taxpayers would, once and for all, provide a price
floor for fuel so that one of the last lame dishonest excuses of the Detroit
Band-Of-Three would be removed (that consumers do not voice consistent demand
for less-bloated vehicles)?
Ok, so fewer people will agree with me on this last point.
There used to be a funny joke that made the rounds that at one point a
Microsoft person was on the line to a Detroit
automaker and said something as to comparing their products. The
automaker person is said to have replied that if the automakers made their
cars the same way Microsoft made their operating systems, then the cars would
crash several times per day.
I think we are at the point where a common theme between Detroit and Microsoft is taking both their
customers and their engineers for-granted, particularly in the area of
Efficiency. Some customers have long-demanded improved efficiency in
both vehicles and in computers (although many other customers have made
demand for effiicency either a low or non-existent
priority), and some engineers have long labored from within these companies
to make effiiciency improvements.
To some extent, some of the top management at the companies appears to
have long labored to blow off their customers' strongest efficiency wishes
and their engineers' best efficiency suggestions.
The companies have put other goals ahead of efficiency, whether for some deep
dark possilble reasons (fealty to the Oil & Gas
industries?) and-or through good-old-fashioned mediocre
grossly-overcompensated MBA-Manager Decision-Making Poor-Judgment. For
examples, Microsoft has added resource-hog features to Windows rather than finally
getting a handle on operating system bloat, and automakers have prioritized
near-term SUV profits rather than implementing step-change
drivetrain innovations like plug-in hybridization.
Microsoft has taken several computer-company-lifetimes to realize that,
when it comes to efficiency, some of their operating systems do not reflect
the best their engineers can do, nor do they reflect everything that their customers
have always wanted. The Detroit Anti-Efficient-Automakers have worked
for many decades, sometimes against the ideas of their own engineers, to
ensure that their customers continue to be tethered to using gasoline,
diesel, propane, natural gas and other fossil fuels. In the case of
Microsoft, I've always thought their bloatware-oriented
decisions have been partly a natural result of a large quickly-powerful
organization concerned with maximizing its position but unconcerned with some
of the important nuances of profit-making, such as long-term customer
satisfaction. In the case of the automakers, their
anti-efficiency-innovation labors have in my view been deliberate, have been
anti-customer and anti-worker, and have entailed a good helping of management
dishonesty.
It would be great if the Detroit automakers, right now, would stop their
utterly shameful anti-customer anti-efficiency anti-good-product approach to
vehicle-making, and it would be great if Washington policy-makers, instead of
(or in addition to) throwing billions at the automakers, would throw some
energy into creating policies that would encourage autobuyers
to purchase the best most efficient and more-safe vehicles, and would encourate all automakers to change.
Originally published: January 08,
2009 | Total Page Views: 829
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Reducing Motor-Vehicle-Related Deaths, Injuries and Property Damage
Saturday | January 03, 2009
I have been wondering if last year's rise in the price of fuel at the pump
in the U.S.
would result in Americans not only perhaps driving fewer passenger miles here
and there, but also perhaps result in fewer deaths.
One of the only decent things to come from the Bush Administration in the
area of Transportation Policy was a bit of honesty from Secretary of
Transportation Mineta, in calling Highway
Deaths an Epidemic:
While the fatality rate dropped and alcohol-related
crashes are down from 2003, 42,800 died on the nation’s highways in 2004, up
slightly from 42,643 in 2003, according to projected 2004 data compiled by
the Department of Transportation’s National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in
a preliminary report.
“We are in the midst of a national epidemic,” said Secretary Mineta. “If this many people were to die from any one
disease in a single year, Americans would demand a vaccine. The irony is we
already have the best vaccine available to reduce the death toll on our
highways – safety belts.”
I call this "a bit of" honesty in part because I am not sure
quite what Mr. Mineta meant in focusing on safety
belts. Did he mean they are "the" answer to this horrific
problem? Or, a "majority" part of the answer? I have to
doubt this. There are many safety problems with our transportation
system and I doubt that all of us wearing our safety belts will, by itself,
cure a really huge percentage of those problems. I would be curious to
see a well-considered estimate of fatality and injury reduction that would
result from 100% compliance with safety belt laws.
From NHTSA's 2006
Final Report we can see some broader numbers:
Total Police Reported Crashes: 5,973,000
Breakdown of the Police Crash Reports:
Total Police Reported Property-Damage-Only-Crashes: 4,189,000
Total Police Reported Crashes With Injury As The Worst Problem: 1,746,000
Total Police Reported Fatal Crashes: 38,588
At other places in the report it provides higher numbers. I cannot
determine where the NHTSA is getting these higher numbers that are
inconsistent with the Police-Crash-Report numbers, but the higher numbers are
the ones that make it to the final press big numbers that we all seem to pay
attention to:
Injuries: 2,575,000
Deaths: 42,642
Estimated costs of Traffic Crashes in 2000: $230.6bn USD.
It is not clear to me why there is this disparity between the police crash
reports and the other statistics presented by NHTSA and why NHTSA does not
seem to make an appropriate transparent effort within all of their reports to
clarify this matter.
They comment:
"NHTSA’s mission is to reduce deaths, injuries,
and economic losses from motor vehicle crashes. This past year we made major
strides toward reaching these goals. In 2006, the Nation’s crash fatality
rate of 1.41 per 100 million vehicle miles of travel was the lowest since
record keeping began more than 30 years ago, and it remained below 1.50 for
the fourth consecutive year. The number of police-reported motor vehicle
crashes occurring on our highways dropped to less than 6 million, also for
the first time since record keeping began. Persons injured dropped
significantly to an estimated 2,575,000 from 2,699,000 in 2005. Although
motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the ninth year in a row to 4,810,
passenger vehicle occupant fatalities continue to decline. [...]"
I think we can see why the NHTSA would draw our attention to some
progress, but I also think we can take a more critical view, depending on our
immediate goals. Why are any traffic deaths or injuries or loss of
property or work-time acceptable? Don't we need an overhaul of how we
view traffic safety?
The 2007
statistics also showed this nice progress in lower fatalities per vehicle
miles driven. I am wondering what the 2008 statistics will show, once
the numbers are in. Will they show that, in response to sustained gas
price spikes, we drove fewer miles? Fewer passenger miles?
Vehicle Miles? Did we sometimes drive more slowly in order to conserve
fuel? If we did drive fewer passenger miles, did we crash less often
per passenger mile? Were the roads less crowded? More
civil? I haven't yet seen numbers which could help us try to see if
there is some good safety news that might ceome
from the bleak driving and car sales news we have been reading.
Driving is the most dangerous thing that each of us do in our normal daily
lives, that I can see. We are licensed to operate comparatively heavy
equipment at speeds sometimes exceeding 70 mph, and with closing speeds on 2
lane roads sometimes exceeding something like 130 mph. We trust our
fellow citizens to engage in an act of good faith by doing the best they can
to drive safely and with a respectful attitude toward all on the road.
We place this trust in people out of practical necessity to allow our
transportation system to work. We know that many of us would not trust
each other with other matters, but we trust each other to drive as safely as
possible and that traffic safety officers and bureaucrats are conscientious
about their jobs in watching all of us.
Driving and engaging with our transportation system is also very
costly. Our car insurance bills alone are a major semi-annual expense
throughout our lives (for those of us who choose to locate (somewhat
foolishly?) where we must own a car).
All of this is on top of the global economic reality that U.S. Citizens
have been needlessly exporting wealth and jobs for energy that they could
easily harvest from sunlight and wind found at home, and they have been
uncritically sending some of the wealth and jobs to a variety of countries
including some that are even arguably a bit semi-fascist or
theological-dictatorial. I don't believe that good U.S. foreign policy
is for those the U.S. to run around demanding that other countries follow its
recommended forms of government, but it seems pretty clearly irrational for
the U.S. indiscriminately to send Roman-Empire-sized wealth abroad for motor
vehicle fuel when there are so many people without jobs at home and when some
of that exported weath it is probably transferred
to those combatting our soldiers.
It is not the responsibility of the citizens of other countries, but ours
(for those of us in the U.S.),
to change all of this... every single bit of it. We can do that only in
part by changing out the vehicles we drive for cleaner and more efficient
vehicles. In addition, we also need to fix our transportation system,
as a whole, so that it not only uses less energy and allows for local
harvesting, but also so that it is safe and, if possible, less costly.
Originally published: January 03,
2009 | Total Page Views: 697
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
jim stack:
I think we will see a
reduction because of reduced driving from the recession. Too bad but Arizona just raised
the speed limit in some areas of the city from 55 to 65. They don't seem to
understand raising the speed raises the fatalities and gas use along with
pollution.
I'd like to see the nations speed limit
reduced to 55 until we stop importing oil and eaths
are at a low level.
04/Jan/2009
[65409]
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
I Think America
Needs A Price Floor For Fossil Fuels, Via Taxation
Monday | December 22, 2008
Many here seems afraid to say it. Why? Would it make us statist? Sometimes
if you are "at war" or facing economic calamity, it is arguably a
very appropriate thing to do to use taxes as a policy tool to move to a more
sound footing. As far as statism goes, the Bush
administration has already moved us well into that territory with their many
other policies.
Additional taxes on gasoline and diesel would help us establish some sort
of floor for the prices of the fuels. Ideally, we could curtail the extra
taxes as the fuels rise in price. That is, the idea here would be to
establish a floor, but not tax as much as the price rose.
One of the policy reasons that we need a retail fuel
price floor is that we keep pendulum-swinging from demand for fuel-efficient
vehicles to demand for fuel-inefficient vehicles. I have heard
President-Elect Obama discuss this phenomena somewhat on TV, though I don't
recall too many of the specifics of his views.
Another reason we could use a fuel price floor is that we are sending too
many dollars overseas that could be kept here at home. This is both an
economic issue and a military security issue. At the very least there are
Americans who don't have jobs because we have gone so long being willing to
engage in such needless export of wealth and jobs. If we increase the percent
of a gallon that goes to taxation, I think this would increase the percent of
a gallon of fuel that would stay here at home.
Additionally, some of the exported dollars dollars
are arguably helping financially to support those whom our soldiers are
fighting.
It is up to Americans to curtail this flow of money immediately and not
wait for some claimed part of supposed free market economics to perform the
feat, maybe now, maybe in a decade, maybe never.
If it is just a price floor and not a straight tax then maybe it could
help us to address both the low end and the high end. On the low end, it is
arguable that it doesn't help consumers "that much" when fuel goes
below a certain price. On the high end, when fuel goes to $4, $5 per gallon
or more and stays there, this seems to be an economy killer.
In short, we need a fuel taxation policy that will help us belatedly
perform the overdue task of transitioning to new forms of fuel without doing
more damage to our economy than needs to be done. It is a difficult task, but
in the context of reportedly progressive Obama administration policies, such
as support for plug-in-vehicles, it might be possible to implement a fuel
price floor to some good effect.
Originally published: December 22,
2008 | Total Page Views: 710
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
A First Few Energy Policy Suggestions To The Obama Administration
Saturday | December 13, 2008
If many of us are making lists of energy policy ideas for
the Obama Administration to consider, (now that we will be having an
Administration which does not subordinate protection and defense of the
Constitution to a few higher-ranked causes like the financial well-being of
American Petroleum Institute members), then there is so much low-hanging
fruit around that it is tempting to get a little befuddled. After all, we
have been through the worst eight years imaginable in energy policy and
concomitant foreign and domestic policy, and so some of us have been holding
our breath waiting for this new situation.
In trying to enumerate just a bit of the low-hanging fruit, I could ask
things like:
- How did Wind get left out in the cold, when Solar energy recently got
its eight years or so of Investment Tax Credit? Wind got something like one
added on to the Production Tax Credit. Is that supposed to be some sort of
joke? Is a mature proper industrial profit-seeking effort (in an industry
that has already proven its promise) supposed to be founded on that sort of
policy uncertainty? The renewable energy policy advances only occurred as
part of the $700bn USD TARP. It will go down in history that the Bush
Administration, and its supporters in the legislature and the media, was so
hostile to sustainable energy efforts that they would not approve even some
basic sustainable energy policy measures until the 8th year and in the midst
of (in return for?) a giant bailout. Even then, they didn't properly support
the Wind Power business.
- Why do US Federal regulations apparently require a gasoline air-to-fuel
ratio of 14.7 to 1 even when some imaginative researchers question whether
less fuel might be used to achieve good transportation goals? Sure, the scientists tell us
that this is some sort of unquestionable ideal, and some safety advocates
seem to imply that we need this ratio for safety, but it would be worth
looking into, I think.
- How did we taxpayers recently go into the mortgage business (taking over
Fannie and Freddie, for example, and propping up various banks?) without
making it much easier to stem foreclosures of our fellow taxpayers, and
without much being said about demanding more energy efficient mortgages?
Still, the first suggestion I'd like to make, or come back to (since I and
others have been saying this for years) is that we see government
intervention to completely get rid of all involvement of Chevron and Energy
Conversion Devices in NiMH battery technology. There are I think at least a
few dozen (if not more than a couple hundred) Ohio jobs at stake (Cobasys has
been running into the ground for some time now) and there is an enormous
amount of pluggable and non-pluggable vehicle progress to make that would be helped by wider
availability of the product that ECD and Chevron are struggling so hard to
give the appearance of trying to sell. (Or, are they really trying that hard
to sell NiMH for traction battery purposes? Hard to say.)
Bill Moore this week did
a fine article trying to bring out how a shortage in American-made
plug-in-suitable batteries has already affected the business. I'd have to say
that to some extent the shortage has been global, and is partly attributable
to the lack of NiMH batteries in the running. Why didn't Th!nk Nordic ever
feature them? Where were the batteries? Well, I won't try to make all the
arguments here. I'll say that from an immediate Policy Analysis standpoint,
there are some jobs at stake and it is questionable at best whether Chevron
has overcome their obvious conflict of interest in owning a stake in the
technology and production of plug-in-suitable NiMH batteries.
Cobasys has been on the block for awhile now, co-owned by two owners that
don't seem to care very much to try to make a profit making plug-in-suitable
batteries, while all the world asks: "Where are the plug-in-suitable
batteries?" Advanced battery maker BYD of Hong Kong (in which I disclaim
an indirect interest) has moved into making vehicles (the only advanced battery maker I recall having
seen move into making vehicles) and awhile ago indicated they planned to have
PHEVs for sale on a limited basis I think to Chinese consumers THIS calendar
year (!). I don't know if they will make their deadline, but it's better to
come close to that deadline than to have set GM's whiny "no-can-do"
2010 deadline for the Volt. We see BYD getting investment from Warren Buffett
and GM saying they will die without massive US Taxpayer investment in the
next few weeks. I think the contrast is sort of interesting.
I keep telling people that the World War II Generation from the US would
not, in theory, ever have put up with this "no can do" approach of
the American carmakers, particularly during a war where one's enemies are
being funded partly through one's oil-related expenditures.
I have added that ECD (not just Chevron) should be removed from their
interest in NiMH batteries only because I think the evidence may suggest that
ECD has in effect chosen to drop their earnest and clear pursuit of profits
from such batteries, perhaps in return for the good financial health they
have experienced as a result of the solar PV revolution. Over the last few
years they have not souned to me like they care
that much about trying to make money via HEV and plug-in-suitable batteries.
How could a company not care that much about that sort of thing? Many
companies, in ECD's position, would be aggressively seeking to make billions,
but instead ECD seems quietly to be biding their time. Well, if I'm wrong
about them, so be it. Maybe they don't need to be removed from the situation.
(I disclaim having an indirect financial interest in them, but regardless of
that, I'd say their role here needs to be questioned, and if they also need
to be removed, let it happen).
The world is increasingly clamoring for batteries for efficient 100 mpge plug-in vehicles, and while the promise and reality
of lithium batteries are just about here, we are still at a point where in
some ways NiMH batteries are competitive and important, and it is therefore
possible that some progress could be had by getting certain extraordinarily powerful anti-progressive parties away from any and all
involvement in the business of making batteries for plug-in vehicles.
Originally published: December 13,
2008 | Total Page Views: 665
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
A Ford Dealership Lets Down A Ford EV Customer
Sunday | October 19, 2008
Anthony Cimino of Whitehall, NY (located
on Lake Champlain) owns a Ford Ranger EV.
A Ford Ranger EV is a rare beast. Ford was intent on getting all of them
OUT of circulation and according to the Wikipedia entry on the
model, there were only 1500 produced. In late-2004/early-2005 some lessees in
California protested the forced "repatriation" of these vehicles back to the lessor, and finally Ford relented
and took measures to sell a few of the vehicles (though many had already been
turned back in to Ford).
I don't know how many were left unscathed from Ford's anti-EV attempt to
delete them from the planet.
Here
is a New York Times article from January 24, 2005 detailing when Ford
relented.
Anthony's EV owner reports to the world at large are valued in part
because they come from upstate NY, far from many of the owner-reports we
often get from California.
I have followed Anthony's public comments over the last couple of years and I
have seen how he has enjoyed his vehicle and has been able to tell others in his area of
its selling points. Of course, when he gets questions along the lines of
"I love it. Where can I buy one?" he is forced into the usual
explanation (I imagine something along the lines of "Ford refuses to
make any more."). Anthony has been reporting some of his experiences in
the "Electric
Vehicles For Sale" group on yahoo.
Recently Anthony crashed his vehicle, apparently avoiding a driver who
missed a stop sign. From what Anthony has related, this has led to a nasty
repair-shop experience. Of the two qualified Ford repair shops he was able to
find in the state, the one he chose (Vision Ford in Rochester, NY)
gave him bad service that seems to have left his vehicle in very poor
condition. Anthony has chronicled his difficulties in various posts.
He wrote a letter
to Bill Ford, for example, seeking some action and listing how the
repairs were botched.
He also
discussed some of the incorrect lecturing type of reaction he got from
the Ford repair shop as a reward for daring to be an owner of such a
wonderful rare Ford vehicle that uses no oil-based fuel.
Anthony has, I think, been an excellent owner of a plug-in vehicle and has
really championed the idea that all the major automakers, including Ford,
should stop fighting the production of these vehicles and start making them.
He has taken the time to make his vehicle and experiences available to many
of the people in his area. In a way, he has been an excellent ambassador for
Ford, though Ford is not able to cash in on the good PR Anthony is able to
bring, since they don't make any more of these vehicles. So, it is important
that Anthony's vehicle be in top shape so that he can continue not only being
a satisfied Ford customer but also so he can continue to spread the word of
the selling points of these vehicles. So, I urge Ford corporate to get on top
of this matter and help Anthony in the project of restoring this Ford vehicle
to its previously good condition.
With every day that passes, the major automakers refuse to make affordable
highway-capable plug-in vehicles. Never mind their promises of vehicles to be
made available to us in a few years. We do not have time for that. While
soldiers are dying in the desert fighting oil-funded opponents and fighting
over oil itself, and while the economy collapses partly under the strain of
botched global transportation design and mediocre auto company management,
and while the glaciers and poles melt (perhaps the ears of the Earth are
burning from listening to the inane vestigial debates over global warming)...
while all these things are happening, the auto companies are slogging along,
complaining of whatever batteries they are able to get, and claiming they
need more time to put highway-capable EVs on the road (having had 100 years
or more to work on the matter).
Originally published: October 19,
2008 | Total Page Views: 729
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Someone Asked: 'Is Valence
A Good Company?'
Monday | June 30, 2008
I conducted
an interview with a Valence
representative 4.5 years ago, and I recently received a question in email as
to my view of the company. The question caused me to do some thinking. Here
is my response:
...
Hello:
You asked whether I think Valence
is a good company.
My answer depends on what you mean by "good company".
If you mean what is my opinion as to whether it is a good investment, I
must make clear that I will not offer an opinion. I'm now an index manager in
alternative energy, so I simply cannot. Nothing I say should be construed in
any way as any sort of indication of what I think of the company, as an
investment.
I do think that I can speak to trying to follow global EV efforts without
speaking to investment analysis. I will offer a few thoughts as to where Valence seems to be going in their efforts to bring
plug-in-suitable Lithium Ion Batteries to market in the time since I
conducted my interview with Marc Kohler of Valence 4.5 years ago. That is, we can ask
whether we think Valence
is a "good company" in the sense of whether they will be one of the
winners in the race to bring plug-in-suitable batteries to market. I must say
that I have not had the chance to check back with the company to see how
things are going for them, except for one conversation with a contact last
year. I have also not recently talked to users of their products, to get
their views. So, my answer is not as informed as it would be if I were
publishing another article about the company. Instead I will post this as a
blog and let others follow up with their own articles and illuminating
research.
- I believe Valence
has announced, relatively recently, discontinuing some products. These
products were not in the vehicular battery area, so I take that as a slight
indication of them moving more toward vehicular batteries.
- To my knowledge they have not announced a deal directly with a major
auto manufacturer. I have not followed them closely enough, recently, to know
if my knowledge is accurate and up-to-date in this area. This apparent lack
of contract with a major manufacturer has been a bit of a surprise given how
loud such manufacturers have been about trying to find batteries suitable for
plug-ins. Possible explanations include that maybe the auto manufacturers are
not ingenuous in their claimed desire for such batteries, maybe the Valence
batteries fall short, or maybe the amounts of time needed to work out such
arrangements are longer than we have so far allotted. There is a slight
indication of a non-direct connection with Ford (see below).
- With all of the Lithium Ion Vehicular batteries, cycle and calendar life
are big question marks. Some years ago I heard a couple of different
anecdotal concerns about Valence
batteries, in this area. More recently, one or two sources seemed to
contradict those concerns. More than anything else, this left me confused.
So, to me, this area is very murky, .... a not-fully-answered
question-mark-area, with respect to all LiOn
batteries and specifically with respect to Valence batteries.
I think we will know more as we get increased numbers of vehicles on the
road and in the hands of users who make much use of them. This is not ideal
because it means that early adopters may be part of providing answers. We
will know more if we can find EV Journalists who will poll both users of the
batteries and the company itself so we can understand more about this issue.
Since Valence has announced a large
up-to-$70m contract with EV Maker Tanfield/Smith Electric, this would seem to
indicate that at least one credible experienced EV maker is satisfied that Valence's approach to LiOn is satisfactory in the areas of cycle and calendar
life.
- Valence did have some quality-control
issues as they transitioned some production to Asia.
I believe these issues came up in the one or two years after I interviewed their
representative. The company seems to say that those issues have been
addressed, and for some time.
- They announced only a few months ago a contract to supply up to $70m of
batteries to Tanfield subsidiary Smith Electric for EVs (trucks). I note that
both Valence
and Tanfield are quoted companies, and progress (or lack thereof) on this EV
effort can be somewhat followed by reading through both companies' filings
and statements.
With respect to the Tanfield effort, I note also that Tanfield has some tie-ins
with Ford. They use some body shells from Ford and the effort is somewhat
collaborative. I see it as Euro- centric for now. For example:
http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/latest-business-news/2008/04/16/tanfield-and-ford-unveil-the-ampere-51140-20769080/
Tanfield and Ford unveil the Ampere Apr 16 2008 by Karen
Dent, The Journal
[...]
The Amp is part of a wider link up between Tanfield and Ford. The two
groups have reached a broad agreement to collaborate on zero emission
vehicles and further sales, marketing and product development opportunities
in Europe and the US.
Mr Kell said: “The
link up with Ford started in January 07 but it was really only formalised very recently. It’s very important – it gives
us a strong level of credibility. Ford controls and dominates the commercial
vehicle sector. We’re very excited about the whole joint venture.” [...]
If everything falls into place, I think this might mean that Valence batteries could
appear in vehicles made in a collaborative effort that involves the world's
#3 auto maker. I am excited about this report of collaboration, but am wary
of ascribing over-much importance to this as we analyze Valence. This is a claimed collaboration
approach between Ford and Tanfield, not Ford and Valence.
- I think the patent infringement lawsuit against Valence,
NTT, A123 and others by University
of Texas, Hydroquebec and Professor Goodenough
may yet be unresolved.
- As I indicated in my interview with Marc, two areas where I saw Valence
as a good company, back then, were in the fact that they offered batteries
are not prone to Thermal Runaway, and in that they were relatively
transparent and open in offering their batteries for sale, even to the little
guy. So far as I know, both good qualities still remain true, and have borne
out in some respects over the years. We saw Sony's problems with Lithium Ion
battery fires awhile ago. This drew some attention to the fact that some
Lithium Ion Batteries are not prone to thermal runaway.
Also, as far as I know, in the time after the interview, some reported
that Valence
indeed was responsive to requests for pricing and availability information,
and some people were able to buy and take delivery of batteries. The prices
were steep for the little guy, but the company was up-front about providing
them, and about selling the batteries to those who might wish to purchase
them, and that's perhaps more than we can say for some other battery makers.
I'm a believer that Valence's
willingness to sell what they were making was somewhat important to their
efforts to have their batteries designed-in to some PHEV and other efforts. I
suppose it's also possible that in their willingness to sell batteries to
smaller outfits, Valence
may also have put themselves in a position to have their batteries used in
non-recommended ways, used with BMS that is not set up optimally for the
batteries, or used in ways that might bring about anecdotal negative reports.
I guess that's the trade-off they risk when they are up-front in making their
batteries available.
Overall, I'd say that there are two or three dozen battery manufacturers,
large and small, that we plug-in advocates try to monitor, and two or three
dozen vehicle-makers, large and small, that we try to monitor, and that Valence and Tanfield
are in those groups. I am rooting for Valence
to be one of the interim imperfect but usable answers to the big question
("When will we have batteries which enable mass-production and sale of
city and highway-capable plug-in vehicles?").
To summarize my answer, as far as I am willing to take it:
Overall, so far as I know, Valence
continues to seem to be a good battery for plug-in vehicles with the caveat
that I still need to see answers and more robust data and reports as to how
they will do in areas of quality, cost, calendar and cycle life. (I'd add
that I don't know what other questions and answers I might be missing... I
have learned that sometimes it is hard to know all the right questions to ask
in discussing new technologies and their many complicated potential pros and
cons).
After I conducted my interview, it seemed to me for awhile that their star
rose and then fell and I was concerned that their battery might not get a
good hearing in the marketplace. Lately it seems as though at least one or
two good EV outfits are really giving their batteries a good try.
I don't think it will be long before we see much more anecdotal evidence
and commentary from the company and others as to the longevity of their
batteries, and so I am hoping that the big questions will be answered
somewhat soon.
Again, I will not comment as to whether Valence is any sort of decent investment,
and I reiterate that nothing I have said should be taken, in any way, as an
indication of an investment opinion. I will only say what I think the issues
are as they pertain to plug-in-vehicle advocacy. I hope this is of some value
to you.
Josh
Addendum, 30 June: Valence
was added today to the WilderHill Clean Energy Index. As I am co-creator of
that index and serve on the board, my authorship of a blog about the company
might be seen as in some way promotional of the investment.
At the same time, I think there are important things to be said, entirely
separate from Valence-as-investment,in follow-up to the article I did on the company years
ago, and about Valence's
ongoing efforts in Clean Energy.
I hope it is clear from the disclaimers I made in the above blog that my
goal in this blog is not to discuss Valence as an investment, but to focus on
discussing Valence's efforts in Clean Energy (i.e.: to discuss whether or not
their battery technology and production is proving useful and viable for
global plug-in vehicle efforts.)
Originally published: June 30, 2008
| Total Page Views: 793
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
jim stack:
So he isn't allowed to
say yes or no. Well I think valence is a great investment. The battery market
is huge, lithium batteries are the fastest growing segment and valence has
very safe battereis that are American made. What
more could you hope for?
I'll use them in my next EV if some local
dealers start carrying them. So far they are not available to the home EV
owner. Invest and save the world while you make some profits.
VALENCE
TECHNOLOGY LITHIUM BATTERIES VLNC
04/Jul/2008
[62538]
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Have we reached an energy pricing threshold?
Sunday | April 27, 2008
Is the per-Megajoule retail gasoline US average
price approaching or exceeding the per-Megajoule retail electricity price?
1. US National Average price for 87 Octane gasoline per US gallon =
about $3.56 USD. Here is a recent story on the matter:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-
tAD908E0C80
[April 25, 2008]
[...]
At the pump, the average national price of a gallon of regular gas jumped 2.3
cents overnight to $3.556 a gallon, according to a survey of stations by AAA
and the Oil Price Information Service. Prices have risen nearly 14 cents in one
week.
[...]
There are something like 34 kWh or 122.4 Megajoule of energy released in
combusting a gallon of gasoline. Also, I use a conversion factor that 1 kWh =
3,599,999.71 J or about 3.6 MJ.
So, gasoline is presently selling for about:
$0.0290 per MJ released during combustion
$0.1047 per kWh energy released during combustion
2. It is harder to come by up-to-date retail pricing information for
electricity than for gasoline, but digging around, this link seems to hit the
mark for December of 2007.:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tablees1a.html
This data appears to differ amongst residential, commercial, industrial
and transportation customers. (I later found this link
for average pricing for all of 2007, rather than just for Dec. 2007, but I
have worked this blog around the Dec. 2007 data, identified as such, so I'll
stay with that for these purposes.).
I note that in discussions with various US residential customers, we each
seem to report a variety of pricing that we see, so if I use my pricing or
national average pricing, it may seem somewhat not in-line with pricing
personally experienced by some other readers in the US.
It would be good to get an idea of the extent to which US average
retail electricity prices have fluctuated since December of 2007, but this is
difficult.
The DOE provides this guidance on the matter, from April 8, 2008:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo
[...]
Prices. Spot prices for coal, especially in the Appalachian region, have
rapidly increased in recent months. However, due to the lagged effect of
purchase contracts and rate regulation, these fuel cost increases are not
expected to have a significant impact on retail electricity prices in the
near-term. Residential electricity prices are projected to increase at a rate
of 2.7 percent in 2008 and a slightly higher rate of 3.1 percent in 2009.
[...]
[...]
DOE provides a handy chart of past and projected future average
electricity prices.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Fig21.gif
So, in a nutshell, since the electricity generation industry does not
historically or presently have the same ability to pass on costs to the
retail level with the same pace, we can make a fallible assumption (pending
better data coming in to us in the future) that retail electricity pricing
has not changed with as great a percentage as the pricing for the fuels used
in electricity generation.
So, in the here-and-now, we electricity buyers are likely paying a few
percentage points more than December 2007's $0.0891 per kWh. Those of us who
are residential electricity buyers are likely paying a few percentage points
more than December 2007's $0.1031 per kWh. Going by the chart of forecasts we
can see that historically national average retail electricity prices tend to
rise during the summer and fall later on.
Let's take two numbers and trust that if a professional economist with
access to data with better credibility were to take up our discussion, they
might be able to help us do a better job with this data.
- We can say that nationally, on average, electricity costs an estimated
$0.11 for a retail residential customer. In estimating, I am going by the
chart of projections and by Dec. 2007 pricing, and I am choosing a somewhat
round number. This works out to about 6.7% more than Dec. 2007.
- If we expand our analysis from residential to all retail customers, then
it costs a bit more than the $0.891 charged in Dec. 2007, or approximately
(again: choosing a somewhat round number) $0.095 per kWh (this works out to
about 6.6% more than a few months ago). These are just my estimates until we
are able to get better data.
So:
April 25 2008:
My estimated US Average Retail Residential Electricity Price:
$0.11 per kWh
$0.0306 per MJ
My estimated US
Average Retail Electricity Price overall:
$0.095 per kWh
$0.026388 per MJ
3. Conclusions:
A) Depending on our exact definition of retail pricing, and depending on
the validity of my estimates (which can be narrowed down later by data from
more credible sources), we may have recently reached an energy pricing
threshold where a Megajoule of combusted gasoline at retail prices is as
expensive at the pump as a Megajoule of retail electricity at the socket.
B) If we include all electricity customers (not just residential
customers), then retail gasoline is more expensive per MJ. If we include only
residential electricity customers, then gasoline is still slightly less
expensive per MJ.
I think it is ok to include all retail customers, but I am just a bit wary
as to why the Electricity industry is making these strong distinctions in
classification and pricing amongst residential, commercial, industrial and
transportation customers. Also, I am wary as to whether there is any such
similar distinction made in the gasoline industry that may not be reflected
properly in the latest $3.56 price per retail gallon figure I am using.
If we take only the most basic numbers (national average retail gasoline
vs. national average retail electricity) then it would appear that gasoline
has crossed the threshold and is now more expensive per MJ than Electricity.
C) Having done these calculations to try to determine if we have reached
an interesting economic point, I must admit that I haven't done research to
verify whether historically we have been at this point before. I also do not
know whether Economists have generally regarded this number (cost per MJ for
energy in various forms) as significant. Since we plug-in advocates attempt
to assess the pros and cons of switching to electricity-as-fuel, I think for
us clearly it has some importance. It is not, however, the same as
determining cost-of-fuel-per-mile. That is a different matter which must take
into account the very large differences in energy efficiency of plug-ins and
gasoline-burners.
D) If we do then turn to the question of whether a good-mileage gasoline
car costs more in fuel to operate per mile than its plug-in cousin, the
answer has seemed clear for some time.... the plug-in costs less in fuel per
mile.
Examples:
2002 RAV4 EV mileage gets about 1.0212 miles per MJ (going by
this EPA Estimate):
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/noframes/18290.shtml
This would cost $0.02996 per mile in electricity-as-fuel, if one paid my
estimated national retail residential average of $0.0306 per MJ. It would
cost $0.02584 per mile if one paid my estimated national retail average of
$0.026388 per MJ.
If we compare this to a decent-mileage gasoline car getting, say, 30 mpg (such as my '97 Escort), then this translates to
0.245 miles per MJ or about $0.1183 per mile.
So, in terms of cost per mile just for fuel, we can see there is no
comparison. Even if we choose a very-high-mileage gasoline car as a basis for
comparison against our advanced-battery EV, the EV still wins. If we choose a
70 mpg gasoline car, that would still cost us about
$0.050857 per mile just in fuel. So, this is still about twice the cost per
mile for fuel of a decent advanced-battery 4 wheel highway-capable EV.
As to the good BEV that I used as a basis for comparison, many of us know
that Toyota simply refuses to produce any more RAV4 EVs (or a
modern updated equivalent) and make them widely available for purchase, but
that is a matter for another blog, and we can hope to continue to contend
that they are failing to honor the global demand being expressed by some of
their customers for these types of affordable-to-operate vehicles.
4. Note:
Some would say that it is not "right" for the electricity
generation industry that they have regulatory hurdles which make it a problem
for the sustainability of their businesses, since they may be experiencing
very high costs but may be unable to pass those costs along expeditiously...
However, in order to try to answer the question I have asked, I am trying to
stay focused on what prices we are actually paying in the near-term. I do not
dispute that it will certainly be very difficult for some electricity
generators to stay in business unless they can find some answer to the very
steep rise in the price for their fuels, and the apparently lack of ability
to pass along some of their cost increases expeditiously. I would also say
it's probably complex, and I don't know which party(ies)
are left holding the bag of difficulty in passing along costs.
Just look at the percentage change in prices they are paying for natural
gas (!):
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/NG/M
(I can't readily find a similar chart for coal).
For additional perspective, here is historical annual nominal retail
electricity pricing through 2006:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb0810.html
Also for perspective, we can get an indication from this chart on a
commodities website that, indeed, electricity prices have risen over the last
few months, as have gasoline prices. It seems difficult to use this chart to
get an idea of retail pricing trends:
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/JM/W
I guess my final thought for now, in light of these reminders of the very
steep fuel prices faced by the electricity generation business, is that even
in the event that we have reached some sort of threshold, there is no rule
that says it has to be anything but temporary. In a few months or years,
retail electricity prices could correct and take fully into account rises in
underlying fuel prices. Sure, some electricity is generated using fuels that
may cost little or nothing (technically) but on the balance much of our
electricity still comes from fuels whose costs need to be passed on at some point
to electricity buyers.
So, *maybe* we have reached this one threshold in the relative pricing
ratio of Megajoules of Electricity and Oil. Even if
that turns out to be the case, it remains to be seen where absolute and
comparative prices for various forms of energy will go from there.
Originally published: April 27, 2008
| Total Page Views: 718
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
Josh Landess:
This chart at the EIA
government website gives us some long-term historical perspective on pricing
of energy in the US
in its various forms. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_1.html What I am
saying is that retail unleaded gasoline (not included in the chart) has
inched up, along with petroleum, its raw feedstock (included in the chart)
and has perhaps now surpassed electricity per Btu (or Megajoule, the unit
choice is not critical).
07/May/2008
[61553]
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Does the Vectrix really get 340 miles per gallon-equivalent of energy?
Sunday | April 27, 2008
If we look at these specifications:
http://www.vectrix.com/corporate/US/tech-specs.php
then we see these figures, which help us to estimate mileage per kWh:
Range: 35-55 miles
Capacity: 3.7 kWh
(also of note:
Weight: 510 lbs)
If battery capacity is 3.7 kWh, I think we still need to know how much
energy it would take actually to "fill-er-up".
To choose a njumber, what if it takes 4.5 kWh?
If we then drive the vehicle 45 miles and deplete the entire battery charge,
we will have gone 10 miles for each kWh that it took to fill up with the BEV
equivalent of fuel. Translating kWh into the amount of energy released in
combusting gasoline, this means that we are getting about 340 miles per the
equivalent of a gallon of gasoline.
I guess this is not out of the realm of possibility. After all, some
motorcycles might, I suppose, get something like two or three times the
mileage of a car, and so maybe an electric cycle could get two or three times
the mileage of an electric car?
We need some real-world data in order to assess this and see if our
mileage estimates should be changed. For one thing, in real-world day-to-day
use, one would not necessarily fully deplete the battery nor fully fill it
every time. So, it would be helpful to have data either from the company or
from a user who could report the net amount of kWh he or she used to charge
the Vectrix and how many miles they traveled, over a period of several
charges.
If it gets something like the equivalent of 340 miles to the gallon, I'd
like to get that information out there. If the Vectrix is a good option for
consumers to consider in addressing the oil pricing crisis, then consumers
might want to know that. Also, I am a fan of any vehicle which finally gets
decent NiMH batteries (such as those from GP Batteries) into the hands of
paying customers to drive their plug-in vehicles. On the basis of the batteries alone, we can
root for Vectrix to help overcome Chevron's successful global policy.
Of course, the up-front price of the vehicle is high and this is partly
due to the price of the batteries. It was around $11k USD last I checked.
Another thing to consider in buying is that not all of us are fans of the safety issues that go with driving a two-wheel vehicle.
Nonetheless, a 340 mpg-equivalent vehicle would seem to be a find as we go
through the global oil pricing trend of 2008.
Originally published: April 27, 2008
| Total Page Views: 849
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
NiMH Is Apparently Not Being Used In the Fiat Palio
For Brazil
Tuesday | April 15, 2008
Over the last couple of years, there have been reports
that Fiat is making an EV for Brazil
called the Palio, and that it is to use NiMH
batteries supplied by KWO, a Swiss Hydroelectric Utility. Something sounded a
bit odd about this. I had not heard of KWO being able to get around any of
Chevron's apparent global blockade against producing and selling NiMH
batteries for purposes of full-power 4-wheel highway-capable EVs. (Of course,
it's possible that Chevron wants very badly to have Cobasys NiMH Batteries
designed-in to EV efforts around the world, rather than
"blockaded", but I'm not buying this argument... how can I? .... with
Chevron as powerful and capable as they are, if they wanted to, they would
help Cobasys make those design-wins and sales.)
I have not yet been able to confirm, but did manage, in asking around, to
get an indication that the Palio will use batteries
that incorporate some Nickel, but not NiMH,... rather the batteries are (I'm
told) "Zebra" (Sodium Nickel Chloride formula... though I don't
know that it would be represented specifically as NaNiCl,
or not).
The Palio had been one of my last best hopes
that a major auto manufacturer had decided to make a NiMH plug-in. Maybe
"hope" is too strong a word, because I know better at this point...
Chevron appears to have succeeded, lock-stock-and-barrel, for some years, in
their apparent engineering of a global embargo of these batteries for 4-wheel
full-power plug-in vehicle purposes. (I suppose there is some greying of the
line here as Toyota
and maybe a couple of others have maybe sorta
turned to NiMH for some PHEV efforts as they wait to LiON?
Hard to keep track of these things).
Still, it would have been great to see a real NiMH Italian Brazilian Swiss
EV... an actual effort using some of the very best (and most-proven) battery
technology.
Many EV companies seem to continue to have to rely on Lead-Acid (REVA in London for one
example?).
Meanwhile some of the best-known most-credible somewhat-higher-speed EV
efforts (such as Smart, Fiat Palio and Th!nk
Nordic) have tried to turn to Zebras while they await wonderful LiON.
I have nothing against the Zebra Sodium Nickel Chloride technology. It is
a warm battery technology that has both good and bad points. An example of a
problem point might be that such a battery, in an idle EV sitting in a lot,
may lose its charge over a relatively brief period of time (a week?).
Some years ago, on behalf of EVWorld.com readers I took a Zytek/Smart EV with Zebras for a 5 minute test drive. My
notes from that ride indicate that while I no doubt would need more time to
acquaint myself with both the good and the bad, it did seem quite promising
as against many of its peers. This is a real highway-capable EV, and not some
golf-cart. It is much faster tan many of its rivals (something like 75 mph
top-speed as I recall), and a big part of why it stacks up well to lead-acid
EVs seems to be its use of Zebra Battery technology.
At a glance, I found this
link.
It looks promising for me to bring myself a bit more up to speed with that
technology. I know I should do so very soon, given the promising EV projects
that are turning to the battery technology, but I will have to set aside some
time later on to re-acquaint myself. My goal today was to try to reflect, a
little bit, on how we see, time after time, no use of NiMH technology in some
of the more-promising-looking 4-wheel full-power EV efforts.
This use of Zebra batteries by some of the EV efforts, while certainly an
indication that there is much we could perhaps hope for from that technology,
is also (I would argue) further evidence to me that NiMH has not been truly
and honestly and readily available for these good companies to consider as
they have evaluated their choices. If I were designing an EV, I would have
wanted to consider NiMH, along with LiON, Zebra/NaNiCl and the very best most-advanceed
lead-acid, given the daily evidence that rolls in that NiMH was durable and
reliable in the California ZEV Mandate EVs. Also, we have the daily evidence
of the success of NiMH technology in can't-be-plugged-in hybrids.
I guess some may theorize an opposite point of view... that the seeming
global shutout... the all-but-total lack of planning of NiMH into
highway-capable plug-in non-hybrid EVs .... this shutout to some people is a
coincidence of all the automakers choosing for various innocent reasons. In
this theory, which I do not buy, there is no effort by Chevron to slow (but
not fully stop) the use of NIMH batteries.
My view is that I doubt that the better global EV efforts have really been
able to give full consideration to NiMH. I think they have been at least
partially blocked from doing so.
Originally published: April 15, 2008
| Total Page Views: 922
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? RELEASE SCHEDULE
Friday | June 02, 2006
WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? RELEASE SCHEDULE
THEATRE NAME CITY STATE RELEASE DATE
ARCLIGHT HOLLYWOOD 15 HOLLYWOOD CA 6/28/2006
ONTARIO MILLS 30 ONTARIO CA 6/28/2006
NUWILSHIRE TWIN THEATRE SANTA MONICA CA 6/28/2006
ANGELIKA FILM CENTER 6 NEW YORK NY 6/28/2006
EDW SO COAST VILLAGE 3 COSTA MESA CA 6/30/2006
TOWN CENTER 5 ENCINO CA 6/30/2006
LAEMMLE'S PLAYHOUSE 7 PASADENA CA 6/30/2006
SHATTUCK 8 BERKELEY CA 7/7/2006
SEQUOIA TWIN MILL VALLEY CA 7/7/2006
AQUARIUS TWIN PALO ALTO CA 7/7/2006
CENTURY FIVE PLEASANT HILL CA 7/7/2006
EMBARCADERO CENTER CIN. 5 SAN FRANCISCO CA 7/7/2006
EMPIRE THREE CINEMAS SAN FRANCISCO CA 7/7/2006
CINEARTS AT SANTANA ROW SAN JOSE CA 7/7/2006
LOEWS PIPERS ALLEY 4 CHICAGO IL 7/7/2006
CINEARTS 6 EVANSTON IL 7/7/2006
RENAISSANCE PLACE CINEMA HIGHLAND PARK IL 7/7/2006
KENDALL SQUARE CINEMA 9 CAMBRIDGE MA 7/7/2006
EMBASSY CINEMA 6 WALTHAM MA 7/7/2006
MAIN ART THEATRE 3 ROYAL OAK MI 7/7/2006
BURBANK 16 BURBANK CA 7/14/2006
AMC COVINA 30 COVINA CA 7/14/2006
CENTURY 20 HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 7/14/2006
AMC 30 AT THE BLOCK ORANGE CA 7/14/2006
CENTURY STADIUM 25 ORANGE CA 7/14/2006
CINEMAS PALME D'OR PALM DESERT CA 7/14/2006
THE AVENUES 13 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES CA 7/14/2006
HILLCREST CINEMA FIVE SAN DIEGO CA 7/14/2006
PLAZA DE ORO TWIN SANTA BARBARA CA 7/14/2006
ROLLING HILLS 20 TORRANCE CA 7/14/2006
CENTURY DOWNTOWN 10 VENTURA CA 7/14/2006
MAYAN THREE DENVER CO 7/14/2006
LAGOON THEATRE 5 MINNEAPOLIS MN 7/14/2006
PORT CHESTER 14 PORT CHESTER NY 7/14/2006
LOEWS PALISADES CENTER 21 WEST NYACK NY 7/14/2006
LOEWS ROOSEVELT RACEWAY 10 WESTBURY NY 7/14/2006
THE MAGNOLIA THEATRE DALLAS TX 7/14/2006
RIVER OAKS THEATRE 3 HOUSTON TX 7/14/2006
ANGELIKA FILM CENTER & CAFE PLANO TX 7/14/2006
METRO TEN CINEMAS SEATTLE WA 7/14/2006
UPTOWN THREE CINEMAS SEATTLE WA 7/14/2006
CROSSROADS 6 CINEMAS BOULDER CO 7/21/2006
E-STREET CINEMA WASHINGTON DC 7/21/2006
LOEWS ESQUIRE 6 CHICAGO IL 7/21/2006
RIVER EAST 21 CHICAGO IL 7/21/2006
YORKTOWN CINEMA 18 LOMBARD IL 7/21/2006
STREETS OF WOODFIELD 20 SCHAUMBURG IL 7/21/2006
AMC CANTERA 30 WARRENVILLE IL 7/21/2006
LOEWS LIBERTY TREE MALL 20 DANVERS MA 7/21/2006
FRAMINGHAM 14 FRAMINGHAM MA 7/21/2006
BETHESDA ROW CINEMA BETHESDA MD 7/21/2006
RITZ SIXTEEN VOORHEES NJ 7/21/2006
FOX 10 THEATRE PORTLAND OR 7/21/2006
RITZ AT THE BOURSE 5 PHILADELPHIA PA 7/21/2006
SHIRLINGTON 7 THEATRES ARLINGTON VA 7/21/2006
ORIENTAL 3 MILWAUKEE WI 7/21/2006
TOWER ANGELIKA FILM CTR. 3 SACRAMENTO CA 7/28/2006
SHADOWOOD SQUARE 16 BOCA RATON FL 7/28/2006
SOUTH BEACH 18 MIAMI BEACH FL 7/28/2006
UA TARA CINEMA 4 ATLANTA GA 7/28/2006
AMC STUDIO 30 OLATHE KS 7/28/2006
NICKELODEON 5 NORTH FALMOUTH MA 7/28/2006
STAR GREAT LAKES X-ING 25 AUBURN HILLS MI 7/28/2006
AMC LAUREL PARK PLACE 10 LIVONIA MI 7/28/2006
AMC FORUM 30 STERLING HEIGHTS MI 7/28/2006
TIVOLI THEATRE 3 ST LOUIS MO 7/28/2006
CENTURY 14 ALBUQUERQUE NM 7/28/2006
VILLAGE SQUARE 18 LAS VEGAS NV 7/28/2006
GREEN
HILLS COMMONS 16 NASHVILLE TN 7/28/2006
ARBOR CINEMAS @ GREAT HILLS AUSTIN TX 7/28/2006
UA HULEN MALL TEN FT WORTH TX 7/28/2006
REDMOND THEATRE 8 REDMOND WA 7/28/2006
DIMOND CENTER 9 ANCHORAGE AK 8/4/2006
AMC DESERT RIDGE 18 PHOENIX AZ 8/4/2006
CENTURY ELCON 20 TUCSON AZ 8/4/2006
WESTMINSTER PROMENADE 24 WESTMINSTER CO 8/4/2006
BARRINGTON SQUARE SIX HOFFMAN ESTATES IL 8/4/2006
KEYSTONE ART CINEMA INDIANAPOLIS IN 8/4/2006
CANAL PLACE CINEMA 4 NEW ORLEANS LA 8/4/2006
RIO 14 THEATRE GAITHERSBURG MD 8/4/2006
BALLANTYNE VILLAGE THEATRE CHARLOTTE NC 8/4/2006
CAMEO ART HOUSE THEATRE FAYETTEVILLE NC 8/4/2006
RIVERSIDE 12 RENO NV 8/4/2006
AMC QUAIL SPRINGS 24 OKLAHOMA CITY OK 8/4/2006
REGAL DOWNTOWN WEST EIGHT KNOXVILLE TN 8/4/2006
AMC STONEBRIAR 24 FRISCO TX 8/4/2006
AMC GRAPEVINE MILLS 30 GRAPEVINE TX 8/4/2006
AMC STUDIO 30 HOUSTON TX 8/4/2006
FIESTA 16 SAN ANTONIO TX 8/4/2006
AMC FIRST COLONY 24 SUGARLAND TX 8/4/2006
WESTHAMPTON THEATRE 2 RICHMOND VA 8/4/2006
SEHOME THREE CINEMAS BELLINGHAM WA 8/4/2006
CITY CENTER CINEMA 12 VANCOUVER WA 8/4/2006
BONITA SPRINGS 12 BONITA SPRINGS FL 8/11/2006
BELL TOWER 20 FT MYERS FL 8/11/2006
MIRACLE FIVE TALLAHASSEE FL 8/11/2006
WINTER PARK VILLAGE 20 WINTER PARK FL 8/11/2006
AMC MANSELL CROSSING 14 ALPHARETTA GA 8/11/2006
UA SIEGEN VILLAGE TEN BATON ROUGE LA 8/11/2006
AMC OAKVIEW 24 OMAHA NE 8/11/2006
AMC HAMILTON 24 HAMILTON NJ 8/11/2006
AMC SOUTHROADS 20 TULSA OK 8/11/2006
PILOT BUTTE 6 PLEX BEND OR 8/11/2006
AMC NESHAMINY BENSALEM PA 8/11/2006
RIVER PARK SQUARE 20 SPOKANE WA 8/11/2006
DELRAY 18 CINEMA DELRAY BEACH FL 8/18/2006
GAINESVILLE 14 GAINESVILLE FL 8/18/2006
AMC REGENCY SQUARE 24 JACKSONVILLE FL 8/18/2006
BEACH BLVD CINEMA 12 JACKSONVILLE FL 8/18/2006
JUPITER MALL 18 JUPITER FL 8/18/2006
AMC INDIAN RIVER 24 VERO BEACH FL 8/18/2006
KENTUCKY THEATRE 2 LEXINGTON KY 8/18/2006
AMC CONCORD MILLS CONCORD NC 8/18/2006
MADISON SQUARE TWELVE HUNTSVILLE AL 8/25/2006
AMC HIGHLANDS RANCH 24 HIGHLANDS RANCH CO 8/28/2006
Originally published: June 02, 2006
| Total Page Views: 6825
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
The Japanese Government Appears To Be Laying The Groundwork To Back Battery Blectric Vehicles
Wednesday | April 19, 2006
In this Asahi
article dated January 20th, the author states:
The [Japanese] government appears to be laying the
groundwork to back [battery] electric vehicles.
This is based in part on the Prime Minister's experience in trying a
Battery Electric:
In December, Koizumi made a test drive in the Eliica, an eight-wheel electric car developed by a group
of researchers at Keio
University.
He called the technology an "energy revolution."
The vehicle, which runs on lithium-ion batteries, can travel
about 300 kilometers on a single charge. It boasts a maximum speed of 370
kilometers per hour.
"The acceleration was great," Koizumi said. "It's perfect
for Japan
as we don't produce oil."
Although it was four months ago that the Prime Minister
Koizumi tested the Battery EV that helped him to formulate his views, there
are some comments I would like to make.
We see some evidence in this article of auto manufacturer opposition to
the Prime Minister's advocacy of Battery Electrics. The reasoning they give
is important. They do not claim or at least emphasize as they have done
elsewhere that there is insufficient consumer demand or insufficient battery
technology or insufficient liability protection. They emphasize a different
rationale that many of us theorize is a primary reason for their
anti-consumer foot-dragging on BEVs:
A senior official at one automaker said the industry
pyramid, from carmakers at the top down to parts suppliers, has been
structured on vehicles that run on internal combustion engines.
"We can't push for a rapid technological advancement that would
eliminate engines," the official said.
Electric vehicles do not use engines.
While about 30 companies are taking part in the Eliica
project, Mitsubishi Motors Corp. is the only automaker among them.
Toyota, Nissan Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co. are staying away
from the project.
This quoted view jibes with the focus that prominent activist Dave
Goldstein and others have put on making certain everyone understands that the
auto companies have acted strenuously to forestall Battery
electric vehicles.
While I and others disagree with Dave's estimate of the level of role that
the Oil companies have also played in stalling BEVs and Batteries, I think it
is worth noting the common ground here: we are seeing some evidence here of
the role that the auto manufacturers (even the 'good' ones like Toyota)
appear to be playing in stalling Battery Electric Vehicle technology.
The quotes we have from auto manufacturers are arguably gold that we
should preserve. I only wish I could have saved that one I saw from a Honda
exec years ago essentially saying the same thing... they had too much money
invested in their IC engine research, he said, for them to move quickly away
from it.
If a major and primary reason that the auto manufacturers are refusing to
make BEVs is that they do not wish to experience the costs of changing away
from an established technology and infrastructure, then let them be honest
about it, and stop playing this insulting anti-customer anti-worker game of
being confused about their customers' needs and interests and their
engineers' capabilities.
I should not make overly much out of one or two quotes from one or two
executives in a single article, so I will label my own conclusions here to be
more hypothesizing, based on years of trying to read the tea leaves of what
is really going on within the vehicle and fuel industries, and why they
appear to assume anti-customer and anti-engineer stances, on some
progressive-transportation issues, such as BEVs.
If the American President had made such strong supportive
Pro-Batter-Electric-Vehicle comments (he should do so, if he is interested to
be an advocate for fighting the battle on many different fronts to end oil
addiction), such a development would be much more prominent in our
discussions. (To his credit, President Bush does seem to have given a 2-wheel
battery electric vehicle, the Segway, as a gift to the Japanese Prime
Minister in Fall of 2005, so maybe that played a role in the Prime Minister's
thinking.)
Even if Japan is far away from many of us in the US in geography and
culture and Language, it sure seems to be taking a long time for it to sink
into our American consciousness that the Head of State of what may be the
world's top (by quality and volume) automaking
country has strong enthusiasm for Battery Electrics. This points up the
disconnect we in the US
seem to have with some significant events in Japan. I noted this, on a
somewhat separate issue, as to stock market following of Japanese alternative
energy companies, in a blog here:
Apparently,
Japanese Companies Are Not Very Important
In any event, Bravo to the Prime Minister of Japan for doing his homework
and finding some of the bold new valuable transporation
technology that will play a role in our global future. To be sure, I can't
say "whether some of the auto manufacturer executives like it or
not" because they are quite capable, using their worldwide oligopoly, of
continuing at least to stall the onset of full plug-in vehicles. Yet, I don't
think they can fully stop the advance of battery electric vehicles, and maybe
we as consumers and government-participants can find an incentive to make it
easier for the auto companies to move away from Internal Combustion Engine
Technology and non-renewable fuels.
Originally published: April 19, 2006
| Total Page Views: 2631
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
90 Day Countdown to Wednesday June 28 Film: 'Who Killed the Electric
Car?'
Friday | March 31, 2006
May 7 Update:
1. Apparently the June 28 release date is only for New York and LA, while those anxious to see this
documentary in other cities will have to wait in the ensuing weeks for it to
be show in their local art-houses. This is a major pain, I think, because it
means that anyone (including myself) anticipating a June 28 release date in
their area will have to wait some extra weeks.
I have called a theater in Tucson,
near where I live, and they confirmed that they were very enthusiastic about
getting this film, but that I could not expect to see it on or about June 28,
but rather it would be some weeks following. Nor could they guarantee that
they would be the theater to get the film from Sony Classics, for our area.
So, I am adjusting my own schedule to assume it will probably be
early-to-mid-July before I get a good chance to see this, and I will have to
keep an eye out, as to which local place gets it.
2. Here
is a link to a small-screen version of the Trailer for the film (This is
the first chance many of us activists have had to see this, for those who did
not go to Sundance). For those with a wide-band connection, here
is a link to the larger-screen version of the Trailer.
3. Since I set up this blog as a countdown to a specific event that folks
maybe could link, I post these updates, to get the word out. In particular,
it is not "90 days" to "June 28", but rather the latest
word seems to be that many of us will have to wait some extra weeks, on into
July, before we get a chance to see this documentary.
---------------------------------
Original Blog:
31 March 2006
In 90 days, this documentary will be coming out. As we lead up to the theaterical release, I am passing along some information
about the film that has accumulated.
We (activists for consumer access to simply better vehicles, particularly EVs and PHEVs) are trying to
network with the broader community of environmentalists, alternative fuel
advocates and energy-independence advocates to make sure that the film is
widely seen and discussed as much as possible.
I have not seen the movie yet, because as yet it was shown only at its
World Premiere at Sundance (I wasn't quite able to get to get there). I'm
told that many friends and colleagues are depicted in their efforts to shed
light on the shenanigans that went on in causing the (hopefully not
permanent) turning-away of California
and much of our society from the best highway-capable longer-range Battery
Electric Vehicles.
I'm also told that it is a winner of a documentary, with good solid
footage and credible journalistic approach. If this is true, then it will
make it an important documentary indeed. I will anticipate seeing it for
myself on June 28.
We're also told that three months later, September 25-27, is the CARB
technical review in Sacramento, wherein
(apparently) they will review California's
policy of having turned away, three years ago, from Battery Electric Vehicles
in favor of Fuel Cell Vehicles.
The movie's home website:
http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/
Here is the movie distributor's website entry (Sony Classics)
http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/comingsoon.php?filmid=305&page=1
Selected review comments on the film, other information, and contact
information, from Paul Scott, a leading activist in this cause:
January 25, 2006
Subject: "Who Killed the Electric Car?" kills at Sundance!
From: "Paul Scott"
Just who did kill the electric car? As many of you know,
for the past two years, Chris Paine has been directing a documentary asking
that very question. The premiere of the film was held at the Sundance Film
Festival this past Monday night to a packed house.
[...]
Folks, we have a winner! This film will be a huge help in our efforts to
get electric vehicles back on the front burner. Chris and company tell the
story of what happened to the EV from "our" perspective. All the
CARB shenanigans are well documented. The lies from the car companies and the
oil companies are laid bare in an easily understandable and very entertaining
manner.
And when you see how Chris weaves the testimony of the likes of Alec
Brooks, Chelsea Sexton, Greg Hanssen, Joe Romm, Paul Roberts, Stan Ovshinski,
Wally Rippel, Alexandra Paul and a very
entertaining David Freeman, you will know what I mean. And the two beautiful
actresses, J. Karen and Collette steal the show with their delightful and
comedic comments.
Some of the best scenes come from the industry spokesmen and Alan Lloyd.
You will relish these parts, trust me. I don't want to spoil anything for
you, so I'll keep the details to myself.
Once the release date is set, we will be conducting a major effort to get
the word out to all of our respective email lists to drive folks to the
theaters. The Sony people tell us the opening weekend is crucial, but just as
important are the 2nd and 3rd weekends to show the film has good word of
mouth.
Stay tuned.
Paul Scott
Plug In America
paul@pluginamerica.com
March 31:
We are gathering lists from all groups we think would be interested in
this film in preparation of a concerted campaign to drive folks to the
theaters on the opening weekend as well as the following two weekends.
Theaters like to see a growing demand for films in order to justify keeping
it in the theaters.
Sony purposely avoided publicity at Sundance since the media will only
cover a film once and Sony wanted the coverage for the opening. We will want
everyone to write their local papers, call their local radio and TV stations
with comments about the film after it opens. The more we make a ruckus, the
more likely people will be curious to see what the fuss is all about.
I would appreciate it if all of you would send to me any lists you think
would be interested in the film. We are obviously wanting any enviro groups, but also include evangelical and national
security groups as they are coming >around to this issue pretty strongly
now. Send any list you think would be remotely interested.
Thanks,
Paul Scott
Plug In America
310-399-5997
paul@pluginamerica.com
March 30th:
[...] One thing we have on our side is the CARB ZEV
Technical Review scheduled for September 25th -27th in Sacramento. The purpose is to revisit the
decisions of three years ago and determine if that was the correct direction
to take (FCVs instead of BEVs) and see if they should make adjustments to the
ZEV mandate again. Plug In America received an invitation to present a panel
on the state of the BEV fleet in California
and we intend to emphasize some of the film's points. Having a seat at this
table will give our side the clout we lacked in 2003.
In addition, the staff members we are talking to at CARB are giving us
strong indications that there is a shift in thinking at CARB away from H2 and
toward batteries. The expert panel they have invited is a pretty good
indication of that. They include: Michael Walsh, Fritz Kalhammer,
Vernon Roan, David Swan and Bruce Kopf. More importantly, they want Alec
Brooks to talk. He wrote the definitive paper showing how the H2 road CARB
envisioned is horribly inefficient when compared to BEVs.
CARB states that they are particularly interested in energy batteries,
PHEVs and city BEVs.[...]
4-7-2006 Addendum:
If you are in the Bay Area, you might be able to catch this film before
its broader Theatrical release, by getting tickets to it at the San Francisco
Film Festival.
Here is a link to the film as the Film Festival displays it:
http://fest06.sffs.org/films/film_details.php?id=100
We can see that it is scheduled for showing Friday and Saturday, April 21
and April 22, but I think for someone who wishes to attend, they will need to
contact the festival directly to verify ticket availability and information.
I saw one indication that tickets went on sale April 4.
Originally published: March 31, 2006
| Total Page Views: 2675
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Peak Oil Again
Thursday | March 16, 2006
About a month ago I published a blog pointing out that
Peak Oil appeared to have been "declared as reached" by Ken Deffeyes. I am not enough of a peak oil buff to be
strongly knowledgeable about each of the names in the field, but Mr. Deffeyes appeared (and still appears) to me to be a
committed theorist in this area.
I took the blog down (deleted it, but saved it to my drive) a day or two
later, in that there seemed to be some criticism to which I did not have time
to respond, and I didn't want to risk that maybe I had put up something
entirely misleading.
Overall, I doubt that Mr. Deffeyes was joking around
that much in his declaration of peak oil, although I have yet to speak with
him.
My own immediate question to him would not be about the date, but that I
do not understand his employment of peak oil theory. I thought that peak oil
was about peak oil production, not peak of oil amounts left... it appeared to
me at first glance that he might be referring to the latter.
In any event, it was and interesting to see the exact-timing debate play
out in our society, although in another way I think many of us accept that it
hardly matters when the exact date is... we have grabbed most of the
low-hanging oil-fruit, whether we like it or not.
I am interested to watch this much: Mr. Hubbert's
famous more-or-less good-call on American Peak Oil was done on a country that
had other sources of oil to turn to. However, we are now talking about world
peak oil production, and on that score I wonder if the scenario will play out
differently... if the reaction to peaking or near-peaking will be a stronger
world effort, and in what direction, since there appears to be no oil safety
net left, of other countries to which we can turn.
Here is the original blog and the responses that were made:
------------------
Tuesday | 14 February 2006 Did We Already Pass Peak Oil On December 16,
2005? Ken Deffeyes, an apparently well-known
Geologist and Peak Oil Theoretician, has posted on his website that we passed
Peak Oil on December 16, 2005. I'm not sure that his reasoning is sound or
that this seemingly-a-bit-premature-statement will hold up, but it seemed at
least worth noting. Here is the website and the statement, dated on the site
as being from 3 days ago, February 11, 2006:
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html
>>February 11, 2006
[begin quotation]
>>In the January 2004 Current Events on this web site, I
>>predicted that world oil production would peak on
>>Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2005. In hindsight,
that prediction was in error by three weeks. An update using
>>the 2005 data shows that we passed the peak on December
>>16, 2005.
[end quotation]
I can find almost no mention of this anywhere on the net (did I read a
link to this at EVWorld.com? I have lost track).
So, it is conceivable that we have passed the big day, and yet that
possibility has not yet become a more prominent part of the ongoing Peak Oil
discussion and debate. Of course, he could be wrong, and the projections for
"soon, but not quite yet" may be correct. Nonetheless, it's
plausible that we might pass Peak Oil and not even know it, and few news
agencies would cover it. Even the peak oil websites generally do not yet seem
to be covering Ken's statement as news... This does seem quite remarkable.
Maybe EVWorld.com should be the place to participate in breaking this news
and opening the floor to more discussion of it. [update] I have had a chance
to ponder Mr. Deffeyes's reasoning a bit further,
and the responses to this morning's blog. I doubt that Ken is speaking tongue-in-cheek,
as one respondent suggested. I just don't quite get that from his extensive
background in predicting around-about that time period for hitting the peak.
The respondent had read Ken's books and I haven't though.... What did make me
a bit skeptical is that Ken's reasoning seems based on measuring total
production and total reserves and measuring a halfway point. While this may
be surprisingly useful, it is not quite the same thing as declaring a peak in
actual production. I'm not schooled enough in peak oil theories to argue all
the finer points here, so I will see what comes out of this. Hopefully over
the next few days I will get more feedback that will help me put Mr. Deffeyes's seemingly early-election-call into
perspective.
Even if his call is early, I think that in the end, most of the Peak Oil
mainstream thinkers are making a call for "within the next few
years" and so that, to me, is the main thing.
Originally published: February 14, 2006 | Total Page Views: 257
Reader Comments
Tim Campbell:
I think these statements on Deffeyes' website are
tongue-in-cheek. In his books, Deffeyes likes to
use humor to make his points. It will be years - probably decades - before
anyone knows when world oil production actually peaked. Deffeyes'
point is that the peak is coming sooner than the USGS or others think, and
may be here right now. 14/Feb/2006 [12845]
Donald Sorum: Everybody seems to have thier collective head in the sand when it comes to peak
oil including the peak oil establishment. If peak oil has happened why aren't
the oil prices reflecting it? Why hasn't the stock market crumbled? This is a biggest story that
has come along in generations because it means our 1st world country will
become a 3rd world. Is it really economic inertia propelling us on and on
even though the fundamental underpinnings are gone? I keep waiting to really
see the consequences of Peak Oil and haven't seen them yet. This is huge so
why isn't it in our faces constantly. This is a dream story for the mass
media and they have not picked up on it. You would think everyone would be
talking about this because it makes the bird flu look like a bad sneeze. More
questions than answers but I would love to see proof. 14/Feb/2006 [12851]
Bob the Builder: Even if we have hit peak oil, we will not automatically
become a 3rd world country. During the World Wars, all manufacturing moved
from what they were doing to building parts/material for the war. If there
were some crisis to come up so fast that we couldn't handle it, the American
populous would force everything to turn around and start up something else.
This to me, reminds me of the cryers of wolf....Y2K
bug. ouch. 14/Feb/2006 [12852]
Jim Stack: The USA passed Peak Oil in 1970. We have been importing more
and more EVer since. In 2006 we import more than
60% of our oil with no slow down in site. We also subsidize fossil fuel
companies like Exxon and Mobile,
shell etc. The 2006 Energy bill had an 18% increase for fossil fuel. We are
so dumb, we don't EVen see the real cost of a
gallon of gas. It's about $10-15 today but not at the pump. If only we could
see the real cost we would have changed 20 years ago. Start your changes
today. Drive less, take mass transit, car pool, ride a bicycle, join the
eaaev.org and convert/build your own EV. 14/Feb/2006 [12854]
Tim Campbell: Josh, Deffeyes is clearly using
humor when he says that the world oil production peak was on Dec 16 rather
than Nov 24. No one will ever know the actual day on which peak oil occurred;
it's foolish to speculate on such a thing, and he is having some fun with
that. Deffeyes uses this comical gimmick to draw
attention to his serious warning, which is that peak oil is not decades away.
14/Feb/2006 [12855]
steve erlsten: The
biggest point I got from Twilight in the Desert was that we won't know for
years afterwards, and that is largely because real production numbers are
completely fabricated. We don't know how much is being produced, so as the
peak occurs, OPEC could just continue to report rising nubers
even as they fall. We wouldn't know it for years. Twilight in the Desert was
a great book. It's a must-read for anyone who writes about energy policy. The
part about Petrologistics was particularly
disturbing. 14/Feb/2006 [12859]
Steve Erlsten: Sorry, I'm mixing authors. Deffeys wrote Beyond Oil, which is also a great book.
Twilight in the Desert was Matthew Simmons. 14/Feb/2006 [12860]
Originally published: March 16, 2006
| Total Page Views: 5924
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Apparently, Japanese Companies Are Not Very Important
Saturday | January 28, 2006
For what seems like an eternity, quotes on the Tokyo Exchange for Japanese
stocks have not been available on yahoo. We have been able to look up some
dollar-denominated US-Exchange quotes for some Japanese companies, if they
have an American Depository Receipt. Yet, I wonder if the availability of
ADRs on some foreign stocks sometimes serves to obscure the question of why
we are unable to see quotes on their native exchange trading? In the case of
the Tokyo Exchange, we are talking about one of the world's most important
stock-trading venues, and some of the world's most important companies. Some
of us follow these companies for reasons of alternative-energy interest, and
some of us follow them for a variety of other reasons.
Here is yahoo's present list
of exchanges....
I work researching publicly quoted alternative energy companies. While there certainly are
all manner of interesting internet-based for-pay research tools that one can
use in this work, an old stand-by, for many years, has been to build
portfolio lists in one's free yahoo account. Yet, this method has led to a
significant hole in my thinking, since it is not possible to follow Japanese
companies properly and comprehensively in this way. I have also found that
some of my colleagues reflect some of the same ignorance of some important
Japanese alternative-energy-relevant companies.
Yahoo's stock quote service, while pretty comprehensive in the number of
countries' quotes that it does bring in, apparently cannot arrive at an
agreement with the Tokyo stock exchange to bring in quotes of Japanese
publicly-traded companies. I don't know the background to why this is so...
Perhaps the folks at finance.yahoo.com have decided that Japanese stocks just
aren't that important? Maybe, for all I know, the Tokyo exchange is being exceptionally
difficult or insisting on what seems to some like a very high fee. Perhaps
Yahoo for some reason is resting on its laurels and figuring that since they
have become the poor-man's standby in portfolio-building, and since they
bring in so many other countries' stock quotes, that it's ok to continue to
blow off solving the whole Tokyo
thing. I just don't know what's going on... so I am not claiming that I've
been able to uncover the background here... just spelling out the problem, as
I haven't run across anyone else doing so.
This situation has persisted for many years (at least five?). At times it
has appeared that it would be solved, but it has not been.
To be sure, there are imperfect solutions to following some publicly
traded Japanese investments on yahoo. For some companies there are good solid
liquid US-listed ADRs (Honda or Kyocera for example). For others, there are
ADRs that trade on one of the lesser exchanges. However, for many Japanese
companies, there are no real ways to list them in a yahoo stock portfolio,
and one is left flying a bit blind, particularly if one tries to follow
sectors where Japanese companies do so many exciting good things, such as the
alt-fuel-vehicle sector or the Solar sector. One is left building a sort of
imperfect smorgasbord of quotations, many of them pinksheet
symbols, some of them quotations from the Frankfurt or other exchanges, in
order to follow the important goings-on of Japanese alternative energy
companies.
There seem to be many viable alternatives to yahoo's finance area for this
basic free research, and one can bring up some Tokyo exchange quotes just fine on services
that compete with yahoo. These services are both free and for-pay, and I have
not researched every single one of them for this article. If we look at
bloomberg.com or bigcharts.com, for example, both areas have much to be said
for how they can be an aid in a bit of research, and there is no difficulty
in researching Tokyo-traded companies.
I can't think of one of these tools where I couldn't list an area that
needs improvement, so it is not at all the case that yahoo's finance research
area is the only one with some glaring deficiency. In the case of the
yahoo-Tokyo-quote problem, though, this bothers me enough so that I thought
I'd blog a bit about it. One reason is that I have run into an ignorance in
myself and in colleagues of important longstanding real alternative energy
efforts by significant Japanese companies. Secondly, it bothers me to see a
successful exciting business venture not seek to improve and continue to
offer better service.
One might say this of yahoo... that while they have worked hard and made
themselves very useful and part of our lives during the first decade of
World-Wide-Web, it would be nice if they would continue the improvement... a
bit of Kaizen engineering idea for yahoo? If they don't watch out, google will really eat their lunch, identifying
longstanding deficiencies and offering superior alternatives. Perhaps this is
sort of parallel to how some Japanese companies have performed in solar
energy and better-energy-efficiency vehicles. They have identified markets
and customers taken for-granted by American and other companies and they seem
to have moved to offer superior alternatives in those markets. That's
something of which I am a bit ignorant though.... I'll have to find a better
way to follow some of those Japanese companies and their efforts.
Disclaimer: I work researching quoted companies, and I may
have some vested interest in some of the companies mentioned here.
Originally published: January 28,
2006 | Total Page Views: 3481
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Maybe New
York State Will Not
Wait For Detroit
Monday | January 16, 2006
1-16-06
To Quote From The New York Times: January 7, 2006, pp. B1-B2:
"New
York Governor Encouraging Shift to Biofuels "
"[...]The governor's plan comes after the oil price shocks of the
last year and frustration with automakers for suing New
York for adopting California's
greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars.
"The plan also includes incentives to help the state modify its
hybrid-electric vehicles so that the cars can be plugged into stationary
outlets to enable them to use even more electricity than fuel, a practice
discouraged by the auto industry.
"'Are we supposed to sit around and wait for Detroit to do these things?' said Charles
G. Fox, a deputy secretary to Mr. Pataki who oversees energy issues, in an
interview on Friday. Part of the plan, he said, was aimed at promoting the
use of alternative fuels that can be used right away, as opposed to more
futuristic fuels like hydrogen. Biodiesel can run in any diesel engine, and
several million cars and trucks on the road nationwide can use E85."
---------------
So, my comments:
1. I applaud the effort to bring more biofuel pumps to the State. It has been
obvious for years that there is a problem with the idea of just waiting for
biofuel pumps to be installed around the country, since the fossil fuel
industry has a de facto lock on fuel distribution. Governor Ventura and
others faced down this problem in Minnesota,
and I think it's good that New Yorkers are addressing the issue.
2. It's unusual (or perhaps in the past it was unusual, and now it will be
more common?) to see such an excellent and enlightened attitude toward
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles from a Governor's office. Mr.
Fox seems to be doing his job.
3. New York State residents have as much cause and motive as anyone on
Earth to kick as much of their Oil-addicted habit as possible, considering
the destruction that has been wrought by citizens of one of their Oil
suppliers (Saudi Arabia). We in the United
States, and residents of New York State
in particular, might (if possible) want to look at reducing oil imports. One
way to reduce such imports is for us to reduce our general oil comsumption. It is overdue, in my view, that New York State residents would look to reduce
oil consumption, but it is done better late than never.
4. Where are the batteries going to come from, to power these planned
State PHEVs? Will New York
State have any more
success than anyone else in prying appropriate safe long-lasting high-quality
batteries from the hands of producers, at some reasonable price? Maybe
Governor Pataki will have to go out of his way to encourage local battery
production, if he gets the runaround from Detroit and the world's battery producers,
as has happened to others who have sought to buy Battery Powered Vehicles?
Originally published: January 16,
2006 | Total Page Views: 2046
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Cobasys Research
Tuesday | January 03, 2006
In response to some private email discussions, I put together
some research on the Cobasys situation. I originally blogged this with some
of my own views added, but I have removed those views for now (January 3,
2006).
Disclaimer: Although I do not own any ECD stock directly, I do work
with companies whose interests will be affected depending on the fortunes of
ECD stock, and in the end, I will benefit if ECD's stock benefits. I have
completely avoided any discussion as to my opinion of the financial fortunes
of ECD. My interest here is to understand the NiMH battery situation a bit
better.
(I):
A timeline of the Matsushita lawsuit situation:
March 6, 2001
ECD Announces Ovonic Battery Is Filing A Lawsuit Against Matsushita Battery
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20010306.htm
January 22, 2002
Energy Conversion Devices and Matsushita agree to stay pending litigation
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20020122.htm
March 28, 2002
Texaco Ovonic Battery Systems LLC announces president and new management team
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20020328.htm
November 15, 2002
Energy Conversion Devices To Arbitrate Disputes With Matsushita
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20021115.htm
December 6, 2002
Energy Conversion Devices Enters Arbitration Agreement with Matsushita to
Arbitrate Dispute in New York City
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20021206.htm
January 27, 2004
Arbitration Hearings Completed in Patent Infringement Claims by Energy
Conversion Devices against Matsushita Battery
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20040127.htm
May 17, 2004
ECD Ovonics and Other Parties to the Arbitration
Request ICC to Extend Date for Issuance of Decision
(No Link Available To Press Release)
July 7, 2004
ECD Ovonics Announces Settlement in Patent
Infringement Dispute
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20040707.htm
December 3, 2004
ECD Announces Expansion of NiMH Battery
License to Cobasys and Restructuring of Relationship with ChevronTexaco
Technology Ventures
http://www.cobasys.com/news/20041203.htm
July 6, 2005
Cobasys and Panasonic EV Energy Extend Cooperation and Agree to Expanded
License Terms
http://www.cobasys.com/news/20050706.htm
2. ECD Annual Reports:
http://www.ovonic.com/our_company/1_4_investor_relations/10k_filing.htm
3. Excerpts of interest from ECD's most recent (2005) annual report:
http://www.ovonic.com/PDFs/Financial_Reports/AnnualReports/form_10K-2005_13sept05.pdf
Cobasys
In July 2001, Ovonic Battery and ChevronTexaco (now Chevron) formed a
strategic alliance (Cobasys LLC). Chevron invested $160,000,000 to match the
Company's technological contribution in the venture. Cobasys is owned 50% by
Ovonic Battery and 50% by Chevron.
On December 2, 2004, as part of its focus on its core businesses, ECD
entered into a series of agreements with Chevron and Cobasys to expand the
scope of licenses granted to Cobasys at the time of the restructuring of the
joint venture in July 2001. In consideration of the expanded licenses, ECD
received an option to purchase the 4,376,633 shares exercisable at $4.55 per
share of ECD Common Stock then owned by Chevron. The transaction increased
ECD's revenue and decreased additional paid-in capital in the year ended June
30, 2005 by $79,532,000 based upon the value of this option using the Black
Scholes valuation model.
In July 2004, ECD and Cobasys entered into a settlement agreement with MEI,
PEVE, and Toyota
with respect to patent infringement disputes and counterclaims involving NiMH
batteries before the International Chamber of Commerce, International Court
of Arbitration. Under the terms of the settlement, no party admitted any
liability.
As part of the settlement, ECD and its subsidiary, Ovonic Battery,
received a $10 million license fee from MEI and PEVE. This fee was recorded
as a deferred patent license fee in July 2004 and is being amortized to
income over 10.5 years. The Company recognized $952,000 as revenues from
license and other agreements in the year ended June 30, 2005 in connection
with the amortization of this fee. In addition, Cobasys received a $20
million license fee from MEI, PEVE and Toyota,
of which $4 million was placed in escrow for a next-generation NiMH battery
development project plan. Upon receipt of the license fee, Cobasys made an $8
million distribution each to Ovonic Battery and Chevron representing a
partial reimbursement of legal expenses. The Company recorded this $8 million
as a distribution from joint venture in the year ended June 30, 2005.
-------------------
Ovonic Battery Company. Ovonic Battery
licenses manufacturers of NiMH batteries throughout the world for consumer,
vehicle propulsion and other battery applications.
Our royalty-bearing NiMH battery licenses provide for upfront
nonrefundable license fees and, depending on factors such as geographical
scope and fields of application, require licensees to pay us a royalty of
0.5% (for consumer applications) or 3.0% (for transportation applications) of
the selling price of NiMH batteries. Certain licensees, particularly our
Chinese licensees, have paid modest upfront, nonrefundable license fees, but
are required to pay royalty rates considerably higher than 0.5% and to pay
additional license fees as their sales of NiMH batteries increase, or have
been granted substantially narrower rights to geographical areas in which
licensed products can be made or sold. Most of Ovonic Battery's licensees
have the right to make and sell cylindrical NiMH batteries for consumer
applications under royalty-bearing non-exclusive licenses.
Our joint ventures established to manufacture NiMH batteries are licensees
of Ovonic Battery. Typically, we acquired our ownership interest in the NiMH
battery joint ventures by the contribution of licensed patents or technology,
or both. These licenses to our NiMH battery joint ventures generally do not
require the payment of royalties.
Generally, the term of the license agreements extends for so long as the
patents being licensed are in force. Some licenses have fixed terms but
provide for extensions of additional one- to five-year periods. Based upon
our NiMH battery patent portfolio (provided a market for NiMH batteries
remains for the next nine years), we believe that patents applicable to NiMH
batteries can provide us with royalty revenues through 2014.
Ovonic Battery also produces high
performance proprietary nickel hydroxide materials for use in the positive
electrodes of NiMH batteries and sell these materials to some of its
licensees. The Ovonic nickel hydroxide materials offer NiMH battery
manufacturers advantages with such features as higher capacity and power,
greater cycle life, high temperature performance, and lower costs. Ovonic Battery manufactures its nickel hydroxide materials at
an automated facility capable of operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Ovonic Battery has established three joint ventures in China with
Rare Earth High-Tech Co., Ltd., which are licensed to make and sell NiMH
batteries and battery materials for consumer applications and has entered
into royalty-bearing consumer battery license agreements with 13 other
Chinese companies. Most of Ovonic Battery's licensees have the right to make
and sell cylindrical NiMH batteries for consumer applications under
royalty-bearing non-exclusive licenses.
In addition to its Cobasys joint venture, Ovonic Battery has entered into
royalty-bearing, nonexclusive license agreements granting limited rights for
the manufacture of Ovonic NiMH four-wheeled vehicle propulsion batteries and
related products outside of the United States with Sanyo,
Toshiba, Hyundai Motor Company, Nan Ya and GP
Batteries. Sanyo, Toshiba and Hyundai have restricted rights to sell
batteries in vehicles imported into North America.
GP Batteries and the Rare Earth Ovonic joint ventures have limited rights to
sell vehicle propulsion batteries in North America
by and through Ovonic Battery. Saft Group and the
United States Advanced Battery Consortium are licensed under a
royalty-bearing, nonexclusive license agreement for the manufacture and sale
of vehicle propulsion batteries in the United States. Among our
licensees of Ovonic NiMH batteries for four-wheel vehicle propulsion
applications, Sanyo and GP Batteries are engaged in manufacturing batteries
for such applications.
For two-and three-wheeled vehicle applications, Ovonic Battery has entered
into royalty-bearing license agreements for the manufacture and sale of
Ovonic NiMH batteries with Sanyo, Walsin, Sanoh Industrial Co., Ltd., Nan Ya,
GP Batteries and our Rare Earth Ovonic joint ventures. Subject to these
agreements and subject to rights retained by Ovonic Battery in China and India with respect to NiMH
batteries for two- and three-wheeled vehicles, Cobasys has been granted an
exclusive royalty-free license for the manufacture and sale of batteries for
two- and three-wheeled vehicles.
4. Quote of interest from 2001 Annual report (p. 9):
http://www.ovonic.com/PDFs/Financial_Reports/AnnualReports/Form_10K_2001.pdf
[...]
At the 2000 Tour de Sol Road
Rally, the Ovonic NiMH batteries powered a General Motors production EV1 to a
range of 224 miles. This was the seventh consecutive year that Ovonic
batteries have powered electric vehicles beyond the 200-mile threshold.
To illustrate the lower cost operation of battery-powered electric
vehicles, a four-door Chevrolet Geo Metro with a gasoline engine was matched
against a Solectria Force (the electric version of the Geo Metro) to measure
the operating efficiencies of the two vehicles over a 23.5-mile route through
mid-town Manhattan (New York City) at the 1998 Tour de Sol. Based upon a
central power plant efficiency rate of 51%, a power transmission efficiency
rate of 92%, a battery charger efficiency rate of 90% and a battery energy
efficiency rate of 90%, the electric car’s use of 2.87 kWh of electricity was
the equivalent of 0.27 gallons of gasoline. The gasoline-fueled car used 2.28
gallons of gasoline. The gasoline Geo Metro achieved 10.3 miles per gallon,
while the Solectria Force returned an 87 miles-per-gallon equivalent. At
$1.50 per gallon, it cost $3.42 for the Geo Metro’s gasoline and the
equivalent of $.41 to power the Solectria. Texaco Ovonic Battery
Systems. In June 1994, Ovonic Battery and General Motors Corporation formed a
joint venture, GM Ovonic, of which we owned 40% interest and General Motors
owned a 60% interest, to manufacture and sell Ovonic Battery's proprietary
NiMH batteries for four-wheeled electric propulsion applications. In July
2001, Texaco Energy Systems Inc. (TESI) completed the purchase from GM of its
stake in GM Ovonic and we and TESI announced the formation of Texaco Ovonic
Battery Systems, a 50-50 joint venture between Ovonic Battery and TESI, for
the purpose of bringing advanced NiMH batteries into widespread commercial
production for automotive applications as well as to further develop them for
non-automotive applications. Ovonic Battery
has contributed intellectual property, licenses, production processes,
know-how, personnel and engineering services pertaining to Ovonic NiMH
battery technology to the joint venture. TESI’s contribution to the joint
venture for NiMH-battery-related activities will total more than $150 million
over the next few years. The joint venture will significantly increase its
existing manufacturing facilities in Kettering,
Ohio, and its development facilities in Troy, Michigan.
Texaco Ovonic Battery Systems is also investing in the development of
production-ready prototypes of the new Ovonic NiMH monoblock
battery, a compact design for high-voltage (36-42 volt) automotive electrical
systems for future gasoline-powered automobiles.
[...]
2000 annual report provides basic info as to GM relationship that was part
of the 90s, although it seems to have given way to the Texaco relationship
that was part of the 2000s:
http://www.ovonic.com/PDFs/Financial_Reports/AnnualReports/Form_10K_2000_A1.pdf
5. Other Ovonic Press releases (but leaving in Matsushita lawsuit links
from point I above).
October 24, 1997
Ovonic NiMH Batteries Power EV From Boston To New York On A Single Charge
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/19971024.htm
[...]
All significant manufacturers of NiMH batteries operate under agreements
with ECD and Ovonic Battery, which originated the NiMH battery technology.
Proprietary rechargeable Ovonic NiMH batteries are based on new hydrogen
storage principles and materials invented and developed by ECD and Ovonic
Battery. They were initially developed and commercialized in small cell sizes
for notebook computers, cellular phones and other portable electronic
devices. Ovonic batteries are ideal in these applications since they store
more than twice as much energy per unit weight as lead-acid or nickel-cadmium
batteries. Ovonic NiMH batteries have high power, long cycle life, no memory
effect, are environmentally friendly and are ideally suited for EV and Hybrid electric vehicles.
November 13, 1997
General Motors Introduces Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries In Chevrolet S-10
Electric Pickup Trucks
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/19971113.htm
January 4, 1998
Ovonic NiMH Batteries Featured At General Motors Advanced Technology Vehicles
Exhibit
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/19980104.htm
September 28, 1998
Energy Conversion Devices Announces Year-End Operating Results
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/19980928.htm
[...]
In August 1998, Ovonic Energy Products, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
GM Ovonic, opened a plant in Kettering (Dayton), Ohio
to produce advanced batteries commercially for sale to the EV industry. Mr. Ovshinsky also noted that the NiMH battery has been
received well in the booming bicycle and scooter markets of Asia and Europe.
[...]
October 5, 1998
Ovonic NiMH Batteries Featured At Paris Motor
Show And Brussels
Electric Vehicle Symposium
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/19981005.htm
January 4, 1999 1999 EV-1 With Ovonic NiMH Batteries Enthusiastically
Received
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/press_releases_1999.htm
A "Revolution in Range" for EV Vehicles
January 4, 1999 -- One month after General Motors Corporation (GM)
introduced the 1999 model EV-1 electric car with GM Ovonic nickel metal
hydride (NiMH) batteries in Los Angeles, Calif., Energy Conversion Devices,
Inc. (ECD) (NASDAQ:ENER) continues to receive high praise from EV-1 owners
and test drivers who are amazed by the vehicle's driving range on a single
charge. Consider the following customer testimonials: [etc.]
November 29, 1999
Energy Conversion Devices Announces Further Agreement With Toshiba Battery Company
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/19991129.htm
May 2, 2000
Texaco Purchases a 20 Percent Interest in Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20000502.htm
July 11, 2000
ECD Grants Patent License to Chinese Company
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20001005.htm
TROY, Mich., July 11, 2000 - Energy Conversion
Devices, Inc. (?ECD?) (NASDAQ:ENER) announced today that its subsidiary,
Ovonic Battery Company, Inc. (?Ovonic Battery?), has entered into a patent
license agreement under its proprietary nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) battery
technology with BYD Battery Co., Ltd. of the People's Republic of China.
Under the consumer battery license grant, BYD has a nonexclusive,
royalty-bearing right to make, use and sell consumer nickel metal hydride
batteries for non-propulsion applications.
October 31, 2000
Texaco & ECD Form Hydrogen Storage Joint Venture
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20001031.htm
March 6, 2001
ECD Announces Ovonic Battery Is Filing A Lawsuit Against Matsushita Battery
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20010306.htm
November 1, 2001
Judge Issues Scheduling Order in Ovonic Battery / Matsushita Battery Lawsuit
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20011101.htm
Rochester Hills, Mich., Nov. 1, 2001 - Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
(ECD) (NASDAQ:ENER) announced today that Judge Marianne O. Battani of the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, has
issued an order scheduling the preliminary injunction hearing in the lawsuit
by Ovonic Battery Company, Inc. against Matsushita Battery Industrial Co.,
Ltd. (MBI) and related companies to commence on Monday, February 18, 2002.
Judge Battani also granted Ovonic Battery's motion for leave to amend the
complaint to join its affiliate, Texaco Ovonic Battery Systems LLC, as a
plaintiff in the lawsuit and the preliminary injunction action.
[...]
Dec. 20, 2001:
ChevronTexaco, Energy Conversion Devices Team to Commercialize Solar,
Hydrogen Technologies
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20011220.htm
Jan. 22, 2002:
Energy Conversion Devices and Matsushita Agree to Stay Pending Litigation
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20020122.htm
January 27, 2004
Arbitration Hearings Completed in Patent Infringement Claims by Energy
Conversion Devices against Matsushita Battery
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20040127.htm
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20040127.htm
March 17, 2004
Texaco Ovonic Battery Systems Changes Name
to COBASYS
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20040317a.htm
Texaco Ovonic Battery Systems Changes
Name to COBASYS
Name change reflects focus on the expanding fields for NiMH storage
solutions
Troy, Mich., March. 17, 2004 — Texaco Ovonic
Battery Systems LLC announced today it has changed its name to COBASYS. The
name change to COBASYS reflects the company's focus in the expanding fields
for Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) storage solutions in both the transportation
and stationary power markets. COBASYS is a joint venture between Texaco
Energy Systems L.L.C., a unit of ChevronTexaco Technology Ventures LLC, and a
unit of Energy Conversion Devices, Inc., the pioneer in the development of
high power, high energy NiMH batteries.
May 17, 2004
ECD Ovonics and Other Parties to the Arbitration
Request ICC to Extend Date for Issuance of Decision
(No Link Available To Press Release)
July 7, 2004
ECD Ovonics Announces Settlement in Patent
Infringement Dispute http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20040707.htm
August 12, 2004 ECD Ovonics Announces Strategic
Business Restructuring http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20040812.htm
To Focus on Accelerating the Commercialization of Its Products
Rochester Hills, Mich., Aug. 12, 2004 — Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
(ECD Ovonics) (NASDAQ:ENER) announced today that
its Board of Directors has unanimously approved Management's business
restructuring plan to take full advantage of the favorable battery settlement
agreement announced on July 7, 2004 and the increasing market interest in
solar energy systems and hybrid electric vehicles. The restructuring plan
accelerates the company's transition to an organization focused on
commercializing its products and technologies by concentrating on the activities
of its joint venture companies and its subsidiary United Solar Ovonic with
the goal to move the company into a position of having sustained
profitability by July 2006.
August 31, 2004
Cobasys Introduces the NiMHax® Line of Advanced
NiMH Battery Pack Solutions
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20040831.htm
November 1, 2004
Azure Dynamics Corporation Selects Cobasys' Ovonic Nickel Metal Hydride
(NiMH) Battery Technology for HEVs
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20041101.htm
December 3, 2004
ECD Announces Expansion of NiMH Battery
License to Cobasys and Restructuring of Relationship with ChevronTexaco
Technology Ventures
http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20041203.htm
July 6, 2005
Cobasys and Panasonic EV Energy Extend Cooperation and Agree to Expanded
License Terms
http://www.cobasys.com/news/20050706.htm
August 29, 2005
Cobasys Confirms Contracts for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Programs
http://www.cobasys.com/news/20050829.htm
Originally published: January 03,
2006 | Total Page Views: 4485
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
The NiMH Battery Industry Pelican
Brief... Of A Sort
Friday | November 18, 2005
A few weeks ago Charles Whalen circulated some thoughts on
issues within the Large-Format NiMH Battery Industry. His thinking and
hypothesizing focused on trying to surmise as to narrowing down some of the
constraints of the Toyota-ECD confidential settlement, and he also was able
to bring some background and knowledge to the question that I had not seen
before. I thought his comments were worth passing on to others, but before I
could get permission to reprint them, his life was turned upside down by
Katrina. Bill Moore did manage to quote from Charles's comments in one of his
blogs, but here now with permission is the full text of what Charles had to
say. I think his comments at the very end, as to what might happen next in
Electro Energy's efforts to bring PHEV-suitable NiMH batteries to the Prius+
project and maybe to market... I thought those were very timely and helpful,
because if we're going to bring pluggable-hybrids to market in this world, we
cannot have the project held up by back-door industry shennanigans
designed to prevent rapid deployment of this technology which can help
consumers gain access to non-oil-industry fuel.
From: Charles Whalen
To: Paul Scott
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 11:14 PM
Subject: Fw: Why Toyota won't produce PHEVs (was: CalCars new NiMH battery)
Hi Paul,
Although the following email inserted below is quite lengthy (as all my
emails tend to be), I nevertheless thought you might be interested in reading
this, as it is my explanation and analysis for why (I believe) Toyota will
not -- and more importantly, cannot -- produce PHEVs, which is what your
group, Plug in America, has been working so hard to do, i.e. to try to
persuade Toyota to produce PHEVs. I could very well be wrong (and would
actually love to be proven wrong by future events), but I don't believe this
is going to happen for the reasons I state below. :-(
However I don't pretend to be omniscient nor to have all the answers. This
is just the opinion and analysis of one man who is very far away from the
center of gravity and nexus of activity where all of these issues are playing
out there in California.
Given your close working relationship with high-level executives at Toyota (including maybe
Dave Hermance himself?), I would love to get your
take on my analysis below and any comments or corrections you might have. (I
would love to be corrected on any of this.)
Best regards,
Charles
OK, now onto the heart of the matter about Cobasys' long history of
aggressively defending its comprehesive NiMH patent
portfolio, which gives it exclusive control over worldwide NiMH battery
production.
I have not actually read the legal judgement
against Panasonic in favor of Cobasys by the international court of artibration because that decision was sealed and supposed
to remain confidential by prior agreement of the parties, as you probably
know. However numerous details of that judgement/settlement
have emerged in the press, including some revealed by Cobasys itself. What we
know is that the court levied a $30 million fine against Panasonic and Toyota which they had
to pay to Cobasys for violation of Cobasys' NiMH patents and back-payment of
royalties owed to Cobasys. Panasonic had apparently argued that it had
significantly improved upon Cobasys' original NiMH electrochemistry (upon
which Cobasys' NiMH patents are based) and in so doing altered it
sufficiently to the point that it should not be covered by Cobasys' patents.
(This was alluded to in a recent RAV4 list exchange between Dave Goldstein
and Bill Korthoff where they pointed out that one
of Panasonic's improvements to Cobasys' NiMH electrochemistry was to
substantially reduce its exothermicity.) But the
international court of arbitration apparently did not buy that argument and
sided with Cobasys, upholding its dominant patent monopoly on basic NiMH
electrochemistry.
The terms of the judgment against Panasonic further stipulated that it
could only produce NiMH batteries under license from Cobasys and according to
the terms and restrictions of such license. (Prior to this judgment against
Panasonic, Panasonic had not previously been a Cobasys licensee, but it is
now, as you can see at: www.ovonic.com/alliances/alliances-licensees.htm.)
The terms of Panasonic's license deal worked out as part of the settlement
approved by the international court of arbitration and subsequently amended
by agreement between the two parties this year are that Panasonic must pay a
royalty (believed to be around 3%, similar to Sanyo's NiMH license deal with
Cobasys) to Cobasys on every NiMH battery it produces until 2015 and
furthermore that Panasonic can only produce "certain types" of NiMH
batteries for "certain transportation applications" for vehicles
sold in North America.
[There are numerous (albeit oblique) media references to this. To take
just one example, see www.powerpulse.net/news/story.php?storyID=13593:
"Cobasys announced that it has granted additional royalty-bearing
license rights to Panasonic EV Energy Co. The expanded rights will permit
Panasonic to solicit and sell NiMH battery products for certain North
American transportation applications. In return, Cobasys will receive
royalties on Panasonic North American sales of NiMH battery products through
2014."]
Although, as I said, the specific terms are confidential, this stipulation
in Panasonic's license restricting it to producing only "certain
types" of NiMH batteries for "certain transportation
applications" is widely interpreted and understood to mean that
Panasonic can only produce HEV batteries (<10Ah) but not BEV batteries
(>80Ah) for vehicles sold in North America until 2015. Where this line is
specifically drawn in Panasonic's license, whether it's closer to 10Ah or
closer to 80Ah, is an interesting question, which of course we don't know the
answer to. But the answer to that question is indeed very important because
it is in that middle ground that we find the capacity range for PHEVs. So if
the line is drawn closer to 80Ah, let's say for instance that Panasonic is
permitted to produce NiMH batteries not greater than 50Ah, then that would
allow Toyota to manufacture PHEVs with, say, a 40Ah battery pack for sale in
North America. But if, on the other hand, the line is drawn at 10Ah, which I
believe is more likely the case, i.e. that Panasonic is only permitted to
produce NiMH batteries with capacities less than 10Ah, then that would
obviously preclude Toyota from offering any
PHEVs in the US
until 2015.
There are two compelling reasons why the latter is the most likely case,
i.e. that Panasonic is only permitted to produce NiMH batteries with
capacities less than 10Ah.
First, a quick glance at Panasonic's battery product catalog
(www.peve.panasonic.co.jp/e_catalog1.html) shows that their current offerings
only consist of NiMH batteries less than 10Ah, specifically 6Ah and 6.5Ah,
where prior to losing the legal battle to Cobasys, Panasonic had had their
95Ah EV-95 BEV battery up on their website in their online catalog, but it
has now been removed and there is no more trace of it despite the fact that
it is still being used in several hundred RAV4-EVs, a few of which presently
need, and many more of which will need in the future, new EV-95 replacement
batteries.
Second, Toyota steadfastly refuses to produce a PHEV despite very heavy,
intense public pressure from all quarters, including prominent lobbying and
advocacy groups such as Plug in America, Set America Free, CalCars, the EAA, top political and public policy leaders
such as former CIA director Jim Woolsey, former Reagan Defense Undersecretary
and prominent Washington neo-conservative hawk Frank Gaffney, many leading
Congressmen and Senators of both parties, many of Toyota's own customers, and
from the competitive threat of commercial ventures like E-Drive who are going
to do it to Toyota's cars for them (as an aftermarket conversion kit) if
Toyota doesn't do it themself.
Now, why is this? Don't you think this is quite strange, incongruous, and
out of character for a company that prides itself on being the most
innovative technology leader and is well known to be the most responsive
automaker -- the most responsive to public pressure and to its customers'
wishes and demands -- that such a responsive company could be so steadfast in
resisting all this overwhelming public pressure and stubbornly refusing to go
down the PHEV path? Don't you think that deep down Toyota wants to do this and is actually
quite eager to do so? (I, for one, do.)
Well, there is only one answer to these questions, and it is quite
obvious. The answer is that Toyota does indeed
want to do a PHEV but is effectively precluded from doing so by Panasonic's
(now a 60% owned and controlled Toyota
subsidiary) restriction in its Cobasys license prohibiting it from producing
NiMH batteries with capacities greater than 10Ah. So as much as Toyota would like to do a PHEV and very much wants to do
so, it has its hands tied behind its back by Cobasys and is even muzzled by
Cobasys from explaining the true reasons due to the gag order that Cobasys
imposed on Toyota, which Toyota was forced to agree to.
So that is exactly why Dave Hermance has come
out and made public statements a few times in the last several months where
instead of explaining the real reasons that Toyota can't do a PHEV, he rather
obfuscates by denigrating what E-Drive/EnergyCS is
doing with the development their PHEV aftermarket conversion kit for the
Prius by calling it "stupid" and saying that "no one in his
right mind would want to buy something like that." I've heard from
credible sources (who know Dave personally) that in private, off the record,
Dave does not believe that, deep down, but that is just what he has to say on
the record for public consumption because that is the company's party line,
which we now know they are forced to tow by Cobasys.
Toyota has
announced that they intend for all of their models, every single vehicle they
offer, to all be hybrids by 2010. That is quite an ambitious goal, and so
they have staked their company's entire future on hybrids. But in so doing,
they are completely at the mercy of Cobasys, which literally has them by the
balls. It is for this reason that Toyota is
experimenting with lithium-ion batteries in prototypes and concept cars in Japan. But as
we all know, and Toyota
knows only too well, li-ions won't be ready for mass-market production
vehicles for at least another 5-8 years due to the many safety, reliability,
and longevity problems they currently have which still have to be resolved through
further development. So Toyota
is stuck with NiMH in the near to medium term future, and that means it is
completely beholden to Cobasys and has to kowtow to them. Therefore, since
Toyota has bet its entire future on hybrids with NiMH batteries, it has to be
extremely careful to honor both the letter and the spirit of its license
agreement with Cobasys, with all of its onerous restrictions, including both
the types of NiMH batteries its Panasonic subsidiary can produce and also
what it can and cannot say publicly about the reasons for what types of
vehicles it does and does not produce. In short, Toyota cannot afford to piss off Cobasys.
This whole situation was also explained very well in the following recent
article in Electrifying Times (www.electrifyingtimes.com/goodtoyota-badtoyota.html):
------------------------------------------------------------------
One RAV owner said to me some of the RAV4 EV owners are getting nervous
about the battery life of the Panasonic NiMH batteries. They might try to
unload them at 50,000 miles, even though a lot of Southern California Edison
meter readers using RAV4 EVs are getting over 100,000 miles per battery pack.
Where are they going to get new NiMH batteries? Panasonic does not sell them
in the US
anymore.
[...]
So far as I know, no one has sat down to try to write out the role that
Chevron-Texaco "may have played" in bringing about the present
situation, which is that there do not seem to be any replacement NiMH
batteries, nor NiMH batteries for much (if any) new manufacturing of BEVs or
PHEVs.
I sometimes wonder what Toyota
would have to say, given that Chevron-Texaco, via the Cobasys lawsuit, more
or less seems to have "shut them up good" with respect to the terms
under which they could make NiMH batteries.
A considerable portion of Toyota's future is now bet on having access to
legally-made NiMH for their hybrids, and so I doubt they would again risk
violating the terms of their agreements with Chevron-Texaco by, say,
manufacturing the somewhat-different NiMH for any new RAV4 EVs. I am, of
course, speculating, and very much in the dark.
We do know that even just in the last few months we have seen continued
press releases (from Energy Conversion Devices of course) announcing further
seemingly restrictive NiMH manufacturing licensing agreements, this time with
at least two major Chinese battery manufacturers. The restriction, identified
in the press releases, is that the licensing agreements only apply to
non-propulsion batteries. Here is an example:
www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20050601.htm
Doubtless there is some seemingly-harmless rationale for this distinction
that is being made between NiMH for propulsion purposes and NiMH for
non-propulsion purposes. It may seem harmless, but in the meantime, it would
appear that several Chinese manufacturers are not licensed to make NiMH for
propulsion, and that we (in the US) are acting mystified that Chinese demand
for oil is becoming so huge that they are trying to buy an American oil
company. Perhaps their demand for oil would be somewhat abated if our
American oil company Chevron-Texaco made an effort to cut them licensing
terms for BEV and HEV battery manufacturing that were less restrictive?
In the meantime, is anyone licensed to make NiMH for propulsion purposes?
Anywhere? ... outside of those under other restrictions, such as those
imposed in the confidential Toyota/Cobasys settlement? I don't think we've
been able to find any real mass-produced, genuinely-affordable,
genuinely-available possibilities for a project that I am on ... where the
specs are pretty restrictive.
------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, now to answer your first question about how many NiMH patent
infringement lawsuits Ovonics/Cobasys has brought
and how extensive their legal action has been, having only done a cursory google search on that, I can tell you that in addition to
the big one against Panasonic, Ovonics also brought
earlier lawsuits against at least Sanyo, Toshiba, and Yuasa, and there may
have been others as well. Like Panasonic, these other three NiMH battery
manufacturers -- Sanyo, Toshiba, and Yuasa -- were also not Ovonics/Cobasys licensees prior to being sued by Ovonics, but Ovonics prevailed
in all cases and now all three of these companies are Cobasys licensees. In
fact, the outcome of numerous such legal actions has been to uphold Cobasys'
exclusive patent monopoly on basic NiMH electrochemistry and its worldwide
control over NiMH battery production with the result that any battery
manufacturer that wants to produce NiMH batteries can only do under license
from Cobasys and must be a Cobasys licenesee, as
every single NiMH battery manufacturer in the world now is. See
www.ovonic.com/alliances/alliances-licensees.htm for the entire list of
Cobasys' NiMH licensees.
Here's another reference: "Ovonic Battery was founded by ECD in 1982
to develop and commercialize its basic proprietary NiMH rechargeable battery
technology. All significant consumer battery manufacturers worldwide (28 NiMH
manufacturers) are licensees of Ovonic Battery." (From
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3864/is_200105/ai_n8946316).
And another reference (from
www.greencar.com/index.cfm?content=news&ArticleID=29&show=all):
"This is not the first time that Energy Conversion Devices has
vigorously sought to defend its advanced battery patents, which are based on
the pioneering work of ECD founder and president Stanford Ovshinsky
in the 1950s. After warnings from ECD that Matsushita was infringing on its
patents in early 1996, Matsushita filed suit against ECD in U.S. District
Court in Delaware
seeking to have some of ECD's NiMH patents declared invalid. ECD answered
that action by filing for a preliminary injunction in federal district court
in Detroit that sought to enjoin Toyota from fleet
testing its Matsushita NiMH-equipped RAV4 electric vehicles. A year earlier,
ECD filed an unrelated patent infringement suit against Sanyo Electric,
Toshiba, and Yuasa Battery Co. that went before the Federal Trade Commission,
resulting in the three companies settling with ECD."
Finally, here is an excerpt from Cobasys' 1997 letter to shareholders
(www.ovonics.com/PDFs/LtrstoShldrs/ecd97ltr.pdf):
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intellectual Property/Patents
ECD's most valuable asset is its extensive patent portfolio of 352 issued U.S. patents
and 825 foreign counterparts. Covering all aspects of our core businesses,
they have resulted from our more than 30 years of work in the advanced
technologies described earlier in this letter.
During 1997, the Japanese Patent Office in Tokyo recognized and registered the
important, basic Ovonic Battery patent for nickel metal-hydride batteries. In
doing so, ECD prevailed over the opposition of major Japanese and foreign
battery manufacturers. This patent is a counterpart to U.S. Patent No.
4,623,597 that specifies the fundamentals that make NiMH batteries possible
and commercially feasible. Japan
joins 14 other industrial nations that have recognized the patent. In
addition to the basic patent, a continuing stream of significant patents
assure that Ovonic Battery will continue its leadership in the NiMH battery
field.
During this past year, ECD spent $3 million defending its patent rights,
primarily against Matsushita Battery Industrial Co., Ltd. (MBI), with respect
to certain Ovonic Battery U.S. patents covering proprietary technology for
NiMH batteries.
The case was conducted in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware. On December 23, 1997, the judge issued the final order and opinion
giving ECD and Ovonic Battery precisely the results we had sought, with the
sole exception of denying our request for attorneys' fees. The decision
effectively limits MBI and its joint venture with Toyota Motor Corporation,
Panasonic EV Energy Co. of Osaka, Japan, to one low energy density model EV
battery (MHI-BX) covered by prior agreement with MBI without the ability to
further improve the battery by utilizing ECD's advanced NiMH technology. The
MHI-BX battery has lower specific energy than the current production GM
Ovonic EV battery and significantly less energy than our advanced family of
batteries, which puts the GM Ovonic battery in a much stronger competitive position.
This very favorable court outcome, coupled with the issuance of the basic
Japanese patent for our Ovonic NiMH battery, confirms our dominant position
and enhances our future business transactions. Both actions illustrate the
strength of our basic intellectual property rights worldwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I hope that answers your questions, at least from the small amount
of google research I did, with my apologies once
again for being so long-winded.
Best regards,
Charles
[quoting from a previous email, Charles's note continues]:
With regard to CalCars' new bipolar NiMH battery
from Electro Energy, one thing that CalCars
apparently doesn't realize is that as soon as Electro Energy goes into
commercial production, they are going to get their asses sued by Cobasys for
violating Cobasys' exclusive worldwide patents on NiMH electrochemistry (at
the cell level). If Electro Energy wants to produce a NiMH battery of any
type, shape, or form, no matter what sort of innovative structure they might
use to assemble cells into a module, then they absolutely *MUST* be a Cobasys
licensee, just as every major NiMH battery manufacturer in the world is, but
which they (Electro Energy) are not. Electro Energy will lose and lose badly
in the patent infringement lawsuit that is sure to be coming from Cobasys. Cobasys/Ovonics has been
extremely aggressive in suing to protect its exclusive worldwide monopoly and
control over NiMH battery production. They have prevailed and won every
single case they've ever brought, including against Panasonic, Sanyo,
Toshiba, and Yuasa, who had to pay hefty multi-million dollar fines for
patent infringement and back-payment of royalties and who are all now Cobasys
licensees, paying royalties to Cobasys of around 3% on each battery produced.
I should add that Panasonic, Sanyo, Toshiba, and Yuasa all lost these patent
infringement cases in national and international courts despite the fact that
they had tweaked and altered the specific chemical compounds and NiMH
electrochemistry to some degree, such as to change its thermal
characteristics. That just goes to show how deep, broad, iron-clad, and
all-encompassing Cobasys' patent portfolio is over NiMH batteries. The fact
that Electro Energy has its own patent portfolio on bipolar battery
construction at the module level isn't going to help it one iota at the cell
level, where it has none; all of the NiMH electrochemistry patents at the
cell level are held exclusively by Cobasys, which fact has been repeatedly
adjudicated and upheld by numerous courts of law and artibration.
Charles
Originally published: November 18,
2005 | Total Page Views: 20434
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
Hazzan Abdul:
We sell the Sidekick 111
phones for sale at $200 USD per unit .Brand New , unlocked , sealed in boxes
.Plus shipping cost of $20 USD making $220 USD to be paid per unit. * We will
only ship out good(s) after we have recieved
payment confirmation. * Payment mode is wire transfer made thru western union
. * Delivery Leadtime is 3 days , and shipment will
be made with UPS /FedEx Express. * Tracking informations
would be provided as soon as shipment is made . * Warranty is 1 year and we
will offer you a 30 days returns period . If these aboved
conditions are favourbale to you kindly reply back
and lets proceed, many thanks . hazltd@yahoo.com Tel: +2348025958865 Hazzan.
07/Aug/2006
[30292]
Mike Chan:
Ni-MH rechargeable
battery http://www.betterpower.com.cn/8027/cn/images/add.gif
WWW.BETTERPOWER.COM.CN
[url=http://www.betterpower.com.cn]http://www.betterpower.com.cn[/url]
11/Aug/2006
[30549]
Light Dancing:
I only just today came
across the "NiMH Battery Industry Pelican Brief..." article. It
really put a lot of missing pieces together for me, and I have sent it as an
attachment to several friends. I really admired the work of Stan Ovshinsky and his wife, so it breaks my heart to think
that he felt he had little choice but to get into bed with big oil. I'd sure
like to know what sort of coercion and deception, even extortion, was
involved. The facts, if well known,would probably
make a powerful movie... "Who Burried the EV Battery, and why?" I suspect it was even more
important to GM to reposess the batteries than the
cars themselves. After all, they sure wouldn't want the public to realize
just how long those batteries could really last.
02/Feb/2007
[47144]
joe rosa:
Bernard Joseph Rosa,
Jr., J.D. (Unemployed) Box
1122?Sebastopol,
CA 95472
?707-824-6902 Bjrosajr@yahoo.com November 25, 2008 Subject: Oil Sector bails
out Auto Sector Dear Senator: Clearly the US Auto industry is a significant
factor in the economy. An approach offered to remedy that sector of our
economy must consider the following: Oil, as the major beneficiary of the
Auto/Transportation industry, is best equipped To provide the funding of a
revitalization, or re-birth of the Auto industry, because of the enormous
profits extracted from the consumers of oil over the past 10 years. The
taxpayers have already provided the funds necessary and they are in the Oil
sectors Coffers, past or future earnings. Consider that only 4 of the Oil
Giants have over $130Billion in Cash/investments as of last year, they can
well afford to give something back to help America. More to the point, is
the auto industries stifling of battery technology for electric vehicles, see
more on Chevron’s ownership of battery patents acquired from GM in 2001, see
this link for more http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogentry&authorid=51&blogid=104
Oil industry is should be considered in the same light of public utility. An
Auto oversight board is necessary to help guide the Auto industry into modern
fuel efficiencies, as well as alternative fuel sources. In other words, the
industry must delivery vehicles that are applicable to the needs of the
consumer. Oil must pay! Sincerely, B. Joe Rosa Joe’s Resume:
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/resumes/bjrosajr/cfocontroller
25/Nov/2008
[65045]
|
|
Josh Landess's FUTURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
|
|
Demand Destruction For Oil Vs. Predictions Of Higher Prices
Saturday | October 29, 2005
[This is a copy of a post I made originally on the EVWorld.com yahoo
discussion board on 10-28-05.]
I have run across this idea recently of "demand destruction" for
oil. For example, in an article yesterday in a paper where I live, it was
discussed that in the recent gasoline pricing crisis, many people did turn to
arrangements for ridesharing and public transportation, and they have significantly
turned away from low-mileage-vehicle purchases and toward other options.....
and that these choices may persist going forward. Thus, it was said, while
prices for fuel have fallen recently, and demand has fallen locally and
nationally in some ways, there is some question as to how much the demand
will recover.
My take is this:
I think we have persisted for a long time with a lot of
"softness" at the top end of this demand... there has always been
this area of "easily correctable" demand, where we could make
adjustments and reduce our (here in the US particularly) demand for Oil in
response to the first hint of "the big fuel pricing crisis", and so
that has happened.
I find it instructive to mention the electricity and natural gas pricing
crisis that plagued California
and others in the time around 2000-2001. At that time, my recollection is
that in the first few months folks tightened their belts and did succeed in
reducing their own personal and business demands for those goods. Let's say
that households, in response to the shock of higher bills, took a hard look
around and on average were able to reduce their demand around 10%. They found
the "low hanging fruit" problems and fixed them. However, these
fixes, while helpful, did *not* fix the overall crisis. High prices
persisted, the rest of the demand for the goods were relatively inelastic and
harder to reduce, and so additional solutions were necessary (including but
not limited to addressing the illegal gaming of the system that was
occurring, addressing (if only temporarily) the problems that came with a
failed attempt to go to deregulation, etc.).
So, now, as we look at the noticeable reduction in US demand for oil that
has occurred, and the partly-resultant possibly-momentary drop in oil prices,
and we ask whether this demand destruction is a major and permanent fix to
the oil pricing problem (not to mention all the other problems such as global
warming), my guess is "no way". Yes, we can adjust here in America, and
abroad, to such challenges and price shocks, but it is going to take more
than a few changed vehicle purchases and public transportation choices. We
have been through "round 1" but we have a very long road to travel
before we can put the entire planet on a better more sustainable
(economically and environmentally) path in transportation and energy use.
As I see it, we are heading into rounds 2 and maybe 3, with the upcoming
home heating oil and natural gas for heating demands, this winter, and then,
on the other side of this winter, who knows what we will see?
Our war machine is still very dependent on a steady supply of oil.
Certain driving seasons may be counted as "sort of adjustable" by
Americans looking to conserve fuel, if (say) next Memorial Day we find Oil at
a high price per barrel.
We are ignoring (still) the catastrophic effects we are having on the
global environment with our non-sustainable-fuel use, and those
effects may continue to have some direct effect not only on our lives but
even specifically (with some irony) on the fuel sourcing, with (say)
continued bad Hurricane seasons hurting oil platforms, etc.
All of this may get drowned out (literally) by continued onset of global
warming, and the waters of discussion may be muddied by our perverse global
collective continued destructive behavior (to which there are many individual
exceptions) in the face of what may be the worst man-made environmental damage problem we have ever created, but
we'll see.
The pricing and scarcity and supply problems that are part of our alt-fuel
discussions are only part of the important inter-twined issues (with other
issues being global military conflict as it is funded and motivated by
conflicts over energy sources and energy profits, and global environmental
problems as they relate to energy harvesting and use) but to the extent that
simple energy economics are worth discussing in some isolation, I think we
are at a point where it would be wise to understand that a moment of relief
in that whole supply-demand equation is just a brief moment. Yes, we've
probably "destroyed some demand" for oil, with prices at $3.00 per
gallon for a little while in the US, but we have a long way to go to reach a
long-term sustainable equation.
Originally published: October 29,
2005 | Total Page Views: 1395
Add Your Comments
READER COMMENTS
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
