Beliefs about Energy Solutions....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 9-3-2008
A week ago last Friday on 8-22, 2008 Rasmussen, the polling company released the information that
“….voters believe electric or hybrid cars and nuclear power plants are more likely than solar or wind power to significantly reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Biofuels such as ethanol are seen as even less likely to help.”
(See www.rasmussenreports.com .) ”….37% believe electric or hybrid cars are Very Likely to have such a positive impact. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the same about nuclear power; 25% are that optimistic about solar power, and 22% say wind power can accomplish the goal.
While none of these alternative energy sources are seen as overwhelmingly likely to reduce dependence on foreign oil, roughly two-thirds or more say each is at least somewhat likely to reduce U.S. reliance on oil from afar.”
As with just about everything in a political season, there is a significant partisan divide.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of Republicans say that nuclear power is Very Likely to help. Just 18% of Democrats share that view. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has called for the building of more nuclear power plants.
Democrats are more confident than Republicans when it comes to electric cars, solar power and wind power, all alternative energy proposals endorsed by Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
For unaffiliated voters, it's a little of each, with electric cars and nuclear power seen as the most promising alternatives.”
“…. Voters believe there is an urgent national need to find new sources of energy.
They also believe McCain's priority is to find more energy sources while Obama's is to reduce the amount of energy the United States consumes. That is one reason McCain has caught up to Obama nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
The Rasmussen Reports survey also asked about biofuels such as ethanol. Just 17% believe that such fuels are Very Likely to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Another 36% say they are somewhat likely to do so.”
The facts are these from the information I’ve gotten.:
1. The reality is that we badly need to install as much of the wind generation of electricity as we can as the potential is clearly there for a significant contribution from wind. It may not get as high as 20 %; but it clearly can get to 10 % or more. And, it’s already cost competitive with fossil fuels. It’s much safer & less expensive than nuclear power and already being built.
T. Boone Pickens idea to use natural gas for cars probably is not likely to be as productive as massive increases in electric cars and plug in hybrids. But his understanding of & publicity about wind generated electricity and the need to install lots of it and the new transmission lines needed to get it to the urban areas where it will be used is brilliant & much needed.
2. The reality is that solar thermal farms and widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds are at parity with coal for electricity generation for solar thermal farms and already close to it for thin film solar photovoltaics.
Since the potential is available to supply over 100 % of our electricity needs from this combination, it’s crystal clear that if we want to solve global warming and prevent a poor or collapsing economy caused by more increases in gasoline and other fossil fuel prices and/or restricted supply, we need to make very rapid and massive increases in building solar thermal farms & widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds.
It’s doable and has the most ability to bail us out. But it’s not likely to be built on a large enough scale or soon enough if only 25% of the people know this information.
3. Technically nuclear power can make a contribution. And, I think it will be used.
But it should only be built with the appropriate breeder technology to dramatically reduce extremely long lived radioactive wastes and to make it last longer than the projected 35 year supply if we don’t use breeder technology. And, it should only be built if the security against terrorists stealing the fissionable materials in the reactors that easily makes bombs is adequately in place.
This means it will be much more expensive to do safely than the polls suggest people have any clue that it will be.
This means we cannot rely on it that much.
4. Biofuels will help, particularly those made cost effectively from nonfood sources such as agricultural waste or weeds (such as Switchgrass or Kudzu) or algae. Given the installed base of diesel engines and gasoline engines, we will need biofuels for many years if we are to phase out oil as much as we need to do.
But if the battery technology works as well as it looks likely to and the amount of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles goes up enough it will be enough more efficient to use solar generated electricity to power them that looks like the long term future for transport.
In conclusion, if our voters don’t know this information and see the evidence for it, particularly for the huge potential of solar thermal farms and widely distributed installation of solar photovoltaics of all kinds, they won’t support the building of them enough to keep our economy out of trouble. And we can forget about solving global warming.
According to this Rasmussen survey, this has NOT happened yet.
Secondly, since Barack Obama and the Democrats are best informed & most likely to do the right things, it’s scary that the survey finds a perception of them as being in favor only of conservation and doing without.
If they want to be elected as I think we need for them to be to protect our economy and move towards a solution to global warming, they need very much to get the facts out that massive increases in renewable energy are realistic AND needed to keep our economy from getting much WORSE.
They need to bring home to the average voter, as this survey shows they have NOT done, that they have a realistic plan to not only keep the economy from getting worse but one that will move us to where we can safely have more – and MUCH more than we will otherwise.
The Democrats in this election ARE the ones who will best protect & improve our economy but they need to do an excellent and effective job in letting the voters know it or we are all in trouble.
Showing posts with label energy independence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy independence. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Energy policy of the Presidential candidates....
Today’s post: Weds, 5-21-2008
A recent newspaper article compared the energy policies proposed by the 3 remaining candidates for President of the United States.
1. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were listed as proposing a goal of reducing C02 emissions to 80 % below 1990 levels by 2050.
John McCain was listed as proposing a goal of reducing C02 emissions to 60 % below 1990 levels by 2050.
This one is a mixed review.
Environmentally, 80 % is the number we likely need to get to. Advantage to the Democrats for that.
But given that we emitted more in 2006 than in 1990 by a good bit & 2007 was 1.6% ABOVE 2007 in the United States, 60 % below 1990 may be more achievable. And, sometimes setting more achievable goals produces more results than goals that sound good that no one believes are reachable.
But the big news is that McCain HAS a CO2 reduction goal.
Over-all, I rate this category as even.
2. On Nuclear Energy as a solution, John McCain is strongly for it; Barack Obama is willing to use it but as a second priority AFTER adding renewable sources and energy efficiency get the most emphasis. Hillary Clinton has valid concerns about using nuclear energy but sounds like she simply would decline to use it if elected.
Obama & McCain sound like they would address the concerns but use some nuclear power.
Since in the early stages of renewable energy technology & deployment, it will have less capacity than nuclear power to reduce our dependence on oil as a national security issue & on both oil and coal for CO2 reduction, between Clinton & Obama, I rate this as a strong advantage to Obama.
Between Obama & McCain I think this comes out about even to slight advantage Obama. I totally agree with Obama that the first priority must be to dramatically increase our energy efficiency & to accelerate the development & deployment of renewable sources. So he gets the advantage on that part of it. But nuclear has the capacity to get fast progress in the early stages, so McCain’s stand on nuclear itself may be closer to what we really need.
All three support cap & trade arrangements with binding caps on CO2 emissions.
However, to get these to work, the oil companies need to invest some of their currently high profits AND their tax subsidies they currently get into diversifying into energy efficiently produced biofuels & electricity produced by renewable energy to be used by electric & plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Failing that, & mostly that has been the case, compared to what they clearly should be doing, it likely does make sense to gradually eliminate their tax breaks.
On the other hand, getting them to do the right thing instead of spending on lobbying to avoid it may depend on working with them rather than just pitting government power against their perceived interests.
The President that I think got the balance right between making real progress & avoiding excessive friction caused by ignoring the perceived interests of business was BILL Clinton. That’s why I am comfortable with Hillary as President if it were somehow to happen.
Obama shows signs of not understanding this issue enough to know how to manage it well while McCain comes across as too willing to continue the highly favored treatment of the oil companies that the Bush administration has had even if it compromises the development of renewable energy sources.
So I rate this category close to even now.
But my preference is for Obama to win & then bring on Bill Clinton as his advisor on this issue.
I don’t think we can afford to continue the policies of the Bush administration on energy.
The good news is that if McCain wins, things will be somewhat better instead of a total disaster.
The problem with that is for national security & to prevent frightening future environmental & economic problems from excessive fossil fuel use, somewhat better is NOT good enough.
It is closer than I expected early on; but I still think Obama is the most likely of the three to get the job done that we need to have done on energy policy.
(Based on his comments on renewable energy & energy policy in his book, I have been seriously disappointed in Obama’s failure to emphasize the importance of energy policy in his campaign & to explain to voters that getting it right will enable them to HAVE jobs & be able to afford to commute to them while not doing so at some point will have the reverse effect.
And, though it isn’t his strength, McCain’s energy positions are nowhere as weak as I expected them to be.)
Today’s post: Weds, 5-21-2008
A recent newspaper article compared the energy policies proposed by the 3 remaining candidates for President of the United States.
1. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were listed as proposing a goal of reducing C02 emissions to 80 % below 1990 levels by 2050.
John McCain was listed as proposing a goal of reducing C02 emissions to 60 % below 1990 levels by 2050.
This one is a mixed review.
Environmentally, 80 % is the number we likely need to get to. Advantage to the Democrats for that.
But given that we emitted more in 2006 than in 1990 by a good bit & 2007 was 1.6% ABOVE 2007 in the United States, 60 % below 1990 may be more achievable. And, sometimes setting more achievable goals produces more results than goals that sound good that no one believes are reachable.
But the big news is that McCain HAS a CO2 reduction goal.
Over-all, I rate this category as even.
2. On Nuclear Energy as a solution, John McCain is strongly for it; Barack Obama is willing to use it but as a second priority AFTER adding renewable sources and energy efficiency get the most emphasis. Hillary Clinton has valid concerns about using nuclear energy but sounds like she simply would decline to use it if elected.
Obama & McCain sound like they would address the concerns but use some nuclear power.
Since in the early stages of renewable energy technology & deployment, it will have less capacity than nuclear power to reduce our dependence on oil as a national security issue & on both oil and coal for CO2 reduction, between Clinton & Obama, I rate this as a strong advantage to Obama.
Between Obama & McCain I think this comes out about even to slight advantage Obama. I totally agree with Obama that the first priority must be to dramatically increase our energy efficiency & to accelerate the development & deployment of renewable sources. So he gets the advantage on that part of it. But nuclear has the capacity to get fast progress in the early stages, so McCain’s stand on nuclear itself may be closer to what we really need.
All three support cap & trade arrangements with binding caps on CO2 emissions.
However, to get these to work, the oil companies need to invest some of their currently high profits AND their tax subsidies they currently get into diversifying into energy efficiently produced biofuels & electricity produced by renewable energy to be used by electric & plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Failing that, & mostly that has been the case, compared to what they clearly should be doing, it likely does make sense to gradually eliminate their tax breaks.
On the other hand, getting them to do the right thing instead of spending on lobbying to avoid it may depend on working with them rather than just pitting government power against their perceived interests.
The President that I think got the balance right between making real progress & avoiding excessive friction caused by ignoring the perceived interests of business was BILL Clinton. That’s why I am comfortable with Hillary as President if it were somehow to happen.
Obama shows signs of not understanding this issue enough to know how to manage it well while McCain comes across as too willing to continue the highly favored treatment of the oil companies that the Bush administration has had even if it compromises the development of renewable energy sources.
So I rate this category close to even now.
But my preference is for Obama to win & then bring on Bill Clinton as his advisor on this issue.
I don’t think we can afford to continue the policies of the Bush administration on energy.
The good news is that if McCain wins, things will be somewhat better instead of a total disaster.
The problem with that is for national security & to prevent frightening future environmental & economic problems from excessive fossil fuel use, somewhat better is NOT good enough.
It is closer than I expected early on; but I still think Obama is the most likely of the three to get the job done that we need to have done on energy policy.
(Based on his comments on renewable energy & energy policy in his book, I have been seriously disappointed in Obama’s failure to emphasize the importance of energy policy in his campaign & to explain to voters that getting it right will enable them to HAVE jobs & be able to afford to commute to them while not doing so at some point will have the reverse effect.
And, though it isn’t his strength, McCain’s energy positions are nowhere as weak as I expected them to be.)
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Good & bad news on electric cars....
Today’s post: Weds, 4-16-2008
I very much approve of Tesla Motors & the rationale on their website that guides their car designs. (See http://www.teslamotors.com/ .)
They understand why electric cars are important for advancing renewable energy & turning off our reliance on oil. And, they realize that electric cars will only succeed in the marketplace if people want to drive them.
I’d love it if they start selling truckloads of their cars & would like that to be soon.
However, they have not yet gone into full production on their first car, the sports roadster, & have not yet begun making their second car that will have a larger market since it is an upscale sedan.
So when I read earlier today that another company, Fisker Coach Build of Irvine in California was developing a good looking plug-in hybrid & that the two companies are suing each other, I was both delighted to see more electric cars that people would want to drive enter the market & sad that the management time of these two companies was going to these legal hassles. Unfortunately, it may add delays to their cars getting into full production as soon as I’d like for both companies.
That said, unlike Tesla, Fisker cars are not yet at all well known.
So, here’s what I’ve found out about the Fisker cars.:
I did read that they will have up to a 40 mile all electric range. That would make them effectively all electric for many people. And it would make them all electric for morning commutes for almost everyone who drives them. Driving one would slash gasoline use in virtually every case. This is not quite as good as the Tesla or Miles cars but is very close.
The company is called Fisker Automotive. I didn’t enter their website as it requires one to install flash which I detest.
But I found this: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=122489
"Fisker Automotive: New Plug-in Hybrid Maker
Date posted: 09-05-2007 IRVINE, Calif. - Betting that they can beat bureaucracy-burdened major automakers to market with today's hottest new green-car technology, a pair of Southern California automotive firms will announce plans today for a new, American-made plug-in hybrid car to go on sale by 2010.
The companies, Fisker Coachbuild LLC and Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, both located in Irvine, will form a joint venture to design, build and market the car, said spokeswoman Cristina Cheever. The new company will be called Fisker Automotive.
Its plug-in hybrid will team an internal combustion engine and a battery-based electric drive system that can be recharged from the commercial grid via common 110-volt household current.
Details and performance figures, including range on all-electric drive, are being kept under wraps, but Cheever said the new vehicles would handily outperform the 8-mile all-electric range Toyota is promising for its next-generation Prius plug-in hybrid, a 2009 model.
General Motors has said it will bring an extended-range Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid, with 40 miles of all-electric range, to market by 2010 and will sell it for under $30,000. Ford also has shown a concept plug-in hybrid but has not said when, or whether, it will build the vehicle.
Design and technology development for the Fisker plug-in are underway and a working preproduction prototype will be unveiled in January at the 2008 Detroit Auto Show, Cheever said.
The car, to be designed by Fisker Coachbuild, would sell for under $100,000 and plans call for initial annual production of 15,000 vehicles, Cheever said.
Fisker Automotive will contract with an existing private manufacturer to build its cars, she said.
Henrik Fisker, the former BMW and Aston Martin designer and chairman of Fisker Coachbuild, will head Fisker Automotive's management team.
Privately owned Fisker Coachbuild designs and installs new coachwork and interiors for high-end BMW and Mercedes-Benz models, creating rebodied exotics in the manner of the custom coachbuilders of the early 1900s who created new sheet metal for all types of luxury cars including Bugattis, Cadillacs and Rolls-Royces. The company won't release sales data but says it has delivered 13 of its Tramonto convertibles and Latigo coupes (based, respectively, on the Mercedes-Benz SL and BMW 6 Series.)
Quantum, which owns several chassis-building companies and specializes in clean propulsion and fuel and energy storage technologies, is developing the plug-in power plant and drive system for the Fisker. The company has built plug-in hybrid conversions of the Ford Escape Hybrid for the Southern California Air Quality Management District.
What this means to you: If you've got the bucks, you could be zooming by decade's end in an earth-friendly exotic car with substantial all-electric range while your neighbor is still putting along in a Prius."
(The article in today’s paper said their car will sell for about $80,000.)
& I found this on Wikipedia:
“Fisker Automotive From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fisker Automotive is a joint venture between Fisker Coachbuild and Quantum Technologies.
All models will feature a cutting-edge plug-in hybrid technology named "Quantum Drive", developed by Quantum Technologies exclusively for Fisker Automotive. This all-new plug–in Quantum Drive chassis layout will allow Fisker to design innovative luxury cars with uncompromised proportions.
The Fisker Karma is a plug-in hybrid electric sportscar shown at the North American International Auto Show in January 2008.”
X* X* X* X*
I wish both companies the best & hope they both sell a lot of cars.
In addition, I hope their electric car & plug-in hybrid car technologies make their way quickly into less expensive, even more widely sold cars.
This may happen through licensing by larger car companies or by those companies rapidly rolling out their own versions. It might even happen by these two companies doing it themselves if they do well enough.
It will definitely open the marketplace to truly green cars that can run all or mostly on renewable energy & begin to help us get off of using oil to power our driving.
Today’s post: Weds, 4-16-2008
I very much approve of Tesla Motors & the rationale on their website that guides their car designs. (See http://www.teslamotors.com/ .)
They understand why electric cars are important for advancing renewable energy & turning off our reliance on oil. And, they realize that electric cars will only succeed in the marketplace if people want to drive them.
I’d love it if they start selling truckloads of their cars & would like that to be soon.
However, they have not yet gone into full production on their first car, the sports roadster, & have not yet begun making their second car that will have a larger market since it is an upscale sedan.
So when I read earlier today that another company, Fisker Coach Build of Irvine in California was developing a good looking plug-in hybrid & that the two companies are suing each other, I was both delighted to see more electric cars that people would want to drive enter the market & sad that the management time of these two companies was going to these legal hassles. Unfortunately, it may add delays to their cars getting into full production as soon as I’d like for both companies.
That said, unlike Tesla, Fisker cars are not yet at all well known.
So, here’s what I’ve found out about the Fisker cars.:
I did read that they will have up to a 40 mile all electric range. That would make them effectively all electric for many people. And it would make them all electric for morning commutes for almost everyone who drives them. Driving one would slash gasoline use in virtually every case. This is not quite as good as the Tesla or Miles cars but is very close.
The company is called Fisker Automotive. I didn’t enter their website as it requires one to install flash which I detest.
But I found this: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=122489
"Fisker Automotive: New Plug-in Hybrid Maker
Date posted: 09-05-2007 IRVINE, Calif. - Betting that they can beat bureaucracy-burdened major automakers to market with today's hottest new green-car technology, a pair of Southern California automotive firms will announce plans today for a new, American-made plug-in hybrid car to go on sale by 2010.
The companies, Fisker Coachbuild LLC and Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, both located in Irvine, will form a joint venture to design, build and market the car, said spokeswoman Cristina Cheever. The new company will be called Fisker Automotive.
Its plug-in hybrid will team an internal combustion engine and a battery-based electric drive system that can be recharged from the commercial grid via common 110-volt household current.
Details and performance figures, including range on all-electric drive, are being kept under wraps, but Cheever said the new vehicles would handily outperform the 8-mile all-electric range Toyota is promising for its next-generation Prius plug-in hybrid, a 2009 model.
General Motors has said it will bring an extended-range Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid, with 40 miles of all-electric range, to market by 2010 and will sell it for under $30,000. Ford also has shown a concept plug-in hybrid but has not said when, or whether, it will build the vehicle.
Design and technology development for the Fisker plug-in are underway and a working preproduction prototype will be unveiled in January at the 2008 Detroit Auto Show, Cheever said.
The car, to be designed by Fisker Coachbuild, would sell for under $100,000 and plans call for initial annual production of 15,000 vehicles, Cheever said.
Fisker Automotive will contract with an existing private manufacturer to build its cars, she said.
Henrik Fisker, the former BMW and Aston Martin designer and chairman of Fisker Coachbuild, will head Fisker Automotive's management team.
Privately owned Fisker Coachbuild designs and installs new coachwork and interiors for high-end BMW and Mercedes-Benz models, creating rebodied exotics in the manner of the custom coachbuilders of the early 1900s who created new sheet metal for all types of luxury cars including Bugattis, Cadillacs and Rolls-Royces. The company won't release sales data but says it has delivered 13 of its Tramonto convertibles and Latigo coupes (based, respectively, on the Mercedes-Benz SL and BMW 6 Series.)
Quantum, which owns several chassis-building companies and specializes in clean propulsion and fuel and energy storage technologies, is developing the plug-in power plant and drive system for the Fisker. The company has built plug-in hybrid conversions of the Ford Escape Hybrid for the Southern California Air Quality Management District.
What this means to you: If you've got the bucks, you could be zooming by decade's end in an earth-friendly exotic car with substantial all-electric range while your neighbor is still putting along in a Prius."
(The article in today’s paper said their car will sell for about $80,000.)
& I found this on Wikipedia:
“Fisker Automotive From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fisker Automotive is a joint venture between Fisker Coachbuild and Quantum Technologies.
All models will feature a cutting-edge plug-in hybrid technology named "Quantum Drive", developed by Quantum Technologies exclusively for Fisker Automotive. This all-new plug–in Quantum Drive chassis layout will allow Fisker to design innovative luxury cars with uncompromised proportions.
The Fisker Karma is a plug-in hybrid electric sportscar shown at the North American International Auto Show in January 2008.”
X* X* X* X*
I wish both companies the best & hope they both sell a lot of cars.
In addition, I hope their electric car & plug-in hybrid car technologies make their way quickly into less expensive, even more widely sold cars.
This may happen through licensing by larger car companies or by those companies rapidly rolling out their own versions. It might even happen by these two companies doing it themselves if they do well enough.
It will definitely open the marketplace to truly green cars that can run all or mostly on renewable energy & begin to help us get off of using oil to power our driving.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Progress on electric cars....
Today’s post: Weds, 3-19-2008
Fossil fuel for cars & trucks is now one of our biggest uses. It definitely is the most visible one to the average person.
Biofuels are one way to power cars & trucks that will help replace fossil fuels. But initially they will be in limited supply. And, they still produce some air pollution in the cities where they are used. Using current technology, they are also mixed with fossil fuels NOT as total replacements.
Since most of the use of electricity is during the day for businesses & for air conditioning & for lighting at night before 11:30 pm & some after 4:30 am with light use from 10:30 am to 5:30 am,
there is existing electric generation capacity not now being used between about 10 PM & 6 AM, particularly between midnight & 4 am.
And, we can both use renewable sources to generate electricity and get increasingly better control of pollution generated by other, centralized sources than we can individual cars & trucks that burn fossil fuels. (As we will cover in next week’s post, some nuclear power as a transition use may also work.)
That means that a major shift to electric cars & plug-in hybrids can help free our cities of air pollution & be a major step to weaning our economy away from fossil fuels.
So drivable, acceptable, cars & trucks that run on electricity or as plug-in hybrids are an important piece of our switching to an economy that runs on renewable energy.
Plug in hybrids are coming. But real electric cars as opposed to slightly supersized golf carts may be available first.
Tesla Motors is close to production on its electric sports car. And, has plans for a sedan within a few years.
This has gotten car enthusiasts’ attention in part because the Tesla Roadster gets good enough acceleration to be very competitive with the best street racers & muscle cars.
It definitely appeals to people who want both performance and to support renewable energy & energy independence at the same time.
What may be less well known is that most electric cars will have better acceleration available at the driver’s demand than most gasoline powered cars – not just the electric sports cars.
Here are two articles relating to this theme.
The first one is about one of the more significant companies that will compete with Tesla Motors.
( I added some paragraphing to the article to emphasize some key points that I think deserve it that were made by the CEO, Jeff Boyd, who was interviewed.)
The second is about a minivan like electric car conversion.
( This article was in an online source called VentureBeat )
“Q&A with Jeff Boyd, CEO of Miles Electric Vehicle
Chris Morrison March 5th, 2008
Everyone knows the name Tesla Motors. High-profile VC fundings, a high-performance sports car and its layoffs have gotten the company endless coverage. However, there’s also a slew of lesser-known electric car companies. One of the handful with real potential (and real funding) is Miles Electric Vehicle, a Santa Monica, Calif. company with plans to release a highway-speed electric car, the XS500, in 2009.
Miles already sells a few low-speed models, but the XS500 will be the most acceptable to Americans — with a top speed of over 80mph, a range of over 120 miles, and the looks and features of a normal car, unlike some all-electric designs that many people find downright bizarre (see some examples here). The planned price is in the $35,000 to $40,000 range, cheaper than Tesla’s Whitestar, which is aiming for $50,000. The company caught my attention with a recent $15 million financing, so I called up CEO Jeff Boyd for a quick interview.
Do you think you’ll get competition from bigger companies?
We hope that there is a lot of competition. A decade ago, the all-electric car failed, for a variety of reasons.
But at this point, we’ve got the catalysts: The homeland security issue, the emissions issue — this is no longer a fad, a niche market or a matter of curiosity. We think it’s a revolution, and we hope manufacturers all over the world are working in the area.
It’s going to take a lot of work and money to make the dream come to fruition. There’s plenty of market to go after, and we anticipate being one of many.
Will you be competitive with larger automakers?
From a technology standpoint, we feel that we can compete. As far as branding and distribution, the traditional automakers are very advanced and mature. But there’s plenty of room in the market when there’s an emerging business. If you look at the US selling 16 million new cars a year, Europe doing a similar number and about 50 million total around the world, there’s no reason we shouldn’t have enough sales to make a business. We welcome competition, we want everyone to jump in so we can reduce our reliance on foreign oil and change how we handle transportation.
Tesla has taken a lot of money — nearly $150 million to date, with more than twice that planned in the future. Will you need to take less money than Tesla has to commercialize?
We don’t anticipate needing anywhere near that amount of money. Our original private funding and the first round of our equity financing looks like enough to continue research on the XS500 and expand our distribution model.
Where does design come in?
There are three keys to our business model. First and foremost, we want to be all-electric. Second, we want to be completely safe and meet all the regulations. And third, we want to be low-cost. In order to be low cost, we’ve adapted chassis that have already been manufactured. Rather than starting with a clean sheet of paper and coming out with a completely new chassis design for our low or high-speed vehicles, this is allowing us to keep our costs down. If we’re going to bring a car out that will really change our reliance on oil, it needs to be cheap. [ed. note: It’s also worth noting that Miles manufactures its vehicles on cheap production lines in China. Tesla also used a pre-existing chassis for the Roadster, but it was a very expensive model from Lotus.]
The cost is still high for the XS500 — will prices come down?
The cost of lithium ion [batteries], which is right now still a fairly expensive technology, will come down over time. We also have a five year development plan with a variety of models in it. The next model after the XS500 is a small cross-over unit that will be priced lower. Whether we can reduce the price on the XS500, we’re not sure. But even if we don’t, we’ll be bringing out lower-cost models over the next two to three years that will expand the market for all electric vehicles.”
….
“Will electric cars be competitive with plug-in hybrids?
I’m not aware of any [plug-in] hybrids that are very close to production. We’re a little over a year away, so we think we’re maybe two or three years ahead of most plug-in hybrid vehicles. We applaud the efforts of the ethanol, hybrid, hydrogen, fuel cell communities, but fundamentally, we think those are transitional technologies toward all-electric. In effect they [all-electric cars] have zero emissions.
About half of our electricity is from coal, but the technology exists to change that. It’s within our grasp to generate electricity without any emissions.
We also like all-electric because the US electric utility grid is capable of handling the charging requirements of a lot of vehicles without expanding greatly.
You took funding from a private equity firm, Angeleno Group, rather than a venture capital group. Why?
The principals [directors] of Angeleno Group have been associated with Miles Rubin [the company’s founder] for many years, so it was natural as we developed for them to reach out to us. We weren’t seeking investors, but upon engaging we were impressed with their true commitment to alternative energy. When you enter a partnership like that, it’s helpful if it goes beyond the cash infusion. If they can help with planning and business development, it can really be meaningful.
What sort of future do you envision? Acquisition, IPO, staying private?
We really don’t have any plans to do any more than continue on the path we’re on, as a private company.”
I found this info online looking for electric cars on Yahoo. I had also heard that there were Scion conversions. So far the progress has been on the boxy minivan model not the more car like Scion model. And, the conversions are a bit pricey. But it IS progress.
And, it shows what some of the potentials are for electric cars when cheaper lithium ion batteries are installed into cars as they are manufactured & the companies realize economies of scale to bring the cost down.
“Scion Electric Car Conversions”
"AC Propulsion, a California-based company that just debuted its eBox, a converted Toyota Scion xB with an electric engine. After you bring your own Scion, AC Propulsion will do the deed for $55,000. So what're the specs on the eBox? We're glad you asked: 180 mile range, top speed of 95 mph, and you can get a full charge in five hours right from your garage's wall outlet. Sure, that sounds like a lot for a car that's ordinarily pretty freakin' cheap (~ $18,000), but when you think that you'll never have to buy gas again over the life of the car, it just might be worth it."
"Sure, a few companies have recently introduced plans for two-seat electric sports cars in the $70,000-$100,000+ price range, but the eBox offers similar performance on a platform that can carry five adults. And the eBox is currently taking orders for delivery in 2007. It is true that I cannot afford $70,000 for a car right now, but if I could, I would insist on buying one that could haul my whole family of four. The eBox fits that bill without any struggle. The fact that it can blow away a Mustang GT is only icing on the cake. "
1. www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=152318 eBox Scion XB conversion
2. AC Propulsion's Scion xB electric car conversion keeps getting better ...
www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=1172
3. AC Propulsion converts stock Scion xB into fully electric "eBox" car ...
... AcPropulsion, ebox, electric car, Electric Car, toyota scion xb, Toyota Scion Xb ... gas costs $4 per gallon, that the Scion normally gets 30 MPG, and that you drive ...
engadget.com/2006/12/11/ac-propulsion-converts-stock-scion-xb-into-fully-electric
4. Play Video YouTube - My Scion xA EV Electric car conversion project
We're converting a Scion xA from a gas car to a fully battery electric vehicle! ... ZAP Xebra and GEM Electric Car Race. 00:58 From: Xebranut. Views: 8,477 ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdmM4iO4W9c - 113k –
X * X* X* X* X*
As more electricity becomes available from renewable sources & the costs of electric cars & plug-in hybrids come down, we will make substantial progress to transport that is NOT dependent on fossil fuels. And even in the nearer future while some of our electricity comes from sequestered coal fired plants & nuclear, electric cars & plug-in hybrids will help drop the air pollution in our cities a lot.
So, three cheers from here for electric cars & the people who make them.
X * X* X* X* X*
Brad & I believe the switch from fossil fuels & an energy wasteful economy to an economy that is based almost 100 % on renewable energy that is very efficiently used is the new phase of the "industrial revolution" as much as the development of the internet -- perhaps much more so in fact.
This blog is dedicated to helping speed this conversion.
Today’s post: Weds, 3-19-2008
Fossil fuel for cars & trucks is now one of our biggest uses. It definitely is the most visible one to the average person.
Biofuels are one way to power cars & trucks that will help replace fossil fuels. But initially they will be in limited supply. And, they still produce some air pollution in the cities where they are used. Using current technology, they are also mixed with fossil fuels NOT as total replacements.
Since most of the use of electricity is during the day for businesses & for air conditioning & for lighting at night before 11:30 pm & some after 4:30 am with light use from 10:30 am to 5:30 am,
there is existing electric generation capacity not now being used between about 10 PM & 6 AM, particularly between midnight & 4 am.
And, we can both use renewable sources to generate electricity and get increasingly better control of pollution generated by other, centralized sources than we can individual cars & trucks that burn fossil fuels. (As we will cover in next week’s post, some nuclear power as a transition use may also work.)
That means that a major shift to electric cars & plug-in hybrids can help free our cities of air pollution & be a major step to weaning our economy away from fossil fuels.
So drivable, acceptable, cars & trucks that run on electricity or as plug-in hybrids are an important piece of our switching to an economy that runs on renewable energy.
Plug in hybrids are coming. But real electric cars as opposed to slightly supersized golf carts may be available first.
Tesla Motors is close to production on its electric sports car. And, has plans for a sedan within a few years.
This has gotten car enthusiasts’ attention in part because the Tesla Roadster gets good enough acceleration to be very competitive with the best street racers & muscle cars.
It definitely appeals to people who want both performance and to support renewable energy & energy independence at the same time.
What may be less well known is that most electric cars will have better acceleration available at the driver’s demand than most gasoline powered cars – not just the electric sports cars.
Here are two articles relating to this theme.
The first one is about one of the more significant companies that will compete with Tesla Motors.
( I added some paragraphing to the article to emphasize some key points that I think deserve it that were made by the CEO, Jeff Boyd, who was interviewed.)
The second is about a minivan like electric car conversion.
( This article was in an online source called VentureBeat )
“Q&A with Jeff Boyd, CEO of Miles Electric Vehicle
Chris Morrison March 5th, 2008
Everyone knows the name Tesla Motors. High-profile VC fundings, a high-performance sports car and its layoffs have gotten the company endless coverage. However, there’s also a slew of lesser-known electric car companies. One of the handful with real potential (and real funding) is Miles Electric Vehicle, a Santa Monica, Calif. company with plans to release a highway-speed electric car, the XS500, in 2009.
Miles already sells a few low-speed models, but the XS500 will be the most acceptable to Americans — with a top speed of over 80mph, a range of over 120 miles, and the looks and features of a normal car, unlike some all-electric designs that many people find downright bizarre (see some examples here). The planned price is in the $35,000 to $40,000 range, cheaper than Tesla’s Whitestar, which is aiming for $50,000. The company caught my attention with a recent $15 million financing, so I called up CEO Jeff Boyd for a quick interview.
Do you think you’ll get competition from bigger companies?
We hope that there is a lot of competition. A decade ago, the all-electric car failed, for a variety of reasons.
But at this point, we’ve got the catalysts: The homeland security issue, the emissions issue — this is no longer a fad, a niche market or a matter of curiosity. We think it’s a revolution, and we hope manufacturers all over the world are working in the area.
It’s going to take a lot of work and money to make the dream come to fruition. There’s plenty of market to go after, and we anticipate being one of many.
Will you be competitive with larger automakers?
From a technology standpoint, we feel that we can compete. As far as branding and distribution, the traditional automakers are very advanced and mature. But there’s plenty of room in the market when there’s an emerging business. If you look at the US selling 16 million new cars a year, Europe doing a similar number and about 50 million total around the world, there’s no reason we shouldn’t have enough sales to make a business. We welcome competition, we want everyone to jump in so we can reduce our reliance on foreign oil and change how we handle transportation.
Tesla has taken a lot of money — nearly $150 million to date, with more than twice that planned in the future. Will you need to take less money than Tesla has to commercialize?
We don’t anticipate needing anywhere near that amount of money. Our original private funding and the first round of our equity financing looks like enough to continue research on the XS500 and expand our distribution model.
Where does design come in?
There are three keys to our business model. First and foremost, we want to be all-electric. Second, we want to be completely safe and meet all the regulations. And third, we want to be low-cost. In order to be low cost, we’ve adapted chassis that have already been manufactured. Rather than starting with a clean sheet of paper and coming out with a completely new chassis design for our low or high-speed vehicles, this is allowing us to keep our costs down. If we’re going to bring a car out that will really change our reliance on oil, it needs to be cheap. [ed. note: It’s also worth noting that Miles manufactures its vehicles on cheap production lines in China. Tesla also used a pre-existing chassis for the Roadster, but it was a very expensive model from Lotus.]
The cost is still high for the XS500 — will prices come down?
The cost of lithium ion [batteries], which is right now still a fairly expensive technology, will come down over time. We also have a five year development plan with a variety of models in it. The next model after the XS500 is a small cross-over unit that will be priced lower. Whether we can reduce the price on the XS500, we’re not sure. But even if we don’t, we’ll be bringing out lower-cost models over the next two to three years that will expand the market for all electric vehicles.”
….
“Will electric cars be competitive with plug-in hybrids?
I’m not aware of any [plug-in] hybrids that are very close to production. We’re a little over a year away, so we think we’re maybe two or three years ahead of most plug-in hybrid vehicles. We applaud the efforts of the ethanol, hybrid, hydrogen, fuel cell communities, but fundamentally, we think those are transitional technologies toward all-electric. In effect they [all-electric cars] have zero emissions.
About half of our electricity is from coal, but the technology exists to change that. It’s within our grasp to generate electricity without any emissions.
We also like all-electric because the US electric utility grid is capable of handling the charging requirements of a lot of vehicles without expanding greatly.
You took funding from a private equity firm, Angeleno Group, rather than a venture capital group. Why?
The principals [directors] of Angeleno Group have been associated with Miles Rubin [the company’s founder] for many years, so it was natural as we developed for them to reach out to us. We weren’t seeking investors, but upon engaging we were impressed with their true commitment to alternative energy. When you enter a partnership like that, it’s helpful if it goes beyond the cash infusion. If they can help with planning and business development, it can really be meaningful.
What sort of future do you envision? Acquisition, IPO, staying private?
We really don’t have any plans to do any more than continue on the path we’re on, as a private company.”
I found this info online looking for electric cars on Yahoo. I had also heard that there were Scion conversions. So far the progress has been on the boxy minivan model not the more car like Scion model. And, the conversions are a bit pricey. But it IS progress.
And, it shows what some of the potentials are for electric cars when cheaper lithium ion batteries are installed into cars as they are manufactured & the companies realize economies of scale to bring the cost down.
“Scion Electric Car Conversions”
"AC Propulsion, a California-based company that just debuted its eBox, a converted Toyota Scion xB with an electric engine. After you bring your own Scion, AC Propulsion will do the deed for $55,000. So what're the specs on the eBox? We're glad you asked: 180 mile range, top speed of 95 mph, and you can get a full charge in five hours right from your garage's wall outlet. Sure, that sounds like a lot for a car that's ordinarily pretty freakin' cheap (~ $18,000), but when you think that you'll never have to buy gas again over the life of the car, it just might be worth it."
"Sure, a few companies have recently introduced plans for two-seat electric sports cars in the $70,000-$100,000+ price range, but the eBox offers similar performance on a platform that can carry five adults. And the eBox is currently taking orders for delivery in 2007. It is true that I cannot afford $70,000 for a car right now, but if I could, I would insist on buying one that could haul my whole family of four. The eBox fits that bill without any struggle. The fact that it can blow away a Mustang GT is only icing on the cake. "
1. www.scionlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=152318 eBox Scion XB conversion
2. AC Propulsion's Scion xB electric car conversion keeps getting better ...
www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=1172
3. AC Propulsion converts stock Scion xB into fully electric "eBox" car ...
... AcPropulsion, ebox, electric car, Electric Car, toyota scion xb, Toyota Scion Xb ... gas costs $4 per gallon, that the Scion normally gets 30 MPG, and that you drive ...
engadget.com/2006/12/11/ac-propulsion-converts-stock-scion-xb-into-fully-electric
4. Play Video YouTube - My Scion xA EV Electric car conversion project
We're converting a Scion xA from a gas car to a fully battery electric vehicle! ... ZAP Xebra and GEM Electric Car Race. 00:58 From: Xebranut. Views: 8,477 ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdmM4iO4W9c - 113k –
X * X* X* X* X*
As more electricity becomes available from renewable sources & the costs of electric cars & plug-in hybrids come down, we will make substantial progress to transport that is NOT dependent on fossil fuels. And even in the nearer future while some of our electricity comes from sequestered coal fired plants & nuclear, electric cars & plug-in hybrids will help drop the air pollution in our cities a lot.
So, three cheers from here for electric cars & the people who make them.
X * X* X* X* X*
Brad & I believe the switch from fossil fuels & an energy wasteful economy to an economy that is based almost 100 % on renewable energy that is very efficiently used is the new phase of the "industrial revolution" as much as the development of the internet -- perhaps much more so in fact.
This blog is dedicated to helping speed this conversion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)