Fascinating Documentary: "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

[Jerry Jones]

OK, I wrote the following in the other forum I quoted earlier about the possibility of EVs becoming mainstream...

Brian,

The most OPTIMISTIC scenario for pure electric cars gaining traction in the marketplace does not anticipate "mainstream" usage, in my view.

Instead, I see the same thing happening in the automotive marketplace that's happening in the American "news" marketplace.

Splintering of the market, in other words.

In the news marketplace, consumers tend to separate and they watch cable news channels that present news in a way that conforms with their political views.

For example, the "red state" news consumers here in the Rocky Mountain West turn on FOX News and they get the news and opinion that conform to their political view of the world.

In "blue states," they tend to seek out PBS, NPR, Salon.com, etc.

I suspect the same will be true for the automobile industry.

I see one segment of the market strongly pushing for all-electric vehicles.

I see another segment of the market strongly pushing for hybrids.

I see another segment of the market clinging to traditional gasoline internal combustion engine vehicles.

I see another segment of the market pushing for hydrogen.

The point of the film, "Who Killed the Electric Car," is that the people who wanted all-electric vehicles -- in reality -- did not truly get the benefit of a "free market."

Why?

Because the all-electric vehicles were a threat to the traditional business models of various politically powerful interest groups... oil oligopolies... auto manufacturers with business models based on internal combustion engine vehicles... regulators... etc.

So when you argue, Brian, that "mainstream adoption" for electric cars would do "this" or "that," you seem to be setting up a STRAW MAN.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Don't twist my words. There is much more agreement than disagreement. The scientific community uses discussion to move forward, they challenge each other

They seem to be challenging YOU, Mark.

Dr. Andy Frank, Professor of Engineering at the University of California at Davis is strongly pushing an EV "plug-in" hybrid concept where the driver is given the option of plugging-in the car and driving entirely on battery power.

Here's the link:

http://tinyurl.com/k2drd

Dr. Frank holds a Ph.D. in engineering, Mark.

Here are his official credentials:

http://tinyurl.com/on6ac

His viewpoint seems opposite of your own.

What are the naysayers saying about plug-in hybrids?

* The extra batteries will weigh too much.
Dr. Frank's Response: The extra weight of the batteries will be offset somewhat by the reduced weight of the gas engine. At high speeds in particular, fuel efficiency is affected primarily by aerodynamics—the added weight of the equivalent of one or two additional passengers reduces MPG minimally.

* The extra batteries will cost too much.
Dr. Frank's Response: If sold in high volumes by carmakers, more powerful and cheaper nickel metal hydride or lithium ion batteries could be sold at prices only a few thousand dollars above that of today’s hybrids. Recharging will take place mostly at night during cheaper off-peak hours. Counting purchases, fuel and service, total lifetime cost of ownership will be lower than a gas car.

* Producing power from the grid (to charge the cars) will produce additional emissions.
Dr. Frank's Response: What the industry calls "well-to-wheel" emissions (including greenhouse gases) for grid-powered vehicles is far lower than gasoline, even for the American power grid (which is 50 percent coal). Cars charging off-peak will use power from plants that can't turn off at night. Many parts of the country get most of their power from cleaner sources such as natural gas and hydropower. It's far easier to improve centralized power stations than millions of aging cars. Finally, plug-in hybrids recharged from rooftop photovoltaic systems would have virtually zero emission.

OK, Mark.

Those are the points being made by Dr. Frank, a Ph.D. engineer who teaches at the University of California at Davis.

Do you accuse Dr. Frank of being a fraud?

Do you feel Dr. Frank is guilty of pushing propaganda on us?

By the way, Toyota has already confirmed they are working on plug-in hybrid models.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Now check out the latest comments from the car-makers, themselves.

These comments suggest that the car-makers are detecting a change in public opinion... growing interest in the concept of EVs and so-called "plug-in" hybrids.

Here are their comments:

http://tinyurl.com/pbke5

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Finally, according to Richard S Lindzen of MIT carbon dioxide and methane account for less than 2 PERCENT of the greenhouse effect. Lindzen is a world renowned climatologist. The rest and most significant portion of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor in the atmosphere. So when put in perspective man made carbon dioxide accounts for less than 0.1 percent of the total global warming effect!

These statements from you, Mark, are the most shocking I've read so far.

OK, let's talk about Richard Lindzen.

1. His official MIT credentials are listed here:

http://tinyurl.com/e5tho

2. Richard Lindzen does *NOT* respresent the consensus of the scientific community.

3. Richard Lindzen disputes global warming as part of a MINORITY, according to this Web page from the Center for Media & Democracy here:

http://tinyurl.com/gh33a

According to the preceding Web page by the Center for Media & Democracy, HARPER's published a scathing criticism of Mr. Lindzen by investigative journalist Ross Gelbspan, alleging he (Lindzen) charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

The full text of the Harper's Magazine article about Lindzen is here:

http://tinyurl.com/lk5as

"For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics—Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others—who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis."

"Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns."

Now I can't believe you think that Lindzen's views represent the consensus of the scientific community.

Do you really expect me to believe that, Mark?

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

By the way, Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote that 1995 article in Harper's Magazine and he argues that the climate change sceptics "assert flatly that their science is untainted by funding."

"Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded campaign of global warming denial they have become interchangeable ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation."

"Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized."

Did you ever get a chance to read that last sentence in the Harper's article, Mark?

"The dominant MAJORITY of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized" by contrarians such as Lindzen.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Here are Ross Gelbspan's credentials, FYI:

http://tinyurl.com/ksbyf

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

And we won't, as long as it remains ridiculously expensive and inefficient to do so.

You seem to have been sleeping during the past five years.

A lot has happened in the wind power industry as you can read at the following link:

http://tinyurl.com/kyg8u

"Over the last 20 years, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80%."

"In the early 1980s, when the first utility-scale turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour."

"Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants can generate electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh with the Production Tax Credit in many parts of the U.S., a price that is competitive with new coal- or gas-fired power plants."

Texas eclipses California:

http://tinyurl.com/f9pz8

"As of the end of 2004, there were over 47,000 megawatts of generating capacity operating worldwide, producing some 100 billion kilowatt-hours each year—as much as 9 million average American households use, or as much as a dozen large nuclear power plants could generate."

"Yet this is but a tiny fraction of wind's potential."

SOURCE: http://tinyurl.com/h5pm6

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

About wind power, talk to those preserving nature. In many many cases, wind power = dead birds.

"While no studies have been done of this question, anecdotal evidence indicates that birds occasionally collide with small wind turbines, as they do with any other type of structure."

"However, such events are rare and very unlikely to have any impact on bird populations."

"House cats in the U.S., by contrast, are estimated to kill roughly one billion birds each year."

"Statistically, a single house cat is a much greater threat to birds than a small wind turbine."

SOURCE: http://tinyurl.com/lx9lo

Also:

"No matter how extensively wind is developed in the future, bird deaths from wind energy are unlikely to ever reach as high as 1% of those from other human-related sources such as hunters, house cats, buildings, and autos. (House cats, for example, are believed to kill 1 billion birds annually in the U.S. alone.)"

"Wind is, quite literally, a drop in the bucket."

"Still, areas that are commonly used by threatened or endangered bird species should be regarded as unsuitable for wind development."

"The wind industry is working with environmental groups, federal regulators, and other interested parties to develop methods of measuring and mitigating wind energy's effect on birds."

http://tinyurl.com/z262f

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Toyota Optimistic About Plug-In Hybrids

http://tinyurl.com/pubfs

"In March, Toyota engineers said the concept of a car that can be recharged at home overnight and uses gasoline only when its batteries run low was interesting."

"But they said then that the high-tech batteries needed to make it work could take as long as 10 years to develop."

"But yesterday, Cuneo said the automaker is more hopeful that the batteries could be ready soon."

"Speaking at the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce's annual meeting at the Galt House, he said Toyota believes it could have a plug-in hybrid ready sooner."

"We're a little more optimistic now of breakthroughs that would make (lithium-ion batteries) viable in the near term," Cuneo said. "We're working on this, and a lot of other companies are tackling this problem."

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Gurm]

I think I just figured something out. Garry Denke commits online suicide, and then...

[Jerry Jones]

If you didn't have luck with German cars, you did something horribly wrong. My BMW was the best car I, or anyone I know, has ever owned. Period. Full stop.

Before you make such statements, you should read Business Week Online and educate yourself about the J.D. Power and Associates' 2006 Vehicle Dependability Survey.

The title of the 2006 article: Japanese cars top list of dependable vehicles

Guess what the article says about European vehicles?

"Europe gets shut out completely."

Although BMW did OK, I wasn't talking about BMW.

I was talking about Volkswagen, which ranks very low in the survey.

Read it and weep:

http://tinyurl.com/nnpxs

CHECKMATE!



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Brian Ellis]

Jerry

You have FAR too much time on your hands! I'm retired but certainly do not have time to write (or even read) your diatribes.

[TransformX]

"While no studies have been done of this question, anecdotal evidence indicates that birds occasionally collide with small wind turbines, as they do with any other type of structure."

"However, such events are rare and very unlikely to have any impact on bird populations."

"House cats in the U.S., by contrast, are estimated to kill roughly one billion birds each year."

"Statistically, a single house cat is a much greater threat to birds than a small wind turbine."

SOURCE: http://tinyurl.com/lx9lo

Also:

"No matter how extensively wind is developed in the future, bird deaths from wind energy are unlikely to ever reach as high as 1% of those from other human-related sources such as hunters, house cats, buildings, and autos. (House cats, for example, are believed to kill 1 billion birds annually in the U.S. alone.)"

"Wind is, quite literally, a drop in the bucket."

"Still, areas that are commonly used by threatened or endangered bird species should be regarded as unsuitable for wind development."

"The wind industry is working with environmental groups, federal regulators, and other interested parties to develop methods of measuring and mitigating wind energy's effect on birds."

http://tinyurl.com/z262f

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

Well, Israel has several wind farms. Best place for locating wind farms are places where constant wind currents exist, as it happens, birds use those same currents when migrating and more than just a few of them find their death from those huge blades.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05906.pdf

wind power facilities in northernCalifornia and in Pennsylvania and West Virginia have killed large numbers of raptors and bats, respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Ecological_Footprint

* Windmills kill birds, especially birds of prey. Siting generally takes into account known bird flight patterns, but most paths of bird migration, particularly for birds that fly by night, are unknown. Although a Danish survey in 2005 (Biology Letters 2005:336) showed that less than 1% of migrating birds passing a wind farm in Rønde, Denmark, got close to collision, the site was studied only during low-wind non-twilight conditions. A survey at Altamont Pass, California conducted by a California Energy Commission in 2004 showed that turbines killed 4,700 birds annually (1,300 of which are birds of prey). Radar studies of proposed sites in the eastern U.S. have shown that migrating songbirds fly well within the reach of large modern turbines. Many more birds are killed by cars, and this is a widely accepted cost {POV}.

A wind farm in Norway's Smøla islands is reported to have destroyed a colony of sea eagles according to the British Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.[36] The society said turbine blades killed nine of the birds in a 10 month period, including all three of the chicks that fledged that year. Norway is regarded as the most important place for white-tailed eagles.

In 1989, Smøla was designated as having one of the highest densities of white-tailed eagles in the world. But the society now fears the 100 or so more wind farms planned in the rest of Norway could have a similar impact.

"Smøla is demonstrating the damage that can be caused by a wind farm in the wrong location. The RSPB strongly supports renewable energies including wind, but the deaths of adult birds and the three young born last year make the prospects for white-tailed eagles on the island look bleak," said Dr. Rowan Langston, senior research biologist at the RSPB.

* The numbers of bats killed by existing facilities has troubled even industry personnel.[37] A six-week study in 2004 estimated that over 2200 bats were killed by 63 turbines at two sites in the Eastern US.[38] This study suggests some site locations may be particularly hazardous to local bat populations, and that more research is urgently needed. Migratory bat species appear to be particularly at risk, especially during key movement periods (spring and more importantly in fall). Lasiurines such as the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and red bat (Lasiurus borealis) along with semi-migratory silver-haired bats (Lasionycteris noctivagans) appear to be most vulnerable at North American sites. Almost nothing is known about current populations of these species and the impact on bat numbers as a result of mortality at windpower locations.

[Nowhere]

Bleh, we should all just be using those by now.

[Brian Ellis]

I'll back up TX on the question of birds.

The so-called billion birds are mainly small things which proliferate like sparrows. The problem with wind farms is that they kill much larger and rarer birds like raptors and waders, less able to take quick evasive action when a blade comes hurtling round at 200 km/h.

There has been a proposal to build a wind farm at Kouris Dam, a known migration route. Let me quote sightings by birdwatchers (Birdlife Cyprus) in the vicinity in 2003
Great Crested Grebe 1 M
Black Necked Grebe 1 M
Cormorant 34 M
Red Breasted Merganser 2 M
Egyptian Vulture 2 M
Griffon Vulture 2 R
Short-toed Eagle 1 M
Marsh Harrier 1 M
Bonelli's Eagle 1 M
Red-footed Falcon 2 M
Hobby 1 M
Peregrine Falcon 2 R
Common Crane 2 M
Barn Owl 1 R
Cyprus Scops Owl 1 R
Little Owl 3 R
Bee Eater 12 M
etc.

(M=migrant visitor, some breeding, R=resident)

Every single one of the above birds is highly protected. In particular, the Griffon Vulture population has been reduced from 10s of thousands to just 27 on the island today. The numbers of the above species are such that the loss of just one could be catastrophic. Unfortunately, Kouris Dam is not regularly visited by numbers of birdwatchers, unlike, e.g. Akrotiri Salt Lake, just a few km away, where we have much more accurate sighting figures, including many species not mentioned above, like the Greater Flamingo, the Demoiselle Crane, the Mute Swan, the White Pelican etc. With the exception of the Greater Flamingo, with numbers in the lower thousands, all these are in small numbers. The sightings at Kouris are therefore sporadic and less accurate. Notwithstanding, a wind farm at such a site would be ill-advised, IMHO.