I am finding this old (2004 or so) Energy Information Administration
data interesting to examine:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/datatables/aft1-13_03.html
We could use clarification, when they discuss EVs, whether they are
including NEVs in that data. I wonder, when they come out with their
next report giving updated numbers (2007 or so?) if it will reflect
the decline in EVs brought on by Auto Manufacturer Forced Repossession
of Leased vehicles. Another possibility is that the increase in NEVs
(if they are part of the numbers we are examining) would obscure the
decrease in Highway EVs and City EVs.
Looking around the page, if we look at sheets like this, we can see
that one interesting thing to add would be rows for additional
alternative fuels such as Boron and Hydrogen. Surely the next report
must include Hydrogen fueled vehicles, given how much we hear of early
Hydrogen vehicles already being on the road, here and there. Or,
perhaps this is only about vehicles that have been put into consumer
hands?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/archive/datatables/afvtable1_03.xls
Anyway, there is potential here for good discussion, if we could
narrow down a couple of details that seem murky, and if they would
issue reports. Issuing numbers for 2004 (projected?) seems
out-of-date, now that it is almost 2007.
GM was happy to kill the Corvair, with the help of idiot-boy Ralph
Nader, crushing its first small idea about an answer to the
VW "bug". Previously, GM's Corvette, an answer to the MG-TD, had
grown from the "snazzy small car" to a giant gas-guzzler.
GM committed to giant, gas-guzzling monster-cars, which Nader
assisted with the claim that only big, heavy cars were "safe". So
with false "consumer-advocates", government watchdogs, and bulging
profit motives, GM closed its eyes to alternatives and blithely
sailed along, making ever-bigger, "safer", and more-crumbly gashog
boatmobiles ... until the "oil shock" of 1974.
Belatedly, GM shrank down some of its cars to "world-class"
platforms, shrank down its operations, lowered its expectations, and
survived cratered financials by huge gains on its "purchase" of
Hughes and EDS.
Meanwhile, "consumers" -- disappointed drivers -- turned away from
Big-Three cars, because the quality had been so awful. You may
remember, in desperation, people turning to pickups, because at
least they lasted more than 3 years and didn't turn into food for
Charley the Junkman, rusted-out hulks in trailer parks and on front
lawns, vacant lots, and abandoned on the street.
One old gent, having struck it rich in business and retired,
satisfied his life-long ambition by purchasing a Cadillac El Dorado
for all cash ($25,000, a lot of money at the time). Simultaneously,
he bought a brand-new Honda Civic for his child; as you can guess,
the Cadillac was a good "sittin' car", not good for much in the way
of drivin', and the Honda became the car of choice for any trip
longer than out the driveway. Similar experiences doomed GM's
reputation; in this case, the dealer had refused to fix what turned
out to be a vindictive sabotage of the El Dorado by some unknown
factory worker, or some screwup, no one can be sure, but the rings
were in "upside down", supposedly, and its compression sucked...not
enough.
It's not that GM wasn't warned; DeLorean, once the wunderkind of
Chevrolet and the saviour of NAO, had demanded that GM build "a
sensible car". Not only was he exiled and disgraced, he was framed
and humiliated, and Chevy just ignored his ideas and alarum.
GM's short-lived "come to Jesus" launch of Saturn, to emulate the
excellence of Japanese cars, produced a perennial money-loser that
became just another loser division of Chevrolet.
Now, surfacing after a new-life in the gas-glut 1990's, GM has
turned its beknighted attention back to Saturn. Can a dumsquat
crypto-hybrid save GM, after so many years of shrinkage and failures?
Here's what Forbes has to say:
"...Vue Green Line, on the other hand, shows how far Saturn, and GM,
has yet to go. It is this kind of vehicle that reinforces the image
that Detroit is trying so hard to dispel--that U.S. carmakers are
simply not up to snuff. GM touts the fact that the Vue Green Line is
the cheapest hybrid SUV on the market. At about $23,000, it is. But
it feels much cheaper than that--shaking apoplectically at the
merest hint of a bump in the road.
"The Vue Green Line is also GM's first attempt at a hybrid passenger
car. Why GM would put its first hybrid power train in a package this
unsightly and uncomfortable (and due to be replaced) is a mystery
and a minor tragedy. GM's urgency in getting a hybrid to market as
soon as possible is understandable--given how far it lags behind
Honda, Toyota and Ford. But why not put it in the Aura (which is
scheduled to get a hybrid next year)? That way, the company's first
hybrid vehicle would've been something people would ogle at, not
wince at..."
<http://www.forbes.com/home/business/2006/10/31/autos-detroit-saturn-
biz-cx_jh_1101saturn.html>
--- Johann Joseph <goyogi@...> wrote:
> I thought this was great,The Rich Oil Sheik. Some
> may be slightly
> offended but whatever...
>
>
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4981237457119314240&q=mencia+rap
>
> Hey! Thanks for the link! Made my morning<g>! It is
alot of truth" I own the White House as well as Europe
and other stuff"Funny but sad, alota stuff he sang
about!
Bob
>
>
>
At the Washington, DC area this year I excitedly went to see and get
information about Saturn's Greenline VUE. Although I didn't think that
it was going to be as good as the Prius, I was looking forward to
understanding how GM was going to do this Hybrid thing. Honda's early
hybrids were the mildest of mild hybrids with a 2 inch in diameter
electric assist/starter/generator/motor. I thought that the Saturn
Greenline VUE would be something like this. What I found was that the
display was confusing. On the GM's larger hybrids you can easily see
the multiphase electric motors sandwiched between the engine and the
trany. With the VUE I couldn't really figure out where theheck
electric motor was, or where the extra batteries were, or how the
system worked. Then came the discouraging part. I asked the spokes
people there many questions about the Greenline VUE and they couldn't
answer one. ?!?!?!? They wanted to talk about their OnStar system.
Saturn was born out of a great innovation developed by GM called the
space frame design or Z-body. All of the heavy metal parts of a
vehicle were incorporated into the frame of the vehicle while the
outside look was merely a skin made of polymers. The Pontiac Fiero was
GMs first move to this innovation with very good results. The Lumina
mini van incorporated space frame in its lower body panels. Space
frame design strengthened while it lightened the vehicles. The ease of
manufacture, recyclability and the reduced weight lead GM to develop
an entire division based on this design and the values of earth
friendly consumers. Saturn's mission was to compete head on with the
Japanese, and compete they did. Saturn's Z-body space frame division
was thought to be the future of GM. A direct chalenge to the Japanese
small quality built car.
The concept proved itself in crash worthiness and fuel economy in its
first production vehicles, the smallish Saturn SL. When oil prices
came down significantly GM executives lost interest in Saturn and were
too slow to introduce mid-size vehicles, SUVs and mini-vans under the
brand name. The space frame Lumina was put under the Chevy brand and
Oldsmobile had the same vehicles too. Saturn was a one car line
division until it was too late.
Finally, Saturn, after airing apology adds saying they were not the
future of GM and not giant killers, was allowed to develop and market
a mid-sized car, the Ion, and a mid-sized SUV the VUE. The Ion was not
a big seller; however, the VUE rocked the house. Unfortunately,
Saturn's quality, which was its benchmark when it first started out,
had and has slipped in recent years. Its customer service has slipped
as well. Its new head of the division is not a traditional Saturn
visionary. Cynhia M Trudell is a corporate insider at GM and instead
of keeping Saturn unique she is overseeing the destruction of Saturn's
better way of thinking.
This was the shocker for me at the Washington, DC Auto Show. All the
new lines of cars that were being introduced were traditional steel
body cars. The Z-bodies were being deemphasized. When Ralph Nader
makes the comment in the movie, Who Killed the Electric Car? that GMs
motto has always been, "moving backwards into the future," never was
it more evident than here at the Saturn display.
Back to the VUE Greenline, I began talking to the spokes people about
how the new line of cars don't have the uniqueness of the old Saturns.
They told me straight out that Saturn was being transformed into just
another division of GM that would be able to share models assembled
elsewhere in the company with just small cosmetic changes or just a
label change. This is so sad, but more than anything it is also such a
bad move by the company. Without at least one division showing
innovation, GM was readying itself for stagnation and extinction. Then
I pressed on to find out why they knew so little about the Greenline
VUE. And again I was astonished to what they told me straight out. One
of the spokes people told me that they were told not to talk about the
Greenline VUE because it was on the out. GM was going to produce it
for a year, maybe two but it was going to go no further than that.
Eventually all the Z-body Saturn vehicles would be replaced by other
traditionally manufactured standard GM cars, the only difference
between them would be the nameplate and hood logo. The Saturn
Greenline VUE would go out with these vehicles too. Saturn, as a means
of making up the distribution lost from closing its Oldsmobile line
would be much more valuable to GM than the cars that they were
currently producing. I stood there stunned. I was glad to here the
frankness from one spokes person about the reality of Saturn's fate,
but I couldn't believe how narrow minded and incapable GM was in its
ability to nurture innovation and compete. There front and center was
what had to be the world's ugliest mini-van, the Saturn RELAY. And so
it begins. The Saturn RELAY is the same vehicles as the Buick Terraza,
the Chevrolet Uplander, and the Pontiac Montana SV6. I then walked
around the display looking at the few Z-body cars there thinking that
they would soon be gone, and another opportunity for GM to dominate
the world market lost. Unfortunately, I couldn't dwell on this too
long because every five steps a ditsy spokes person from GM would jolt
me with the question, "Do you want to learn about our OnStar system."
I felt like saying back, "No, I want to know how GM is planning to
save your job, because they sure can't seem to do it by producing
vehicles." What I ended up asking was, "Can I have it installed in my
Toyota, Prius? You see I really don't like GM cars."
--- In electric_vehicles_for_sale@yahoogroups.com, doug korthof
<live_oil_free@...> wrote:
>
> Dan Neil's doubts (about the Vue, and its being much of a hybrid)
are well-placed, if not barbed; one little problem is this quote:
>
> INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GENERAL MOTORS
> SATURN VUE GREEN LINE HYBRID DELIVERS GREAT FUEL ECONOMY THROUGH
NEW, LOWER-COST HYBRID SYSTEM
> DETROIT – Saturn unveiled the production version of the 2007 Vue
Green Line Hybrid, the first GM vehicle powered by a new, more
affordable hybrid system.
Nader said small, fuel efficient cars were good. It was liars like Bush 41 that
said only big cars were safe.
----- Original Message -----
From: doug korthof
To: electric_vehicles_for_sale@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:29 AM
Subject: [electric_vehicles_for_sale] GM flails away, desperate, looking for
straws to clutch onto: VUE
GM was happy to kill the Corvair, with the help of idiot-boy Ralph
Nader, crushing its first small idea about an answer to the
VW "bug". Previously, GM's Corvette, an answer to the MG-TD, had
grown from the "snazzy small car" to a giant gas-guzzler.
GM committed to giant, gas-guzzling monster-cars, which Nader
assisted with the claim that only big, heavy cars were "safe". So
with false "consumer-advocates", government watchdogs, and bulging
profit motives, GM closed its eyes to alternatives and blithely
sailed along, making ever-bigger, "safer", and more-crumbly gashog
boatmobiles ... until the "oil shock" of 1974.
Belatedly, GM shrank down some of its cars to "world-class"
platforms, shrank down its operations, lowered its expectations, and
survived cratered financials by huge gains on its "purchase" of
Hughes and EDS.
Meanwhile, "consumers" -- disappointed drivers -- turned away from
Big-Three cars, because the quality had been so awful. You may
remember, in desperation, people turning to pickups, because at
least they lasted more than 3 years and didn't turn into food for
Charley the Junkman, rusted-out hulks in trailer parks and on front
lawns, vacant lots, and abandoned on the street.
One old gent, having struck it rich in business and retired,
satisfied his life-long ambition by purchasing a Cadillac El Dorado
for all cash ($25,000, a lot of money at the time). Simultaneously,
he bought a brand-new Honda Civic for his child; as you can guess,
the Cadillac was a good "sittin' car", not good for much in the way
of drivin', and the Honda became the car of choice for any trip
longer than out the driveway. Similar experiences doomed GM's
reputation; in this case, the dealer had refused to fix what turned
out to be a vindictive sabotage of the El Dorado by some unknown
factory worker, or some screwup, no one can be sure, but the rings
were in "upside down", supposedly, and its compression sucked...not
enough.
It's not that GM wasn't warned; DeLorean, once the wunderkind of
Chevrolet and the saviour of NAO, had demanded that GM build "a
sensible car". Not only was he exiled and disgraced, he was framed
and humiliated, and Chevy just ignored his ideas and alarum.
GM's short-lived "come to Jesus" launch of Saturn, to emulate the
excellence of Japanese cars, produced a perennial money-loser that
became just another loser division of Chevrolet.
Now, surfacing after a new-life in the gas-glut 1990's, GM has
turned its beknighted attention back to Saturn. Can a dumsquat
crypto-hybrid save GM, after so many years of shrinkage and failures?
Here's what Forbes has to say:
"...Vue Green Line, on the other hand, shows how far Saturn, and GM,
has yet to go. It is this kind of vehicle that reinforces the image
that Detroit is trying so hard to dispel--that U.S. carmakers are
simply not up to snuff. GM touts the fact that the Vue Green Line is
the cheapest hybrid SUV on the market. At about $23,000, it is. But
it feels much cheaper than that--shaking apoplectically at the
merest hint of a bump in the road.
"The Vue Green Line is also GM's first attempt at a hybrid passenger
car. Why GM would put its first hybrid power train in a package this
unsightly and uncomfortable (and due to be replaced) is a mystery
and a minor tragedy. GM's urgency in getting a hybrid to market as
soon as possible is understandable--given how far it lags behind
Honda, Toyota and Ford. But why not put it in the Aura (which is
scheduled to get a hybrid next year)? That way, the company's first
hybrid vehicle would've been something people would ogle at, not
wince at..."
<http://www.forbes.com/home/business/2006/10/31/autos-detroit-saturn-
biz-cx_jh_1101saturn.html>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In electric_vehicles_for_sale@yahoogroups.com, "joelado"
<joelado@...> wrote:
> At the Washington, DC area this year I excitedly went to see and
get information about Saturn's Greenline VUE. Although I didn't
think that it was going to be as good as the Prius, I was looking
forward to understanding how GM was going to do this Hybrid thing...
"With great reluctance, and fingers crossed"??
>Honda's early hybrids were the mildest of mild hybrids with a 2
inch in diameter electric assist/starter/generator/motor...
The Honda "Insect" (Insight), which was proposed by one Honda bean-
man as a replacement for the oil-free EV-Plus, had 72 "D" cell
(flashlight) NiMH batteries under the seat. I guess they sold those
for $10 or $20 each, if you needed replacement...the Insect was
aerodynamic, and some folks like its 60 mpg, even if it would never
run on the 72 D-cells alone.
> I thought that the Saturn Greenline VUE would be something like
this. What I found was that the display was confusing. On the GM's
larger hybrids you can easily see the multiphase electric motors
sandwiched between the engine and the trany. With the VUE I couldn't
really figure out where the heck [the] electric motor was, or where
the extra batteries were, or how the system worked...
This does seem to be the unfortunate fact. Info about the "green
line" is sparse, and what info there is, is confusing; some of the
specs call for the motor to have an output of "10 kW", some call for
more. There is NO mention on ANY spec sheet (that I've seen) of the
size of the battery pack ... obviously, the 10 kW motor is not
enough to drive the car at highway speeds.
This makes me think that the upcoming "dual-mode" truck hybrids will
have a weak motor, perhaps this same 10kW or 15 kW, for "limp mode"
around combustion-free zones and to start off from a standing stop;
thus, ALL of these GM hybrids will be IMPOSSIBLE to make into a plug-
in car unless you go deep into the power train, replacing the motor
and redesigning the engine computer. Essentially, this
configuration makes it impossible to turn it into the real prize, a
serial hybrid that can run on the motor alone at 80 mph and up to
100 miles (depending on the size of the battery).
GM is doing everything it can to make sure that no "hybrid" idea
threatens the level of oil consumption.
> Then came the discouraging part. I asked the spokes
> people there many questions about the Greenline VUE and they
couldn't answer one. ?!?!?!? They wanted to talk about their OnStar
system....
THANKS for this report...we will all be laughing at the GM "hybrid"
efforts, especially if and when Toyota cracks the problem of Lithium
batteries, and makes a serial plug-in EV.
>
> Saturn was born out of a great innovation developed by GM called
the
> space frame design or Z-body. All of the heavy metal parts of a
> vehicle were incorporated into the frame of the vehicle while the
> outside look was merely a skin made of polymers. The Pontiac Fiero
was
> GMs first move to this innovation with very good results. The
Lumina
> mini van incorporated space frame in its lower body panels. Space
> frame design strengthened while it lightened the vehicles. The
ease of
> manufacture, recyclability and the reduced weight lead GM to
develop
> an entire division based on this design and the values of earth
> friendly consumers. Saturn's mission was to compete head on with
the
> Japanese, and compete they did. Saturn's Z-body space frame
division
> was thought to be the future of GM. A direct chalenge to the
Japanese
> small quality built car.
>
> The concept proved itself in crash worthiness and fuel economy in
its
> first production vehicles, the smallish Saturn SL. When oil prices
> came down significantly GM executives lost interest in Saturn and
were
> too slow to introduce mid-size vehicles, SUVs and mini-vans under
the
> brand name. The space frame Lumina was put under the Chevy brand
and
> Oldsmobile had the same vehicles too. Saturn was a one car line
> division until it was too late.
>
> Finally, Saturn, after airing apology adds saying they were not the
> future of GM and not giant killers, was allowed to develop and
market
> a mid-sized car, the Ion, and a mid-sized SUV the VUE. The Ion was
not
> a big seller; however, the VUE rocked the house. Unfortunately,
> Saturn's quality, which was its benchmark when it first started
out,
> had and has slipped in recent years. Its customer service has
slipped
> as well. Its new head of the division is not a traditional Saturn
> visionary. Cynhia M Trudell is a corporate insider at GM and
instead
> of keeping Saturn unique she is overseeing the destruction of
Saturn's
> better way of thinking.
>
> This was the shocker for me at the Washington, DC Auto Show. All
the
> new lines of cars that were being introduced were traditional steel
> body cars. The Z-bodies were being deemphasized. When Ralph Nader
> makes the comment in the movie, Who Killed the Electric Car? that
GMs
> motto has always been, "moving backwards into the future," never
was
> it more evident than here at the Saturn display.
>
> Back to the VUE Greenline, I began talking to the spokes people
about
> how the new line of cars don't have the uniqueness of the old
Saturns.
> They told me straight out that Saturn was being transformed into
just
> another division of GM that would be able to share models assembled
> elsewhere in the company with just small cosmetic changes or just a
> label change. This is so sad, but more than anything it is also
such a
> bad move by the company. Without at least one division showing
> innovation, GM was readying itself for stagnation and extinction.
Then
> I pressed on to find out why they knew so little about the
Greenline
> VUE. And again I was astonished to what they told me straight out.
One
> of the spokes people told me that they were told not to talk about
the
> Greenline VUE because it was on the out. GM was going to produce it
> for a year, maybe two but it was going to go no further than that.
> Eventually all the Z-body Saturn vehicles would be replaced by
other
> traditionally manufactured standard GM cars, the only difference
> between them would be the nameplate and hood logo. The Saturn
> Greenline VUE would go out with these vehicles too. Saturn, as a
means
> of making up the distribution lost from closing its Oldsmobile line
> would be much more valuable to GM than the cars that they were
> currently producing. I stood there stunned. I was glad to here the
> frankness from one spokes person about the reality of Saturn's
fate,
> but I couldn't believe how narrow minded and incapable GM was in
its
> ability to nurture innovation and compete. There front and center
was
> what had to be the world's ugliest mini-van, the Saturn RELAY. And
so
> it begins. The Saturn RELAY is the same vehicles as the Buick
Terraza,
> the Chevrolet Uplander, and the Pontiac Montana SV6. I then walked
> around the display looking at the few Z-body cars there thinking
that
> they would soon be gone, and another opportunity for GM to dominate
> the world market lost. Unfortunately, I couldn't dwell on this too
> long because every five steps a ditsy spokes person from GM would
jolt
> me with the question, "Do you want to learn about our OnStar
system."
> I felt like saying back, "No, I want to know how GM is planning to
> save your job, because they sure can't seem to do it by producing
> vehicles." What I ended up asking was, "Can I have it installed in
my
> Toyota, Prius? You see I really don't like GM cars."
>
> --- In electric_vehicles_for_sale@yahoogroups.com, doug korthof
> <live_oil_free@> wrote:
> >
> > Dan Neil's doubts (about the Vue, and its being much of a hybrid)
> are well-placed, if not barbed; one little problem is this quote:
> >
> > INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GENERAL MOTORS
> > SATURN VUE GREEN LINE HYBRID DELIVERS GREAT FUEL ECONOMY
THROUGH
> NEW, LOWER-COST HYBRID SYSTEM
> > DETROIT – Saturn unveiled the production version of the 2007
Vue
> Green Line Hybrid, the first GM vehicle powered by a new, more
> affordable hybrid system.
>
Perhaps the oil companies WANT global warming:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/27/news/economy/arctic_drilling/index.htm
"One study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said 25 percent
of all untapped reserves in areas known to contain oil are found
north of the Arctic Circle. That number could be even higher
as the study didn't take into account unexplored regions,
which most of the Arctic is."
A recent visit to the Th!nk web site shows a spiffy new picture on their home
page of what I believe is the Think Open vehicle as well as a link to a "Think
is hiring" page. They have not updated other portions of their site to share
much detail on their plans, but if you follow the hiring link they share the
following info:
"...With the launch of the new TH!NK city and TH!NK open in 2007, Think
Technology and Think Global are building an organisation to meet the exciting
challenges ahead..."
Is Th!nk on the move? http://www.think.no/
---------------------------------
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new
Yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Does anyone have, or has anyone seen, or does anyone have an opinion
of Myers Motors NmG? It's selling for $23,900 now and I'm seriously
considering it.
http://www.myersmotors.com/index.html
Thanks,
Steve
23900 after the deposit of 1k...
I passed by it due to Minnesota weather and the 30 mile range...
Bernie A. Knutson
224-4E-28
I. T. Procurement
Tel: (651) 733-0557
Fax: (651) 733-7309
"Stephen Hodgdon"
<hodgdon2@...
om> To
Sent by: electric_vehicles_for_sale@yahoogro
electric_vehicles ups.com
_for_sale@yahoogr cc
oups.com
Subject
[electric_vehicles_for_sale] Myers
11/03/2006 08:15 Motors NmG
AM
Please respond to
electric_vehicles
_for_sale@yahoogr
oups.com
Does anyone have, or has anyone seen, or does anyone have an opinion
of Myers Motors NmG? It's selling for $23,900 now and I'm seriously
considering it.
http://www.myersmotors.com/index.html
Thanks,
Steve
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks for pointing this out. I am hopeful.
It is four years since we fought so hard, on various fronts, to keep
Ford from destroying not only the vehicles but the company itself
making the Th!nk Nordic that they bought for around $10m just to
satisfy their legal mandate (not for any broad visionary reason, that
I can see). According to a Premium Article I find on EVWorld.com from
November, 2005 with the head of Th!nk, it appears they were originally
known as Pivco and have been in business for 15 years.
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=924
I do like the fact that they mention working with the Zebra Battery
people.
This was inspiring to read, as to what happened to the 360 vehicles we
saved with our collective efforts four years ago:
>Bowing to environmental and political pressure, Ford agreed to ship all
>360 cars back to Norway where Th!nk Nordic would refurbish them to
>resale through a number of Ford dealerships in the Scandinavian country.
>Eimstad reported that all the cars were now back in Norway. He estimated
>that about 160 have been processed and that the remaining 200, because
>they have air conditioning kits on them, will be retained for parts
>inventory to support the current fleet in Norway.
>
>Eimstad said that when the refurbished Th!nk Cities where funneled out
>to the dealers, they discovered what he said was "fantastic demand" for
>the cars.
>
>"They have waiting lists that are five to six times longer than the
>number of cars they have. The dealerships are now saying, we want
>environmentally friendly cars to sell. They want to set up expert areas
>where they sell clean cars."
>Unfortunately, this public demand in Norway doesn't mean that Th!nk can
>resume the now-stalled production of the A306 model. He explained that
>as redesigned by Ford, the new model is simply too expensive for the
>Norwegian market.
The rest of the premium article has some other good quotes, but I am
going to refrain, as I limit myself to four paragraphs on copyrighted
material (I can't remember where I ran across this rule or guideline,
but it seems reasonable).
Note that there is a Th!nk City yahoo discussion group, of which I was
a part, in 2001-2002, and which was instrumental in facilitating
communication in protesting, and coordinating communication a bit with
Norwegian journalists, but from which I have been booted. At the
time, the moderators claimed it was simply a computer snafu, and that
I had not exhibited any misbehaviour, and invited me to rejoin, (no
problem, they seemed to say, if I recall) but their complex new
joining procedure, allegedly designed to keep out spammers, did not
allow me to to rejoin, and they did not care to address the matter..
So, that group is no longer really part of how I try to bring about
change. I mention this in part because it was a good early protest
effort and demonstration of how important these groups can be as tools
for coordinating and communicating. Later on we also saw this with
the RAV4 EV and EV1 and other protests, where these groups served as a
place to post information and coordinate our efforts.
I also think it's a lesson for me in the importance of trying my best
here in this forum that I co-moderate...for me and Eric to try
(fallibly) to be fair, and not exhhibit incompetence and
unprofessionalism in excluding someone. (Yes, we have made mistakes
and will do so in the future, but we try not to).
Since the November 2005 Interview, Th!nk has apparently been taken
over by another investment group,.. they are no longer part of
Kamkorp. This is in a way ok, since some of us were skeptical as to
the intentions and commitment of Kamkorp.
http://www.think.no/content.php?id=6
>2006.03.29 News: Think is taken over by Norwegian Investor Group
>
>A Norwegian investment group has taken over Think Nordic. The group will
>strive for an international market through partnering and license
>production, and will evaluate the use of new advanced batteries and fuel
>cells in the vehicles.
>
>Partners in the investment group InSpire, including the Think-founder
>Jan Otto Ringdal, acquired last week all the Think Nordic assets,
>including IPR and the brand name TH!NK, together with the management
>team and local investors.
>
>The initial aim is to prepare for the production and introduction of the
>new TH!NK City model which Ford developed whilst they owned Think, - a
>unique product that was never introduced before Ford withdrew from the
>company. At that time battery technology had not evolved enough such
>that the range of the vehicle was compromised. The new investor group
>has access to new and advanced technology which will be further
>developed and utilised to improve the vehicle, with particular emphasis
>on performance and driving range.
[etc.]
As to vehicle-crushing, I would rank Ford not one single Iota better
than GM in any respect, except that at the end of the day we got them
to relent and not crush some Ford Th!nk Cities, and we got them to not
crush (after a separate extensive effort) some Ford Rangers. Yet, why
did we have to go through this whole thing TWICE with Ford?
In 2002, Ford relented and sold their interest in Th!nk Nordic, after
a comparatively large energy expenditure and coordinated effort on the
part of us activists and net-journalists and formal journalists, on
both sides of the Atlantic, but at the time we were skeptical of what
would happen to Th!nk in the hands of Kamcorp.
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/think_kamkorp.html
There is this page, also, on company history, for perspective:
http://www.think.no/content.php?id=29
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 16:02:16 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
>A recent visit to the Th!nk web site shows a spiffy new picture on their home
page of what I believe is the Think Open vehicle as well as a link to a "Think
is hiring" page. They have not updated other portions of their site to share
much detail on their plans, but if you follow the hiring link they share the
following info:
>
>"...With the launch of the new TH!NK city and TH!NK open in 2007, Think
Technology and Think Global are building an organisation to meet the exciting
challenges ahead..."
>
>
>Is Th!nk on the move? http://www.think.no/
>
>---------------------------------
>Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new
Yahoo.com
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
The conspiracy lives on. Since I've been a teenager, I've heard
about oil interests suppressing most efficiency advances of the auto
industry. I'm an avid reader of EV forum and enjoy the comments and
views from Doug and Murdoch.
We have a lot of disgust with GM and Ford for their short
sightedness in alternate fuel systems. With the purchase of
battery technology by the big oil interests, the conspiracy lives on
again. This makes it clear that no innovation is going to come from
well established auto interests, nor should we expect such. If we
believe we must organize and take action on a grassroots level.
This is something more than this forum.
It seems to me that the technology is available. The Prius and
other hybrids contain most of the technology needed to rapidly move
foreward to a pure EV platform. Political pressure could release
better battery technology as against public interest by an eminent
domain process. Even without this companies like Phoenix Motorcars
and Tesla are making enroads to this end. However, more investment
is needed.
I was particularly appalled by a conversation with the Toyota
representative, that the RAV4 EV was discontinued because of low
interest. I was told that 300 people could only be found to
purchase or lease new EV vehicles. I know this is bunk, I would
buy 300 vehicles myself for distribution. It's interesting how the
EV industry is as soft as a political campaign.
If we really believe in EV technology, we need to organize far
better, we need to recruit more fellow followers, and campaign
commercial and political on promoting investment. Action is the key
ingredient to revolution. Not to fraternize with the enemy is
another. No one ever again should be able to say there isn't enough
interest. We have to take it upon ourselves that this fact is
simply not true. Just as unlikely organizations like Amway bound a
brotherhood together of like interests and created greatness, the
EV community has to do the same thing. If it doesn't come from the
grass roots believers such as ourselves, it won't come from anywhere
and the oilers win.
It is now time to abandon the rhetoric of oil companies and
ineffective auto makers and build something better. Investment is
there, it takes organization and communications. The result is we
can all enjoy a better future. Think of Henry Ford building
disruptive technology to the horse and buggy. The world has
changed, but not really so much.
I invite comment and expression of willingness to take action.
The conspiracy lives on. Since I've been a teenager, I've heard
about oil interests suppressing most efficiency advances of the auto
industry. I'm an avid reader of EV forum and enjoy the comments and
views from Doug and Murdoch.
We have a lot of disgust with GM and Ford for their short
sightedness in alternate fuel systems. With the purchase of
battery technology by the big oil interests, the conspiracy lives on
again. This makes it clear that no innovation is going to come from
well established auto interests, nor should we expect such. If we
believe we must organize and take action on a grassroots level.
This is something more than this forum.
It seems to me that the technology is available. The Prius and
other hybrids contain most of the technology needed to rapidly move
foreward to a pure EV platform. Political pressure could release
better battery technology as against public interest by an eminent
domain process. Even without this companies like Phoenix Motorcars
and Tesla are making enroads to this end. However, more investment
is needed.
I was particularly appalled by a conversation with the Toyota
representative, that the RAV4 EV was discontinued because of low
interest. I was told that 300 people could only be found to
purchase or lease new EV vehicles. I know this is bunk, I would
buy 300 vehicles myself for distribution. It's interesting how the
EV industry is as soft as a political campaign.
If we really believe in EV technology, we need to organize far
better, we need to recruit more fellow followers, and campaign
commercial and political on promoting investment. Action is the key
ingredient to revolution. Not to fraternize with the enemy is
another. No one ever again should be able to say there isn't enough
interest. We have to take it upon ourselves that this fact is
simply not true. Just as unlikely organizations like Amway bound a
brotherhood together of like interests and created greatness, the
EV community has to do the same thing. If it doesn't come from the
grass roots believers such as ourselves, it won't come from anywhere
and the oilers win.
It is now time to abandon the rhetoric of oil companies and
ineffective auto makers and build something better. Investment is
there, it takes organization and communications. The result is we
can all enjoy a better future. Think of Henry Ford building
disruptive technology to the horse and buggy. The world has
changed, but not really so much.
I invite comment and expression of willingness to take action.
Jay Bern
Editor
Hello,
I'd like to compliment the general intention of your editorial
"America, what are you (not) doing?"
http://www.hidesertstar.com/articles/2006/11/04/editorial/opinion2.tx
t
but at the same time note some corrections to specific items.
About our problem of single-person commuting in petroleum cars:
Hydrogen is not "the ultimate solution", it's a method of powering
the ultimate solution, which is the electric motor. All traction
power for locomotives has been diesel-electric for many years
precisely because Internal Combustion ("IC") is not suited for
mobile applications. In the case of trains, it was the "clutch
problem", the fact that the engine is moving constantly and the
locomotive must come to a halt, or shift into new gears to go up
hills of for more weight. And braking...electric braking is so much
superior to pads.
More generally, the up-and-down motion of pistons is not suited for
conversion into the rotary motion required for cars, nor for the up-
and-down torque requirments. An electric motor makes all those
conversions with movement of electrons, not greased piston rings,
and needs no timing belt, cam shaft, flywheel, fuel filter, rods,
wrist pins, fuel injection, oil filter, etc., etc. The latest
advanced technology 3-phase brushless electric motor has,
essentially, only one moving part, and it's moving in the right
direction -- same as the wheels.
How you get electric power to a moving vehicle and its electric
motor is the problem; one method is an engine-generator ("genset")
to make the electric power that ultimately runs the wheels,
eliminating clutch, transmission and keeping the engine at a
constant speed -- the diesel-electric solution. Another method is
battery power, and yet another is fuel cells powered by tanks of
hydrogen. There are various combinations of these methods of
getting electric power to the "traction" motor. But everyone agrees
that the electric motor is the only choice for serious solutions to
motive power.
The problem with Hydrogen is that it's all hype based on a tiny
shard of truth. Fuel cells work, of course, invented in 1839; but
they only do "government" work, where cost and common sense are not
in the reckoning. The oil companies would like to spread the myth
of hydrogen, because it postpones things at least until 2025, and
gives them another generation of sterling profits -- and no
guarantee that in 2025 Hydrogen will be any less of a hype, unless
the laws of nature change by then. While the problem of electric
traction power is getting the electric to the motor in a moving
vehicle, fuel cells just push the problem back -- a problem of
getting the H2 gas (or liquid H2) to the fuel cell in the moving
vehicle.
The fuel density of H2 is low, unless it's carried in liquid form.
Like cars powered by Compressed Natural Gas ("CNG"), the tank of the
fuel cell car is immense, and the range limited. Dramatic
improvements in tank linings lessen the problem of
hydrogen "embrittlement", where the very small H2 molecules
infiltrate and weaken the metal itself, but also mean that the life
of the car will end when the expensive tanks need replacement.
If compressed H2 and fuel cells would work, why are we ignoring
CNG? CNG works, powers vans and cars, is plentiful in North America
(often flared off to get rid of it), and does not require an
expensive research program to lower the cost of fuel cells from
$300,000 to $300. Moreover, CNG is a clean fuel, allowing single-
person travel in the HOV lanes. So if H2 were more than a scam and
a lie, why not CNG?
As you point out, the only reasonable storage for H2 is not in gas
form, but in liquid. Yet liquid H2 ("LH"), like any H2, must be
manufactured; it's only present in nature in combined form, and its
very volatility means that it is going to be very energy-intensive
to separate it from its compounds and manufacture. Moreover, it is
explosive, and must be stored in cryogenic tanks at hundreds of
degrees below zero. That's why they don't load the space shuttle
until just before launch, and why stand-downs are so expensive:
compressing LH is almost as expensive as its cryogenic storage and
energy-intensive manufacture.
In fact, you can't store liquid H2 for long; like liquified natural
gas ("LNG"), it leaks out and dissipates, a consumable item.
So whatever our "solution" is to be, it's not going to be fuel
cells, and not even H2 that's used in combustion engines.
To any such argument, just ask, "why not CNG?" or, indeed, "why not
LNG". CNG is a much cheaper clean fuel, and does not require
manufacture. While making H2 actually loses net energy (you must
build power plants to make it happen), CNG is a net power win, it's
stored power free for the taking.
But in general, cars or individual mobility are not the most
efficient form of transportation; what's needed is a general
transportation plan, from air corridors to regional airports to
electric shuttles to electric trains and people-movers, and
impinging even on the way we build cities so that transportation
options are considered when they are designed. We still design
cities in the old way, build it and then worry about logistical
support and transportation; better planning would reduce the need,
for example, for single-passenger automobile commuting and even for
commuting itself. Only the most advanced planners even consider
passive heating and cooling, rooftop solar PV and water systems, and
how the home fits into the community (for example, whether the
surrounding streets and infrastructure can support the new
residents; there's an estimated $15,000 net deficit for each new
home in terms of ancillary support services funded by existing
residents, not funded by the developer and only partially shared by
the new residents).
To uncritically accept the "Hydrogen Hype", the myth that "hydrogen
will solve our problems", is not common sense; it's folly, if not an
outright scam. The hypesters almost use "Hydrogen" as a mantra, a
totem, that they never examine, just wave around. Examining the
myth is something that the scamsters don't want you to do.
-----------------------------------
So what is the solution? Well, first you need to look at the
facts.
One mistake in your editorial is:
"...A typical example is General Motors' model EV1 all-electric car:
In May 2004 (yes, 2004), its first model rolled off the GM plant.
From that supposedly glorious moment the reports about what happened
thereafter become totally incredible, if not bizarre. Unbelievable
controversies lead to the model's early demise on the scrap heap,
and nobody was invited to the funeral. This way we are focusing on a
mirage, getting nowhere..."
This is a visible example of why the articles on Wikipedia must be
critically examined.
In reality the EV1 was based on the GM-Aerovironment Impact
prototype, introduced at the 1990 L.A. auto show. Developed with a
$3 million budget from the "Sunraycer" solar car, GM later inflated
its cost to "$1 Billion", but the EV1 prototype was fully delivered
to GM at that time and for that cost.
The California Air Resources Board ("CARB") at that time was under
pressure to "reduce emission by 10%". The Clean Air Act was being
enforced, then; after 2000, it was abandoned, and CARB excused from
any such pressure. Good thing, too, saving them from
embarrassment. These percentage reduction numbers are difficult to
implement; CARB got off the hook by requiring that, by 2003 (for a
bureaucrat, that was as far in the future as fairies and gremlins
are unreal), "10%" of all cars must be pollution-free, or "Zero-
Emission". And they "mandated" that rule, knowing that the auto and
oil companies would chip away and destroy it, but it got them off
the hook at the time.
Still, there was a real Electric car, the EV1, and GM had to make
it, at least under the goad of EPA in those years. GM complied,
grudgingly, hatefully, and never intended to make more than a few
hunded of them. Still, they went into "batch", or hand-made
production, in 1996; unbelievably, the plant and its suppliers were
dismantled in 1998, showing that GM was serious about killing the
EV1, and never honestly intended to go into production. Up until a
month before 2000, GM refused to release the advanced, NiMH battery
version of the EV1; they only allowed the defective 1997 version,
based on Delco (GM) batteries, and only leased it at an exhorbitant
$600/month.
So CARB's Zero Emissions Vehicle ("ZEV") Mandate was never intended
to be taken seriously, but it was a good ploy to use as a bargaining
chip against the oil and auto company complex by California
bureaucrats. Power versus power.
At the same time, Japanese auto makers, while parroting the party
line of what was then the "Big Three", were anxious to become
accepted by the Americans. There was a lot of prejudice about
foreign autos, and Toyota and Honda were anxious to be admitted to
the American Automobile Manufacturers Association ("AAMA"). Their
solution to prejudice was to move much of their operations from
Japan to America, building plants here, and becoming largely an
American company.
Like an Aikido warrior, the Japanese joined with the force of the
rhetoric of Detroit's antipathy to mandates and to small cars,
watching the AAMA tie its future to big gas guzzlers ("Big Iron").
But while joining with the AAMA, the Japanese skillfully applied
force where it would leverage to the most effect. They were also
required to make an Electric car, but instead of dragging their
heels and making a defective, overpriced car, they both came out
with advanced NiMH battery versions of well-balanced, power-steering-
assisted, 100+ mile range EVs that put the GM efforts to shame. And
they did so at only $499 per month, forcing GM to lower the lease
cost of its inferior 1997 EV1 to the same price, and putting
pressure on GM to finally, reluctantly, release 200 of the 1999
version of the EV1 in December, 1999, almost two years the
manufacturing tools to build it had been destroyed. "One thing for
certain", GM executives might have thought as they stood, arms
crossed, refusing to acknowledge CARB's rules at one meeting in
2000, "...we can't make any more of the damned things!".
Honda's version, the EV-plus, was kept mostly secret, and limited to
only 330 vehicles, and the Toyota RAV4-EV was only leased to
fleets. But Toyota kept improving the NiMH batteries, making them
more reliable, more powerful, and more long-lasting, until the final
version ever made, in 2002, lasted over 100,000 miles (probably over
200,000 miles, no one is yet sure) -- longer than the expected life
of the car, even a Toyota car. Toyota owned a version of the
batteries in conjunction with Panasonic, which would be a powerful
bargaining chip for attaining their business aims.
The leverage, and the threat, was enough to force Detroit into a
secret deal which we can only reconstruct by presumption:
1. The Japanese would be admitted to the AAMA, which was promptly
renamed the "Automobile Manufacturers Association", which must have
galled the jingo faction;
2. The Japanese would agree never to sell a plug-in car to the
public, crushing all the lease-returns; and
3. The NiMH batteries were to be suppressed, control of the patents
sold to and held by Chevron Oil, which still in fact controls their
use. No one would be allowed to import into the US auto market any
version of the NiMH batteries large enough to power a plug-in
Electric car; and the Toyota-Panasonic EV-95 batteries were removed
from production, the line closed, and not made available even for
sale to Toyota RAV4-EV customers (we only get used modules, taken
from crushed vehicles, still as serviceable as when they were new).
The "small-format" Prius batteries are constructed so that they
cannot be used in a plug-in EV, the chemistry and discharge curve
preclude it.
Ironically enough, while Detroit believed all its own rhetoric, and
chained itself to Big Iron, the Japanese acted to the contrary,
learning how to make money building a small, fuel-efficient
excellent car. This worked, while gas was cheap; but with rising
gas prices, Big Iron sank into the swamps of automotive history,
along with the fortunes of Detroit. The Japanese triumph was
complete, and the debacle, and spectacle, of Ford and GM was their
own doing. As if a big Sumo warrior had tripped over his own feet,
and the opponent just deftly stepped out of the way of the falling
Big Iron.
When GM released the 1997 EV1, with its defective GM batteries that
often failed and gave it a range of at most 70 miles, they expected
it to flop; unbelievably, and with horror, they watched the first
500 sell out, and they were forced to build a total of 850 of this
model. After the reputation of the battery problems had doomed the
1997, they thought, they started upgrading, under the barb of CARB,
to Panasonic lead-acid batteries that upped the range from 60-70
miles to about 100 or even 110 miles, and eliminating all battery
failures. Making even the lead-acid EV1 a viable car for many (my
wife still mourns her lost EV1, it was just what she wanted, and she
loved it). The battery complaints were just too obvious, but all
CARB did was force them to replace the faulty batteries. GM was not
done, however; in 1998, they "discovered" a flaw in the charge-
wiring, a part of their "magnecharger" system and completely
unrelated to the EV1 running. They confiscated all the 1997 EV1,
and kept all 650 of them for 14 months; only the ones which had been
upgraged to the Panasonic lead-acid batteries, from the defective GM
Delco batteries, were released, under the guise that GM would soon
release the 1999, superior NiMH version.
Thus, Wikipedia makes ANOTHER mistake of saying that "800 were
leased out of 1150 built", because these 300 EV1 were never
returned. In fact, all 1150 EV1 were leased, some of them twice,
despite hostility from GM and vindictive hatred that extended to
charging former lessees for "damages and wear" on the EV1 cars AFTER
they were crushed, and then illegally (against the FCRA) trying to
damage our credit rating.
GM started crushing the 1997 EV1 as early as 1998; and they have not
yet completed crushing the last one, because insider reports from GM
indicate that a couple dozen EV1 are still left at one proving
ground in Michigan, used by the top GM brass to tool around the
plant (and possibly laugh at CARB and EV drivers).
So the date "2004" for the start of production, is just wrong,
Wikipedia is misleading.
------------------------------------------
The solution:
What is the most logical vehicle, given current technology and
existing resources?
Batteries: NiMH for reliability, cost, performance.
---------------------------------------------------
Chevron wound up with control of the worldwide patent rights to the
NiMH batteries, needed for EVs such as the Toyota RAV4-EV. NiMH are
the best for EVs when using battery management systems such as the
Toyota RAV4-EV. "Large-format" specially-constructed NiMH
batteries, such as the Toyota-Panasonic "EV-95", satisfy three
important criteria:
1. Can deliver large burst of power for reasonable acceleration
without assistance.
2. Deep-cycle, meaning a range (from full to empty) of at least 100
miles (capacity of 16 to 25 kWh).
3. Cycle-life of at least 1000, meaning battery life of more than
100,000 miles.
Not only do the EV-95, still in use up to 10 years in the same
Toyota RAV4-EV, do all these things, but their failure rate in
miniscule; in the low single digits per million cells. And they
last longer, with a good Battery (BMS) and Thermal (TMS) Management
System, than the life of the car -- even a Toyota car.
Not all NiMH batteries are suitable for EV applications; for
example, the specialty Prius batteries cannot be strung together to
form an EV battery pack. Also, NiMH really don't do well on huge
bursts of power, and you have to watch the heat buildup.
So for this best of all possible batteries with the lowest life-
cycle cost, they do best with a moderately-high peak demand and with
a normally steady power drain (and recharge). Lead-acid seems more
resiliant when talking about 400 amp power draws.
Ultracaps: for instantaneous power and regen.
---------------------------------------------
A bank of Ultra-Capacitors, storing the volatile power draws of stop-
and-go or uphill-and-down driving, would charge up during the lesser
demands of normal driving, and discharge for bursts of power. The
UC bank can handle acceleration events; conversely, receive large
input of power during regenerative braking, when the energy of
motion is converted back to electric and sucked into the battery.
During normal driving, the UCs would buffer the battery pack against
huge power draws and make the BMS less of a challenge.
The UC is able to recharge at its leisure, usually, not subject to
cycling limitations as much as the larger battery pack.
Drive train: motor is the only source of traction power.
-------------------------------------------------------
The most satisfying Electric car design has the motor as the ONLY
source of traction power. With an ultimate ratio of about 12-to-1,
direct drive can power the EV from zero to 80 mph within a 13K red
line; faster speeds require a second gear "overdrive", as used on
the Tesla. By eliminating the mechanical linkages from the genset
to the wheels, a simpler design is attained at a minimal loss, if
any, in efficiency.
So the plug-in hybrid variety would have a small gas or diesel (or,
as GM proposed, a gas-turbine)
http://www.autoworld.com/news/GMC/Series_Hybrid.htm
used ONLY if the batteries are low, and only used to charge the
batteries -- or run the vehicle directly, if on a long trip.
This backup genset really enables the one serial-hybrid plug-in EV
("PHEV") to combine TWO missions into one vehicle: daily commuting
(all electric) and long-distance trips (serial hybrid mode).
Calculating from the experience with the Toyota RAV4-EV, which only
holds 28 to 30 kWh of electric, if you drive it at 80 mph, you have
a range of only 80 miles for the one hour of driving until it's down
below 15%. That means that it takes no more than 28 kW of constant
electric power to keep that ungainly, large vehicle at 80 mph; a
more aerodynamic EV1 might take only about 10-15 kW (the 1997 lead-
acid Delco EV1 went about 60 miles at 60 mph, drawing down its 14
kWh to about zero, thus needing at most 14 kW).
Some scoff that an EV can have the power of a V8; but they should
remember that all modern locomotives are diesel-electric, with
motors as the sole source of traction power. And that's power.
RESULT: Drive oil-free
----------------------
The resulting PHEV would allow normal driving in all-EV mode; with a
modest solar rooftop PV system, you can make more electric credits
than you can use up by night-time charging. This is, as EV drivers
know, uniquely satisfying and intriguing to all.
Even without a solar PV system, you can charge up at night for no
more than 8 cents per kWh; since even the worst EV gets 3 miles per
kWh, your driving can cost no more than 2.7 cents per mile in fuel
costs, and would cost out at zero if you have a solar PV system
amortized at less than your old electric bill. Maintenance, for the
Toyota RAV4-EV, is minimal to non-existent.
This essentially shifts some gasoline costs, and usage, to payments
on a solar PV system and to electric power, almost all of which is
produced by domestic resources. This would not only lower the cost
of gasoline for those still driving IC, but would also lessen our
catastrophic dependence on overseas and domestic oil dictators.
Many folks, in their daily lives, could drive free of gasoline, and
know that they were helping the grid equalize loads. This idea is
so compelling, many people would rather FORGO long trips if it means
burning gasoline.
These sorts of vehicles need to be developed by auto makers, there
are a dozen associated and derivative configurations, from serial-
hybrid pickups with almost no battery pack to race cars with all
ultracaps, sedans, etc.
But with all the hundreds of car makers, and all the thousands of
design engineers striving for uniqueness, there are NO makers of
such cars, and NO move in that direction. It's been known, at least
from 1969, that such configurations were possible; the brushless PM
and induction motors just made it more manifestly difficult to
ignore.
Such vehicles are possible, now, and could be manufactured for less
than the cost of many existing Internal Combustion vehicles.
---------------------------------------QUOTE FROM HIDESERTSTAR:
http://www.hidesertstar.com/articles/2006/11/04/editorial/opinion2.tx
t
One of the stories in my book "Uncommon Sense" is titled, "Wake Up,
America." It is a plea to become actively involved in research and
development of a healthier and more environmentally friendly power
source for our always-hungry dire necessity on wheels. A cry for
less dependence on fossil fuels by using hydrogen and biodiesel
instead.
Copies of "Uncommon Sense" were widely distributed to parties
presumably interested in that topic, even including our president,
governor and many high-ranking diplomats, all protectors of our well-
being.
Expectations of any reaction to that act were not high; however,
against all odds of being thrown into the slush file, the story got
attention!
Really!
It gave reason for great satisfaction, were it not that to great
surprise the follow-up was leading to excessive prudence, tantamount
to being afraid to jump from a one-foot-high mountain!
There are hybrids aplenty on the roads already, but all are
intermediate solutions leading toward the ultimate goal. Using
hydrogen via fuel cells is the last phase to arrive at the stage in
which non-polluting liquefied hydrogen is available at the pump like
gasoline.
It seems that there are already some facilities for mass production
of the fuel, ready to go but not operating yet. If that is correct,
what are we waiting for?
And what is biodiesel? Nothing new: When Rudolf Diesel from Germany
invented the diesel motor, he of course used vegetable oil as fuel,
since at that time petro diesel wasn't available. It is a completely
natural, renewable oil, applicable to almost any situation where
conventional petroleum diesel is used - 100 percent vegetable and
derived from field crops such as rapeseed, nuts, corn, sunflower,
etc. Even used cooking oil can be used.
A fill-up at McDonald's? They and other restaurants have plenty of
the stuff!
Biodiesel can be used in existing motors, has the same mpg rating,
is renewable, non-polluting and produces no visible smoke nor
noxious odor.
Are we not moving - sitting on our hands?
No, not entirely.
Our Department of Energy provides half of the funds needed for
a "Hydrogen Learning Demonstration" program in partnership with
giant oil, car and fuel cell industries. Some participants could
have alternative motives, which may be the reason for the lack
of "progress."
Another red-hot item is the electric car, not the existing hybrids
but fully electric. Studies to push these cars beyond the less-than-
100-miles driving range and higher speeds have been so promising
that indeed an impressive number of car manufacturers, domestic as
well as abroad, decided to make trial production runs. An assembly-
line trial doesn't come cheap, requiring extensive design,
engineering and field testing. For a big company, each run is in the
thousands of vehicles.
But, and there often appears a "but" in life, very disturbing
information on all electric cars appeared in papers, on the Internet
and even in a film. Very few of the affordable electric cars from
the trial runs ever hit the market. No field tests on well-protected
grounds. They were all crushed and shipped to smelters - gone
forever.
A typical example is General Motors' model EV1 all-electric car: In
May 2004 (yes, 2004), its first model rolled off the GM plant. From
that supposedly glorious moment the reports about what happened
thereafter become totally incredible, if not bizarre. Unbelievable
controversies lead to the model's early demise on the scrap heap,
and nobody was invited to the funeral. This way we are focusing on a
mirage, getting nowhere. Overblown caution? Or?
For those of you who want full information, including about the Sony
film "Who Killed the Electric Car," visit the Web site mentioned
below.
Other players in the drama are the shipping companies, big and
small. They imposed a refusal to ship electric cars anywhere in the
world. All those ships plying the oceans every day, carrying
automobiles but not electric cars? Absolute nonsense! Japan's all-
electric car, "Hiroshi Elica," built on its main island, cannot be
shipped to other Japanese islands.
Will somebody please tell the shipping companies that having
electric cars onboard doesn't mean that the ship will sink?
Summarizing all the above, one might conclude that for whatever
reason(s), our country has to remain dependent on fossil fuels and
their directly related terrible human sacrifices as well as
increasing environmental hardships for time to come.
In the world's orchestra we play leading instruments, but they
urgently need a tune-up, enabling us to enjoy the music again.
References: wikipedia.org, search for "General Motors EV1"; Jay
Bern's book "Bittersweet Crude" and short-story collection "Uncommon
Sense."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rav 4 EV just ended on Ebay...$58,100.00!!! There were many people
that wanted it. This vehicle has to Toyota's all time residual value
leader! No warrenty, lots of miles, and nearly 60k. Are they watching
this stuff?
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 02:15:23 -0000, you wrote:
[...]
>
>If we really believe in EV technology, we need to organize far
>better, we need to recruit more fellow followers, and campaign
>commercial and political on promoting investment. Action is the key
>ingredient to revolution. Not to fraternize with the enemy is
>another. No one ever again should be able to say there isn't enough
>interest. We have to take it upon ourselves that this fact is
>simply not true. Just as unlikely organizations like Amway bound a
>brotherhood together of like interests and created greatness, the
>EV community has to do the same thing. If it doesn't come from the
>grass roots believers such as ourselves, it won't come from anywhere
>and the oilers win.
I empathize with your reaction to the Toyota claim. As I put it to
others, I don't like being lied-to, and this is why, years ago, when I
heard such claims from Toyota and others, of lack of interest, and
knew them to be patently dishonest (from having followed the extensive
discussions of drivers and EV1ers and so-on), I knew I was onto a
story of sorts.
Over the years, it has been easier to be involved, in a way, if you
live in California. This is not a criticism... just making an
observation. However, this is a geographic over-simplification.
Bill Moore, for example, in doing good web journalism on EVs, and
doing his part, is based out of Nebraska.... the internet is a good
liberating instrument of communication and a way to shed sunlight on
lies and bring home the truth. You don't have to be at the scene, and
the scene can be anywhere, not just in California.
One constructive action-oriented thing I have seen develop over the
last few years is Plug In America, where Paul Scott is a top guy and
Chelsea Sexton has become a spokersperson. I gather that it formed
from the dontcrush.com campaign when there was a great deal of protest
and firmament and organization, such as in the efforts to save RAV4
EVs and EV1s, and from there Paul (and others, I assume) decided not
to let the momentum just die off, but to keep the organizational
structure going. I think this was a good idea. Another organization
that I think has made a real "dent" is Felix Kramer's Calcars.org...
who have built, and continue to blaze territory, in Plug-In Hybrids.
I think we are at a point where we are seeing some belated progress in
our call to overcome the global blockade on true all-out competition
in cleaner better more conserving transportation technologies,
systems, and services. So, I think part of what you are calling for
is already here, and there are myriad organizations, private and
otherwise, which are performing some role.
But, even with all these efforts and organizations, if you can find
additional focus and define the next thing, then good. I'm not
personally inclined to "calls to action", as I define my role and do
it, and don't go further than that, but I must admit I agree with your
pointing out of a certain bottleneck that is frustrating.
I think there is a large untapped group of PV solar users
that would find the next step is the EV. It was an outgrowth
of my over-sized PV system that first got me to looking for
ways to use my excess energy, as I will not sell to the grid,
and am only connected to the utility for back-up.
John in Sylmar, CA solar powered 1981 conversion
Right-on, I'm all for it! However the dollar and Euro values are directly tied
to oil. If the truth gets out about EVs the western economies would completely
collapse, so the Council on Foreign Relations will never allow the truth to be
known in the mass public about EVs; there is too much at issue. It's a bigger
war than you think it is, Murdoch.
---- murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 02:15:23 -0000, you wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >If we really believe in EV technology, we need to organize far
> >better, we need to recruit more fellow followers, and campaign
> >commercial and political on promoting investment. Action is the key
> >ingredient to revolution. Not to fraternize with the enemy is
> >another. No one ever again should be able to say there isn't enough
> >interest. We have to take it upon ourselves that this fact is
> >simply not true. Just as unlikely organizations like Amway bound a
> >brotherhood together of like interests and created greatness, the
> >EV community has to do the same thing. If it doesn't come from the
> >grass roots believers such as ourselves, it won't come from anywhere
> >and the oilers win.
>
> I empathize with your reaction to the Toyota claim. As I put it to
> others, I don't like being lied-to, and this is why, years ago, when I
> heard such claims from Toyota and others, of lack of interest, and
> knew them to be patently dishonest (from having followed the extensive
> discussions of drivers and EV1ers and so-on), I knew I was onto a
> story of sorts.
>
> Over the years, it has been easier to be involved, in a way, if you
> live in California. This is not a criticism... just making an
> observation. However, this is a geographic over-simplification.
>
> Bill Moore, for example, in doing good web journalism on EVs, and
> doing his part, is based out of Nebraska.... the internet is a good
> liberating instrument of communication and a way to shed sunlight on
> lies and bring home the truth. You don't have to be at the scene, and
> the scene can be anywhere, not just in California.
>
> One constructive action-oriented thing I have seen develop over the
> last few years is Plug In America, where Paul Scott is a top guy and
> Chelsea Sexton has become a spokersperson. I gather that it formed
> from the dontcrush.com campaign when there was a great deal of protest
> and firmament and organization, such as in the efforts to save RAV4
> EVs and EV1s, and from there Paul (and others, I assume) decided not
> to let the momentum just die off, but to keep the organizational
> structure going. I think this was a good idea. Another organization
> that I think has made a real "dent" is Felix Kramer's Calcars.org...
> who have built, and continue to blaze territory, in Plug-In Hybrids.
>
>
> I think we are at a point where we are seeing some belated progress in
> our call to overcome the global blockade on true all-out competition
> in cleaner better more conserving transportation technologies,
> systems, and services. So, I think part of what you are calling for
> is already here, and there are myriad organizations, private and
> otherwise, which are performing some role.
>
> But, even with all these efforts and organizations, if you can find
> additional focus and define the next thing, then good. I'm not
> personally inclined to "calls to action", as I define my role and do
> it, and don't go further than that, but I must admit I agree with your
> pointing out of a certain bottleneck that is frustrating.
>
Amen Brother!!!
Well.. I'm not starting with electric :( however
I am seriously working on a vehicle... small gas
for starters but electric with removable gas
generator module is in the works for the next
phase...
I can and am designing the car from the ground
up... with numerous off the shelf parts...
so I fully understand what your saying here...
and strongly believe that from the roots up is
the ONLY way to change.. :)
one of my ideas is to make part of the battery
pack removable so that it can be replace with an
inboard gas generator...
this would give more batteries for around town
use.. but less batteries, plus unlimited range
for long trips... without changing the
weight/ballence of the vehicle...
Timothy...
--- Doug Felsenthal <dougfelsenthal@...>
wrote:
> The conspiracy lives on. Since I've been a
> teenager, I've heard
> about oil interests suppressing most efficiency
> advances of the auto
> industry. I'm an avid reader of EV forum and
> enjoy the comments and
> views from Doug and Murdoch.
>
> We have a lot of disgust with GM and Ford for
> their short
> sightedness in alternate fuel systems. With
> the purchase of
> battery technology by the big oil interests,
> the conspiracy lives on
> again. This makes it clear that no innovation
> is going to come from
> well established auto interests, nor should we
> expect such. If we
> believe we must organize and take action on a
> grassroots level.
> This is something more than this forum.
>
> It seems to me that the technology is
> available. The Prius and
> other hybrids contain most of the technology
> needed to rapidly move
> foreward to a pure EV platform. Political
> pressure could release
> better battery technology as against public
> interest by an eminent
> domain process. Even without this companies
> like Phoenix Motorcars
> and Tesla are making enroads to this end.
> However, more investment
> is needed.
>
> I was particularly appalled by a conversation
> with the Toyota
> representative, that the RAV4 EV was
> discontinued because of low
> interest. I was told that 300 people could
> only be found to
> purchase or lease new EV vehicles. I know this
> is bunk, I would
> buy 300 vehicles myself for distribution. It's
> interesting how the
> EV industry is as soft as a political campaign.
>
>
> If we really believe in EV technology, we need
> to organize far
> better, we need to recruit more fellow
> followers, and campaign
> commercial and political on promoting
> investment. Action is the key
> ingredient to revolution. Not to fraternize
> with the enemy is
> another. No one ever again should be able to
> say there isn't enough
> interest. We have to take it upon ourselves
> that this fact is
> simply not true. Just as unlikely
> organizations like Amway bound a
> brotherhood together of like interests and
> created greatness, the
> EV community has to do the same thing. If it
> doesn't come from the
> grass roots believers such as ourselves, it
> won't come from anywhere
> and the oilers win.
>
> It is now time to abandon the rhetoric of oil
> companies and
> ineffective auto makers and build something
> better. Investment is
> there, it takes organization and
> communications. The result is we
> can all enjoy a better future. Think of Henry
> Ford building
> disruptive technology to the horse and buggy.
> The world has
> changed, but not really so much.
>
> I invite comment and expression of willingness
> to take action.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business
(http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com)
CHRIS PAINE Running On Empty
Whether or not you are aware of the growing sense of urgency
creeping into the debate about `the greenhouse effect', and how to
deal most effectively with issues like global warming, chances are
that, if you own a car, you will have some clue about the
skyrocketing price of oil.
Imagine, however, if there was a car on the market that was stylish,
fast, environmentally friendly and relatively cheap to run.
Imagine an electric car that you could recharge at home by simply
plugging it in to a mains outlet in your garage. Sounds a bit
futuristic, doesn't it? Amazingly enough, a larger number of these
cars were produced in the late '90s – and by all accounts, dearly
loved by those who drove them.
Even more amazing is the fact that a short time later they were gone
from the roads altogether.
In their infinite wisdom, General Motors Corporation had practically
every single one crushed and banished to a remote dump in the
Arizona Desert. How could this happen? Chris Paine's engaging
documentary, Who Killed The Electric Car?, examines this case of
corporate myopia and malfeasance, ultimately leaving the viewer
feeling an unusual blend of outrage and optimism.
Speaking by phone from California, the director says he is as
surprised as anybody that a film like his has not been made before
now. "Most people never even heard of them, so we, you know, became
convinced that the story needed to be told. Unfortunately
investigative journalism is not what it was, and documentaries are
sometimes filling in the gaps.
"The electric car technology really exploded, in terms of what was
possible in 1990, when engineers came up with a way of making
electric cars work on AC power. So suddenly you had a car that was
not only extremely fast – the EV1 would go 185 mph if you took the
regulator off it – but also if you stepped on the brakes, the power
would go back into the batteries instead of being wasted in the
brake linings.
"California saw these cars and they went, `Wow, we knew you guys
could do it; now you've proved it, you have to do it'. They forced
the car companies to make these cars, and when the programs were
cancelled and they took them off the road, the media was basically
told that nobody wanted these cars and that they were a market
failure. So the press went, `Oh…okay, nobody wanted the cars; that
sounds pretty reasonable. End of story'. But those of us who had a
chance to drive the cars said, `What? No, they were amazing!'
"I was a little skeptical when I first got one," admits Paine. "I
wasn't sure I really wanted to plug in a car, or that it was going
to work out, because I've got to drive more than a hundred miles
sometimes. But boy, it pretty much became my primary car in about a
month. I hardly ever, ever drove my gas car after that."
While the EV1 has been consigned to automotive history, the film
also points out that a new breed of `hybrid', petrol and electric-
powered cars, like the Toyota Prius, have fared somewhat better in
an extremely fickle marketing environment. Paine notes that the
reasons for this are relatively simple. "They're still gasoline
cars; they don't allow you to plug them in, and so you could argue
that as long as you have a car that is running on gasoline, you're
not going to have any opposition from the oil industry."
Given the potential benefits to consumers, it's hard to believe the
electric car didn't become an overnight sensation. "Part of it,"
says Paine, "was that when they first came out, oil prices were low,
petrol prices were low, and everybody wanted to have a truck, or an
SUV, so it was hard to compete – that's what the car companies say."
While sharply critical of the main players in the story, Chris Paine
is effusive in his praise for actor and sometime political activist
Martin Sheen, whose narration lends a good deal of credibility to
the arguments advanced in Who Killed The Electric Car?
"He heard about our movie and he took time out of his very busy
schedule to do it – and he donated the money we paid him to a
charity. So yeah, he walks the walk like few people do; he goes to
the wall, and I really respect him for that. It's kind of funny,
too, because, An Inconvenient Truth had Al Gore as the narrator, and
so we have sort of the `TV president' in our movie."
Posted on November 2, 2006 11:23 AM
http://www.xpressmag.com.au/archives/2006/11/chris_paine_run.php
It has not been below freezing in a few years in Southern California,
But I would like to preheat my conversion before taking my
granddaughter to school. I prefer 220v, but can use 120v AC or DC.
Where is a source of ceramic heater elements?
John, in Sylmar, CA
A123 Lithium Ion or Ultracaps (for power dense needs) and hot-running
(300 degrees C) Sodium Metal (for more energy-dense needs).
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17706&ch=energy
>To address fuel-cell cost, which comes largely from the use of expensive
catalysts such as platinum, researchers at GE's labs in Niskayuna, NY, are
drastically reducing the size of the fuel cells, which are "by far the most
expensive component of the bus"--significantly more expensive than batteries,
says Vlatko Vlatkovic, a leader in electronics and energy-conversion research at
GE.
>
Seems like lately these are going in the $35k-$67k range.
>4588444863 11/15/05 $53,100.00 vehicle year 2002
>4597310882 12/18/05 $35,200.00 vehicle year 2003
>4633576306 4/30/06 $67,300.00 vehicle year 2003
For only $70k, one could have an eBox retrofitted, new, with Lithium
Ion Batteries by AC Propulsion.
This is obviously not a decision for your average family car buyer,
but I don't think these $50k+ RAV4 EVs are being bought used by folks
making an average-family-car purchase.
>On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 11:10:28 -0800, "Myron" <mdahn@...> wrote:
>
>Hi Folks,
>
>I've decided to list my RAV4-EV on eBay:
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220045706052
>
>No reserve price, bidding started at a dollar.
>
>Thanks,
>-Myron
I just received my October issue of Current EVents as published by the
Electric Auto Association @ http://www.eaaev.org/ by Amanda Kovattana.
The October 2006 issue (yes, it just arrived on 11/4/06) has an
article about the Th!nk City on page 7. The article is quite
interesting and of particular interest is the statement that "The
company has set a goal for the car to be ready within 10-18 months".
Doug - Great perspective. I've not been able to see the movie yet.
Do you know of a web connection to get a download or a source for
someone who is a bit behind.
Thanks,
Douglas Felsenthal
--- In electric_vehicles_for_sale@yahoogroups.com, "doug korthof"
<live_oil_free@...> wrote:
>
> CHRIS PAINE Running On Empty
> Whether or not you are aware of the growing sense of urgency
> creeping into the debate about `the greenhouse effect', and how to
> deal most effectively with issues like global warming, chances are
> that, if you own a car, you will have some clue about the
> skyrocketing price of oil.
>
> Imagine, however, if there was a car on the market that was
stylish,
> fast, environmentally friendly and relatively cheap to run.
> Imagine an electric car that you could recharge at home by simply
> plugging it in to a mains outlet in your garage. Sounds a bit
> futuristic, doesn't it? Amazingly enough, a larger number of these
> cars were produced in the late '90s – and by all accounts, dearly
> loved by those who drove them.
>
> Even more amazing is the fact that a short time later they were
gone
> from the roads altogether.
>
> In their infinite wisdom, General Motors Corporation had
practically
> every single one crushed and banished to a remote dump in the
> Arizona Desert. How could this happen? Chris Paine's engaging
> documentary, Who Killed The Electric Car?, examines this case of
> corporate myopia and malfeasance, ultimately leaving the viewer
> feeling an unusual blend of outrage and optimism.
>
> Speaking by phone from California, the director says he is as
> surprised as anybody that a film like his has not been made before
> now. "Most people never even heard of them, so we, you know, became
> convinced that the story needed to be told. Unfortunately
> investigative journalism is not what it was, and documentaries are
> sometimes filling in the gaps.
>
> "The electric car technology really exploded, in terms of what was
> possible in 1990, when engineers came up with a way of making
> electric cars work on AC power. So suddenly you had a car that was
> not only extremely fast – the EV1 would go 185 mph if you took the
> regulator off it – but also if you stepped on the brakes, the power
> would go back into the batteries instead of being wasted in the
> brake linings.
>
> "California saw these cars and they went, `Wow, we knew you guys
> could do it; now you've proved it, you have to do it'. They forced
> the car companies to make these cars, and when the programs were
> cancelled and they took them off the road, the media was basically
> told that nobody wanted these cars and that they were a market
> failure. So the press went, `Oh…okay, nobody wanted the cars; that
> sounds pretty reasonable. End of story'. But those of us who had a
> chance to drive the cars said, `What? No, they were amazing!'
>
> "I was a little skeptical when I first got one," admits Paine. "I
> wasn't sure I really wanted to plug in a car, or that it was going
> to work out, because I've got to drive more than a hundred miles
> sometimes. But boy, it pretty much became my primary car in about a
> month. I hardly ever, ever drove my gas car after that."
>
> While the EV1 has been consigned to automotive history, the film
> also points out that a new breed of `hybrid', petrol and electric-
> powered cars, like the Toyota Prius, have fared somewhat better in
> an extremely fickle marketing environment. Paine notes that the
> reasons for this are relatively simple. "They're still gasoline
> cars; they don't allow you to plug them in, and so you could argue
> that as long as you have a car that is running on gasoline, you're
> not going to have any opposition from the oil industry."
>
> Given the potential benefits to consumers, it's hard to believe the
> electric car didn't become an overnight sensation. "Part of it,"
> says Paine, "was that when they first came out, oil prices were
low,
> petrol prices were low, and everybody wanted to have a truck, or an
> SUV, so it was hard to compete – that's what the car companies
say."
> While sharply critical of the main players in the story, Chris
Paine
> is effusive in his praise for actor and sometime political activist
> Martin Sheen, whose narration lends a good deal of credibility to
> the arguments advanced in Who Killed The Electric Car?
>
> "He heard about our movie and he took time out of his very busy
> schedule to do it – and he donated the money we paid him to a
> charity. So yeah, he walks the walk like few people do; he goes to
> the wall, and I really respect him for that. It's kind of funny,
> too, because, An Inconvenient Truth had Al Gore as the narrator,
and
> so we have sort of the `TV president' in our movie."
>
> Posted on November 2, 2006 11:23 AM
> http://www.xpressmag.com.au/archives/2006/11/chris_paine_run.php
>
I'm afraid there are no legal copies available for download from the web.
The dvd will be out on Nov. 14th- you can buy it from Plug In America and
support EV efforts in the process!
www.pluginamerica.com
chelsea
>From: "Doug Felsenthal" <doug.felsenthal@...>
>Reply-To: electric_vehicles_for_sale@yahoogroups.com
>To: electric_vehicles_for_sale@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [electric_vehicles_for_sale] Re: Chris Paine quoted in Australia,
>WKtEC makes its point
>Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:23:17 -0000
>
>Doug - Great perspective. I've not been able to see the movie yet.
>Do you know of a web connection to get a download or a source for
>someone who is a bit behind.
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Douglas Felsenthal
>
>
>--- In electric_vehicles_for_sale@yahoogroups.com, "doug korthof"
><live_oil_free@...> wrote:
> >
> > CHRIS PAINE Running On Empty
> > Whether or not you are aware of the growing sense of urgency
> > creeping into the debate about `the greenhouse effect', and how to
> > deal most effectively with issues like global warming, chances are
> > that, if you own a car, you will have some clue about the
> > skyrocketing price of oil.
> >
> > Imagine, however, if there was a car on the market that was
>stylish,
> > fast, environmentally friendly and relatively cheap to run.
> > Imagine an electric car that you could recharge at home by simply
> > plugging it in to a mains outlet in your garage. Sounds a bit
> > futuristic, doesn't it? Amazingly enough, a larger number of these
> > cars were produced in the late '90s – and by all accounts, dearly
> > loved by those who drove them.
> >
> > Even more amazing is the fact that a short time later they were
>gone
> > from the roads altogether.
> >
> > In their infinite wisdom, General Motors Corporation had
>practically
> > every single one crushed and banished to a remote dump in the
> > Arizona Desert. How could this happen? Chris Paine's engaging
> > documentary, Who Killed The Electric Car?, examines this case of
> > corporate myopia and malfeasance, ultimately leaving the viewer
> > feeling an unusual blend of outrage and optimism.
> >
> > Speaking by phone from California, the director says he is as
> > surprised as anybody that a film like his has not been made before
> > now. "Most people never even heard of them, so we, you know, became
> > convinced that the story needed to be told. Unfortunately
> > investigative journalism is not what it was, and documentaries are
> > sometimes filling in the gaps.
> >
> > "The electric car technology really exploded, in terms of what was
> > possible in 1990, when engineers came up with a way of making
> > electric cars work on AC power. So suddenly you had a car that was
> > not only extremely fast – the EV1 would go 185 mph if you took the
> > regulator off it – but also if you stepped on the brakes, the power
> > would go back into the batteries instead of being wasted in the
> > brake linings.
> >
> > "California saw these cars and they went, `Wow, we knew you guys
> > could do it; now you've proved it, you have to do it'. They forced
> > the car companies to make these cars, and when the programs were
> > cancelled and they took them off the road, the media was basically
> > told that nobody wanted these cars and that they were a market
> > failure. So the press went, `Oh…okay, nobody wanted the cars; that
> > sounds pretty reasonable. End of story'. But those of us who had a
> > chance to drive the cars said, `What? No, they were amazing!'
> >
> > "I was a little skeptical when I first got one," admits Paine. "I
> > wasn't sure I really wanted to plug in a car, or that it was going
> > to work out, because I've got to drive more than a hundred miles
> > sometimes. But boy, it pretty much became my primary car in about a
> > month. I hardly ever, ever drove my gas car after that."
> >
> > While the EV1 has been consigned to automotive history, the film
> > also points out that a new breed of `hybrid', petrol and electric-
> > powered cars, like the Toyota Prius, have fared somewhat better in
> > an extremely fickle marketing environment. Paine notes that the
> > reasons for this are relatively simple. "They're still gasoline
> > cars; they don't allow you to plug them in, and so you could argue
> > that as long as you have a car that is running on gasoline, you're
> > not going to have any opposition from the oil industry."
> >
> > Given the potential benefits to consumers, it's hard to believe the
> > electric car didn't become an overnight sensation. "Part of it,"
> > says Paine, "was that when they first came out, oil prices were
>low,
> > petrol prices were low, and everybody wanted to have a truck, or an
> > SUV, so it was hard to compete – that's what the car companies
>say."
> > While sharply critical of the main players in the story, Chris
>Paine
> > is effusive in his praise for actor and sometime political activist
> > Martin Sheen, whose narration lends a good deal of credibility to
> > the arguments advanced in Who Killed The Electric Car?
> >
> > "He heard about our movie and he took time out of his very busy
> > schedule to do it – and he donated the money we paid him to a
> > charity. So yeah, he walks the walk like few people do; he goes to
> > the wall, and I really respect him for that. It's kind of funny,
> > too, because, An Inconvenient Truth had Al Gore as the narrator,
>and
> > so we have sort of the `TV president' in our movie."
> >
> > Posted on November 2, 2006 11:23 AM
> > http://www.xpressmag.com.au/archives/2006/11/chris_paine_run.php
> >
>
>
>
Chelsea, any luck setting up the web site so we can purchase online (I do not
count the email link as an option)? Any progress on adding it to the store like
the t-shirts and stickers?
Chelsea Sexton <evchels@...> wrote: I'm afraid there are no legal copies
available for download from the web.
The dvd will be out on Nov. 14th- you can buy it from Plug In America and
support EV efforts in the process!
www.pluginamerica.com
chelsea
Is Th!nk on the move? http://www.think.no/
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi Eddie,
The tshirts and stickers are sold through our cafepress shop... we can't add
our own merchandise to that. Our website does not currently have an online
store feature for the dvd- we are setting up a paypal acct (it's being
validated now), or people can send checks.
So far, the email feature has been working very well however...there's no
financial info transmitted that way, just order details.
chelsea
>From: Eddie <eddiecolumbus@...>
>Reply-To: electric_vehicles_for_sale@yahoogroups.com
>To: electric_vehicles_for_sale@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [electric_vehicles_for_sale] Re: Chris Paine quoted in
>Australia, WKtEC makes its point
>Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 20:01:59 -0800 (PST)
>
>Chelsea, any luck setting up the web site so we can purchase online (I do
>not count the email link as an option)? Any progress on adding it to the
>store like the t-shirts and stickers?
>
>Chelsea Sexton <evchels@...> wrote: I'm afraid there are no legal
>copies available for download from the web.
>The dvd will be out on Nov. 14th- you can buy it from Plug In America and
>support EV efforts in the process!
>
>www.pluginamerica.com
>
>chelsea
>
>
>
>
>
>Is Th!nk on the move? http://www.think.no/
>
>---------------------------------
>Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Offline 
Send Email
Online Now 
