by 0mar » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 13:59:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BiGG', 'L')ooking for the latest auto industry news? Hydrogen, hybrid, natural gas, & electric are the future and the auto companies are well underway in making that happen. If hydrogen doesn’t work out, efficient electrics & hybrids using biodiesel, ethanol, & natural gas will. Dirty, filthy, unhealthy, environmentally-unfriendly oil as we know it will soon be a thing of the past by choice. Embrace this as the good news that it is.
The fact that we are at the midpoint means little. When placed into economic terms, it is devastating. The best analogy is one done by M. Savinar. A 170lb man consists of about 150 lbs of water. A man does not need to lose all the water to die, a shortfall of 10-15 lbs will suffice. The same goes for our modern economy. Oil is goddamn essential, despite what you may say. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the chief fuel of transportation.
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
-
0mar
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Davis, California
-
by 0mar » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 14:08:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DriveElectric', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('0mar', ' ')Oil is goddamn essential, despite what you may say. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the chief fuel of transportation.
Ahhhh! Peak Horses !!! Followed soon after by Peak Oxen! How the hell will we transport coal without enough horses? This crap is just getting old. Quoting Savinar as a source is just plain silly. He is a lawyer. And the analogy is phucking stupid. Anyone on an Atkins diet is going to drop 10 to 20 lbs of water within about 3 weeks.
97% foothold in the transportation sector. I don't think anything else has to be said. If oil was 35% or even 50%, transporation would be viable, but 97%?
The analogy is correct in context. I'm sorry, how long has it been since you graduated from Med School? Losing 10-15 lbs of water is fucking bad in a short amount of time. The analogy to peak oil is perfect. Read and
learn
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
by The_Toecutter » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 20:34:31
500,000 more hybrids won't do shit. It may bring prices of components and cars down with the drastically increased volume, but given the demand, the company is going to keep prices where they are at, if not raise them altogether due to the demand. In turn less people will be able to afford them than needed. It's still good to know that the technology is there and works, but politics and short term profit motive continue to come back to haunt us.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he only thing holding Toyota back was the lack of batteries. It appears that this issue is rapidly being resolved
You can thank Chevron-Texaco for the battery problem. Matsushita, the company that made the Prius batteries, was sued for patent infringement since Texaco was sold the patent for the Ovonic NiMH battery by General Motors who didn't want this technology to become mainstream. Now, royalties on each Prius sold have to be paid to the oil company.
linkThe Ovonic NiMH battery produced in volumes for 20,000 cars per year would be able to be sold at a profit for $150/kWh. Chevron-Texaco is charging in excess of $1,000/kWh, sometimes over $2,000/kWh. The Prius battery pack has 1.5 kWh capacity. You do the math. Now you know where that multi-thousand dollar price premium on the Prius comes from: an oil company that doesn't want to see reduced usage of gasoline. That price premium on that battery keeps it from being viable for electric veghicle applications. Kill the middleman, aka the oil company, and produce that battery for $150/kWh? A 30 kWh pack to give a pure EV a 200 mile range would cost the same up front as an internal combustion engine.
I recall Toyota looking into Li Ion batteries as a way to solve their dillema, but doing that would be dangerous as mass production of automotive-sized battery modules would bring down price on Li Ions, making them viable for mass produced EV applications. Toyota doesn't want that, as a pure EV will win out against a hybrid anyday, and something not needing tuneups, oil changes, and all that crap becoming mainstream is exactly what the automakers are afraid of(Since they believe the U.S. government on peak happening in 2030 and not immenently).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')omorrow, if the US stopped importing it's 12.5 mbd of oil, demand would eat this massive surplus in less than 10 years. Contemplate that for a moment.
Of course, the U.S. isn't the only nation that could reduce its demand, but you do make a point. What is needed is a reduction in demand in all first world countries, and let the 2nd and 3rd world countries catch up to us so that they to can develop the technology to cut their demand. But such a system would require careful planning and cooperation among all entities, and again profits would have to be placed behind people for a change. Isn't likely to happen, sadly, even though it could and it would certainly be a worthwhile attempt.
Good news, however, is that some nations like China could bypass their own oil age altogether by immediatelly switching to alternatives for their budding middle class to adopt. Bypass gas cars altogether by banning them and offering pure electrics instead. Some speculate China may go that route out of necessity, but I wouldn't bet on it. Especially considering there is a continueing rivalry between electric bike users and motorists, but China's government, seeking to maximize consumption and waste, thus maximizing growth and profit, is so far favoring the motorists. It is likely the majority of the developing world will do the same, even though they could try to bypass this trap, they're just too lured by the prospect of increased short term profits. If they were thinking more long term, as the 1st world will probably guzzle all the oil until there's no spare oil to be guzzled, they'd be in the process of getting electric vehicle infrastructure developed right now, with the production tools and means developed for export to the 1st world, who's consumer base is soon to be crippled by oil prices.
But, for the most part, the third and second world is copying us. Therefore, peak oil will crush them too just the same when it comes. I don't know when it will come, I'm no fortune teller, but the data I could find says it's either very soon, or the midpoint has already happened a few years ago. I certainly would like for that to be wrong, but I'm not one to gamble on a rosy outcome.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')o you really think this is only happening in the US? These same advances in batteries are happening globally. It is in no way limited to the US.
Indeed. One could argue that these advancements are overkill and not even needed, that we could get a functioning, working product mass produced using technology from 7 years ago that would more than meet the requirements of the American motoring public. Hinging on new yet to be proven technology before making the product simply because it will be an improvement just stalls the process, meaning the product will never get made because there's always something new.
Glad to see someone finally took the initiative in the late 1990s and started making and selling hybrids, but that technology is over 60 years old. Our diesel locomotives have been using similar drive systems since the 1940s once cost came down with volume, and even earlier than that people like Ferdinand Porsche were at least demonstrating working hybrid-electric automobiles in the 1910s and 20s. But the auto industry acted a bit too late to sell a working product, IMO. They could have just as easily done it 30 years ago, but have been slow to ration out new technological advancements so as to maximize profits on each new thing and milk it for everything it is worth. Sad to say, the public continues to buy the product, unaware that they aren't being sold anything near the best product for that price which they could be sold. The industry hates mandates not necessarily because of the control it will impose, but precisely because they are counting on marketing so many advances in-between what the mandate calls for, of which they can make more money on. When healthy competition exists, slowly rationing out advancements becomes very difficult, but competition is really quite anemic in the auto industry and has been since the great depression. Too many trusts and near-monopolies. As the public cries for better safety standards, and rightfully so, the major auto industry sees it as an opportunity to push out small manufacturers by lobbying politicians to write legislation for $400 million crash tests when a $200,000 one could suffice just as well. The 70s came, the industry twisted public outcry to get their way, and now the ignorant rednecks blame Nader.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')omething that I think many of you fail to realize is the importance of electrifying the drivetrain of a car and producing it in large scale. That has never happened before.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
by DriveElectric » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 22:21:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'I')t's still good to know that the technology is there and works, but politics and short term profit motive continue to come back to haunt us.
Actually profit motive is the one thing that will make this work or not work. If there is no profit in hybrids, then they will never be successful. Governments cannot mandate this sort of move.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') say bypass the PHEV altogether and go straight to the pure EV. The pure EV is workable now in a mass production scenario, and is completely technologically feasible. Of course, one might argue the PHEV could get people used to the concept of a plug-in car, but it will still need gas, which we simply cannot afford to keep using given a very imminent crisis.
Who said that the liquid fuel in a PHEV has to be gasoline? Biodiesel, cellulose ethanol, make perfect sense.
by The_Toecutter » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 22:44:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ctually profit motive is the one thing that will make this work or not work. If there is no profit in hybrids, then they will never be successful.
Actually, if there is less profit in one advancement that what currently exists, that too will laso be shunned. Hybrids were another incremental advancement that came much later than they had to. They were allowed to come to market because they make at least as much or more profit than the cars we see today.
A pure EV can still make a profit, but we aren't seeing them ebcause they make less profit than an IC car.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')overnments cannot mandate this sort of move.
They can. California did. The real question is whether or not a mandate will be successful. Some are, such as emissions standards have been in the past. Some aren't, like California's mandate. Sometimes, the technology doesn't exist, making the mandate flawed from the start. Other times, the industry is against the principle of the mandate so much that even if they have the technology to meet its requirements, they will refuse to cooperate and let it become reality. That happened to California's ZEV mandate; the industry opposed it too much and outright refused to meet it, even when they had functioning products demonstrated that could have met the mandate. Whether or not a mandate is successful or not is dependent on whether or not the technology exists to meet it, what the current political climate is, how opposed the industry is to the mandate, how close the industry is to the politicians(and how much money they've given them), and the constraints of the mandate itself.
Mandating airbags worked. The auto industry was very opposed and claimed they would go bankrupt were they to meet it. But lo and behold, the technology existed then, and eventually some manufacturers had shown they could meet the mandate. Others kept fighting until the end, not adopting it until the last minute.
Same with emissions standards, although that didn't work as well. General Motors execs often brag that they didn't need to meet the originally proposed 1972 emissions standards until 1994, even though they could have met them in 1972.
Check out
Taken For a Ride by Jack Doyle. It covers the auto industry's bitching, moaning, and PR campaigns perfectly.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ho said that the liquid fuel in a PHEV has to be gasoline? Biodiesel, cellulose ethanol, make perfect sense.
They do make perfect sense. But currently, engines in cars like the Prius are built to run on gasoline, not biodiesel or ethanol. Can they be retrofitted to do so? Sure. But it's likely going to take a mandate to get that done. The industry won't be willing to do it on its own if it will slightly reduce their profits.
Those cars that run on E85 for instance would be perfect for PHEVs, but they aren't PHEVs now, and it could be a fight to get them into PHEVs.
A car you may be interested in is the Enigma L3, built by San Diego University. It's a two-seat sports car that does 0-60 mph in under 4 seconds, has 20 miles all-electric range, 200 horsepower from its electric motor, and has a diesel generator as backup for extended range that can be run on B100. 80 miles per gallon. The University complains that no major automaker is willing to make a car based on their concepts, but that it could be mass produced today and remain competitive in retail price with the cars we currently use. Another University participated in the future truck competitions and made a 45 mpg SUV that was a plug-in hybrid. Did 0-60 in 6 seconds. The designers claimed it could be mass produced for a competitive price with current SUVs. also pset the major automakers are ignoring them.
If it will cut profit margins over the currently sold cars even by $200 per car, you can forget about it happening without either extreme public outcry, a massive boycott, a mandate, or any combination of those.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
by The_Toecutter » Sat 09 Jul 2005, 21:38:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')iven that the appropriate Nickel Metal Hydride battery technology is only 8 years old, maybe it is just inertia inhibiting a EV industry.
It only took 8 years since it was first produced in 1909 for the Ford to build nearly 2.5 million Model T cars. The first year they were sold, there were only 14,000 produced.
Depending on which study you look at determining the market size in California for EVs, you could claim that the market size was 12% of new car buyers, 150,000 sales. This is quoted from the Wall Street Journal.
8 years was plenty of time to get going with this. It was demonstrated in the EV1 successfully with hundreds of cars, along with many hundreds Toyota RAV4 EVs still on the road today with about 150,000 miles on the odometer and no problems yet.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat seems more reasonable then a conspiracy by automobile after-market parts manufacturers, gas stations attendents and automechanics (not to mention the automobile and petroleum industries)
The conspiracy among the automobile industry comes from the historical facts of what they did to harm the EV's perception by the public and what they did to stall the mandate. The industry spread around misleading or even wholly dishonest information on EVs by inflating the costs and placing the pricetag at immediate recovery costs of development for the first year of sales instead of amortizing it over the production run like they do with every other vehicle they made, funded false studies that claimed the lead in the lead acid batteries would produce 60 times more pollution per mile than a car on leaded gasoline when the study's numbers were off by a factor of 1,000, attempted to suppress information on battery technology by attempting to keep Stanly Ovshinki, inventor of the Ovonic NiMH battery out of a CARB hearing on battery development, made misleading and dishonest statements about the existing and future market for EVs claiming no market existed when studies showed a market permeability between 12% and 30%. The dealerships often refused to lease or sell them to customers, one case of which Bill Korthoff tried to lease a Honda EV+ and he was repeatedly denied without explanation, until after numerous phone calls, the dealership finally let him lease the car. Others who have tried to lease GM EVs were told outright that they didn't want the car by the salesperson, even after opening up their check books on the spot. Why would a dealership do that? Auto industry lobbyists printed ads in opposition to EVs, spending over $10 million in the 1990s on negative ads pertaining to EVs, using scare tactics such as the cars were unsafe in a collision or what have you. One such television ad in California was aired in which a teenager drove their parents' electric car out one night and was killed in a crash. Again, there is no rational explanation for why the auto industry themselves would air such a thing except to damage the perception of EVs in the public. Being a car industry, they wouldn't do that unless they didn't want the cars to succeed! When the mandate was repealed, the auto industry confiscated and crushed perfectly functioning vehicles, rejecting any offers by consumers to buy them no matter how much money the prospective buyer offered, and even rejected to sell them to consumers who would have waived all liability on part of the automakers. That's free money, for the most part, recooperatring the losses of a product the industry developed and refused to sell. Yet they didn't take it. The only rational reason was that they didn't even want the cars on the road, since all liability for safety and parts would have been waived and entirely a non issue to the industry.
The list is long for the oil industry as well. Its part of history, not necessesarily conspiracy theory, but fact. The theory part comes into play when you try to explain *why* the industry would run ad campaigns and misinformation campaigns against its own product and refuse offers from all over the place to buy their product!
EVERY EV1 made was leased before it was crushed. GM likes to prattle on about how it only 'sold' a few hundred EV1s. First of all, they were leased and not sold, and second of all, only a few hundred were made and all of them made were leased! That's a 100% success rate. No rational reason to run a campaign against it other than they didn't want it to succeed.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')egardless, given the eminent arrival of PO and the resulting economic depression it is too late anyway. At least on this go-around.
I pretty much agree with you here. But we could in theory still save part of our lifestyle, it would take a massive coordinated efort to do it whih is not likely.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
by Starvid » Thu 03 Nov 2005, 22:01:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')n industry newsletter reports that Toyota may be reconsidering its “no plug-in” mantra and be developing plug-in hybrids for the US, although the company still remains concerned about battery limitations.
A Toyota presentation at the Tokyo Motor Show outlined the benefits of plug-ins, according to the story in Inside Fuels and Vehicles.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11 ... .html#more
Three good news in three days...
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
-
Starvid
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3021
- Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
-
by Starvid » Mon 28 Nov 2005, 15:49:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')oyota has launched its new compact sedan, Belta, in Japan. The Belta is now Toyota’s smallest sedan.
The Belta delivers fuel efficiency under the Japanese test cycle of 4.6 l/100km (51 mpg US) with a 1.0-liter engine or 5.1 l/100km (46 mpg US) with a 1.3-liter engine, both gasoline-fueled.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11 ... .html#more[
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
-
Starvid
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3021
- Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
-
I don't know what universe you live in, but around here, there are people still driving cars from the '60's and 70's. Probably 10-15 years ago, there were some ancient people still driving cars they had owned since the '50's. The factor is time, time, and more time, which it is looking likely we don't have. 
