test

I always anticipate the arrival of my Tuesday digest...Every week I
get more inspiration, ideas, and confirmation that we're on the right
track. Nowhere else do I find such a good assemblage of useful info.
(Other sources people may want to check out include the daily EV
Today at http://www.eintoday.com -- but it's not as wide-ranging, you
have to subscribe separately to EV, fuel cells, etc., and it's not
free.



[CalCarCo introduction follows]:
I'm the founder of a group in the Bay Area on a regional and state
response to the lagging leadership to adopting  efficient, non-
polluting automotive technologies. Our goal is to create a virtual
car company to market and then build (with auto industry and other
partners) a vehicle integrating a range of new technologies,
including composite materials, steer-by-wire controls and full
networking, powered by plug-in hybrids, followed by fuel cells  --
aimed at early adopters and far-seeing institutions in the world's
most receptive market for a "no sacrifices" high performance, zero-
emission "California Car". Our starting point is RMI/Hypercar's work
(we have good relations with the company and with Amory Lovins.)

You may know about Eclipse Aviation, Vern Raburn's virtual turbofan
plane company, http://www.eclipseaviation.com whose product is now
entering FAA testing after pre-selling nearly 1000 planes for future
delivery. (Their chairman is Harold Poling, retired Ford CEO.) We're
inspired by several aspects of their business model. If successful
CalCarCo can have an enormous impact, potentially transforming the
auto, metal, and energy extraction and production industries.

Our  effort aims to begin getting much better cars on the road within
five years, fully integrating and optimizing technologies that are
becoming available (as existing car companies may not). This "jump-
start" begins by pre-selling to fleet customers from state and local
governments, corporations, plus Bay Area and Los Angeles
environmentalists, car fans, people who want to do something about
global warming and energy security -- and folks who want the right to
drive the Bay Area's crowded highways alone in carpool lanes!

The initial group of about 25 people who came together on July 30 in
Palo Alto were a diverse and knowledgeable group of entrepreneurs,
technologists, environmentalists and communicators with a high
interest level and lots of good ideas. As a result of this meeting,
we're putting together a set of working groups to expand the number
of people involved and build the initiative. We've started
discussions and contacts with people in Sacramento, car-sharing
companies, environmentalists, and others -- but putting this together
is still an very uphill effort.

We're on the lookout especially for auto-industry insiders and for
serial entrepreneurs with an ineluctable attraction to challenging
environmental initiatives.

More details at http://www.nlightning.com/calcarcosummary.pdf (a PDF
document).

>More details at http://www.nlightning.com/calcarcosummary.pdf (a PDF
>document).

Thanks for posting the info.  I will be curious to see what electric utilities,
if any, you are able to line up as fleet customers.  If they do sign up with
you, I will be curious to see if they are "punished" by the oil industry.

I will be also curious to see where you will sell outside the state of
California.  I see no reason for 13% (or whatever it is) of the country's
population to be the limit of the market for these types of cars.

>More details at http://www.nlightning.com/calcarcosummary.pdf (a PDF
>document).

I see: it's about building in California for Californians, now that I've looked
at the pdf.

... from evworld.com.  Disclaimer: I sometimes contribute to that
magazine.  But until recently I hadn't been reading the email comments
each week.  This week's from Bill Moore seem pretty good, give Protest
info, and might provide intellectual ammo.  I especially like the
points about our desire to see a wider choice in the vehicles that we
buy, and the point about parents wanting to consider a lower-range
vehicle for teenagers.

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

American's For Real Choice

This week a good friend of ours visited from Las Vegas. She noticed my
copy of High and Mighty, Keith Bradsher's controversial new book on
"SUVs:The world's most dangerous vehicles and how they got that way."
Our friend, like many Americans, drives an SUV and said she didn't
want to be restricted in the choice of vehicles she drove, though she
was concerned about the impact these vehicles have on highway safety
and the energy they waste.

I agreed with her that we should be free to choose the type of vehicle
that best fits our needs, just as the American automotive industry
contends. The problem is, we aren't being given a full choice.  There
are segments of the population that do want EVs, but they can't buy
them or even lease them. Who are those segment?

Let's start with urban commuters who travel at most 20 miles day and
find parking at a premium. Small city EVs would be ideal for them.

Then there are the millions of parents with teenagers who'd breathe a
lot easier knowing their son or daughter was driving a car with
limited speed and range. Even the teenagers would probably agree
without too much protestation after realizing their insurance rates
would be lower and the "fuel" --  courtesy of Dad and Mom's household
electricity -- would cost them nothing.

How about senior citizens who still need a degree of mobility but not
the expense and horsepower of a conventional car?

What about car share and station car programs like those in San
Francisco, Seattle and New York?  I'll bet if you put your mind to it,
you could come up with other viable and valuable niche markets where
EVs like the Th!nk City, eMotion Mobility's electric Smart, or ATT R
and D's Parade makes a heck of a lot of sense.

But no one -- with the exception of a relative handful of Toyota RAV4
EVs in California -- is giving us that choice at the moment. So, when
the car companies and their expensive lobbyists and PR firms say
American's want "choice," I agree.  I want the choice to choose
electric!

Time to Get Militant?

If you live in or near San Francisco and you want to let Ford know how
you feel about their decision to unplug the Th!nk, Thinkelectric.Org
is holding a ReTh!nk protest rally at S and C Ford in San Francisco
this Thursday, October 10th at noon. This grassroots organization is
made up of current Th!nk and GM EV1 drivers, many of whom will be
loosing their cars in the coming months as their leases end. Because
there is no opportunity to <b>Choose Electric</b>, they aren't sure
what they are going to do for transportation that is as
environmentally-responsible and fun to drive as these great
all-electric cars.

So, if it's been a few decades since you "took to the streets," dust
off your tie-dyed bell-bottoms, polish your peace medallion and join
the party by the Bay.

EVS 19

This month EVS 19 convenes in Busan, Korea. Each year, this annual
conclave of academicians, manufacturers and regulators rotates between
Europe, North America and Asia.  The dates are October 19-23 and
details on the conference can be found at www.evs19.org.

Because I just spent a week in China, I have elected to not attend
this year. Instead, I will be attending the EVAA's Electric
Transportation Conference in south Florida in December. If you are
planning to attend EVS 19 and would be willing to report on the event
on behalf of EV World, please contact me at editor@....  Or if
you can pick up a spare copy of the proceedings for me, I would
appreciate it.

Hats Off to Nissan!

Finally, while GM is busy crushing EV1s and Ford is looking for
someone to take Th!nk Nordic off their hands, Nissan has quietly
imported another 200 Altra EVs into the US for lease to fleets in
California, according to a source at Nissan.  The Altra, powered by
lithium ion batteries, is probably the most refined EV yet produced.
It's a true 5 passenger, four-door EV that's a cross been an SUV and
the family station wagon. It's a shame that so few people will get the
opportunity to see it, let alone drive it. Still, my hat's off to
Nissan for this commendable initiative.


	 Until next time, stay plugged into EVWorld...

-----Original Message-----
From: murdoch [mailto:murdoch@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 7:27 AM
To: think_ev@yahoogroups.com
Cc: evworld@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [evworld] this week's comments from evworld

.. from evworld.com.  Disclaimer: I sometimes contribute to that
magazine.  But until recently I hadn't been reading the email comments
each week.  This week's from Bill Moore seem pretty good, give Protest
info, and might provide intellectual ammo.  I especially like the
points about our desire to see a wider choice in the vehicles that we
buy, and the point about parents wanting to consider a lower-range
vehicle for teenagers. 

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

American's For Real Choice

This week a good friend of ours visited from Las Vegas. She noticed my
copy of High and Mighty, Keith Bradsher's controversial new book on
"SUVs:The world's most dangerous vehicles and how they got that way."
Our friend, like many Americans, drives an SUV and said she didn't
want to be restricted in the choice of vehicles she drove, though she
was concerned about the impact these vehicles have on highway safety
and the energy they waste. 

I agreed with her that we should be free to choose the type of vehicle
that best fits our needs, just as the American automotive industry
contends. The problem is, we aren't being given a full choice.  There
are segments of the population that do want EVs, but they can't buy
them or even lease them. Who are those segment? 

Let's start with urban commuters who travel at most 20 miles day and
find parking at a premium. Small city EVs would be ideal for them.

Then there are the millions of parents with teenagers who'd breathe a
lot easier knowing their son or daughter was driving a car with
limited speed and range. Even the teenagers would probably agree
without too much protestation after realizing their insurance rates
would be lower and the "fuel" --  courtesy of Dad and Mom's household
electricity -- would cost them nothing. 

How about senior citizens who still need a degree of mobility but not
the expense and horsepower of a conventional car? 

What about car share and station car programs like those in San
Francisco, Seattle and New York?  I'll bet if you put your mind to it,
you could come up with other viable and valuable niche markets where
EVs like the Th!nk City, eMotion Mobility's electric Smart, or ATT R
and D's Parade makes a heck of a lot of sense.

But no one -- with the exception of a relative handful of Toyota RAV4
EVs in California -- is giving us that choice at the moment. So, when
the car companies and their expensive lobbyists and PR firms say
American's want "choice," I agree.  I want the choice to choose
electric!

Time to Get Militant?

If you live in or near San Francisco and you want to let Ford know how
you feel about their decision to unplug the Th!nk, Thinkelectric.Org
is holding a ReTh!nk protest rally at S and C Ford in San Francisco
this Thursday, October 10th at noon. This grassroots organization is
made up of current Th!nk and GM EV1 drivers, many of whom will be
loosing their cars in the coming months as their leases end. Because
there is no opportunity to <b>Choose Electric</b>, they aren't sure
what they are going to do for transportation that is as
environmentally-responsible and fun to drive as these great
all-electric cars.

So, if it's been a few decades since you "took to the streets," dust
off your tie-dyed bell-bottoms, polish your peace medallion and join
the party by the Bay.

EVS 19

This month EVS 19 convenes in Busan, Korea. Each year, this annual
conclave of academicians, manufacturers and regulators rotates between
Europe, North America and Asia.  The dates are October 19-23 and
details on the conference can be found at www.evs19.org.

Because I just spent a week in China, I have elected to not attend
this year. Instead, I will be attending the EVAA's Electric
Transportation Conference in south Florida in December. If you are
planning to attend EVS 19 and would be willing to report on the event
on behalf of EV World, please contact me at editor@....  Or if
you can pick up a spare copy of the proceedings for me, I would
appreciate it.

Hats Off to Nissan!

Finally, while GM is busy crushing EV1s and Ford is looking for
someone to take Th!nk Nordic off their hands, Nissan has quietly
imported another 200 Altra EVs into the US for lease to fleets in
California, according to a source at Nissan.  The Altra, powered by
lithium ion batteries, is probably the most refined EV yet produced.
It's a true 5 passenger, four-door EV that's a cross been an SUV and
the family station wagon. It's a shame that so few people will get the
opportunity to see it, let alone drive it. Still, my hat's off to
Nissan for this commendable initiative.
 
     
      Until next time, stay plugged into EVWorld...

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
evworld-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

I'll pass on the fact that you were having trouble with the site
today.

MM

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:08:01 -0700, you wrote:

>Josh, thanks for the note because I can't seem to get the ev-world server to
>respond today to my browser.
>I am sure you have nothing to do with that, but just letting somebody know.
>Gary Holdsworth
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: murdoch [mailto:murdoch@...]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 7:27 AM
>To: think_ev@yahoogroups.com
>Cc: evworld@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [evworld] this week's comments from evworld
>
>
>. from evworld.com.  Disclaimer: I sometimes contribute to that
>magazine.  But until recently I hadn't been reading the email comments
>each week.  This week's from Bill Moore seem pretty good, give Protest
>info, and might provide intellectual ammo.  I especially like the
>points about our desire to see a wider choice in the vehicles that we
>buy, and the point about parents wanting to consider a lower-range
>vehicle for teenagers.
>
>--------------------
>
>American's For Real Choice
>
>This week a good friend of ours visited from Las Vegas. She noticed my
>copy of High and Mighty, Keith Bradsher's controversial new book on
>"SUVs:The world's most dangerous vehicles and how they got that way."
>Our friend, like many Americans, drives an SUV and said she didn't
>want to be restricted in the choice of vehicles she drove, though she
>was concerned about the impact these vehicles have on highway safety
>and the energy they waste.
>
>I agreed with her that we should be free to choose the type of vehicle
>that best fits our needs, just as the American automotive industry
>contends. The problem is, we aren't being given a full choice.  There
>are segments of the population that do want EVs, but they can't buy
>them or even lease them. Who are those segment?
>
>Let's start with urban commuters who travel at most 20 miles day and
>find parking at a premium. Small city EVs would be ideal for them.
>
>Then there are the millions of parents with teenagers who'd breathe a
>lot easier knowing their son or daughter was driving a car with
>limited speed and range. Even the teenagers would probably agree
>without too much protestation after realizing their insurance rates
>would be lower and the "fuel" --  courtesy of Dad and Mom's household
>electricity -- would cost them nothing.
>
>How about senior citizens who still need a degree of mobility but not
>the expense and horsepower of a conventional car?
>
>What about car share and station car programs like those in San
>Francisco, Seattle and New York?  I'll bet if you put your mind to it,
>you could come up with other viable and valuable niche markets where
>EVs like the Th!nk City, eMotion Mobility's electric Smart, or ATT R
>and D's Parade makes a heck of a lot of sense.
>
>But no one -- with the exception of a relative handful of Toyota RAV4
>EVs in California -- is giving us that choice at the moment. So, when
>the car companies and their expensive lobbyists and PR firms say
>American's want "choice," I agree.  I want the choice to choose
>electric!
>
>Time to Get Militant?
>
>If you live in or near San Francisco and you want to let Ford know how
>you feel about their decision to unplug the Th!nk, Thinkelectric.Org
>is holding a ReTh!nk protest rally at S and C Ford in San Francisco
>this Thursday, October 10th at noon. This grassroots organization is
>made up of current Th!nk and GM EV1 drivers, many of whom will be
>loosing their cars in the coming months as their leases end. Because
>there is no opportunity to <b>Choose Electric</b>, they aren't sure
>what they are going to do for transportation that is as
>environmentally-responsible and fun to drive as these great
>all-electric cars.
>
>So, if it's been a few decades since you "took to the streets," dust
>off your tie-dyed bell-bottoms, polish your peace medallion and join
>the party by the Bay.
>
>EVS 19
>
>This month EVS 19 convenes in Busan, Korea. Each year, this annual
>conclave of academicians, manufacturers and regulators rotates between
>Europe, North America and Asia.  The dates are October 19-23 and
>details on the conference can be found at www.evs19.org.
>
>Because I just spent a week in China, I have elected to not attend
>this year. Instead, I will be attending the EVAA's Electric
>Transportation Conference in south Florida in December. If you are
>planning to attend EVS 19 and would be willing to report on the event
>on behalf of EV World, please contact me at editor@....  Or if
>you can pick up a spare copy of the proceedings for me, I would
>appreciate it.
>
>Hats Off to Nissan!
>
>Finally, while GM is busy crushing EV1s and Ford is looking for
>someone to take Th!nk Nordic off their hands, Nissan has quietly
>imported another 200 Altra EVs into the US for lease to fleets in
>California, according to a source at Nissan.  The Altra, powered by
>lithium ion batteries, is probably the most refined EV yet produced.
>It's a true 5 passenger, four-door EV that's a cross been an SUV and
>the family station wagon. It's a shame that so few people will get the
>opportunity to see it, let alone drive it. Still, my hat's off to
>Nissan for this commendable initiative.
>
>
>      Until next time, stay plugged into EVWorld...
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>evworld-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>

I'm pretty sure there will also be some coverage in this week's
evworld.com

>At least the EAA Newsletter will cover our story and do it right.
>
>CB

>On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 04:09  AM, cbell@... wrote:
>
>> Hi Ed,
>>
>> Yes, you have my permission to reprint my report. It might need some
>> editing or additons, since I was pretty well burned out when I wrote
>> it. Also, yes, there are pix and Alec Proudfoot (who is making an EV
>> documentary) did some videotaping.  So did TV station Channel 11 out of
>> San Jose.  We are supposed to get a tape from them -- it will be sent
>> to Marc Geller.
>> Marc is going to get his pix today and is going to scan them in so they
>> can be emailed. JPEGs OK?
>>
>> Other Think-ers may be posting their versions of the EVent and if so,
>> I'll try to point them toward CE.
>>
>> Hey, I'm glad CE is in such good hands.
>>
>> (You have my permission to add the following to the original report)
>>
>> There was a little postscript to the protest this morning.  When Marc
>> and I returned the Think to Hertz (where it had been rented for
>> yesterday), I put a sign on the Think's back hatch that read, "Ford,
>> I'm good for the world.  Don't KILL me."  We drove past the SF Federal
>> Building, where there was a spirited anti-war demonstration going on,
>> honked, yelled things like, "This car doesn't use gasoline," and "One,
>> two, three, four, we don't NEED your Petro-War."
>> The peace activists got a big kick out of the two Thinks. Marc had a
>> sign that said "Make EVs, not War."  We might have gotten on some news
>> footage, since the media was there.
>> Would have liked to stay longer, but had a 10 AM return date for the
>> Think Hertz. The Hertz folks were really nice, positive about the car
>> and weren't concerned about my sign, which I carefully removed.
>> So, more of the mesage was gotten across to the downtown San Francisco
>> traffic, and a good time was had by all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> CB
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From:  "etcadman" <ethorpe@...>
>> To:  cbell@...
>> Sent: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 14:36:58 -0000
>> Subject:  SF Think EV Protest
>> Clare,
>>
>> Did anyone take pictures?
>> Could we get permission from you to reprint your report in CE?
>>
>> BR,
>> Ed Thorpe
>> ceeditor@...
>> CE Publication Committee

Thx to Felix and some others, I have alerted Bill that we sent out the
wrong URL with the original notification of this group, a couple of
weeks ago, in the evworld.com weekly update.  But the correct URL is
now posted on the evworld.com web page, on the left-hand side.  I'm
not sure, but I don't think a corrected one will be sent out with the
weekly...

FWIW, the correct URL (say, for passing on to friends) is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evworld/

Obviously, robust discussion has not started as yet, but I think these
things can take a long time, and in the meantime the group can be
informative on occassion.  17 members appear to have joined, even with
the incorrect URL posting.

We are tossing around a couple of ideas for ways to use the group, and
of course, suggestions are always welcome, as well as more formal
submissions directly to evworld.com.

For anyone considering a submission that will take a lot of work,
please keep firmly in mind there's no way to guarantee that your work
won't go wasted unless you verify with Bill Moore beforehand that you
would like to make a serious submission, and ask him if it's something
he'll be able to use.

Also note that submissions are not financially compensated.

2 other points:

I have collected about 2-3 years worth of the weekly updates that Bill
has been sending out, from my saved email, into one 500 page document.
I am going to try to make this available to group members (Bill was
talking about putting it onto the website anyway).  In effect, by
downloading it, a person could I guess have a fun way to do "searches"
on various key words and see how they've been covered in evworld.com
and find quick links (so far as I've seen, the search function at the
site never seems to have worked 100%).  I hope group members are able
to enjoy this, once I get it up there, particularly for those who have
only recently started reading evworld.com.  I don't know, once a
person starts trying the links, how many will still be valid.

Second, I am considering having Bill try posting his weekly update
directly to the group.  The problem there is that many folks might end
up joining the group and not the evworld.com site.  This would sort of
split his contact with the readership.  But we'll look into it.

I think that just as EV's and other alt-fuel vehicles are a part of
innovative vehicle technology that perhaps some auto
technology-watchers have underemphasized, so too we are participants
in innovative ways to cover the auto industry and create an e-zine and
e-zine-discussion, and to keep each other informed of developments
with afv's and thoughts on them.

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the evworld
group.

   File        : /evworld3.txt
   Uploaded by : murdoch65 <murdoch@...>
   Description : 5/99 to 10/02 collection of weekly evworld.com email updates...
missing much of 2001.  Much of the formatting also is very imperfect.

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evworld/files/evworld3.txt

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

murdoch65 <murdoch@...>

Has anyone seen any info on the Escape Hybrid that's coming
    out spring '03? I saw a one line write up in the paper awhile ago
    when they were talking about the '03 cars coming out.

      Thanks for any info,

        /Terry/

At 08:00 PM 10/29/02 Tuesday +0000, fido95111 wrote:

>       Has anyone seen any info on the Escape Hybrid that's coming
>    out spring '03? I saw a one line write up in the paper awhile ago
>    when they were talking about the '03 cars coming out.
>
>      Thanks for any info,
>
>        /Terry/

Info is still skimpy:

Bill Ford at CERES 2000 Conference in San Francisco, April 14, 2000

I'm pleased to report that we will have a hybrid-electric Sport Utility
Vehicle for sale in 2003. It will be based on our new, compact Ford Escape,
and will get 40 miles-per-gallon in stop-and-go city driving, and achieve a
California Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle rating. We think it will be the
cleanest, most fuel-efficient SUV on the planet when it goes on sale. We
are listening.


http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news090802-02
Improving SUV Fuel Efficiency Harder Than Expected, Says Ford Executive
(excerpt from Sept 02 article)

Late next year, Ford will begin building a version of its Ford Escape small
SUV with a hybrid gasoline-electric powertrain, capable of achieving 40
miles (64 km) per gallon in city driving. Cischke and Bill Ford both said
this week that Ford would build as many hybrid Escapes as the market would
demand, unlike the limited production of hybrid models by Honda and Toyota
on sale now.

But Cischske said a similar hybrid system that had been planned for the
larger Ford Explorer in 2004 had been cancelled because it failed to meet
the goal of improving efficiency by eight to 10 percent.
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --
     Felix Kramer    fkramer@...
       California Car Company Initiator
           http://www.calcars.us
    cell 650.520.5555  voice 650.599.9992
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --

>Guy Negre's remarkable air car still continues to attract media attention as it
gradually moves towards production.  So far, the company has sold 32 the
CityCAT, as it's now known, to a number of businesses.  Current production plans
are for 300 in the next couple years.
><P>
>The car can run up to 10 hours on cold, compressed air, but at slow speeds. 
It's top speed is about 110 km/hr or about 68 mph. Rather than manufacture the
car itself, Negre's company, MDI is offering investors a factory package,
complete with equipment to build the car.

This comment appeared in this week's mailed commentary from
evworld.com

My question is: why is this company talking about offering investors a
factory package?  Why not just get one single good car company to
build the car, or make it themselves?

I don't trust these schemes to set folks up with "turnkey" systems to
manufacture complex products.  A car is a more complex device than
most people usually buy, and they expect high quality and durability.
I am skeptical of this business model that MDI proposes.

That air engine is sort of interesting, but I wouldn't want one. I'v
worked on and rebuilt enough Diesel and other ICE engines to wonder
what that 70 degree hang time with the pistons will do to the rings
while under heat and pressure. The rings will stick to the cylinders
for a moment, causing wear. Using Soya oil for lubrication is
interesting too. Vegetable oils get sticky and gummy at high heat.
  I allso can't see this as being a cold climate car without warming
the engine with a heater first. It appears to operate on the
principals of a diesel. Fiberglass isn't a very good cold weather car
chassis either.
  Investors are just that, they have you use Your money to finance
their project or idea. That way, if You fail to sell the product,
it's Your fault and the lose is yours.

  I'll stick with my high mileage, low tech DC motor and lead acid
batteries.

Steven
WI

Looks like the best place for info might still be Ford's own sight:
http://www.hybridford.com/

Under the FAQ:
When can I buy an Escape HEV?
We currently expect the vehicle to be released nationwide at the end
of the 2003 calendar year. You should be able to purchase one, or at
least order one from your local dealer around that time. Check with
your local dealer next spring or summer to see if they have a waiting
list.


--- In evworld@y..., Felix Kramer <felix@n...> wrote:
> At 08:00 PM 10/29/02 Tuesday +0000, fido95111 wrote:
>
> >       Has anyone seen any info on the Escape Hybrid that's coming
> >    out spring '03? I saw a one line write up in the paper awhile
ago
> >    when they were talking about the '03 cars coming out.
> >
> >      Thanks for any info,
> >
> >        /Terry/
>
> Info is still skimpy:
>
> Bill Ford at CERES 2000 Conference in San Francisco, April 14, 2000
>
> I'm pleased to report that we will have a hybrid-electric Sport
Utility
> Vehicle for sale in 2003. It will be based on our new, compact Ford
Escape,
> and will get 40 miles-per-gallon in stop-and-go city driving, and
achieve a
> California Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle rating. We think it
will be the
> cleanest, most fuel-efficient SUV on the planet when it goes on
sale. We
> are listening.
>
>
> http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news090802-02
> Improving SUV Fuel Efficiency Harder Than Expected, Says Ford
Executive
> (excerpt from Sept 02 article)
>
> Late next year, Ford will begin building a version of its Ford
Escape small
> SUV with a hybrid gasoline-electric powertrain, capable of
achieving 40
> miles (64 km) per gallon in city driving. Cischke and Bill Ford
both said
> this week that Ford would build as many hybrid Escapes as the
market would
> demand, unlike the limited production of hybrid models by Honda and
Toyota
> on sale now.
>
> But Cischske said a similar hybrid system that had been planned for
the
> larger Ford Explorer in 2004 had been cancelled because it failed
to meet
> the goal of improving efficiency by eight to 10 percent.
> --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --
>     Felix Kramer    fkramer@c...
>       California Car Company Initiator
>           http://www.calcars.us
>    cell 650.520.5555  voice 650.599.9992
> --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --

>AFAIK, older engines won't be able to run it without a retrofit of
>some kind - or simply by adding 2% biodiesel to the fuel, solving the
>low lubricity problem. The biodiesel industry guys see this as a big
>opening for biodiesel. Then, with very low sulphur levels in the fuel
>(and none in the biodiesel) the way is open for using emissions
>control gear without poisoning the catalyst. I think that also
>removes the current barriers to the clean and efficient Euro diesels
>CARB's Lloyd talks of (and us).

This helps clear up some of my thinking, but only partly.  BTW, I
didn't know there were such problems with catalyst control gear on
diesel engines.  Does this mean there haven't been any, or simply that
they've been there but have generally been poisoned (have longevity
problems?)?

If I understood the one or two previous posts I read on this matter,
there is an "intermediate" level of fuel-cleaning available which
would not cause as much need (if any?) to retrofit or change diesel
engine setup, and this would, in the opinion of some clean-diesel
advocates, be a better transitionary phase than simply switching to
the lowest PPM sulfur standards, perhaps because it would cause less
disruption.  Thus, you'd have less upheaval in terms of engine
warranty debates, costs of retrofitting, costs of integrating a
lubricity cure, etc.

I am not saying what my opinion is, just trying to flesh out my
understanding of this.

If the ULSD 2006 requirements require a modest level of retrofitting
to run in all older diesel engines, then that would certainly be, at
minimum, one heck of a big project, particularly for truckers,
construction, farmers, etc?

This perennial tug-and-pull between fuel-maker and engine-maker, with
a lot of finger-pointing as to who should take the leadership roll,
and so forth, is a theme I've seen played-out before.  I think the
consensus presented to me is that not much gets done unless *both*
fuel maker and engine maker cooperate.  Most of the cleaner-engine
efforts seem predicated on some cleaner fuel.  And this seems somewhat
paralleled by one or two of the large Diesel makers now being fined
because they've failed to come out with sufficiently cleaner engines,
I think.  I bet they'd have found it easier if they could have banked
on cleaner fuel.  Not that they shouldn't have been able to make some
progress with the sufficient notice that they got, but it's a
two-way-street, this engine-maker-fuel-maker thing.

This was specified recently in a presentation I saw at UC Riverside
(Lloyd spoke briefly, by the way).  Honda, which has done amazing
things in cleaning up gasoline engine emissions, made clear that
without the special California cleaner gas, some or all of their SULEV
achievements would not be possible.  I don't think they implied that
their SULEV cars would falter horribly on normal gas, just that the
super-clean test results would not be possible, and so they emphasized
that they needed that cleaner gas.  Because of the
boutique-gas-too-many-types-available-around-the-country problem, and
probably for other reasons, I'm not sure how consistently available
this important fuel is outside of some areas.  On this point, by the
way, I don't think the Bush administration has been bad.  I seem to
recall one of their proposals, perhaps in relation to the ethanol
debate, ostensibly was oriented to try and reduce the number of
boutique mixtures around (although, obviously, many oil makers
aregoing to use that as a pretext to shut out innovations or mixtures
they find inconvenient).

And so Texaco was present as well and the achievements were presented
as a matter of teamwork.

A mostly-unspoken part of the day was the sad fact that EV's, which
were quite popular amongst a portion of the very few who got to drive
them, were essentially not part of the day, conspicuously shut out of
the discussion for anyone who was looking for them, and that their
emissions at the point of the car are essentially zero (though, to be
meticulous, I suppose there could be minute emissions during charging
and-or running, and of course there are the power-plant emissions
issues).  There were 25 or so Honda EV+ vehicles present on the UC
Riverside campus (it was hard to keep track).

There was also some evidence of biofuel and diesel research.

MM

>Go to www.EVworld.com, and click on the story "Clare Bell, E-Vet."
>Happy reading!
>
>Elaine

The direct link is:

http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=437

And the printable, which has small font bad for the eyes, but helps
avoid the "continue" button is:

http://www.evworld.com/databases/printit.cfm?storyid=437

I thought you did a terrific job.  It is not so easy to distill
something down so much, yet have so much meat to it.

I had several thoughts in response to this article.

First, the last few paragraphs:

>If Ford follows through on its plan to abandon Th!nk City production (despite
demonstrated demand) in favor of suing the California Air Resources Board, she'd
love to teach Ford a little lesson about survival.
>
>"There's nothing on that car that you can't buy from a vendor, except the body.
The electrical components are from Siemens or Actia of France, the batteries are
from SAFT… There are a few custom-made hoses, but nothing fancy. With a little
funding, there's nothing to stop us from putting the Th!nk brains in a Geo Metro
body and making a great little car."
>
>She seems the perfect person to pull this off, combining years of hobbyist
experience with time at two major manufacturers. "You can't just take some guy
out of school and say, 'Okay, build me an electric car.' To build a good
electric car, you need to have lived with a bad one. The auto industry has been
slow to take advantage of the years of experience of enthusiasts. But it's not
over yet, not by a long shot."

From this we can see not only that Claire would be a good candidate to
be near the top of any *genuine* effort to bring EV's to the public,
but also we learn a bit about what it really takes.  I also liked the
interesting comment about needing *both* mechanical and electrical
engineers.

I also got a more rounded sense of the *electrical* hazards and
dangers of poorly designed EV's.  This has come up with the recent
recall of the Iacoca bike, and a few other EV's over the years,
including the BAT efforts (never mind the investor nonsense, just
looking at the Engineering, one engineer told me they really didn't
know enough about what they were doing).  I have not heard of further
GEM fires, aside from the one covered by the NY Post, but if there are
more or in other EV's, they will doubtless be covered.   Since I was
involved in helping to cover the GEM story, Bell's further comments on
the importance of good electrical design are in instructive to me.

Another thought is that when one does have a well-designed EV, or a
half-well-designed one, that makes it all that much more of a pity to
throw it away (such as GM is doing), since we can sense that it is not
at all a no-brainer to design a good one.

I look forward to more articles and-or discussion of this one.

MM

I received the following from a reader and RAV4 EV driver, in response
to the Stephen Ellis Interview.  I asked if I could post it to the
group, and they said it would be ok.  Following are the reader's
comments, followed by my response:

--------------
To: joshl@...
Subject: Honda Insight - ???
From: drb45108@...
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:22:05 -0800 (PST)

Josh;

From: Honda Insight - Part 2

You asked:

...
EVW: I don't know if I should be argumentative or not,
because I know that some readers will say you're not
accomplishing the same thing because you're still using
fossil fuels.=20
...

Your answer - from a previous EVWorld link:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102302_campbell.html

Colin Campbell on Oil

...
Before beginning this interview it is necessary for the
reader to understand several critical factors about oil
and oil production. All of these factors affect how
much you or industry pays for oil, how much is
available, and what this life-essential commodity can
do. Almost every current human endeavor from
transportation, to manufacturing, to plastics, and
especially food production is inextricably intertwined
with oil and natural gas supplies. Commercial food
production is oil powered. All pesticides are petroleum
based, and all commercial fertilizers are ammonia
based. Ammonia is produced from natural gas.
...

It seems to me that a myopic focus of mpg on personnel
transport vehicle's miss's the the larger point.

When 'we' run out of oil to put into our cars we also
run out of oil for:
* Airplanes
   - Commerical Airlines
   - Military jets

* Plastics - to build the light weight fuel cell cars,
and battery cases that all are going to require.

* Diesel fuel for goods transport:
   - Trucks
   - Rail Road Locomotives

* Fuel for farm tractors that till the soil that grows
our food.

* Home heating
   - fuel oil
   - Natural Gas

That is only a very short list but I think you get the
idea.

How important is it to save oil? When we are fully into
the 'hydrogen transportation economy', we are then
faced with the depletion of the non-renewable resource
that makes the rest of our economy run.

I think 'cause of all the other things oil does it is
not a resource to be squandered, least of all on
personal transportation.

And I drive a Toyota Rav4EV for my daily transport, I
have solar panels on my house, and I have a 29 year old
Porsche 911 that wish to continue to be able to afford
to buy gas for.

In Part 1 you teased with this:
...
EVW: What types of recharging habits led to
degradation?

SE: If you were topping it off more. You're not
cycling... What we're seeing is no different than
people see with a nickel metal hydride flashlight
battery or for their own camera or something like that.
They can influence its life, you see?
...

Is there more? Inquring minds want to know!

--  Brandy

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

Hello Brandy:

I tend to agree that it would be nice if somehow we'd find a way to
value our natural resources more intelligently.  I have a lot of
admiration for the business of getting Oil and other minerals out of
the ground and making something of them, but I wonder if we can't find
a way somehow to synthesize these hydrocarbons that we're using rather
than just counting on ma nature to leave them there for us.

You forgot "clothing" in your list by the way, but I think you were
just providng a sampling.

My conversation with Mr. Ellis just sort of came up, it wasn't exactly
a planned thing.  So while I usually try to prepare questions as best
I think they will represent those we all have, in this case I was a
bit more groping on-the-fly.

I'd bet you and Mr. Ellis know dramatically more than I do about EV's
in a sense, as I am yet unable to afford one. Of those, I've driven, I
did get a test-drive of a RAV4 EV and I liked it a lot.  One owner
told me that he drives EV's just simply because they're better cars,
and I think that's a point that was on my mind in discussing matters
with Mr. Ellis.  I think that there are other consumers out there who
want to communicate to a company like Honda that they want the best
possible cars, and so I tried to reflect that in my questions.  The
quietness and good acceleration of the RAV4 EV for example were
impressive.  If only the costs can be brought down.  Since the battery
is so expensive in a RAV4 EV, I think this question of how to preserve
it and how to make it less expensively is important.

Please feel free to contribute further thoughts in our new yahoo
groups forum here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evworld/

My hope is that manufacturers' representatives  like Mr. Ellis will
see that they can contribute thinking and interviews in EVworld.com
and not get lambasted, but get constructive feedback from consumers
such as yourself.  Otherwise, they may be less likely to make
themselves available for discussion as Mr. Ellis was good enough to
do.

Of course please also feel free to let fellow readers and fellow
contributors know of your other EV thoughts and experiences.  I am
particularly hopeful about the RAV EV program.  Even though Mr.
Laroque has told me that Toyota has no plans at present, to expand the
for-sale-to-consumers aspect outside of California, I'm hopeful that
just by being involved for a somewhat long-term, Toyota and Matsushita
will gradually come to the conclusion that rather than discontinuing
the RAV4 EV, they might continue to find a limited market for it, and
then if they're able to improve it and perhaps bring their costs down
a bit, they might find even more of a market for it.  I know that the
EV's I've driven have seemed like some of the very best cars I've ever
driven, even putting all environmental considerations aside.

If you don't mind, I may copy your remarks and mine to the forum.  But
I'll refrain unless you say it's ok.

Did you have a further specific question as to what's coming up?  I
don't think there was much more as to advice on preserving batteries.

jl

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 08:54:59 EST, you wrote:

> Well written comments. Thanks. You've been doing a lot of thinking on this.
>I, for one, certainly agree that the Japanese appear to be more willing to
>invest in the longer term, and harvest the research over many years.
>
>Crown also made schoolbusses; and, not the cheaper, bolt-a-body on someone's
>truck chassis type, either. . .  your idea isn't so farfetched.  Who's my
>favorite candidate to buy Th!nk?  Well, it's wierd.....  GE, Siemens,
>Bombardier, or maybe a Korean carmaker.   Team the formers up with someone
>like Wallmart, and you've got the servicing infrastructure that you'd need.
>Bombardier, for example, could sell a boatload of them to the airports or
>airlines as ground support vehicles.  If you've ever been to Phoenix, you'll
>see a ton of Gems on the ramp.

I think these are some good ideas.  I am not as familiar as I'd like
to be European larger companies, and of course some of them would fit
right alongside the ones you've mentioned such as Siemens.

I wonder about GEM, because their sales are apparently going pretty
well (I've heard, from one industry follower).  But I sort of cringe
at the idea that they would bite off more than they could chew, and
the net result could be bad, just at a time when Daimler-Chrysler, to
my surprise, has chosen to continue making them and selling them
because they see good sales and potential profit.  This, not only in
the face of Ford discontinuing its NEV, but also in the face of and GM
being so spiteful that they're going to subcontract out for some NEV's
to be made and *give* them away in California (thus not only refusing
to build highway capable EV's, but also hurting sales of something
like the for-profit GEM).

Whoever buys that Th!nk City, all I hope for is that they have the
means, the commitment, genuine intelligence and business sense to
really research how and where to sell these cars, to really get it
done, to overcome obstacles and unanticipated problems, to change a
plan if it isn't working but to not have to do so too often, to see
the way to do this and build a business of making EV's.  I don't care
who it is, but I do think that these requirements would sort of narrow
it down to someone who is really in it not only for the money, but
with real belief-in and commitment-to the idea that, if run in a
careful way, a business like Th!nk might have a chance.

> I still think that Ford should make nice with someone, as that way, they can
>still brand the imports to the USA (And, particularly, California), as Fords.
> Of course, that would also require training someone per dealer(or city),
>something I think they want to avoid.

Although it bothers me to think that Ford, who could sell Th!nks
today, right now, if they cared, would still be involved, I think on
the other hand that not only might they insist on some possible
involvement going forward (especially since they know darn well it
might succeed) but I suppose it could help to compromise in this way.

The problem is that Ford has already arguably demonstrated a real
long-term commitment to not allowing this program to succeed.  It has
taken years of stumbling about to the point where they're now saying
they can't do this.  They were saying that not enough buyers wanted
the cars and that this was part of the reason, but I think that idea
has been somewhat countered by recent worldwide activism exposing this
idea for its inherent falseness, by revealing the extent to which Ford
has not made the car available and then has claimed low sales, by
showing that all cars that were made available were leased, etc.

We've heard from one Ford employee that we are seriously wrong about
these things on a number of points, such as our assumptions about
batteries (the other major reason given for Ford bowing out) but have
not heard much from the company privately or publicly as to how we are
wrong.

So, I am concerned that any Ford involvement going forward is a
double-edged sword.  I don't think we should set aside their history
on this.  They don't seem to want to be in the EV business.  Maybe a
serious suitor should think hard before accepting Ford involvement.
If they don't want to make Ev's, they don't want to make Ev's.  Having
them as a partial partner, going forward, might cause real problems,
unless they are able to show how this wouldn't.

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:48:31 -0000, you wrote:

>There are without question other interested parties. At least one has
>been mentioned in the Aftenposten newspaper. See:
>http://www.aftenposten.no/english/business/article.jhtml?articleID=417761

Thx for the article

I haven't followed ZAP closely over the years, but I recognize the
symptoms you describe and am 100% with you: this type of thinking and
company should not be taken as seriously as a potential buyer with
real cash money and a real business plan and history of success.

The little I've heard about ZAP:

Good product, cruddy stock, incompetent hippy-ish (in a bad way)
approach to business.  I heard a year ago or so that they would be
bankrupt, specifically because of some of their less-good qualities,
and I guess that recently happened?  now they're back to life?

I think if the question is whether they're dishonest or deluded, I put
this question to a couple of people just this weekend, one of whom
sells their product.  The answer seems to be more that they're a bit
deluded, though there's some dishonesty in that I suppose.

My BS detector-alarm did sound-off quite a bit in reading their offer,
such as the fact that they're offering lots of low priced stock
instead of cash, and such as their inflated view of the value of their
own boldness and vision for EV's.  But it takes balls to establish and
run a company, and it's easy for me to criticize, so the other side to
this coin is, whatever their faults, if they are the only or best
option for Th!nk, then I hope it goes their way.

I think they want to buy Th!nk.  Now, hopefully someone else can make
an even better offer, or has.  What we shouldn't do is allow the lull
in news to allow us to be complacent to think this battle is somehow
won.  The odds have been totally against us all along (as we can
deduce from the rather extraordinary demands made by Ford), and still
very much are.

The goal is to get Th!nk into the hands of someone who will take a
real shot at success, who can get good batteries without hassle or
deliberate roadblocks thrown in the way (that really could narrow it
down!), who will in short do a good job of trying to do this thing.  I
don't think we've yet seen that goal through, and I think there are
some suitors whose purchase of the company would not necessarily
qualify as a success for us or for Th!nk.  Hopefully, as has been
said, things are going on behind the scenes, but I'll believe it only
when I see proof the company has been sold to a maker and not to a
scuttle-er.

One thing a lot of us often think about is the over-the-years slow
who-knows-what-to-make-of-it situation with Ovonics batteries.  They
were part-owned by GM for years, and it's not much of a mystery that
somehow the price of their NiMH batteries never seemed to quite come
down.  Then that stake in Ovonics was sold to Chevron-Texaco a few
years ago.  A good thing?

Last year I heard a quote for an advanced NiMH water-cooled
battery-pack for a single prototype EV at $30,000.  The jury is still
out, I guess, on how Chevron Texaco part-ownership will affect Ovonics
NiMh battery availability, but for the moment, they aren't exactly
flooding the market with reasonably priced NiMh batteries for Ev's, if
that will ever be possible.

So, not all suitors are necessarily good news with some of these
EV-related companies.  I don't want to say that C-T has been bad news
for Ovonics.  I'm just saying that in general for all EV-related
companies, we fans have earned a right to be somewhat skeptical.

MM

http://www.eticonference.com/agenda.html

I will not be there, but more than one industry person within the last
week has mentioned this conference to me and that they are going, so I
am just posting the info for those who might not be aware of it.  For
someone who might be close by, or who might want to make a vacation
out of it, it could be a good experience, if you are really into this
whole EV thing.

I think there is some association, in a way, between the EVAA and
several of the folks who sponsor and-or participate on these
discussion groups.  But I am just posting this information simply
because there might be folks unaware of the conference and who might
want to know about it.

Someone asked me today whether any coolio HEV or EV or major alt-fuels
type vehicles would be introduced at the upcoming Detroit Conference
in early January.

I assume so, but have no real knowledge of what will be there.  Does
anyone know?

http://www.naias.com/main.asp?sectionID=8

Of course the Detroit Auto show, and a small handfull of others are
the real "majors", and a major company wanting to make a splash would
announce something there.  But the first conference I mentioned, the
ETIC in early December, would probably be a place I'd more look to
really make contacts and connections and have good discussions with
EV-minded folks.  Just my uneducated opinion (I've been to neither).

MM

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:45:09 EST, you wrote:

>The Japanese KAZ electric limousine is scheduled to appear at the Detroit
>Auto show in Jan.
>There has been some interest in producing this vehicle in the US and Canada.

Thanks for the info.

I think the economics and political philosophy of recycling can not
only be interesting but at times has gotten just plain strange.
Recycling I guess means two things, identification and disposal of
waste (1st) and then (2nd) use of that waste rather than some sort of
sequestration or "throwing away" as a disposal method.  I guess folks
have a tough enough time paying for number one, and getting to number
2 is just that much tougher or something.  Maybe we had so much of the
Earth to ourselves for so many millenia that we just are having a
tough time with our more "crowded" state.

Looking at the history of the effort to recycle paper, it seems to me
there was some strange volatility of recycled-paper prices.  That is,
I think I read an article once where they said at some point you did
have a lot of entrants into the relatively nascent market, and there
was enthusiasm, or even over-enthusiasm for this new field that had
met previously with skepticism, and then the bottom kind of fell out
of the recycled paper raw feed market and so the business went back to
being viewed skeptically?  Well, that's my recollection.

Well, I'm sure there are University Professors out there doing all
sorts of interesting and terribly important theses which are pertinent
to the Economics of Recycling, except their ideas will probably become
mainstream decades after they might have done us any good.  Heck, it's
taken me years just to get some folks to understand that regenerative
braking arguably amounts to recycling energy of motion, but I guess
that's getting a bit off my point, and a bit away from regular
recycling concepts.


>it's free for the taking. Biodieselers are a great way to localise
>the collection of waste oils effectively.
>
>I also saw this, but haven't managed to confirm it: "Every year, U.S.
>businesses throw away enough waste vegetable oil to replace 10% of
>the petroleum products consumed in the country."

The Think city was designed and developed by Europeans for the
European urban market. This market is very different from the US: in
Europe fuel is much more expensive, commuting distances are smaller,
cars in general are much smaller than the US. The Think will never
sell well in the US as it was not designed for that market and fails
to deliver to US customer expectation. Ford should have tackled the
European market first not as a last resort when US sales figures
turned out to be too low.


   Windy

Your discussion of paper recycling is an interesting one.  I am
currently reading a book called "Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way
We Make Things" by William McDonough and Michael Braungart.  The
book looks at our world and our concepts of recycling and tries to
bring a different viewpoint to our thinking.  They bring a practical
sense to their thoughts, their firm was hired by Ford to design a
green roof for one of its Michigan facilities that was several
million dollars cheaper than a traditional storm water removal
system.  The book itself is published on a plastic paper that is
water-proof and recyclable, the first step in what they believe will
ultimately be a synthetic paper that is re-usable.  It is a
fascinating look at both the environmental side and the corporate
side and how to bring them together in a workable way.

            Chris

--- In evworld@y..., murdoch <murdoch@h...> wrote:
> I think the economics and political philosophy of recycling can not
> only be interesting but at times has gotten just plain strange.
> Recycling I guess means two things, identification and disposal of
> waste (1st) and then (2nd) use of that waste rather than some sort
of
> sequestration or "throwing away" as a disposal method.  I guess
folks
> have a tough enough time paying for number one, and getting to
number
> 2 is just that much tougher or something.  Maybe we had so much of
the
> Earth to ourselves for so many millenia that we just are having a
> tough time with our more "crowded" state.
>
> Looking at the history of the effort to recycle paper, it seems to
me
> there was some strange volatility of recycled-paper prices.  That
is,
> I think I read an article once where they said at some point you
did
> have a lot of entrants into the relatively nascent market, and
there
> was enthusiasm, or even over-enthusiasm for this new field that had
> met previously with skepticism, and then the bottom kind of fell
out
> of the recycled paper raw feed market and so the business went
back to
> being viewed skeptically?  Well, that's my recollection.
>
> Well, I'm sure there are University Professors out there doing all
> sorts of interesting and terribly important theses which are
pertinent
> to the Economics of Recycling, except their ideas will probably
become
> mainstream decades after they might have done us any good.  Heck,
it's
> taken me years just to get some folks to understand that
regenerative
> braking arguably amounts to recycling energy of motion, but I guess
> that's getting a bit off my point, and a bit away from regular
> recycling concepts.
>
>
> >it's free for the taking. Biodieselers are a great way to
localise
> >the collection of waste oils effectively.
> >
> >I also saw this, but haven't managed to confirm it: "Every year,
U.S.
> >businesses throw away enough waste vegetable oil to replace 10%
of
> >the petroleum products consumed in the country."

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:52:26 -0000, you wrote:

>I am glad to hear that there will be a 2003 RAV4 EV.  It will be
>interesting to learn if it will be using the old body style or the
>new, and how many they will offer for sale next year.  Keep us
>informed as soon as Toyota makes the information available to the
>public.
>
>Noel
>evfinder.com

It was my understanding that Toyota was not intent on continuing the
to-the-public program, but I was not clear on whether they would
continue the to-fleets-nationwide sales.  Why would the latter program
be discontinued?  That's been going on for years, or so it seems to
me, although at times the number of cars available has not met demand
(or at least that's what I heard from one potential buyer years ago).

In the conversation you had, what distinction, if any, did the dealer
make between sales-to-consumers and sales-to-fleet-buyers?  Did they
see any reason that they would not be able to supply the same large
customers that had also been buying the vehicle alongside the public?

For example, I know that one of the local electric utilities had
bought a few from one of the local Toyota dealers.  Would their
ability to do so also be discontinued in the future, to your
knowledge?

MM

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 20:10:32 -0600, you wrote:

>I have to ask .... any pics??
>
>I saw a biodiesel ev hybrid s10 pickup in Vermont last summer. very cool.

I wonder if the S-10 won't lend itself to this sort of project, since
GM sold some of them, rather than leasing them and keeping control
over their fate, as they did with the EV1.

From: "Tom xxx"
Subject: Re: Netcast of Dec 5/6 CARB Workshop ?


> Hello again,
> We are planning to broadcast via the internet.  Check with me for details
the
> week of the workshop if you have any questions related to this.  Thanks.

The upcoming CARB workshop looks like it will be netcast.  We will try
to provide a link on evworld.com if possible.

To the biofuelers:

I am not sure this particular CARB meeting would be the appropriate
forum for a biofuel advocate to make an out-of-nowhere stance, though
it might not be inappropriate and in any case some of the CARB
meetings would be.  One thing is to subscribe to their notices, and
then you can be the judge.

Now, if anyone does present to Dr. Lloyd and others at such a meeting,
I have a few further points to suggest as you are composing your
thoughts:

Remember that CARB's mission is *not* higher mileage nor to cure all
environmental ills, etc.  It is the California *AIR* Resources Board,
and their mission seems to be centered on cleaner Air, which means
cleaner emissions.

I don't care that this also arguably means better mileage, because
that argument has run them afoul recently of the Federales who have I
think sued them or something.  California has some sort of
dispensation under Federal Law to establish emissions regulations
different than other states, but I think the Feds said that since
CARB's attempts at mandates seemed to have gone over into mileage,
this then rendered their mandate attempts illegal or something.  I
don't know... very hard to follow, though obviously the Bush
administration's main goal is simply to stop mandate attempts and have
the Automakers left alone regardless.

Also note that some of the finer points of
better-emissions-vs.-higher-mileage have also played into the hands of
GM and other auto makers who have spent their time suing CARB recently
rather than attempting to make cleaner better EVs and other cars.

I take it for granted, by the way, for the sake of discussion, that
the ZEV mandate could in fact be done-for.  The automakers and other
opponents have lobbied zealously against it and have done an effective
job.  EV and other low-emission progressive-technology advocates were
clearly too anxious to declare victory, when they thought they'd
gained it.  In my view, this played into the hands of the
lawer-wealthy strategists.

One biofuel point that I think needs to be made very badly, to CARB
and others, is if we are seeing further instances of tax laws being
used as a pretext to shut down smaller-company and home production and
sales of biofuels.  I am referring to the recent instances, in the
United States and Britain, of tax collectors shutting down biofuel
production on the reasoning that traditional fuel taxes were not being
paid, largely because of the home-made nature of some of the biofuel
companies, where somehow the traditional tax process was not in place.

This stopping of biofuel efforts, it seems to me, is arguably a
construct of the established Fuel Major Companies to stop a nascent
effort to compete with them, and the more news and information and
personal annecdotes we can get out there, the more someone like CARB
can go to the Governor and make hard recommendations as to protecting
nascent biofuel efforts from suffering this problem.  I do not suggest
that biofuelers deserve special treatment as against their
competition, but use of tax laws as a pretext to stifle competition is
unethical and we cannot take it for granted that it will stop unless
something is done.

From what I understand, emissions from Biodiesel are quite good
compared to regular biodiesel emissions and the fact that biodiesel
capable vehicles are already in place is a big leg-up on a lot of the
other proposed solutions that CARB often hears.

And, as I said before, emissions from landfill or other waste-disposal
of waste biomass might be lowered if biowaste were used to make fuel
for engines, so that is an additional way in which use of biomass
waste might arguably improve California Air quality.  Hard to say.

Lastly, as to Ethanol, I spoke a year or two go to a Cal EPA guy and I
got the impression that it was his personal professional scientific
opinion, after *much* research on behalf of California Taxpayers, that
the clean-air benefits of Ethanol as a modest mixture in gasoline were
there, but that they were, on balance, outweighed by the benefits of
RFG-without-ethanol.  I am not saying that I agreed or disagreed with
him, but I am passing this on.  He viewed the ethanol solution as
relatively old technology compared to what in his opinion was a
somewhat superior solution of the newest RFG formulas.

On an up note, I saw another sign at my local Phillips 76 station,
this time touting that *all* of their stations (in Calfiornia) were
MTBE free.  Their pumps don't guarantee ethanol content as a
replacement, but say that the fuel *may* contain ethanol, so I guess
otherwise they'd be RFG-with-or-without-some-other-oxygenate?  Maybe
there's a third or fourth oxygen-enhancement out there?

Thought this was kind of interesting.

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 07:41:30 +0900, Keith Addison
<keith@...> wrote:

>Forward from the GAS list.
>
>>From: JBenemann@...
>>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:53:49 EST
>>Subject:  The "Hydrogen Economy":  Bleak or Bright?
>>To: tombreed@...
>>CC: gasification@... (gasification), Stoves@... (Stoves),
>>        bioenergy@... (bioenergy)
>>
>>Dear Tom:
>>
>>I agree, methanol should be a good fuel, but from wasted, flared natural gas
>>where available in sufficient amounts, not from biomass, I think we both
>>agree on that.
>>
>>Re. H2, I think we have a similar situation - biomass gasification may not be
>>a good approach to produce H2, due to the clean-up, etc., required.
>>Fermentations maybe a tad better, maybe.  (I should state I work on H2
>>fermentations, so I may be biased).
>>
>>But then the question becomes what to do with the H2.  After 30 years doing
>>R&D in biological H2 production, I have yet to see anyone stating a clear
>>path to practical development.  Having low cost (say $400 /kWe) fuel cells,
>>as promised by the industry, would, maybe,be helpful, but that still requires
>>some 90 to 99% cost reduction (depending on whose quote you believe).
>>Anyway, IC engines do reasonably well and I see no real arguments in favor
>>fuel cells for biomass applications.
>>
>>Actually, there may be a good use for biomass gasification in a close-coupled
>>moded for co-firing in coal (and maybe oil) power plants to provide some H2
>>to help reduce NOx emissions.  Has anyone looked at that?
>>
>>Re. H2 and cars, indeed this is a simple "greenwashing" excercise.  Actually,
>>the key in the Scientific American article is the statement that H2 cars
>>would preserve our "freedom of personal transportation".  Hydrogen cars are
>>held up as the final solution to all pollution and justification to continue
>>our wasteful and rapidly selfdefeating, personal car mode of transportation.
>>H2 may cut down on local air pollution, but overall it seems to me to be
>>rather marginal, to be charitable.  And unaffordable, to be realistic.
>>
>>This whole H2 car business was started a few years back by Shell in Europe,
>>as a counter to the arguments by the Greens in Germany (in particular) who
>>wanted to start moving away from the two plus cars in every garage model to a
>>more public mode of transportation.  Which would be bad for oil companies,
>>car companies, and all those benefiting from our current system.  So their
>>embrace of H2 is understandable - it justifies the status quo and no danger
>>of it ever becoming anything more than a Popular Mechanics /Scientific
>>American cover story, and a (mostly government funded) R&D excercise.
>>Indeed, the current long-long-term Dept. of Energy H2 car program replaced a
>>much more serious and near-term high-efficiency car program, which was
>>becoming dangerously too real to the oil and car companies.  So it was
>>terminated.
>>
>>Perhaps others would have some additional/alternative perspecitves on this?
>>
>>John
>>
>>John R. Benemann, Ph.D.
>>3434 Tice Creek Dr. No.1
>>Walnut Creek, CA 94595
>>(925) 939 5864 Fax (925) 944 1205
>>Cell (925) 352 3352  jbenemann@...
>>
>>>From: "Tom Reed" <tombreed@...>
>>>To: <JBenemann@...>
>>>Cc: "gasification" <gasification@...>, "Stoves" <Stoves@...>,
>>>        "bioenergy" <bioenergy@...>
>>>Subject: The "Hydrogen Economy":  Bleak or Bright?
>>>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:33:21 -0700
>>>Organization: BEF
>>>
>>>Dear Mr. Benemann:
>>>
>>>I have long been a fan of methanol as the best replacement for gasoline.
>>>However, you are correct in discouraging the idealists from thinking
>>>backyard methanol - even small ethanol should be included. Backyard steel
>>>mills and chemical plants went out with Mao.
>>>
>>>Now let me disabuse you of the "Hydrogen Dream".  Hydrogen is a  major
>>>component of most fuels, but by itself has never been considered as a fuel -
>>>until atomic energy (with electricity too cheap to meter) and the hydrogen
>>>fuel cell arrived.  Pure hydrogen is too expensive to make, too hard to ship
>>>and store and often too difficult to use because of its 10X flame speed.
>>>
>>>For an excellent, balanced, evaluation of the costs associated with
>>>hydrogen, see
>>>The Future of the Hydrogen Economy:
>>>Bright or Bleak?
>>>Baldur Eliasson1 and Ulf Bossel2
>>>1ABB Switzerland Ltd., Corporate Research, Baden-Dättwil / Switzerland
>>>2Fuel Cell Consultant, Oberrohrdorf / Switzerland
>>>at
>>>http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/hotline/pdf/hydrogen_economy.pdf.
>>>
>>>~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>The October 2002 Scientific American had an article on "Vehicle of Change,
>>>How fuel-cell Cars Could Revolutionize the World.  The article, by three
>>>high level GM executives extolled the mechanical ingenuities of possible
>>>hydrogen cars while skipping over the dark realities of generation, supply
>>>and storage.
>>>
>>>Then, in an amazing editorial the editors warned about "Greenwashing the
>>>car".  They said "Two cheers for the fuel-cell-car pioneers.  But this
>>>transformation will start to get serious only in a decade or so.  Until
>>>then, industsry lobbyists will apparently continue to battle against
>>>near-term measures to improve the environment.  Skeptics note that the
>>>commitemnet to a far-off technology lets the auto industry earn
>>>environmental kudos without necessarily incurring the cost of producing
>>>high-mileage cars today.  Environmentalists have a name for a strategy in
>>>which one flaunts green credentials while pusing to maintain the ability to
>>>pollute:  "greenwashing."
>>>
>>>I fear that this focus on the hydrogen dream will trump practical
>>>development of practical fuels which we will need when worl oil production
>>>peaks and begins to dwindle.  I fear the the Hydrogen dream will take over
>>>in national energy plans and leave us with ... nothing.
>>>
>>>Here's to our children and grandchildren's energy sources being as good as
>>>ours have been...
>>>
>>>Thomas B. Reed
>>>
>>>Dr. Thomas B. Reed
>>>1810 Smith Rd., Golden, CO 80401
>>>tombreed@...; 303 278 0558 Phone/Fax
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: <JBenemann@...>
>>>To: <enecon@...>
>>>Cc: <gasification@...>
>>>Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 2:11 AM
>>>Subject: Re: GAS-L: Re: LPG and steam reforming
>>>
>>>
>>> > Dear Mr. Bland:
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for your very useful, concise and instructive primer on
>>>hydrocarbon
>>> > gases.  In particular you laid to rest the old saw about making biogas or
>>> > gasifier gas into methanol - the compressor costs become horribly
>>>expensive
>>> > at small scales and make such process only suitable for large-scale
>>>systems.
>>> > Of course you still have to clean up the gas to remove tars, etc....  I
>>>hope
>>> > this will lay to rest this whole business.
>>> >
>>> > One question though: what about making H2?  I would be interested in your
>>> > answer.
>>> >
>>> > Sincerely,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > John R. Benemann, Ph.D.
>>> > 3434 Tice Creek Dr. No.1
>>> > Walnut Creek, CA 94595
>>> > (925) 939 5864 Fax (925) 944 1205
>>> > Cell (925) 352 3352  jbenemann@...
>>> >
>>> > Gasification List Moderator:
>>> > Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation,  tombreed@... Biomass =
>>> > Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
>>> > List-Post: <mailto:gasification@...>
>>> > List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@...>
>>> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@...>
>>> > List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@...>
>>> > -
>>> > Gasification List Archives
>>>http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
>>> > Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
>>> > 200 kWe CHP Discussion
>>> > http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
>>> > Gasification Reference
>>>http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html
>
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Biofuels list archives:
>http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
>Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>biofuel-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Greetings All,

Interesting Post from the Think_EV group:

According to internal sources at Ford, the Ranger Pickup EV Production
line has been shutdown.

Support and Servicing of EV Rangers has been subcontracted out to a
Company in Long Beach California, to support the initial order of EV
models sold to the US Postal Service for EV-mail trucks assigned to
Southern California.

Due to the Anthrax Attack upon the US Postal Service, and the related
expense of clean-up and new anti-terrorist equipment, the follow-up
order of EV Mail Trucks were canceled. The Ranger EV line was
converted from Pick-Up Fabrication to Mail Truck fabrication to build
the first order. So, with no follow-up order, Ford shut down the
assembly line.

For people interested in leasing Ford EV Ranger Pickup Trucks, many
are becoming available as the first lease agreements are ending, and
the trucks will be available to anyone interested in starting a 2nd
lease.  I myself was looking into leasing an EV-Ranger pickup for a
new business venture of my own.

Here's hoping someone can rescue the Th!nk City assembly plant and
offer the vehicle with a battery technology that is viable.
I recommend Energy Conversion Devices and their Ovonic Battery
division as a tech partner to combine their NiMH Battery tech or their
hydrogen storing Metal Hydride Powder technology with the Th!nk City
EV.

If I was a Venture Capitalist, I'd combine the Th!nk assembly plant
with a fuel cell manufacturer, and partner up with Stuart Energy
Systems which creates a personal hydrogen refueler you set-up in your
garage, just hook-up a water line and an electrical line, and it
creates hydrogen.  By using the Th!nk City platform, you start out
small, so you'll need a smaller fuel cell. Then as you get familiar
with the tech, you can make the fuel cell larger while expanding the
length of the vehicles body platform to offer a 5 door type vehicle
like the A-Class by Mercedes (4 doors + 1 hatchback). This matches the
needs of the 1st time car buyer, College Student/Graduate or Family
vehicle class. With the 2 rear seats easily folding/removable, there
is plenty of room for the occasional furniture move or IKEA run or
Xmas Tree run once a year.

All the best,
Tom Cesarz
efxstar@...