# a "Better Place"



## Joe_L (Sep 17, 2008)

I first read about them in the September issue of wired on a flight. AT that time I thought it was too good to be true. Then 4 short months later the Ontario Premier met with the founder of Better Place to start a network. If you can find the article online in Wired, it is great! Must read for EV'ers.

I am glad to see things moving, and fast. It is about time, it is what we need.


----------



## Georgia Tech (Dec 5, 2008)

AWSOME
I wonder if it could be done here in the US?


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

Georgia Tech said:


> AWSOME
> I wonder if it could be done here in the US?


I think California and Hawaii still qualify.... ?  It's actually a US initiative....


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Shai Aggasi. I've heard of him before.

I don't want to be the negative one here, but the idea won't work. So far all the projects seem to be succeeding strictly off of tax dollars in all of the countries that have signed on. Untill it can stand on its own feet and be profitable as a private enterprise, this idea will not make it very far.

I also have doubts that a car can ever get as cheap and disposable as a cell phone.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

I've applied for jobs with Better Place, Macquarie and AGL (the electricity provider) in AUS.

Although flawed, this model has the potential to shape the future of the electric car and its global acceptance.

In 1900, there were over 200 individual, different factories making ICE cars. All different designs with different performance specs and different markets.

It's going to be like that again, with converters and manufacturers all doing different things. Some will work, some will not. But progress is as progress does, and at the end of the day we all want the same thing: a car that doesn't pollute and finance people who don't like us.


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

david85 said:


> Shai Aggasi. I've heard of him before.
> 
> I don't want to be the negative one here, but the idea won't work. So far all the projects seem to be succeeding strictly off of tax dollars in all of the countries that have signed on. Untill it can stand on its own feet and be profitable as a private enterprise, this idea will not make it very far.
> 
> I also have doubts that a car can ever get as cheap and disposable as a cell phone.


Opinions are free...everyone is allowed one.

I think that there are some challenges, particularly with the fast evolving battery technology and standardization....however one must look at the collective force. Whether something succeeds or not has much to do with controlling power. Historically, it has been government and car industry that has stifled much progress with EV's. This initiative seems to have made some inroads in both areas. At the end of the day, it will be the will of the people.

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it though... It is not critical if cars become zero value.... it all depends on the service costs. I recall seeing one of the first cell phones in Canadian Tire, it cost over $2,000. I heard an add last week for free Blackberry's. 
These guys are the largest mobile carrier in the world apparently. 

I would say as an interested "people" on this forum and realizing the values that many of us have.... we should probably be on the supportive side though...this is a wonderful iniative, in a very positive direction for our country, and our planet.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

I just had a call on my mobile from Guy at Better Place Australia. 

It was a catch-up call to let me know that they've been flat out setting up the foundation and are almost ready to start several avenues of recruiting and enabling a grass-roots campaign for several projects.

He knows that we are a little frustrated at the lack of communication coming of out BP HQ, and advised that they have set up a communication strategy so that everyone gets the same message at the same time. An email should be released today or tomorrow with announcements of major milestones and projects.

So: good news at last. It appears that the BP people HAVE been doing work behind the scenes, and hopefully the planning means that we can raise the funds and roll out the infrastructure without too many problems.

I said that I understood their constraints and was still very keen to work with them. They will contact me again once they know specifically what needs they have and what skills are required.


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

Very Kewl. I'm looking forward to the announcement.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> They will contact me again once they know specifically what needs they have and what skills are required.


The latest news is that they will send an executive to do a presentation to the Brisbane Electric Vehicle Association. Venue & date to be decided, but probably CBD and soon!!!

SO...Anyone in South East Qld, if you'd like to hear the details of the Better Place plan, and comment/critique/discuss/bid for a contract - please get in touch as I will be booking a venue before the end of April.

I already have 2 attendees just on word of mouth, so this should be a popular event!


----------



## speculawyer (Feb 10, 2009)

Charging infrastructure . . Yeah! We need it.

Battery swapping. I like the idea, but it is a longer term thing that will require a lot of EV makers to sign on.

Cellphone analogy, pay for miles . . . meh. Sounds stupid.


----------



## ElectricSlide (Jan 21, 2009)

Hooray! Doesn't impede better battery technology and get's a world of EVs done faster. 

Details get interesting. http://www.betterplace.com/press-ro...y-news-video-making-the-world-a-better-place/


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Nothing wrong with adding more charging infrastructure, but this would amount to a monopoly and that worries me.


----------



## ElectricSlide (Jan 21, 2009)

david85 said:


> Shai Aggasi. I've heard of him before.
> 
> I don't want to be the negative one here, but the idea won't work.


Mighty Crystal Ball you have there. Please don't keep it to yourself. 

*As Henry Ford said, "If you believe you can or you cannot, either way you are correct."

It is possible. The rest is belief and effort.*



david85 said:


> So far all the projects seem to be *succeeding* strictly off of tax dollars in all of the countries that have signed on.


"Succeeding"? But I thought your Crystal Ball said it won't work?

And, no, it's not just tax dollars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Better_Place#Investors . You could determine this from their own site, too. 

Asking yourself what makes you want to make these judgmental statements without searching for info that contradicts them at your fingertips might help you better understand yourself ... and save us all trouble. 



david85 said:


> Untill it can stand on its own feet and be profitable as a private enterprise, this idea will not make it very far.


Not that a a socialized business model is necessary nor the debate here, because *there is clearly plenty of room for free and private enterprise to grow with competition here*, but have you ever thought of the benefits when carefully chosen sectors are socialized? 

Capitalism being Ethical is a low odds gamble, with profit/greed from misguided people passing for adults trying to find happiness the wrong way ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YAzAu3Ut6c ). Rarely do you find Compassionate Capitalism in a quantity so high to actually eliminate an issue caused by it, not because it is not desirable but because it is *almost* impossible to design due to the system and it's social side effects. The closest of which you see lately is car manufacturers offering to cover your car payment up to a fair but limited amount for a fair but limited time - if you lose your job, so that you can have reliable transportation to be on time for job interviews and take care of yourself, family and friends while trying your best to recover from companies possibly giving you the boot because of their immature approach to Capitalism - and the only reason why they are doing it is because they are quasi socialized (in the worst sense - socialized capital without great socialized control).... and they are desperate to keep their profit margins. 

With well run socialized sectors private competition is enabled, you end up paying the same or less (due to bulk buying) for the service albeit through the vehicles of taxes, the profits pay off the government debt and enable tax rebates or better government services, you have total control of the direction and management of the company - not the illusion of such with the ponzi scheme we call the stock market (you rarely have desirable control and stock has no direct tie to company products, services or revenue/profits .... it is directly tied to the hype of a product called stock).

Sure, it's not good everywhere, but it does work ideally when used properly. 



david85 said:


> I also have doubts that a car can ever get as cheap and disposable as a cell phone.


It's all relative. Simple fractions. It could and would work if run properly. 




david85 said:


> Nothing wrong with adding more charging infrastructure, but this would amount to a monopoly and that worries me.


They are just the first. They are not stopping competition. Even if the free market could be stifled by contractual winnings, maybe that shows you that the free market does not always operate ideally by itself. 

More importantly, we've handled this before. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

If you screen stocks for largest market cap, http://screen.yahoo.com/cb?pr=0/&mc=100000000000/&b=1&z=mc&db=stocks&vw=1 , you also might wonder how relative a "monopoly" can be.

*I appreciate your contrarian nature and attempts at realism. Just don't cheat yourself by limiting your efforts to consider all information. It's a never ending effort we all have to make. *


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

ElectricSlide, I'm not sure why you find my observations so offensive but rest assured, I have nothing to prove to you. If you think this is such a good idea, then buy into it.

No, I never had a chystal ball. However I've seen enough ideas like this come and go to know which ones have staying power.

As far as your vision of socialism, can you point to one that actually exists?


----------



## ElectricSlide (Jan 21, 2009)

david85 said:


> ElectricSlide, I'm not sure why you find my observations so offensive but rest assured, I have nothing to prove to you.


I only discuss this to be friendly, rather than rudely ignore you without some sort of closure. I hope we don't drag this too far off topic.

I'm just entertaining myself during some spare time. I'm enjoying the conversation as a sincerely curious and somewhat fulfilling exchange of information. There is nothing personal here at all. If any of my comments seemed to be anything other than a playful jab, I apologize for not better communicating. When I take things more seriously and apply the time and effort, I tend to be "nauseatingly" considerate, tactful and politically correct. 

The only thing I found remotely "offensive" or in need of "proof" is patently false statements like "it is only succeeding because of tax dollars". This is not personally offensive in any other other sense than I think truth should be personal to everyone. 



david85 said:


> No, I never had a chystal ball. However I've seen enough ideas like this come and go to know which ones have staying power.


Interesting. It's part of my profession. Same with Deutsche Bank:
"In March 2008, Deutsche Bank analysts reportedly concluded that the company's approach could be a "paradigm shift" that causes "massive disruption" to the auto industry, and which has "the potential to eliminate the gasoline engine altogether."[26] "



david85 said:


> As far as your vision of socialism, can you point to one that actually exists?


To clarify my vision, I hope you already understand from previous verbiage that it is not exclusive socialism. It is a hybrid of socialism and free market capitalism. Denmark is a good, yet imperfect, example. Then again, perfection is relative and no government would ever be so .... only some government could be closer than another when statistically analyzed. 

Responsible, limited, safety nets of multiple sorts with excellent health care and education including limited student allowance in addition to "free" education into all realms of college with competition from private universities locally and worldwide mixed with free market capitalism enterprise that encourages people like Microsoft's Steve Ballmer to want all of Microsoft to perform like it does in Denmark - 1000% better ("a factor of 10" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTMLfMPrUk8 ) and much more like: 
"Denmark has a GDP per capita higher than that of most European countries, and 15-20% higher than that of the United States.[44] Denmark is one of the most competitive economies in the world according to World Economic Forum 2008 report, IMD, and The Economist.[45] According to World Bank Group, Denmark has the most flexible labor market in Europe; the policy is called flexicurity. It is easy to hire, fire, and find a job. According to rankings by OECD, Denmark has the most free financial markets in EU-15 and also one of the most free product markets, owning to liberalisation in the 1990s."

Actually, there are few things I don't like about Denmark. Generally speaking, I would combine them with the lack of a monarchy, US Entrepreneurship, Amsterdam drug and prostitution policy, and http://www.mikegravel.us/issues . 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shepBx2ogJo - Denmark 60 Minutes

I also like what I know of England's NHS with private competition, for the most part.

I suppose I could pick out more examples to a varying degree. But I beg to not be pushed to do the work and get more off topic. My statement was simply to balance your implication ( intended or not) of success having to rely exclusively on free market capitalism.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

OK, no hard feelings then. Not always easy to tell the other's mood just by reading the writing.

Time will tell. I'm not certain enough to place money on either a failure or success from what I've seen so far. It will be many years before we can really measure the success of an idea like this even if they start tomorrow.

I understand the reasoning behind socialism, and while I don't think its inherently "evil", I do think it should be limited as much as reasonably possible to preserve freedom of movement, and to retain as much of your wealth as possible. Canada has plenty of social policies, some good, some not so good, and others are just stupid (but we won't go there).

I don't know how better place will turn out, but for me there are still many questions techologically, and economically that remain unanswered. I have yet to see a battery swapping station actually built, or a prototype car that has a fast removable battery. I know how big a battery needs to be to give you 100 miles or more on one charge, and I can't see how a battery could be fitted in a single location without major problems.

In 5 years or less, dump charging might make "hot swap" obsolete, so the plug in charging infrastructure is a good idea no matter what happens, but the hot swap idea is flawed IMO and could be very expensive. I may be wrong on this and am still waiting to see proof of concept (other than a CGI rendering).


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

ElectricSlide said:


> I suppose I could pick out more examples to a varying degree. But I beg to not be pushed to do the work and get more off topic. My statement was simply to balance your implication ( intended or not) of success having to rely exclusively on free market capitalism.


If you weigh success by the lowest costs associated to reach a certain goal there is no realm of any form of socialism that can arrive at it more cheaply than the free market can.

If you don't mind spending $100 billion to put up 1000 charging stations (that normally would have only cost $10,000 each) then by all means... be pleased with denmark's absolutely absurd 35.4% fiscal freedom ranking:
http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Denmark

"Denmark has a very high income tax rate and a moderate corporate tax rate. The top income tax rate is 59 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 25 percent. For independent businesses, income kept in the business is taxed at 25 percent. Municipal taxes ranging from 22.3 percent to 26.7 percent are determined by each county. Other taxes include a value-added tax (VAT) and an inheritance tax. An income tax reduction set for 2008–2009 has yet to be implemented. In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 50.0 percent."

If I were you I'd get the hell out of there as quickly as possible... 
Place is beyond doomed...The government absorbs 50% of the country's entire revenue and it's STILL not enough to feed it's spending practices.

"Total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, are very high. Despite recent marginal decreases, government spending is 51.5 percent of GDP."

I'll pass... I don't really want 70-75% of my money going to feed prostitutes and/or keep them alive at your "high level medical facilities"



> Capitalism being Ethical is a low odds gamble, with profit/greed from misguided people passing for adults trying to find happiness the wrong way ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YAzAu3Ut6c ). Rarely do you find Compassionate Capitalism in a quantity so high to actually eliminate an issue caused by it, not because it is not desirable but because it is *almost* impossible to design due to the system and it's social side effects.


Prove to me that capitalistic countries aren't giving the most charitable donations of any nations in the world?

Also prove to me that human beings have ANY objective moral standard that dictates happiness is only allowed by YOUR morality? Money and success make me happy... I've verified this to myself on many occasions... but your morality is superior to this? 

Please I'm very interested to see this philosophical effort realized... I know you will fail, because like everything you spew it's been tried before. However, it's always good fun to read about how "compassionate" poor countries and socialist nations are when they are unable to feed even their own people.

Giving comes from EXCESS not from POVERTY... ie. your socialism can only lead to one thing... 
Also you make blanket statements like all Maoists and lack the abilities to back them up with any direct historical examples... I'm not talking about 10 year timelines I'm talking about finding a socialist country (ie. 11th century England) and modeling how the people were so free and prosperous... I'd love to see it verified... also how France and other heavily socialistic countries who currently have ultra high unemployment are more moral than the 500 billion/year private charitable donations going on in the US.

I'm just dying to see your objective moral representation of how all people need to be happy a certain way... not to mention I'll love to see how capitalism and money making clearly haven't been successful for the USA fiscally or for its many charities. You know how many philosophers have attempted to define morality before? I'll tell you right now the only happiness you or anyone else is allowed to shove down someone's throat is the freedom to choose your OWN happiness.

If you do anything besides allow for that freedom you are a fascist... and yes unlike you I've held this theory up against critical examination in graduate classes. If you dared to say something like that in a room of highly educated philosophers you'd be poked through with more holes than swiss cheese.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

ElectricSlide said:


> To clarify my vision, I hope you already understand from previous verbiage that it is not exclusive socialism. It is a hybrid of socialism and free market capitalism. Denmark is a good, yet imperfect, example. Then again, perfection is relative and no government would ever be so .... only some government could be closer than another when statistically analyzed.


You forgot to mention Australia - one of the first players in the Better Place scheme.

We build a lot of infrastructure with Public-Private-Partnerships. They have a chequered history, mainly due to interference by private banks for commissions (sound familiar???) but the concept is sound.

Note to Americans: just because the government is involved doesn't mean Joseph Stalin is at the helm. I know it's a generalisation but sometimes the government is required to legislate for the common good. For example: seat belts would never be standard without the original legislation requiring the manufacturers to fit them. 

Fuel Economy standards are another area where legislation was criminally abandoned by the US govt instead of pushing for 50+ mpg in the 1970s...

I look at it like onion layers, Shrek... At the innermost level of my influence, I'm reducing the energy and carbon that my lifestyle consumes. Walking and public transport to work are making me healthier and happier.

At the next level, I'm converting my gas-sipper to EV for various reasons that will be familiar to us all. 

At the next level, I'm on this forum helping others and contributing ideas. Thinking globally as well as acting locally.

And the outer level is supporting Better Place with their initiative that brings SOME benefits to my conversion, but other benefits to others as well. 

Education and awareness are critical if we are to avoid the last oil shock. Reducing consumption could buy us 15 more years for renewables to come to the fore and stave off the crunch.

And if you haven't already, you should get this book from your library or online vendor: The Last Oil Shock by David Strahan.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> Fuel Economy standards are another area where legislation was criminally abandoned by the US govt instead of pushing for 50+ mpg in the 1970s...
> 
> I look at it like onion layers, Shrek... At the innermost level of my influence, I'm reducing the energy and carbon that my lifestyle consumes. Walking and public transport to work are making me healthier and happier.


Maybe the government's role in that should be to blame with their high taxes in the 70s and socialistic policies... just a thought...

Maybe the fact there aren't 10,000 EV converting companies is because you can't drive the cars around without paying $20 million for crash tests?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Their battery swap model isn't likely to work. Battery swapping isn't really necessary as range keeps increasing, and having extra battery packs lying around will increase the cost of EVs, not lower them. I know I won't be putting someone else's battery into my vehicle, and I don't like the idea of a proprietary charging infrastructure. As batteries continue to improve fast charging becomes even less necessary. Once we hit 400 mile packs you just don't need to charge more than once a day even on a long trip. That will probably happen sooner than a battery swapping network or fast charging network is in place.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Their battery swap model isn't likely to work. Battery swapping isn't really necessary as range keeps increasing, and having extra battery packs lying around will increase the cost of EVs, not lower them. I know I won't be putting someone else's battery into my vehicle, and I don't like the idea of a proprietary charging infrastructure. As batteries continue to improve fast charging becomes even less necessary. Once we hit 400 mile packs you just don't need to charge more than once a day even on a long trip. That will probably happen sooner than a battery swapping network or fast charging network is in place.


I've really really disliked the idea of having battery swaps for the same reasons.

The idea that you're going to pass off a $10k part to someone at a gas station always makes me 

What they need to do is be developing material sciences to make cars lighter so both batteries decrease in price and it takes less time to charge to full from wall outlets (ie. 120v or 220v) ... that's the infastructure they need to be working on... grants for people who are attempting to cast ceramics etc.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I agree. Better composite materials, even using what already exists, plus a battery optimized design platform, decreases pack size, which also decreases recharge time and cost. A 200 mile pack could become a 300 mile pack in a lighter, more aerodynamic platform.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees the flaw of battery swaps. Just to be clear, the batteries are supposed to be swapped automatically and never touched by human hands.

But 400mile range in a steel car is possible right now with batteries off the shelf. They are in production by a company called electrovaya, and sooner or later they will have off shore production at a high enough rate to make it cost effective (if not already). This advance would make this billion dollar idea almost completely pointless.

Something that needs to be said, though it may not be popular......

Just because an idea promotes electric cars, doesn't mean we should automatically support it. I prefer to remain objective when it comes to new ideas no matter how good they may sound at first. The devil is always in the details.

Technologic, I like your thesis.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees the flaw of battery swaps. Just to be clear, the batteries are supposed to be swapped automatically and never touched by human hands.


Right, and can you imagine the cost of automated swapping stations, and the logistics of storing enough batteries on site for the hundreds, maybe thousands of cars that would stop in to a single station each day? Think about the amount of cars that stop at a busy gas station on a daily basis, and the sheer volume of space the extra packs would take up.


> But 400mile range in a steel car is possible right now with batteries off the shelf. They are in production by a company called electrovaya, and sooner or later they will have off shore production at a high enough rate to make it cost effective (if not already). This advance would make this billion dollar idea almost completely pointless.


If you lightened the vehicle and designed it to fit the entire pack under the floor you could probably do 400 miles with a larger Tesla type pack since they get 240 miles in the Roadster and are projecting 300 miles for the sedan.


> Something that needs to be said, though it may not be popular......
> 
> Just because an idea promotes electric cars, doesn't mean we should automatically support it.


Especially if it's unnecessary, unworkable, and would probably increase the cost of EV's.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Right, and can you imagine the cost of automated swapping stations, and the logistics of storing enough batteries on site for the hundreds, maybe thousands of cars that would stop in to a single station each day? Think about the amount of cars that stop at a busy gas station on a daily basis, and the sheer volume of space the extra packs would take up.


Hang on a sec - 90% of evs will charge at home/work.

The swap station only needs to serve the evs going MORE than the battery range. Keep perspective: people doing more than 200km per day will be driving diesels or LPG (or petrol if they are rich).

I see the swap stations as an occasional visit if you have to pop out to a business meeting in your ev before the battery is fully charged. Certainly not swapping as often as a gasser fills up!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> Hang on a sec - 90% of evs will charge at home/work.
> 
> The swap station only needs to serve the evs going MORE than the battery range. Keep perspective: people doing more than 200km per day will be driving diesels or LPG (or petrol if they are rich).
> 
> I see the swap stations as an occasional visit if you have to pop out to a business meeting in your ev before the battery is fully charged. Certainly not swapping as often as a gasser fills up!


Which means if they aren't doing large volume to defray the cost, it's even more expensive and less likely to work at all. If there isn't a high demand for the product what's the point in making it? I completely agree that for longer daily range ICE's and hybrids make more sense for the foreseeable future until pack price/range gets near the 400 mile mark. In any case, the cost and complexity of engineering packs that can be swapped out and the infrastructure needed to do so don't make any sense, and probably won't happen on any real scale, other than a few failed projects. It's a waste of time and money.


----------



## ElectricSlide (Jan 21, 2009)

*On the battery swap issue...with the same friendly convo spirit as before...*



david85 said:


> Something that needs to be said, though it may not be popular......
> 
> Just because an idea promotes electric cars, doesn't mean we should automatically support it. I prefer to remain objective when it comes to new ideas no matter how good they may sound at first. The devil is always in the details.


 *I'll add to this admirable statement in isolation .... with the idea of universal context... that:

It is short sighted and rude to assume that somebody that doesn't agree to the extent of one's objection of an idea does not approach it with the same mindset you here espouse.* 



ElectricSlide said:


> Hooray! *Doesn't impede better battery technology and get's a world of EVs done faster. *
> 
> Details get interesting. http://www.betterplace.com/press-ro...y-news-video-making-the-world-a-better-place/


*I don't like needing swap stations. I don't want them. I see a lot of variables regarding them - not only whether or no they can or will exists but how they operate if or when they do. 

I believe range advances, combining "battery"/energy tech with vehicle design improvements but not necessarily needing the latter, will make swaps less useful as time goes on and I am sure Better Place does too. I also think this could happen before they make their 50th or 100th swap station, if not much sooner. I think the point is they will do it until that day comes to hasten the proliferation of EVs for the good cause that it is.

These people are not short sighted. They understand that technology is advancing and battery swapping will decrease in utility and eventually be eliminated. This compliments their charging stations, allows a more rapid proliferation of EVs - even on a psychologically useful level despite the possibility that by the time they start building the swap stations may already be obsolete. It could be useful and they want to make sure you know they will do it in proportion to need. They want everyone to envision free travel with a world of EVs immediately so that demand for EVs will skyrocket even more across the spectrum of supply, demand, regulation. They want to make sure that after they have helped to create that vision, it will be a reality. 

Swaps mean fast long range commuting now - no question. New technology with fast charging is on the brink of retail, but is not exactly there and could meet more speed bumps. Relatively, life is short yet a lot happens in short periods of time, so we need to get going with the EV proliferation. * 



JRP3 said:


> Their battery swap model isn't likely to work.


 It is certainly their weak point. It certainly will decrease in viability and/or utility with time.



JRP3 said:


> Battery swapping isn't really necessary as range keeps increasing,


 Everyone knows this, as do the people working for Better Place. 



JRP3 said:


> and having extra battery packs lying around will increase the cost of EVs, not lower them.


 Not necessarily. It all depends on the business model and levels of cooperation. 



JRP3 said:


> I know I won't be putting someone else's battery into my vehicle,





Technologic said:


> I've really really disliked the idea of having battery swaps for the same reasons.
> 
> The idea that you're going to pass off a $10k part to someone at a gas station always makes me


My understanding is their busines model is akin to cell phones with some exceptions. *One exception being that for the swapping business they own all the batteries.* They have a vested interest in the security and performance of those batteries. When they eventually liquidate this portion, no matter how big or small a scale it ever reaches, the bulk of the value will be the batteries and they will be useful elsewhere in some way, shape or form including recycling. *They are not forcing you to participate in swaps. *

When it comes to charging, I'm sure they aren't going to turn you away because you don't have their battery. 



JRP3 said:


> and I don't like the idea of a proprietary charging infrastructure.


 No problem as long as long as they meet needs and competition is free to challenge. 



JRP3 said:


> As batteries continue to improve fast charging becomes even less necessary. Once we hit 400 mile packs you just don't need to charge more than once a day even on a long trip. That will probably happen sooner than a battery swapping network or fast charging network is in place.


 400 mile packs will be exceeded for installation and use. 400 miles is roughly 7 hours of driving - which I know I have doubled before on my longest trips. 

Again, I believe range advances, combining "battery"/energy tech with vehicle design improvements but not necessarily needing the latter, will make swaps less useful as time goes on and I am sure Better Place does too. I also think this could happen before they make their 50th or 100th swap station, if not much sooner. I think the point is they will do it until that day comes to hasten the proliferation of EVs for the good cause that it is.



jlsawell said:


> Hang on a sec - 90% of evs will charge at home/work.
> 
> The swap station only needs to serve the evs going MORE than the battery range. Keep perspective: people doing more than 200km per day will be driving diesels or LPG (or petrol if they are rich).
> 
> I see the swap stations as an occasional visit if you have to pop out to a business meeting in your ev before the battery is fully charged. Certainly not swapping as often as a gasser fills up!


*Exactly, it would be used less than many might assume. They make it clear themselves - saying swapping will be a very limited aspect of the model, yet there if people need it - largely for peace of mind. People still over-estimate their daily commute. *



JRP3 said:


> Which means if they aren't doing large volume to defray the cost, it's even more expensive and less likely to work at all. If there isn't a high demand for the product what's the point in making it? I completely agree that for longer daily range ICE's and hybrids make more sense for the foreseeable future until pack price/range gets near the 400 mile mark. In any case, the cost and complexity of engineering packs that can be swapped out and the infrastructure needed to do so don't make any sense, and probably won't happen on any real scale, other than a few failed projects. It's a waste of time and money.


 If you want to give their business model a fair shot, you have to take into consideration that their revenue from charging stations and partnerships alone may provide plenty of profit margin to cut into in order to be a more well rounded business. 

It is clear to me that these people are not purely motivated by profits. Google even operates YouTube at a loss, for good reason of both traffic (paid advertising) to Google and being part of something so culturally significant and utilitarian. Better Place could easily consider swap stations the same. Also, this would be a preserved asset that could be liquidated when the stations become obsolete. 

Series hybrids are also a decent middle ground. Still - if you hate oil and gas and combustion engines as much as I and many people do, for the myriad of informed reasons there are to hate them, you would - ideally - rather swap batteries than fill up.

*By similar "wasted development for the interim of range advancement" logic, you could say the series hybrid developments are just as wasteful as battery swapping - without the good side effects. It might not be a perfect argument, but it is not insignificant. *


----------



## ElectricSlide (Jan 21, 2009)

david85 said:


> I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees the flaw of battery swaps. Just to be clear, the batteries are supposed to be swapped automatically and never touched by human hands.


I don't like the idea of needing swaps at all. I do like the idea of them being available if needed.

I would prefer human swaps. However, if we were privy to, or cared to further research, the details in the variables ... it may be easy to see the logic in their automatic-mechanical method.

I don't like the idea of all cars being designed to exclusively work with one mechanical swap solution. I do think it would be desirable for some. I am not sure how precise the mechanical swap process needs to be from a vehicle design standpoint.

I do like the idea of human swaps and general rules for battery access design to use the service. As long as the car has reasonable access, the owner can participate in the swap program.For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Better_Place#Similar_projects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_station#Vehicles
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/23241/

"*The Model S battery is mounted to the floor of the car so that it can easily be dropped out of the car and swapped for another battery. It sounds as though Tesla is preparing itself for the Better Place model, where a network of battery-swap stations makes possible long-distance travel between cities without the need to stop for hours to recharge. (Tesla claims a 45-minute recharge for the Model S, but that's not with a standard 120-volt outlet.)*"

I'm not even sure of the specifications that need to exists for the mechanical precision swapping. However, if everybody can just generally make the battery easily swappable no matter where it is located, human swaps are not a problem.

Thinking this through more, though, similar to how people choose between octanes, people will want to choose range of packs. I suppose the size is the most important, and swap stations would have to keep up with battery advancement. 

Thinking this through, I am more convinced that I do not like the need, but the swap is still ultilitarian for psychology and application - and possible. It just seems like an undesirable headache for the most part. Again, range advancement is the winner and Better Place knows it and does not rely on swapping for even the bulk of it's plans and has surely had the foresight to prepare for the swap being less useful or obsolete. 



david85 said:


> But 400mile range in a steel car is possible right now with batteries off the shelf. They are in production by a company called electrovaya, and sooner or later they will have off shore production at a high enough rate to make it cost effective (if not already). This advance would make this billion dollar idea almost completely pointless.


 Don't misrepresent the "billion dollar idea" to solely or majorly rely on the swap infrastructure because it does not. However, yes, advances in battery tech are lurking and will be available faster than many might assume. Still, Better Place employees and the governments and private investors supporting them are clearly not so short sighted. Swaps could still be useful and well rounded service.

Again, swap stations are not the bulk of the idea here. Charging and long range mobility is. They probably wouldn't be surprised if battery tech, and more importantly application, that rendered swap stations less useful by 1000% or "useless" .... came to retail market before they finished their 50th or 100th swap station ... if not sooner. It is still easy to liquidate. It still serves some use - psychological and utility. It does not bring down their plan because it is not the bulk of the plan.

Edited to fix some spelling.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I have no problem at all thinking these people are short sighted, or misguided, many "smart" businessmen have been before and will be again. With the extreme cost and engineering challenges involved in making swapping ubiquitous enough to actually be useful, unless it is adopted whole heartedly and is widespread, it will fail, end of story. Humanitarian ideals will not keep an impractical technology going for long, and in the meantime it takes valuable time, money, and resources away from what we actually need, which is more affordable batteries. We will get those before we get battery swapping stations, which means battery swapping is a failed idea before it even starts, just like hydrogen.


----------



## ElectricSlide (Jan 21, 2009)

david85 said:


> Technologic, I like your thesis.


It seems you are referring to his reply to me.

I want to remind people that this socialism discussion came about due to Better Place working with government, but I am concerned it is getting off topic.

Technologic's thesis is, in essence and to no surprise, his signature:



> "To be *governed* is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so."
> 
> ~P.J. Proudhon, _General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century_


*The central difference between Technologic's points and mine are, very generally, that Technologic is basing his points on Philosophy and I am basing mine on Social Science. *

Back to the signature, Technologic uses that quote in the spirit of a sort of Libertarian Paleo Conservative in the context of USA politics - as is evident from the review of many of his posts. 

*What one should not overlook is who said that quote:*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
"*Pierre-Joseph Proudhon* (15 January 1809 in Besançon – 19 January 1865 in Passy) *was a French politician, mutualist philosopher and socialist. *He was a member of the French Parliament, and he was the first to call himself an anarchist. He is considered among the most influential of anarchist writers and organisers. After the events of 1848 he began to call himself a federalist. [1]"

*PJ* *Governed* *with a combination of socialist and anarchist philosophy, much like the hybrid of A Neo-Socialism (Fiscal Policy responsibly compensating for Social Ills based on the latest Social Science) and Socially-Libertarian Fiscally-Paleo Conservatism that I advocate. *I do not advocate anarchism unless the Singularity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity ) allows for collective wisdom to self regulate.* I advocate the closest of practical application to what PJ espoused that seems possible based on demonstrable success such as Denmark and the latest of Social Science.*

*PJ also said, without contradicting himself:*
"Capital"... in the political field is analogous to "government"... The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason*.*[5]"

Beyond that, I could say much in reply with much documentation. In part, a reply seems to be a waste of time and undignified. I will refrain from posting a detailed reply until I have accomplished more in the real world and feel like rewarding myself with such a lengthy composition - on this topic. Such length will probably have to be hosted outside of this forum. 

*Despite some constructive criticism I'd offer in a later and more detailed reply to Technologic, I'd like to thank him for his signature. I had not known of PJ and his writings help me to better explain my realizations and lend them credence. I am truly grateful. *

Cheers mates, from a natural born citizen of the USA residing the in the USA - I'll say for context.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I'll leave the political side alone because this can get rather long and drawn out

Are you saying that better place may know that battery swapping will not be practical and that its just a way to garner support from people that don't understand how cars are made and work? Because I suspect thats what this battery swap idea is all about.

I'm not convinced that you won't be turned away if you own a different car (or home built in the case of a few of us). The business model assumes that you sign a contract for access to charging. No thanks, I rather like refueling whenever and where ever I want. Our cell phone providers are ripping us off as it is, and I don't think I want my mobility tied into that business model.

I think the comparison to hydrogen is a fair one. The only (and i do mean only) reason that better place is getting any support from government is the fact that you can be charged for distance driven, not energy consumed. This will cost more than charging at home and its easy to slap taxes on those miles.

Having more batteries than you have cars on the road will most certainly raise the cost, there is no way to get around that.

As far as series hybrids go, there really isn't one on the market yet.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

ElectricSlide said:


> *Despite some constructive criticism I'd offer in a later and more detailed reply to Technologic, I'd like to thank him for his signature. I had not known of PJ and his writings help me to better explain my realizations and lend them credence. I am truly grateful. *
> 
> Cheers mates, from a natural born citizen of the USA residing the in the USA - I'll say for context.


If you believe Proudhon gives your view "credence" merely by the argument having existed prior you're even more foolish than I thought. The fact someone was as stupid or more stupid than you in the past, and gained notoriety from it, does not make your moral suppositions any more supported. In fact you are still left with this burning question... why should I believe your claim that you possess the knowledge that YOUR morality is better than my morality based upon wealth and progress? The inherent flaws in capitalism? This is based upon your own moral system, not on anything objective or universal. Every time you claim that you possess some moral high ground, based upon unsupported claims, you are yourself no better than slave traders or any other massively oppressive and weak minded individual. If you wish to convince anyone to become your subject and hand over 80% of their money... you better damn well have a good reason. Claiming "well it just doesn't equal out the social costs of capitalism"... WHAT social costs... the costs to the men who aren't working and aren't producing? Why should I trust in such a crazy ass morality as that? 

Truth is you're just an oppressor attempting to disguise yourself in "well it's just more ethical" with no basis or effort in attempting to find out the actual truth of the matter. I challenge you to produce 1 single example of a society, raised on socialism, that produced charity and/or prosperity.

That quotation of Proudhon was not taken out of context, I merely used it as, in my opinion, a very accurate description of what government is.

Your entire response to me was based upon Proudhon, of whom you seem to think I was a supporter. However, in reality I was using his words to illuminate what real governments are about, oppression.

If you wish to actually support your socialist viewpoints I suggest you address the points I made, not the points made by Proudhon. Neither of you are correct, however. Unlike you I actually have real reasons to think what I do, many of which I've spent my life to find, and cultural and historical evidences about the fundamental human state of nature to underlie my epistemology.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Sheesh, you don't hold back do you tech? lol


----------



## ElectricSlide (Jan 21, 2009)

I am disappointed that I used this time to post this at this moment. Oh well. This is getting quite off topic. I respectfully request those who are not interested to simply ignore.

Technologic,

Since we are getting off topic and beginning to be circuitous, I ask you to civilly accept me simply sharing my perspective without replying to majority of your points in effort for you to better understand why I have so far refrained from addressing your points directly for the most part. I ask you to then discontinue the increasingly off topic discussion until I have decided to reply in detail - if or when I eventually do. I will likely host such reply on another free forum I create for the sole purpose (I've googled these things in the past) - if I do at all, and invite you to read and reply there via a link in this thread.



Technologic said:


> If you believe Proudhon gives your view "credence" merely by the argument having existed prior you're even more foolish than I thought.


Sir, 

Such single variable analysis being illogical is something we can agree on. 
I'd just like to see it applied more consistently and do my best to do so.

I could probably better word my point regarding credence, but the point I intended to make as I yearned to stop typing is that reading from him may help me to better express my own thoughts to communicate them in a credible manner. 

I did not actually reply to you, as you misrepresent. I replied to david85 with general analysis that you have interpreted as a reply. In the same sense, I do not mean to get away from the facts but I do mean to share my thought process here:

As for the rest of your rants, I am laughing with compassion for you. You give more reason to not dignify a response because you continue to ungratefully butcher the luxury and value of Civil Discourse, which is a great injustice to yourself and humanity. 

Such gross disrespect for fundamental understanding of Civil Discourse makes me less likely to dignify your behavior with a reply. But, communication being the issue, the next step would be to share my perspective as I am doing now. 

As a summarizing comment:

You make things far too personal. Civil Discourse without Logical Fallacy sticks to facts and avoids personal issues. The goal is to share information and progress as siblings of the human race .... not stroke anyone's ego and let out frustration. We do need to exercise self control over our human imperfection. While this is not always easy, since it is mental discipline it is as easy as you remind yourself to make it so.

You know your argument is incredibly weak when you fill it with such ad hominem, non sequitor, obfuscation, logical fallacy, erroneous personal and analytical assumption ... and when you debate a multiple variable issue with single variable analysis that is immature, nearly admittedly selfish despite government being the topic and existing solely to serve as many people as possible, overtly hypocritical, and citation-less or ill-cited.

In addition, knowing that your own arguments are not evolving nor increasing in effective substance volume, yet certainly in character count of redundancy, just makes the idea of replying to you more enticing despite your manners still not dignifying a response. Then again, it is less enticing because your rewording of redundant points means I would likely repeat myself just to reply to you comprehensively.

I am also disappointed that the opportunity does not provide the best venue for mass exposure to stimulate collective thought, so I also have less motivation to reply in that sense.

You greatly misrepresent my points many times in both of your replies to me. I have wondered if this is intentional for dubious debate tactics that end up wasting everyone's time for the sake of your ego; but I am reminding myself that most people are not so unethical and ill-intentioned, so you probably simply misunderstand my points and maybe that is in part because I am reserving more detailed explanation since I think my general points and info aforementioned summarize well enough for others to dig. 

As a summarizing example, you continue to misattribute the words "morality" and "philosophy" in places where the accurate representation of my position is "facts based on the latest Social Science". In all of this misattribution, you further take away the opportunity to show you even more where we agree. 

With such a theme of misrepresentation or misunderstanding, a direct reply to a point of yours:


Technologic said:


> That quotation of Proudhon was not taken out of context, I merely used it as, in my opinion, a very accurate description of what government is.
> 
> Your entire response to me was based upon Proudhon, of whom you seem to think I was a supporter. However, in reality I was using his words to illuminate what real governments are about, oppression.


Again, it was not intended as any sort of "entire response" to you or really any sort of response to you. It was whimsical and in reply to david85.

I am further discouraged to reply in detail because of your redundant misrepresentation or misunderstanding. 

In reality, I am better understanding your points than you are understanding mine - as the evidence proves - yet you think it is the opposite - as the evidence proves.

I thought my words were clear as I previously wrote. I described the explanation you have given with different words than you chose. 

I will translate for you:
"Technologic uses that quote" - (self explanatory)

"in the spirit of a sort of Libertarian Paleo Conservative" - (as in one who believes that the particular quote, as you say here, "illuminate what real governments are about, oppression" - as people should know a Libertarian and/or Paleo Conservative does. *Actually, I even chose to clarify this to make sure everyone understood that you were not in entire support of PJ.*)

"in the context of USA politics" - (as in the political jurisdiction of which I am sure that is the belief of people commonly referred to as Libertarian and/or Paleo Conservatives). 

"as is evident from the review of many of his posts" - (I searched your posts to find more of the same point you make here as your thesis with various application). 

While it is clearly common sense that you would not support PJ entirely, it is equally clear that you do support his anarchist writings where that they agree with your political idealogy ... and it was clear that you used your signature for that purpose ... as I have already said. I simply found it worthy of note that PJ and I have a similar position both to the extent that you have a similar position with PJ and beyond that of which you have a similar position with PJ, and it is clearly just as fair to quote him where I agree like you do in your signature. 

I am telling you, largely if not entirely in the same manner as the above "translation", in the spirit of Civil Discourse - nothing personal, I can pick apart almost everything you have written to mostly prove incorrect based on facts, somewhat agree based on facts, and possibly somewhat less disagree. It would be far more laborious than these posts, as you might imagine from the above which simply exemplified universal acceptance of Civil Discourse, interpretation of my words, and translation of my words by common definition to show you that I already made the accurate point that you make; yet you make that point with the erroneous, and theoretically or technically hypocritical - by unforgiving definition, assumption that you have yet again proven how "stupid" I am.

My best regards to you, sir.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

ElectricSlide said:


> You make things far too personal. Civil Discourse without Logical Fallacy sticks to facts and avoids personal issues. The goal is to share information and progress as siblings of the human race .... not stroke anyone's ego and let out frustration. We do need to exercise self control over our human imperfection. While this is not always easy, since it is mental discipline it is as easy as you remind yourself to make it so.


There is nothing civil about your viewpoint... you are seeking to destroy society at the hands of "supposed" ethics... I personally find such behavior viscous no matter how you attempt to disguise it.



> You know your argument is incredibly weak when you fill it with such ad hominem, non sequitor, obfuscation, logical fallacy, erroneous personal and analytical assumption ... and when you debate a multiple variable issue with single variable analysis that is immature, nearly admittedly selfish despite government being the topic and existing solely to serve as many people as possible, overtly hypocritical, and citation-less or ill-cited.


If you want citations I have a lot, however I don't think it's necessary... 
Since you're just a wikipedia fan I will turn you on to a man who's done what you plan to do and destroyed the second wealthiest nation in the world post WWII:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n



> I will translate for you:
> "Technologic uses that quote" - (self explanatory)
> 
> "in the spirit of a sort of Libertarian Paleo Conservative" - (as in one who believes that the particular quote, as you say here, "illuminate what real governments are about, oppression" - as people should know a Libertarian and/or Paleo Conservative does)


I'm not a libertarian, though I'm somewhat sympathetic to them. They are generally headed by fools and pacifists... but beyond that I took that as a bad thing... as well as inaccurate.




> I am telling you, largely if not entirely in the same manner as the above "translation", in the spirit of Civil Discourse - nothing personal, I can pick apart almost everything you have written to mostly prove incorrect based on facts, somewhat agree based on facts, and possibly somewhat less disagree. It would be far more laborious than these posts, as you might imagine from the above which simply exemplified universal acceptance of Civil Discourse, interpretation of my words, and translation of my words by common definition to show you that I already made the accurate point that you make; yet you make that point with the erroneous, and theoretically or technically hypocritical - by unforgiving definition, assumption that you have yet again proven how "stupid" I am.
> 
> My best regards to you, sir.


You still haven't done any of those things... nor given me a reason to believe in your "objective standard" of moral behavior that dictates capitalism creates social injustices... 
exculpate on that or shut up. I didn't call you stupid, I simply said that if other stupid people agreed with something you said that wouldn't make what you said any more well founded.

I can only assume you are scared to directly make this claim and attempt to support it, which you rightly should be. Your moral standards require the submission of people to it, it's non-convincing. If people lack your "intuitive" sense that socialism is right, they are immune to you simply because your argument has no logical basis.

You made a claim, about one of the highest tax system countries on the planet, and expected to leave it unsupported? Please.



> Sheesh, you don't hold back do you tech? lol


in law school david...


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

All-righty-oh, back to the topic people....eeesh...

Here's the invitation for people in Brisbane Australia to attend the Better Place meeting with the Brisbane Electric Vehicle Association. I'll let you know how it goes...


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

Well, the Better Place meeting went even better than I expected.

I was HOPING 20 people would turn up. Instead, over 50 people came and there were 3 EVs and 2 Prii - one rego plate was NO CO2 (kinda wishful thinking on a Prius, but good propaganda anyway...)

The Better Place concept is pretty good. Nothing's ever going to please everyone but I think they have the best solution for a combination of problems we face.

Here's some pics, I'll compile a DVD of video, pics and the presentations and make it available...

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=78102&id=660487975&l=de8bee9814


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

There will never be a "better place" until we come up with better people...


----------

