The Right Flames the Volt

[flacaltenn]

I'm crushed.......but the facts do tend to stand on their own

Look jlm -- If it was such a great investment, we have adequate energy to support it on the grid, and there WAS no MIXED MESSAGE about restricting build-out of additional electricity and the grid ----

Why don't we cut the subsidies and just GIVE the Post Office an all-electric EV fleet??

Start with California because they've already got wildly screwed up mandates for meeting EV deployments. And their lights are barely on anymore anyway...

Now THAT my friend, is a very good question. The issues that I have witnessed wrt adding to the grid is not a question of if ( I think the answer there has been "yes, do add") but HOW to do so in a manner that will be ecologically neutral or ecologically friendly. I see lots of discussion about adding hydro, wind power, nuclear and other replenishable methods of power generation at the same time that I see discussion about taking coal based power generation offline.

I do not know all the incremental details around this, as the power industry is not one that interests me. The automotive industry, however, interests me greatly and allows me to be able to pay DTE Energy for what I take out of the grid.

People are generally confused about the diff between what runs the electricity grid and what runs our transport. You're not, but oil has little to do with electric power. And so-called Alternatives are inadequate to move transport needs to electricity. That's why I favor fuel cells and hydrogen for transport. That way hydrogen production from wind/solar CAN work because there's a storage mechanism to overcome sketchy and unreliable performance.

As for the subsidies.....they are not specific to specific products. The point of the subsidies is to energize the car buying public to consider electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing.

• The development of clean energy cars will not continue unless people buy enough cars to give car companies incentive to build them.
• People won't buy clean energy cars until there is infrastructure to charge them and the prices come down
• Infrastructure providers won't build infrastructure until they know people will buy cars to use the infrastructure
• Prices won't come down unless automakers have some reason to believe they can produce and market clean energy vehicles without taking a cash bath, so we're back to the beginning of the circular argument.

Funny how there were no subsidies or adequate infrastructure for TV or Cell Phones and yet they are still building out infrastructure for those two. That's why I suggested canning the subsidies and instead DEMONSTRATING viability by SHOWING the market that it can work. Not much infrastructure required to complete a transistion of the Post Office to EV. Tho I suspect there will huge embarrassments on days that the mail doesn't get delivered.

What the federal government is doing to jump start the process is to say " here Mr. And Ms. Consumer, is a short term opportunity to use some of the federal tax-money you've paid over the years to get out in front of the curve and buy a technologically advanced vehicle". Now, contrary to what a lot of people on this site may believe......

• There is a sunset on this incentive
• GM and the Chevrolet Volt are NOT the only vehicles eligible for this incentive, just the most popular so far. The Ford Focus Electric, The Tesla S, and several products made by Japanese automakers are all eligible for all or part of the incentive, depending on motor power and battery size.
• How long the incentive window lasts is directly tied to how many vehicles a company has sold that are eligible for the incentive, then that company can no longer extend the incentive to customers.

The Volt and Leaf are doing no better at sales volume than the puny Smart Car. GM and Nissan were bullied into scaling up EVs before the technology could support a "normal size" vehicle. Nothing poisons the tech well faster than GOVT edicts pushing for mandates and quotas.

The point is to get people to buy enough electrically powered vehicles to provide automakers the incentive to continue development and to provide incentive for power companies and equipment providers like Coulomb Technologies (makes charging stations) to spend the time, money and resources on development of products that will allow renewable energy sourced vehicles a chance to grow in the marketplace.

Not really such a thing as a "renewable energy sourced vehicle". Nissan recommends a 230V 40 service to run their charger and at that -- it still takes 7 hours. Waaay beyond the scope and convienience of home-scale solar and wind. If you don't want serious blowback from grid brown-outs, and outages -- we best get off this NEGAWATT conservation kick and look at genuine INCREASE in capacity.

One other tidbit. The Chinese government is heavily subsidizing the development of electric vehicles, batteries, and electric motors. Several European companies are subsidizing the development of renewable energy powered vehicles, including battery electrics and fuel cells. A growing number of large European cities are setting up zero emissions zones where only vehicles capable of running on electric only are allowed to enter. If US based automakers are not in a mode to develop hybrids, electric vehicles, and fuel cells, the US auto industry will go the way of the US steel industry, the US television industry, and the dodo bird and companies subsidized by other governments will control the US market.

The Hybrid concept is Great. And that CAN be scaled up as engineering has shown. I've got nothing against EVs -- but I'd rather (like WestWall) put money into fuel cells and hydrogen. The whole plan falls together better than HOPING that wind/solar are gonna fix the EV problem. That's not gonna happen.

Sorry I took so long to reply.. Had pressing issues of parsing Prez speeches and all that.

 

[martinjlm]

You tell me the benefit of spending billions of dollars to have China reverse engineer a technology and then produce it for one 20th of what it would cost us thereby denying the inventor the ability to recoup their investment. Not smart at all.

I think you are misunderstanding my point about China. I am not suggesting that companies should use China to reverse engineer product, then produce and sell it at reduced price. I am saying that it is commonplace in China for Chinese companies to reverse engineer, or even worse, steal intellectual property of US, European, and Japanese companies that do business there. They pretty much get a wink and a nod from Chinese political and legal entities. Sometimes they are forced to apologize, but they are rarely if ever forced to stop or to compensate. China often requires that companies wishing to do business in China manufacture in China and in some cases forces sharing of intellectual property with local Chinese companies. Here's an example of Chinese reverse engineering.......

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/23/cadillac-escalade-ext-gets-the-bad-chinese-knock-off-treatment/



A lot of car companies are and have been for some time working on developing fuel cell vehicles. They simply aren't ready for prime time yet and probably won't be for some time. I've test driven fuel cell vehicles myself and can see that from a functional standpoint, they are viable. From a bringing to market standpoint, there's a lot still to be done. As for hydrogen fuel (conversion of internal combustion engine to run on hydrogen fuel) BMW has run that play and is now backing off of it in favor of continued development of fuel cell technology. You can probably pick up a BMW Hydrogen7 for pretty cheap these days.

GM, Honda, and Toyota all have restricted fleets of fuel cell vehicles running around. The GM program, about 100+ fuel cell equipped Chevrolet Equinox vehicles, has been putting fuel cell vehicles in the hands of carefully selected private citizens for years. Those selected get to use the vehicle for several months, then they give them back and they're moved on to the next person. Honda's program, featuring the Honda Clarity sedan, has offered the Clarity to lessees in So. Cal. for several years. Honda planned for up to 300 units in commerce. So far, somewhere less than 50 people have opted in.

Three things (that I am aware of) are holding back fuel cell applications.....

1. Reducing the size of the fuel stack to a reasonable size while maintaining a useable vehicle travel range
2. Having hydrogen refilling infrastructure available so vehicle isn't limited to a 1/2 tank radius of travel
3. Cost. Same chicken and egg scenario I described for hybrids and electrics. E cost for the system needs to come down from the 10s of 1,000s to the 1,000s.

Sounds eerily familiar to where battery electric vehicles were several years ago and where hybrids were before that. Toyota has stated that they will have a widely available fuel cell vehicle available for around $50K by 2015. I"ll be watching to see how they manage the infrastructure issue.

Nicola Tesla (the inventor of alternating current and the designer of our modern electrical systems, he also invented radio controlled vehicles in the late 1890's, in other words a true genius) envisioned a electtrical system where energy was pumped into the Earths magnetic field and all a consumer would need to do is have an antenna that allowed them to get the electricity they needed. That's the whole purpose of the Tesla coil. Imagine a gridless world where whatever energy you needed was readily available without wires of any sort.

Yeah, I know who Nicola Tesla was. I mistook your early statement as referring to Tesla the company, not Tesla the man, and I responded accordingly.

I would think that the type of revolutionary change in energy delivery you describe is beyond the perview of the auto industry and better managed by energy providers.

That was my point in the first place. You guys all say we should invest all of this money in a technology that really isn't all that great when one looks at it critically. Then, after we have spent all this money developing the tech the Chinese steal and undercut our inventors. I say screw that. LET THEM take the lead for once. Let them spend THEIR money on the tech, then, for once, we steal it from them.

All you guys are doing is making it easier for the Chinese to bury us. None of your programs will ever work. The Chinese can undercut our manufacturers to a ridiculous degree so that the only way a company can survive is by taxpayer largesse.

That's stupid and irresponsible. Ignore the solar and go for something truly revolutionary and let them squander their resources on it.

Do you get it.

In regard to your comment about the infrastructure setups, yes they are similar and yet they are not. The need to run vast numbers of 3 phase power lines is a truly crippling prospect. However, exhisting gas stations can be equipped to provide hydrogen. But, that's not the problem with hydrogen. The problem with hydrogen is it currently costs more to seperate it out to it's elemental level than the amount of energy it returns when used in a conventional manner. Putting in a hydrogen fuel tank at a gas station is relatively straightforward. Its producing the hydrogen in a efficient manner that's the issue.

Fuel cells are indeed having problems making them useful for the civilian market but if the money that was being pissed away on solar were diverted to them, what would you like to bet we would have a very nice alternative in a very short time.

Not gonna speak on solar. That would be bringing a slingshot to a gun fight. I will step aside and learn from those of you who are better versed.

Regarding China stealing technology....wish my link had shown in me earlier post. It was a link to a photo of a Chinese knock-off of a Cadillac Escalade. Thing is, the Chinese cannot necessarily steal everything. And reverse engineering, as in the example of the Escalade, can lead to some seriously subpar executions. The Volt costs over $70K in China. Why? Because GM, which has significant ties with a couple local automakers in China, refuses to commit to local manufacturer of key components and sharing of IP around how all the systems work together. That subjects it to some rather hefty import tariffs that are passed on to the custome. If someone were to try to reverse engineer it, since the IP isn't available to steal, by the time they figured out the first generation, the second generation would be on the road and the third generation would be ready to launch. Theft of IP is a much larger problem than reverse engineering.

And any company or country that resorts to only reverse engineering and not innovation to compete guarantees two things. They'll never be first and they'll never drive the market, they can only react.

Regarding electric and hydrogen....3 phase is optimal, but not required. For the number of pluggable vehicles that will be available in the near future, a wholesale conversion or explosive growth of 3-phase is not necessary. And although gas stations can theoretically convert to hydrogen, what would be the incentive for any of them to do so? What's the compelling business model?

 

[flacaltenn]

I think you are misunderstanding my point about China. I am not suggesting that companies should use China to reverse engineer product, then produce and sell it at reduced price. I am saying that it is commonplace in China for Chinese companies to reverse engineer, or even worse, steal intellectual property of US, European, and Japanese companies that do business there. They pretty much get a wink and a nod from Chinese political and legal entities. Sometimes they are forced to apologize, but they are rarely if ever forced to stop or to compensate. China often requires that companies wishing to do business in China manufacture in China and in some cases forces sharing of intellectual property with local Chinese companies. Here's an example of Chinese reverse engineering.......

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/23/cadillac-escalade-ext-gets-the-bad-chinese-knock-off-treatment/



A lot of car companies are and have been for some time working on developing fuel cell vehicles. They simply aren't ready for prime time yet and probably won't be for some time. I've test driven fuel cell vehicles myself and can see that from a functional standpoint, they are viable. From a bringing to market standpoint, there's a lot still to be done. As for hydrogen fuel (conversion of internal combustion engine to run on hydrogen fuel) BMW has run that play and is now backing off of it in favor of continued development of fuel cell technology. You can probably pick up a BMW Hydrogen7 for pretty cheap these days.

GM, Honda, and Toyota all have restricted fleets of fuel cell vehicles running around. The GM program, about 100+ fuel cell equipped Chevrolet Equinox vehicles, has been putting fuel cell vehicles in the hands of carefully selected private citizens for years. Those selected get to use the vehicle for several months, then they give them back and they're moved on to the next person. Honda's program, featuring the Honda Clarity sedan, has offered the Clarity to lessees in So. Cal. for several years. Honda planned for up to 300 units in commerce. So far, somewhere less than 50 people have opted in.

Three things (that I am aware of) are holding back fuel cell applications.....

1. Reducing the size of the fuel stack to a reasonable size while maintaining a useable vehicle travel range
2. Having hydrogen refilling infrastructure available so vehicle isn't limited to a 1/2 tank radius of travel
3. Cost. Same chicken and egg scenario I described for hybrids and electrics. E cost for the system needs to come down from the 10s of 1,000s to the 1,000s.

Sounds eerily familiar to where battery electric vehicles were several years ago and where hybrids were before that. Toyota has stated that they will have a widely available fuel cell vehicle available for around $50K by 2015. I"ll be watching to see how they manage the infrastructure issue.




Yeah, I know who Nicola Tesla was. I mistook your early statement as referring to Tesla the company, not Tesla the man, and I responded accordingly.

I would think that the type of revolutionary change in energy delivery you describe is beyond the perview of the auto industry and better managed by energy providers.

That was my point in the first place. You guys all say we should invest all of this money in a technology that really isn't all that great when one looks at it critically. Then, after we have spent all this money developing the tech the Chinese steal and undercut our inventors. I say screw that. LET THEM take the lead for once. Let them spend THEIR money on the tech, then, for once, we steal it from them.

All you guys are doing is making it easier for the Chinese to bury us. None of your programs will ever work. The Chinese can undercut our manufacturers to a ridiculous degree so that the only way a company can survive is by taxpayer largesse.

That's stupid and irresponsible. Ignore the solar and go for something truly revolutionary and let them squander their resources on it.

Do you get it.

In regard to your comment about the infrastructure setups, yes they are similar and yet they are not. The need to run vast numbers of 3 phase power lines is a truly crippling prospect. However, exhisting gas stations can be equipped to provide hydrogen. But, that's not the problem with hydrogen. The problem with hydrogen is it currently costs more to seperate it out to it's elemental level than the amount of energy it returns when used in a conventional manner. Putting in a hydrogen fuel tank at a gas station is relatively straightforward. Its producing the hydrogen in a efficient manner that's the issue.

Fuel cells are indeed having problems making them useful for the civilian market but if the money that was being pissed away on solar were diverted to them, what would you like to bet we would have a very nice alternative in a very short time.

Not gonna speak on solar. That would be bringing a slingshot to a gun fight. I will step aside and learn from those of you who are better versed.

Regarding China stealing technology....wish my link had shown in me earlier post. It was a link to a photo of a Chinese knock-off of a Cadillac Escalade. Thing is, the Chinese cannot necessarily steal everything. And reverse engineering, as in the example of the Escalade, can lead to some seriously subpar executions. The Volt costs over $70K in China. Why? Because GM, which has significant ties with a couple local automakers in China, refuses to commit to local manufacturer of key components and sharing of IP around how all the systems work together. That subjects it to some rather hefty import tariffs that are passed on to the custome. If someone were to try to reverse engineer it, since the IP isn't available to steal, by the time they figured out the first generation, the second generation would be on the road and the third generation would be ready to launch. Theft of IP is a much larger problem than reverse engineering.

And any company or country that resorts to only reverse engineering and not innovation to compete guarantees two things. They'll never be first and they'll never drive the market, they can only react.

Regarding electric and hydrogen....3 phase is optimal, but not required. For the number of pluggable vehicles that will be available in the near future, a wholesale conversion or explosive growth of 3-phase is not necessary. And although gas stations can theoretically convert to hydrogen, what would be the incentive for any of them to do so? What's the compelling business model?

Charging times will always vary with the amount of power you can bring to bear. That's why Commercial charging is 400Volts and up... Not infrastructure we really want to add to the grid.

Hydrogen takes that load off the grid -- saving SUBSTANTIAL investment on virtually redoing that whole part of the infrastructure.

As for the development of a NEW type of hydrogen manuf. and distrib. It's like I replied to you (in RED above)..

""Funny how there were no subsidies or adequate infrastructure for TV or Cell Phones and yet they are still building out infrastructure for those two. ""

For the first 10 years of TV -- folks were watching 2 or 3 channels. And cell phone companies competed on COVERAGE not services and prices..


Don't worry bout that part of it.. Unlike the turtle paced rate of GOVT support for infrastructure, when 100 MIllion entreprenuers get convinced about a new good idea -- Crap happens fast...

 

[westwall]

I think you are misunderstanding my point about China. I am not suggesting that companies should use China to reverse engineer product, then produce and sell it at reduced price. I am saying that it is commonplace in China for Chinese companies to reverse engineer, or even worse, steal intellectual property of US, European, and Japanese companies that do business there. They pretty much get a wink and a nod from Chinese political and legal entities. Sometimes they are forced to apologize, but they are rarely if ever forced to stop or to compensate. China often requires that companies wishing to do business in China manufacture in China and in some cases forces sharing of intellectual property with local Chinese companies. Here's an example of Chinese reverse engineering.......

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/23/cadillac-escalade-ext-gets-the-bad-chinese-knock-off-treatment/



A lot of car companies are and have been for some time working on developing fuel cell vehicles. They simply aren't ready for prime time yet and probably won't be for some time. I've test driven fuel cell vehicles myself and can see that from a functional standpoint, they are viable. From a bringing to market standpoint, there's a lot still to be done. As for hydrogen fuel (conversion of internal combustion engine to run on hydrogen fuel) BMW has run that play and is now backing off of it in favor of continued development of fuel cell technology. You can probably pick up a BMW Hydrogen7 for pretty cheap these days.

GM, Honda, and Toyota all have restricted fleets of fuel cell vehicles running around. The GM program, about 100+ fuel cell equipped Chevrolet Equinox vehicles, has been putting fuel cell vehicles in the hands of carefully selected private citizens for years. Those selected get to use the vehicle for several months, then they give them back and they're moved on to the next person. Honda's program, featuring the Honda Clarity sedan, has offered the Clarity to lessees in So. Cal. for several years. Honda planned for up to 300 units in commerce. So far, somewhere less than 50 people have opted in.

Three things (that I am aware of) are holding back fuel cell applications.....

1. Reducing the size of the fuel stack to a reasonable size while maintaining a useable vehicle travel range
2. Having hydrogen refilling infrastructure available so vehicle isn't limited to a 1/2 tank radius of travel
3. Cost. Same chicken and egg scenario I described for hybrids and electrics. E cost for the system needs to come down from the 10s of 1,000s to the 1,000s.

Sounds eerily familiar to where battery electric vehicles were several years ago and where hybrids were before that. Toyota has stated that they will have a widely available fuel cell vehicle available for around $50K by 2015. I"ll be watching to see how they manage the infrastructure issue.




Yeah, I know who Nicola Tesla was. I mistook your early statement as referring to Tesla the company, not Tesla the man, and I responded accordingly.

I would think that the type of revolutionary change in energy delivery you describe is beyond the perview of the auto industry and better managed by energy providers.

That was my point in the first place. You guys all say we should invest all of this money in a technology that really isn't all that great when one looks at it critically. Then, after we have spent all this money developing the tech the Chinese steal and undercut our inventors. I say screw that. LET THEM take the lead for once. Let them spend THEIR money on the tech, then, for once, we steal it from them.

All you guys are doing is making it easier for the Chinese to bury us. None of your programs will ever work. The Chinese can undercut our manufacturers to a ridiculous degree so that the only way a company can survive is by taxpayer largesse.

That's stupid and irresponsible. Ignore the solar and go for something truly revolutionary and let them squander their resources on it.

Do you get it.

In regard to your comment about the infrastructure setups, yes they are similar and yet they are not. The need to run vast numbers of 3 phase power lines is a truly crippling prospect. However, exhisting gas stations can be equipped to provide hydrogen. But, that's not the problem with hydrogen. The problem with hydrogen is it currently costs more to seperate it out to it's elemental level than the amount of energy it returns when used in a conventional manner. Putting in a hydrogen fuel tank at a gas station is relatively straightforward. Its producing the hydrogen in a efficient manner that's the issue.

Fuel cells are indeed having problems making them useful for the civilian market but if the money that was being pissed away on solar were diverted to them, what would you like to bet we would have a very nice alternative in a very short time.

Not gonna speak on solar. That would be bringing a slingshot to a gun fight. I will step aside and learn from those of you who are better versed.

Regarding China stealing technology....wish my link had shown in me earlier post. It was a link to a photo of a Chinese knock-off of a Cadillac Escalade. Thing is, the Chinese cannot necessarily steal everything. And reverse engineering, as in the example of the Escalade, can lead to some seriously subpar executions. The Volt costs over $70K in China. Why? Because GM, which has significant ties with a couple local automakers in China, refuses to commit to local manufacturer of key components and sharing of IP around how all the systems work together. That subjects it to some rather hefty import tariffs that are passed on to the custome. If someone were to try to reverse engineer it, since the IP isn't available to steal, by the time they figured out the first generation, the second generation would be on the road and the third generation would be ready to launch. Theft of IP is a much larger problem than reverse engineering.

And any company or country that resorts to only reverse engineering and not innovation to compete guarantees two things. They'll never be first and they'll never drive the market, they can only react.

Regarding electric and hydrogen....3 phase is optimal, but not required. For the number of pluggable vehicles that will be available in the near future, a wholesale conversion or explosive growth of 3-phase is not necessary. And although gas stations can theoretically convert to hydrogen, what would be the incentive for any of them to do so? What's the compelling business model?

Who wants to drive a market that is obsolescent as it gets launched? Solar has been out there for over 40 years, I built my system 25 years ago and am now researching its replacement as this one is on its last legs.

Amazingly enough the technology has not imptoved very much at all. In some ways the stuff I used back then is actually better than whats available today. Not a very appealing thought.