http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/02/doug_korthof_electric_car_acti.php

Doug and I did not see eye-to-eye on many issues, but he was a tireless,
impassioned proponent of EVs.  He did the movement a great deal of good.  He
will be missed.

Sincerely,

Forbes

bcc: various

Not that ECD had pretended to be serious about the battery business
for many years, but an interesting development I guess.  I sort of
wish Doug were around to see it.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/02/14/energy-conversion-devices-file\
s-chapter-11-shrs-off-80/?partner=yahootix
>TECH | 2/14/2012 @ 3:16PM |3,132 views
>Energy Conversion Devices Files Chapter 11; Shrs Off 80%

I have an XP 2116 DC motor. It says "Advanced" as a name brand.

Here is a photo.

http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/vv206/jepstr67/EVMotorXP2116.jpg

Can anyone point me to a controller I can buy so I can use this in a boat.

I think it is from a GEM EV, and is 72 Volt, but I'm not sure on that.

Thanks in advance for any info you may have.

Todd MN

Here is a Bimmer we can all believe in:

125 Kw electric motor
32 KWH batterie array with 192 cells
4,000 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight
0-60 mph in 8.5 seconds
90 mile battery range

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/automobiles/taking-a-spin-in-an-electric-bmw-a\
ctivee.html?_r=1&hp

And now, the Fisker Karma, the other PHEV besides the Chevy Volt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/automobiles/autoreviews/fisker-karma-review.ht\
ml?hpw

and the Prius Plug-in.


[Default] On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:58:03 -0000, "k9zeh"
<rich@...> wrote:

>And now, the Fisker Karma, the other PHEV besides the Chevy Volt.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/automobiles/autoreviews/fisker-karma-review.h\
tml?hpw
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

and in China the BYD FDM.  I am looking forward to seeing how sales do
in the US of the Prius PHV, Fisker, etc.


[Default] On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:04:03 -0500, murdoch
<murdoch@...> wrote:

>and the Prius Plug-in.
>
>
>[Default] On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:58:03 -0000, "k9zeh"
><rich@...> wrote:
>
>>And now, the Fisker Karma, the other PHEV besides the Chevy Volt.
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/automobiles/autoreviews/fisker-karma-review.\
html?hpw
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Spam deleted from records.  Sender blocked.  Please don't click on any links in
that post.  Sorry 'bout that.

- Forbes

Argh!  I should have read Dave's post more closely.  I thought someone had
hijacked his account.  The message looked like spam at first glance, but it
wasn't.  I apologize profusely to Dave, and I urge all of you to read his posts
in the future.

Cheers,

Forbes

--- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, "diarmaede" <diarmaede@...>
wrote:
>
> Spam deleted from records.  Sender blocked.  Please don't click on any links
in that post.  Sorry 'bout that.
>
> - Forbes
>

Ah well, I first thought it was an ad myself. But then read further about
the electric car deduction...

Poor A123 huh? Hope they don't go down the crapper just cuz of soft demand
and a few bad apples/cells.

I watched some Elon Musk video - I thought the guy was a bit too haughty
for my tastes but when he started tearing up (tears like in raindrops) when
he talked about John Glenn and that bunch diss'ing on his SpaceX "These
guys are my heros!" he said. Hey, I thought, the guy is human.

I'm still following LENR and the travesty it represents. What a soap opera
- absolutely a gas to read about and watch unfold.


On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:17 PM, diarmaede <diarmaede@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Argh! I should have read Dave's post more closely. I thought someone had
> hijacked his account. The message looked like spam at first glance, but it
> wasn't. I apologize profusely to Dave, and I urge all of you to read his
> posts in the future.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Forbes
>
> --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, "diarmaede" <diarmaede@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Spam deleted from records. Sender blocked. Please don't click on any
> links in that post. Sorry 'bout that.
> >
> > - Forbes
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The user experience of the BEV owner seems to show that with some modifications
to your driving habits, the car can work quite well.  In my case, when I get
one, it will be a second car.  The BEV will be for local use, and the ICE car
for longer trips.  A PHEV can do both.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/nissan-leaf-drivers-avoid-pushing-lim\
its-of-cars-range/

I own a Nissan LEAF, and what you say is exactly what I do.  The LEAF was
bought for in-town use only.  For that purpose, one charge lasts about two
days.  We find it to be a very fine car for in-town driving. We also have an
ICE car for trips.  The idea of having a second car for trips is typically
treated by the popular press as kind of a big deal.  I find this very
surprising!  What percent of Americans do you suppose own two or more cars?

-----Original Message-----
From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of k9zeh
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 6:29 PM
To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Nissan Leaf Drivers Avoid Pushing
Limits of Car's Range

The user experience of the BEV owner seems to show that with some
modifications to your driving habits, the car can work quite well.  In my
case, when I get one, it will be a second car.  The BEV will be for local
use, and the ICE car for longer trips.  A PHEV can do both.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/nissan-leaf-drivers-avoid-pushing
-limits-of-cars-range/



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-electric-cars-depend\
s-on-where-you-plug-in.html?_r=2&hp
>How Green Are Electric Cars? Depends on Where You Plug In
>By PAUL STENQUIST
>Published: April 13, 2012

The report:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_and_fuels/hybrid_fuelcell_and_\
electric_vehicles/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warmin\
g-emissions-report.pdf
>State of Charge
>Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings across
>the United States
>- Prepublication Version -
>DON ANAIR
>AMINE MAHMASSANI
>April 2012

[Default] On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:25:33 -0000, "csceadraham"
<csceadraham@...> wrote:
>
>That worked. MCEL was American. In collaboration with
>Daimler-Chrysler they made the Natrium van, which went
>a lot farther and faster than the Turkish two-seater.
>Both suffer from the large volume per unit energy of
>NaBH4 aqueous solution; plus, when MCEL existed, they
>had data showing the stuff isn't *entirely* stable.
>Catalyst or no catalyst, the NaBH4 and the water react,
>so a sodium borohydride vehicle must slowly -- slower
>than one with a cryotank, but still has to be dealt with --
>vent hydrogen.
>
>Much of my now less abundant web time I spend at
>http://bravenewclimate.com/ .
>
>The thorium laser story is total crap.
>
>
>--- G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-energy fan until ~1996

Hi Graham

Another Boron story, a bit out of nowhere that seems of interest:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/boron-treated-carbon-nanotubes-soak-up-oil-from-water-\
repeatedly
>Boron-treated carbon nanotubes soak up oil from water repeatedly
>April 17, 2012

Murdoch,
 
I believe that there are some serious problems with the emissions portions of
 this study, primarily having to do with its failure to consider upstream
emissions for ICEVs, including exploration, drilling, well operations, piping,
storage, refining, trucking and service station distribution.  Refineries and
service stations in particular are prodigious users of electricity and
significant CO2 generators. 

There are other shortcomings as well, having to do with undo reliance upon
average CO2 emissions from electricity within the various regions, as opposed to
considering marginal, time of day and seasonal variations as well as the newer
generations of cleaner and renewable power generators that will supply growing
populations of EVs and PHEVs. 

This UCS study also wrongfully claims to be the first of its kind -- which it
isn't --  and clashes with findings from a 1994 (?) DOE/Argonne PHEV study,
which goes into far greater detail.  All in all, "State of Charge" appears to
be rather sloppy work wrt GW emissions, and  fails to engage in the type of
rigorous scientific analysis that might otherwise be expected from a group
of scientists. A very disappointing effort that will, IMHO, encourage further
controversy and political attacks upon EVs and PHEVs.
 
Regards,
 
Dave Goldstein
President Emeritus
EVA/DC
Electric Vehicle Association
of Washington, D.C.


--- On Wed, 4/18/12, murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:


From: murdoch <murdoch@...>
Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] UCS weighs in on well-to-wheel Carbon
measurements
To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 6:20 AM



 



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-electric-cars-depend\
s-on-where-you-plug-in.html?_r=2&hp
>How Green Are Electric Cars? Depends on Where You Plug In
>By PAUL STENQUIST
>Published: April 13, 2012

The report:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_and_fuels/hybrid_fuelcell_and_\
electric_vehicles/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warmin\
g-emissions-report.pdf
>State of Charge
>Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings across
>the United States
>- Prepublication Version -
>DON ANAIR
>AMINE MAHMASSANI
>April 2012







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I hear this silly argument all too often:  BEV and PHEV cars just trade one
greenhouse gas emission for another.  They never quantify much by stating the
facts nor state the obvious that emissions from a power plant are from far more
efficient energy conversion and exhaust scrubbing than individual cars do.

Now we can focus on power plant emissions.  We already appreciate electric cars
doing their part.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-electric-cars-depend\
s-on-where-you-plug-in.html?hpw

It's taken 20-25 years, a generation, to finally get to the point where
electric vehicles are talked about as main stream media topics; where it's
normal now to see EVs and hybrids driving the streets. That's a hell of a
long development cycle for a technology. But, better than the computer
(about 35-45 years.) And better than the original ICE motor vehicle (also
about 35-45 years.) But longer than the WWWeb, about 10 years and solar
(about 20 years). And longer than the shortest so far, mobile
communication, which is less than about 10 years. All of these numbers are
pure estimations of course and roughly range from the beginning of general
public knowledge and use to near public saturation.

The timelines are getting shorter which will be good for the next break
though. So we do have that to look forward to. But what will it be? Perhaps
easily produced synthetic liquid fuels so we can keep driving our ICE cars?
Doubtful. Another communication discovery? Health / medical? I'm rather
hoping its the novel generation of electricity.

That's the beauty of an electric vehicle. There are so many ways to make
electricity that all we need to do is get really good at one or two of them
and we can replace fossil fuels as the dominant transportation fuel. Sure
ethanol works, kind of, but without continuous availability of crude oil to
fertilize and power agro-biz that grows the corn, ethanol is doomed. Liquid
Hydrogen? Maybe. Algae diesel? More likely. LNG is the most likely
contender with all the frickin fracking going on driving the price of
nat.gas back into the ground.

Electrons though, so many ways to get them moving. All we need is a
breakthrough that produces buckets of megawatts for cheap and we can
retrofit all the gas and coal plants to use some new energy source and all
drive EVs. So, eventually, those 340 watt/hours per mile of energy the Leaf
needs to charge will have the same environmental impact were they produced
in Denver, L.A. or Wheeling WV.


Thanks for reading the rave,
MM

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:54 PM, k9zeh <rich@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I hear this silly argument all too often: BEV and PHEV cars just trade one
> greenhouse gas emission for another. They never quantify much by stating
> the facts nor state the obvious that emissions from a power plant are from
> far more efficient energy conversion and exhaust scrubbing than individual
> cars do.
>
> Now we can focus on power plant emissions. We already appreciate electric
> cars doing their part.
>
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-electric-cars-depend\
s-on-where-you-plug-in.html?hpw
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Per:

http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=40205

Would it be possible to build an ICE generator such that when you went
on long trips with an EV, you could "attach" this generator to your
roof, or store it in the trunk, or a dedicated spot under the hood, so
that you could use liquid fuel to augment your car's distance
capability?

Like take a Honda generator with you and plug your car into it while you drive.

Could such a generator be built that supplies enough energy, for a
long enough duration to make the detachable generator viable and cost
effective?

I can see buying a pure EV and then renting one of these distance
extender generators to take on a trip.

Thoughts?

MM

The range extender concept has been around for many years. The president of the
EEVC back in the 80ties attempted building one using a VW ICE and several
aircraft generators. He abandoned the project before it was ever used. Since he
passed away years ago none of us know why he abandoned the project, other than
he was having technical difficulties matching the output of the generator to the
car.

I believe the most workable concept is that of having rentable generator
trailers that you can rent and hook up like a U-haul trailer.  I do not know
what the legalities are for crusing down the road with a trailer operating an
ICE generator while moving. Large tractor trailers have generator sets that can
be kept operating while parked, but I have heard there exist legalities
regarding when they can and cannot be operated.

If one is going to push headwinds and climb steep grades while traveling at full
speed going across the country, and do so for hours at a time, then the output
of the generator has to be sized great enough. In other words one needs a pretty
good sized generator to do it, and a bigger horsepower ICE to drive the
generator. I think that the size needed to perform well, and the cost to build
it, outweighs the willingness to spend that kind of money for an item that sits
in a garage unused most of its life. That is why having a rental agency like
U-haul to make these available makes more sense. But, I have not read of anyone
suggesting investing in such a venture.

O.H.Perry
EEVC
On Apr 19, 2012, at 10:27 AM, MarketMole wrote:

> Per:
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=40205
>
> Would it be possible to build an ICE generator such that when you went
> on long trips with an EV, you could "attach" this generator to your
> roof, or store it in the trunk, or a dedicated spot under the hood, so
> that you could use liquid fuel to augment your car's distance
> capability?
>
> Like take a Honda generator with you and plug your car into it while you
drive.
>
> Could such a generator be built that supplies enough energy, for a
> long enough duration to make the detachable generator viable and cost
> effective?
>
> I can see buying a pure EV and then renting one of these distance
> extender generators to take on a trip.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> MM
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I happened to personally meet the individual who started Millienium Cell. I
worked with one of the engineers who came on board with Daimler Chrysler to
further develop the system. One of my students also got a job working for them.
I know a lot about the project.

It was actually was built on old technology begun in the space program. If you
want a car and a fuel system priced at space shuttle figures it is a good deal.
In my opinion the idea served to gain grant money and some investors interest.
But, as you pointed out... the whole mess of recharging the system and
reprocessing the spent sodium borohydride was never made close to being
profitable. Some honest efforts were made to overcome the obstacles but they
proved to be insurmountable.  A fully charged tank would take the vehicle a
reasonable range,,, making hydrogen for the fuel cell... but then how do you
recharge the system... and you still have the expense of the fuel cell.

O.H.Perry
EEVC
On Apr 18, 2012, at 2:06 PM, murdoch wrote:

> [Default] On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:25:33 -0000, "csceadraham"
> <csceadraham@...> wrote:
>>
>> That worked. MCEL was American. In collaboration with
>> Daimler-Chrysler they made the Natrium van, which went
>> a lot farther and faster than the Turkish two-seater.
>> Both suffer from the large volume per unit energy of
>> NaBH4 aqueous solution; plus, when MCEL existed, they
>> had data showing the stuff isn't *entirely* stable.
>> Catalyst or no catalyst, the NaBH4 and the water react,
>> so a sodium borohydride vehicle must slowly -- slower
>> than one with a cryotank, but still has to be dealt with --
>> vent hydrogen.
>>
>> Much of my now less abundant web time I spend at
>> http://bravenewclimate.com/ .
>>
>> The thorium laser story is total crap.
>>
>>
>> --- G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-energy fan until ~1996
>
> Hi Graham
>
> Another Boron story, a bit out of nowhere that seems of interest:
>
>
http://www.kurzweilai.net/boron-treated-carbon-nanotubes-soak-up-oil-from-water-\
repeatedly
>> Boron-treated carbon nanotubes soak up oil from water repeatedly
>> April 17, 2012
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Just catching up with some things.

I think Forbes quickly realized, but just to enforce - It was very
good information that Dave posted, we need to share this sort of thing
with each other here in this and other groups.



[Default] On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:17:10 -0000, "diarmaede"
<diarmaede@...> wrote:

>Argh!  I should have read Dave's post more closely.  I thought someone had
hijacked his account.  The message looked like spam at first glance, but it
wasn't.  I apologize profusely to Dave, and I urge all of you to read his posts
in the future.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Forbes
>
>--- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, "diarmaede" <diarmaede@...>
wrote:
>>
>> Spam deleted from records.  Sender blocked.  Please don't click on any links
in that post.  Sorry 'bout that.
>>
>> - Forbes
>>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Thanks Dave for writing this out.

I would have thought that UCS would get such basic things correct,
such as counting upstream ICEV emissions.  As you say, these are
significant and well-known.  Any well-to-wheels study should count
them - not debatable.  Are they really not in there?  It's just hard
to believe that UCS would commit such an egregious error.

I'll have to circle back to looking more closely at the study.



[Default] On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Dave Goldstein
<goldie.ev1@...> wrote:

>Murdoch,
> 
>I believe that there are some serious problems with the emissions portions of
 this study, primarily having to do with its failure to consider upstream
emissions for ICEVs, including exploration, drilling, well operations, piping,
storage, refining, trucking and service station distribution.  Refineries and
service stations in particular are prodigious users of electricity and
significant CO2 generators. 
>
>There are other shortcomings as well, having to do with undo reliance upon
average CO2 emissions from electricity within the various regions, as opposed to
considering marginal, time of day and seasonal variations as well as the newer
generations of cleaner and renewable power generators that will supply growing
populations of EVs and PHEVs. 
>
>This UCS study also wrongfully claims to be the first of its kind -- which it
isn't --  and clashes with findings from a 1994 (?) DOE/Argonne PHEV study,
which goes into far greater detail.  All in all, "State of Charge" appears to be
rather sloppy work wrt GW emissions, and  fails to engage in the type of
rigorous scientific analysis that might otherwise be expected from a group
of scientists. A very disappointing effort that will, IMHO, encourage further
controversy and political attacks upon EVs and PHEVs.
> 
>Regards,
> 
>Dave Goldstein
>President Emeritus
>EVA/DC
>Electric Vehicle Association
>of Washington, D.C.
>
>
>--- On Wed, 4/18/12, murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:
>
>
>From: murdoch <murdoch@...>
>Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] UCS weighs in on well-to-wheel Carbon
measurements
>To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
>Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 6:20 AM
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-electric-cars-depen\
ds-on-where-you-plug-in.html?_r=2&hp
>>How Green Are Electric Cars? Depends on Where You Plug In
>>By PAUL STENQUIST
>>Published: April 13, 2012
>
>The report:
>http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_and_fuels/hybrid_fuelcell_and\
_electric_vehicles/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html
>http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warmi\
ng-emissions-report.pdf
>>State of Charge
>>Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings across
>>the United States
>>- Prepublication Version -
>>DON ANAIR
>>AMINE MAHMASSANI
>>April 2012
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

I thought this was worth reading.  I have often thought that at EV
conferences and in EV insight research we should do more to involve
business historians so they can help us have perspective both on
recent technology and business lessons and also on other longer-ago
lessons.

One or two thoughts here on your points:

- Solar I think took 40-50 years, not 20 in my view, to get to "near
public saturation".
- It would be interesting to make a table and analyze which of these
ran up against certain factors and to what extent (habitual
enforcement or non-enforcement of IP by this or that government,
concerted lobbying by established industries striving to avoid being
displaced, etc.).

One of the top principles I think that is on display in following the
efforts to make and sell and support and advocate for chargeable
transportation is that it is wrong (in my view) to assume that under
whatever system the US has that passes for "capitalism", that
technological innovation and better technologies will necessarily
result in business progress.  In my fallible view, the best technology
does not always win in the short, intermediate or even longer-term
over decades.

Another nearby (but I think separate) principle is that EV technology
won't be more widely recognized as superior (by widely-recognized I
include in terms of revenues increasing to EV businesses) unless and
until the externalized property-damaging costs of fossil fuels are
acknowledged, recognized, internalized and finally output directly
into the price of fossil fuels and fossil-fueled-vehicle operation.
EVs and chargeable-hybrids (CHEVs?) are definitely competitive with
and superior to ICVs in some ways (reduction of NVH, elimination or
reduction of emissions, reduction of wear and tear on breaks, reduced
fuel costs per mile) but I think a missing element in a "fair fight"
or "level playing field" competition between EV/CHEV and Gasoline and
Diesel vehicles, in the marketplace for consumer buying-dollars, is
that as long as the prices of fuel do not reflect all property damages
and costs.... as long as governments refuse to perform their
appropriate functions in a so-called free market system of recognizing
and addressing property damaging activity where it occurs...., then
Gasoline and Diesel Conventional IC Vehicles have a totally
inappropriate and wrong (by free market or level playing field
definitions) advantage.



[Default] On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:45:52 -0700, MarketMole
<marketmole@...> wrote:

>It's taken 20-25 years, a generation, to finally get to the point where
>electric vehicles are talked about as main stream media topics; where it's
>normal now to see EVs and hybrids driving the streets. That's a hell of a
>long development cycle for a technology. But, better than the computer
>(about 35-45 years.) And better than the original ICE motor vehicle (also
>about 35-45 years.) But longer than the WWWeb, about 10 years and solar
>(about 20 years). And longer than the shortest so far, mobile
>communication, which is less than about 10 years. All of these numbers are
>pure estimations of course and roughly range from the beginning of general
>public knowledge and use to near public saturation.

[...]

Perhaps not all, but perhaps most technologies go through the following
stages:

• Discovery - the idea is theorized and proven to be true or the
realization that the idea is now viable.
• Confirmation - 3rd party scientific confirmation and general scientific
community acceptance that the discovery is valid and can be substantiated
with reproducible results.
• Funding - investors can be found to support and drive the development
forward.
• Commercialization - the technology is salable and can be turned into a
product or service.
• Commoditization - the technology becomes manufactured and sold by so many
businesses that the price is driven down to the point where,
• Saturation - can occur which allows the mid to lower levels of society to
be able to afford the technology or service.

The time between discovery and saturation, I think, is what we are dealing
with in the prior posts, and you're probably right about PV solar, 40 years
or more to reach "near" saturation. And the other time frames were probably
irrationally condensed due to my compressed sense of time (getting old you
see), what I think of as fairly recent actually happened in the 80's... The
'00's don't even register as time passed in my head yet.

With today's politicorps running the show, the reeeeaaalllyy beeeg shoow, I
have no doubt that your point about "let the best tech win" is spot on. We
will probably never know what wondrous technologies we've missed out on due
to political/corporate/conspiratorial suppression. Until a product reaches
commercialization, it can be killed and buried at any step along those
early stages above. And even then, there are no promises.

And your continued thought about societal and environmental costs being
ignored with regards to fossil fuels, well, corporoticians will never
rollover on that pork barrel. "End the oil subsidies" Obama cried. Bah!
That lasted about a day. Without true calamity I'm afraid that first world
humanity just won't get it. The energy demand cliff is getting closer and
closer and frankly I think we keep tilting our gaze higher thinking we will
always have "plenty of time" to find alternatives, ignoring the looming
abyss just in front of our feet.

MM






On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM, murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I thought this was worth reading. I have often thought that at EV
> conferences and in EV insight research we should do more to involve
> business historians so they can help us have perspective both on
> recent technology and business lessons and also on other longer-ago
> lessons.
>
> One or two thoughts here on your points:
>
> - Solar I think took 40-50 years, not 20 in my view, to get to "near
> public saturation".
> - It would be interesting to make a table and analyze which of these
> ran up against certain factors and to what extent (habitual
> enforcement or non-enforcement of IP by this or that government,
> concerted lobbying by established industries striving to avoid being
> displaced, etc.).
>
> One of the top principles I think that is on display in following the
> efforts to make and sell and support and advocate for chargeable
> transportation is that it is wrong (in my view) to assume that under
> whatever system the US has that passes for "capitalism", that
> technological innovation and better technologies will necessarily
> result in business progress. In my fallible view, the best technology
> does not always win in the short, intermediate or even longer-term
> over decades.
>
> Another nearby (but I think separate) principle is that EV technology
> won't be more widely recognized as superior (by widely-recognized I
> include in terms of revenues increasing to EV businesses) unless and
> until the externalized property-damaging costs of fossil fuels are
> acknowledged, recognized, internalized and finally output directly
> into the price of fossil fuels and fossil-fueled-vehicle operation.
> EVs and chargeable-hybrids (CHEVs?) are definitely competitive with
> and superior to ICVs in some ways (reduction of NVH, elimination or
> reduction of emissions, reduction of wear and tear on breaks, reduced
> fuel costs per mile) but I think a missing element in a "fair fight"
> or "level playing field" competition between EV/CHEV and Gasoline and
> Diesel vehicles, in the marketplace for consumer buying-dollars, is
> that as long as the prices of fuel do not reflect all property damages
> and costs.... as long as governments refuse to perform their
> appropriate functions in a so-called free market system of recognizing
> and addressing property damaging activity where it occurs...., then
> Gasoline and Diesel Conventional IC Vehicles have a totally
> inappropriate and wrong (by free market or level playing field
> definitions) advantage.
>
> [Default] On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:45:52 -0700, MarketMole
>
> <marketmole@...> wrote:
>
> >It's taken 20-25 years, a generation, to finally get to the point where
> >electric vehicles are talked about as main stream media topics; where it's
> >normal now to see EVs and hybrids driving the streets. That's a hell of a
> >long development cycle for a technology. But, better than the computer
> >(about 35-45 years.) And better than the original ICE motor vehicle (also
> >about 35-45 years.) But longer than the WWWeb, about 10 years and solar
> >(about 20 years). And longer than the shortest so far, mobile
> >communication, which is less than about 10 years. All of these numbers are
> >pure estimations of course and roughly range from the beginning of general
> >public knowledge and use to near public saturation.
>
> [...]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi All,

Spam is leaking through, from members who have previously posted only valid
messages.  These poor folks have had their email accounts hacked.

There's not much we can do to stop it.  I'll delete the spam messages from the
web page and put the hacked members on moderation, but that won't stop the main
problem of hacked emails.

Please don't click on any links unless you are absolutely sure the message is
from a real FFV member.  Let me know if you have questions.

Cheers,

Forbes

MIT will host Bill Joy at the CEP awards tonight:



Thank you for registering to view the global webcast of "The Future of
Clean Energy: The Economic Imperative" tonight, April 30th.
To access this webcast, please tune to
http://www.livestream.com/mitefcep at 4:45 pm EDT.
For general event information, please visit www.mitef.org/cleanenergy2012.
Contact mitef@... if you have any questions or concerns.

Here's another time compression example:

"To reach an audience of 50 million people, radio took 38 years, television
13 years, the Internet four years, Facebook three and a half years.
Instagram took 1.3 years."

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/40318/

Granted, information delivery generally piggybacks on itself, the last
three items speak to this. While new fuels and energy sources may not be
able to leverage prior technology as well. Novel energy sources may be so
outside the box that they take multiple decades just to become provable,
much less commercially viable. One analogy to remaining within the
information age is quantum computing. Although it's predicted it is
possible and experiments have started to show fractional progress, the
potential for quantcomp to replace our existing silicon transistor
technology may take decades to realize.

MM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

OK, now it is Ford's turn at the BEV vehicle.  Range is over 100 miles, top
speed is 85, charging time is 4 hours on a 240 VAC circuit, cost is $40K before
the tax rebates.  The body is a Ford Focus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/automobiles/autoreviews/the-battery-driven-car\
-just-got-a-lot-more-normal.html?_r=1&hpw

Here is an article depicting exactly what we've just been discussing...

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/40321

No talk of the auto or solar, but still, in the same vein.


On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 7:32 AM, MarketMole <marketmole@...> wrote:
> Here's another time compression example:
>
> "To reach an audience of 50 million people, radio took 38 years, television
> 13 years, the Internet four years, Facebook three and a half years.
> Instagram took 1.3 years."
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/business/40318/
>
> Granted, information delivery generally piggybacks on itself, the last three
> items speak to this. While new fuels and energy sources may not be able to
> leverage prior technology as well. Novel energy sources may be so outside
> the box that they take multiple decades just to become provable, much less
> commercially viable. One analogy to remaining within the information age is
> quantum computing. Although it's predicted it is possible and experiments
> have started to show fractional progress, the potential for quantcomp to
> replace our existing silicon transistor technology may take decades to
> realize.
>
> MM

It's coming.  Standard road signs point to charging sites.  More charging sites.
Simpler ways to hook up your car.  Standard connectors.  Reserved spaces for
EV's.  There will be a critical mass point or a world event that will kick off
this trend and make it ubiquitous, just like handicapped spaces.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/automobiles/pointing-the-way-to-where-ev-drive\
rs-can-plug-in.html?_r=1&hpw