# Is Funding Electric Cars the Right Thing to Do?



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

> Is Funding Electric Cars the Right Thing to Do?


No - subsidies are simply a way of paying off political supporters. There is not a single documented instance in history where subsidies had the stated impact, nor where they made anything better.


----------



## rillip3 (Jun 19, 2009)

Subsidies just give someone else an excuse to raise the price. Look at the volt, 40k for an otherwise no-frills sedan?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Sorry, but ICE vehicles and petroleum have about 100 years of subsidies behind them, like it or not. For EV's to compete on a level field they should have some subsidies as well, that's the reality.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Sorry, but ICE vehicles and petroleum have about 100 years of subsidies behind them, like it or not. For EV's to compete on a level field they should have some subsidies as well, that's the reality.


Or, simply remove the ICE subsidies. Oh, what a fuelish notion...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Even if that happened, it still doesn't erase the 100 year development advantage that ICE's have had. I don't think we can afford to wait for the "market" to let EV's catch up. Unlike the money wasted on Hydrogen and Ethanol I have no problem using public funds to accelerate rational and necessary technologies. Some of the billions the Pentagon can't seem to keep track of would also go a long way to advancing EV's.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Oh, I don't know. Just like some developing countries are skipping land-line phones and leapfrogging technology for cell phones, I think a similar phenomenon will happen with electric cars.

Get the battery pack for 250 miles range down to about $5k, and they will take off like a rocket.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Get the battery pack for 250 miles range down to about $5k, and they will take off like a rocket.


Sure, and what's the fastest way to do that? Increase production by subsidizing the price right now. Economies of scale and improved production methods will drive the price down, but neither can happen quickly if no one can afford the product now. We also need to drive down the prices of inverters and motors, which will also happen with increased volume. Subsidizing EV's makes a lot of sense right now, especially if we take hydrogen, ethanol, and other wasteful subsidies to do it.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Sure, and what's the fastest way to do that? Increase production by subsidizing the price right now. Economies of scale and improved production methods will drive the price down, but neither can happen quickly if no one can afford the product now. We also need to drive down the prices of inverters and motors, which will also happen with increased volume. Subsidizing EV's makes a lot of sense right now, especially if we take hydrogen, ethanol, and other wasteful subsidies to do it.


I disagree, for the simple reason that no proven technology shows the promise of bringing price down that much and providing that much performance.

Closest thing is EEStor, which many believe is a fraud. LiIon isn't gonna reach those prices with current tech, no matter how much you subsidize.

And therein lies the rub with all subsidies - government picking winners and losers rarely (or, more precisely, never) picks the best technology. Instead it picks political favorites, preventing better tech from reaching market until both are superseded by something better.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Current technology is really good enough. I don't necessarily agree with your $5K 250 mile magic number, I think $10K at 250 is good enough, and that's not too far off, in the right vehicle. EESTOR and such is probably a pipe dream, don't count on some magical revolutionary tech, just steady evolutionary progress. A Solectria Sunrise did over 300 miles with 26KWH of NiMH 15 years ago, some concentration on aerodynamics and weight savings would allow us to do the same or better with lithium today. That's why cost reductions, through volume, on all components are necessary. We must also remember that EV's will and should command something of a premium at purchase to reflect their lower operating costs. Throw in some value points for using domestic energy supplies as well.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

My understanding was the sunrise used a special ~35 kwh battery for that record breaking run and it had a horrible rearward weight bias because of the huge battery. Also the longer 300-400 mile range that was documented was under hypermiling conditions (low cruise speed on a track). Real world range was closer down to 200 (or a little higher). Over all a great achievement considering the era none the less.
I might be wrong but I seem to remember reading reference to a larger version battery even though the wiki page makes no mention of it, been a while since I looked it up so memory is scetchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solectria_Sunrise









The other lesson with the sunrises is the car was almost completely composite. Current automotive practices still revolve around stitch welded sheet metal which is heavier and reduces potential for better aerodynamics. Better batteries are only part of the equation and I doubt the automakers are capable of building a profitable composite car no matter how much subsidies are thrown at them. Right now you just can't beat the cheap price of steel paper and the speed with which it can be slapped together. Not to mention very little of current training and assembly line machinery could be swapped over to composite construction methods (thats before you start factoring in off shore outsourcing to parts factories not directly affiliated with the company brand). Then you get into the problem of cars that no longer rust and fall apart after 10-15 years.

The other option would be to wait for 3rd or even 4th generation batteries to come along and considering the amount of vaporware out there I feel it would be unwise to throw money at small upstarts like EEstor. Money isn't really the problem here in my view. As long as you have a shrinking number if more and more powerful automakers that control the automobile market, no amount of subsidies can change the corporate culture.

I really wish subsidies would be enough to even make a slight difference but I don't see it as possible. At best you end up with a slush fund much like some (most?) military contracts.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

At $10k for a 250 mile pack, EVs certainly will be at a premium.

I don't count on some miracle advancement. If $5k buys you a 50 mile range today, 5% per year improvement will get us there in about 30 years - an irrelevant time frame in the grand scheme of things. And, 5% is waaaaaay conservative considering the general rate of technological advance.

Having taxpayers shoulder the burden to get current technology down to $10k for 100 miles, on the other hand, is pure lunacy. The one thing we can be certain of is that current technology won't get us to 250 miles.

Too, making cars less safe by making them too much lighter is sacrificing both safety and utility for - what? Some misguided dream, that is what.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> I don't count on some miracle advancement. If $5k buys you a 50 mile range today, 5% per year improvement will get us there in about 30 years - an irrelevant time frame in the grand scheme of things. And, 5% is waaaaaay conservative considering the general rate of technological advance.


30 years may be too late, and after about 100 years of lead acid there was little improvement in that technology, so I wouldn't count on 5% improvement every year.


> Having taxpayers shoulder the burden to get current technology down to $10k for 100 miles, on the other hand, is pure lunacy. The one thing we can be certain of is that current technology won't get us to 250 miles.


Of course current technology can do 250 miles, it just costs too much, so we need to bring the cost down. Subsidies will do that in the short term.


> Too, making cars less safe by making them too much lighter is sacrificing both safety and utility for - what? Some misguided dream, that is what.


Lighter cars aren't automatically less safe, just as heavier cars are not necessarily safer. How is a lighter more aerodynamic vehicle less useful? Composite construction can build a very safe, longer lasting vehicle. Yes you might have to pay more for that durability up front, that's the way it works.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> 30 years may be too late, ...


Ridiculous. The pessimistic forecasts only predict a 2 degree temperature rise in 100 years. That will still be cooler than the most prosperous times in Medieval Europe.



> ... and after about 100 years of lead acid there was little improvement in that technology, so I wouldn't count on 5% improvement every year.


You are right - we won't see 5% improvement in lead acid every year. 


There will be a progression of technologies and manufacturing techniques. Ultimately we will perfect nanoassemblers, and carbon nanotube capacitors will be cheaper than toilet paper.

You need to go read, "The Singularity is Near" by Ray Kurzweil to comprehend the nature of technological progression. You are still thinking linearly, like your grandfather's grandfather.



> Of course current technology can do 250 miles, it just costs too much, so we need to bring the cost down. Subsidies will do that in the short term.


Subsidies don't bring the cost of anything down - they simply rob from one group of people to reward political cronies, generally at the expense of better technologies and solutions.

The problem with a Liberal education is that you are indoctrinated to actually believe that "government money" is "free." Well, Wizard's first rule: "People believe something which is false, either because they want to believe it is true or are afraid it might be true." In either case, a falsehood is still false.



> Lighter cars aren't automatically less safe, just as heavier cars are not necessarily safer. How is a lighter more aerodynamic vehicle less useful? Composite construction can build a very safe, longer lasting vehicle. Yes you might have to pay more for that durability up front, that's the way it works.


Physics. In a wreck, the passenger in the lighter car loses. Period.

Build a light car, then load it down - it's a heavy car that doesn't handle well. Thus less useful.

Denying physics is like believing that the government can make something cheaper.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Ridiculous. The pessimistic forecasts only predict a 2 degree temperature rise in 100 years. That will still be cooler than the most prosperous times in Medieval Europe.


I wasn't only talking about climate change, there are many reasons to speed our transition away from oil. Security, economic, and environmental reasons beyond CO2 are rather important.


> There will be a progression of technologies and manufacturing techniques. Ultimately we will perfect nanoassemblers, and carbon nanotube capacitors will be cheaper than toilet paper.
> 
> You need to go read, "The Singularity is Near" by Ray Kurzweil to comprehend the nature of technological progression. You are still thinking linearly, like your grandfather's grandfather.


 I'm familiar with that theory and don't necessarily agree that it's a sure thing. People predicting the future are usually wrong to a large degree.


> Subsidies don't bring the cost of anything down - they simply rob from one group of people to reward political cronies, generally at the expense of better technologies and solutions.
> 
> The problem with a Liberal education is that you are indoctrinated to actually believe that "government money" is "free." Well, Wizard's first rule: "People believe something which is false, either because they want to believe it is true or are afraid it might be true." In either case, a falsehood is still false.


Of course it's not free, never suggested it was, it's wealth redistribution where it's needed. In the short term it can lower the apparent costs of a technology and speed it's progress. Let's not deny that government money, our money, has led to technological breakthroughs and advancements. Subsidies in the short term can have long term beneficial effects. Example, Johnson/Saft would have built their latest battery plant in Asia if it weren't for government incentives. 


> Physics. In a wreck, the passenger in the lighter car loses. Period.


Simply not true, the design of the vehicle has a lot to do with safety. Yes, all things being equal the larger car will fare better, but that is not a good reason to keep building larger vehicles. Where does it end, do we all drive around in hummers, limos, or semis?



> Build a light car, then load it down - it's a heavy car that doesn't handle well. Thus less useful.


Wrong again, very often a converted ICE with more battery weight low down lowers the center of gravity and handles better than the original, lighter ICE. Your assumptions are misguided.


> Denying physics is like believing that the government can make something cheaper.


I never deny physics I just seem to have a more sophisticated understanding of it than you do


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Actually he is right about heavier cars not handling as well. Lower center of gravity is only on part of the equation when it comes to how well a car handles and corners. Mine has excellent weight distribution but will not out handle its former, lighter self (my pickup will actually out corner it). The tesla roadster will not out corner the lotus elise either - again because of the weight difference. Structurally the cars are nearly identical. As already mentioned, the record breaking sunrise also suffered in that department due to weight and how it was distributed. In theory it might be possible to overcome this problem, but real world evidence based on cars already built is hard to argue.

In theory you can make a composite car that will solve many of the problems of cornering, safety and still be light enough to have weight capacity to spare for batteries but its hard to prove because this is largely just theory until some one actually does it. Sometimes we do have to acknowledge the disadvantages of EVs and also admit where modern ICE cars are advancing. Weight of the average car has gone up in the last 10 years, not down, as safety equipment and crash testing gets more stringent. The days of finding a 4 door family sedan that weighs around 2000lbs empty are long gone in this continent.

If you look at statistics, its rather obvious that in a collission between a heavy vehicle and a light vehicle of equal safety advance, the occupants of the heavier vehicle will fair better. I realize thats not a very progressive thing to say but it is the truth.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I wasn't only talking about climate change, there are many reasons to speed our transition away from oil. Security, economic, and environmental reasons beyond CO2 are rather important.


I would agree with that - which is why we should be drilling like crazy. However, note that the problem here is not lack of regulation but too much - let our people drill, and we will have abundant oil and national security and reduce our trade deficit - all good things - all the while buying time for new technologies to mature.



> I'm familiar with that theory and don't necessarily agree that it's a sure thing. People predicting the future are usually wrong to a large degree.


Not a theory any more once you can demonstrate both the concept and the manufacturing technique in the lab. This isn't predicting a miracle; it's simply understanding the concept-to-market cycle.



> Of course it's not free, never suggested it was, it's wealth redistribution where it's needed.


But it isn't "needed." It is just one more in an infinite list of rationalizations by leftists seeking power and bribing people to accept corruption of simple principles. "The ends justifies the means" takes your society in only one direction - down.



> In the short term it can lower the apparent costs of a technology and speed it's progress.


And who chooses which technology is the "right one," and at what expense the subsidy? That 1% extra tax on businesses can easily make the difference between a better technology being researched and developed vs. having the project shelved for lack of funding. Thus (and there is plenty of historical precedent, with NO counter-examples) often a bad technology is prolonged for a decade or more that might have been quickly eclipsed (or never even gotten a start) by a better one.

This theory of yours is one of, "I know what's best and I'm going to cram it down your throat using your own wallet." That makes you, and everyone like you, a corruptible petty tyrant and a wanna-be thief. Now that I've explained it to you, if you persist in claiming it is true it also makes you dishonest. If a world full of people like that is your idea of paradise, please count me out.

If you want ethical government, then you should force them to count the opportunity cost of using tax dollars to play favorites. Add that all up, and you soon discover that we are all being impoverished by a zillion little cuts.

Why do you think it is that, despite the fact that humans are more productive than at any time in history, the U.S. standard of living is going down? There is only one change - that is the level of government spending (and the incumbent wasted spending by businesses and individuals in meeting unfunded regulations). Taking the latter into account, our total tax rate is now nearly 75% of GDP.

No wonder no one can get ahead...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> Actually he is right about heavier cars not handling as well. Lower center of gravity is only on part of the equation when it comes to how well a car handles and corners. Mine has excellent weight distribution but will not out handle its former, lighter self (my pickup will actually out corner it). The tesla roadster will not out corner the lotus elise either - again because of the weight difference. Structurally the cars are nearly identical.


 Where you place the extra weight makes a big difference. The problem with the Tesla is the battery weight is not under the floor, so it's center of gravity is higher. Yes a heavier car may not handle as well, depending on how the weight is distributed. Remember, he wants us to drive heavier cars because they are safer, but doesn't want heavier cars because they don't handle as well. Rather a contradiction.


> In theory you can make a composite car that will solve many of the problems of cornering, safety and still be light enough to have weight capacity to spare for batteries but its hard to prove because this is largely just theory until some one actually does it.


Race cars are very light yet allow surviving crashes that would kill the driver of a normal, heavier car. Not saying we need race car engineering but that lighter safe cars can be built.


> If you look at statistics, its rather obvious that in a collission between a heavy vehicle and a light vehicle of equal safety advance, the occupants of the heavier vehicle will fair better. I realize thats not a very progressive thing to say but it is the truth.


Heavier vehicles with a higher CG are also more prone to rollovers in a collision. The bottom line is there will always be compromises in any vehicle, but to suggest we can't make lighter yet still reasonably safe vehicles is far from accurate. Not everyone buys the safest vehicle on the market, obviously, so other considerations are already in play. If you want safety you could drive with a helmet and body armor, yet no one does.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> I would agree with that - which is why we should be drilling like crazy. However, note that the problem here is not lack of regulation but too much - let our people drill, and we will have abundant oil and national security and reduce our trade deficit - all good things - all the while buying time for new technologies to mature.


Less regulation on drilling, are you kidding? Hello, BP anyone? If they had been regulated to install the proper blowout preventer maybe we wouldn't have had the disaster. Plenty of oil is right, we'd be drowning in it. Please stop with this insane idea that unregulated business is a good idea. Unregulated business means they will do whatever is cheapest and easiest to maximize profits, with no regard to consequences.


> Not a theory any more once you can demonstrate both the concept and the manufacturing technique in the lab. This isn't predicting a miracle; it's simply understanding the concept-to-market cycle.


Batteries are not circuits or computers and their technology will probably not scale in the same way. I have no doubt there will be improvements, but there are physical and chemical barriers that slow or stop advancements. The lead acid battery is a perfect example, I'm sure they improved a lot at first and then leveled off for decades.


> But it isn't "needed." It is just one more in an infinite list of rationalizations by leftists seeking power and bribing people to accept corruption of simple principles. "The ends justifies the means" takes your society in only one direction - down.


And your desire for unregulated businesses, the end justifying the means, takes us where? Oh that's right, businesses always do the right thing and need no oversight and will lift us all up with them. Ridiculous.


> And who chooses which technology is the "right one," and at what expense the subsidy? That 1% extra tax on businesses can easily make the difference between a better technology being researched and developed vs. having the project shelved for lack of funding. Thus (and there is plenty of historical precedent, with NO counter-examples) often a bad technology is prolonged for a decade or more that might have been quickly eclipsed (or never even gotten a start) by a better one.


You still ignore the fact that federally funded research has brought about technological advances faster than would have happened without.Much research ends up producing nothing so businesses are unlikely to pursue what might be a dead end. Sure there have been projects that went on too long and were wasteful, because politics got in the way of science. Right now battery technology is the "right one" to pursue, where there is real evidence to the contrary we can look elsewhere. You keep saying we need better and cheaper batteries but you don't want to invest to make it happen.


> This theory of yours is one of, "I know what's best and I'm going to cram it down your throat using your own wallet." That makes you, and everyone like you, a corruptible petty tyrant and a wanna-be thief. Now that I've explained it to you, if you persist in claiming it is true it also makes you dishonest. If a world full of people like that is your idea of paradise, please count me out.


So the government never tells people what's best and never should? Any set of laws and any government puts limits on individuals, that's the concession we make to live in a stable society. Yes, some people do know better than others. Half of all people are below average.


> If you want ethical government, then you should force them to count the opportunity cost of using tax dollars to play favorites. Add that all up, and you soon discover that we are all being impoverished by a zillion little cuts.


I'm all for greater accountability. Cut out wasteful programs and keep track of spending and progress on the remaining ones. That could lower our spending in general and promote better technologies.


> Why do you think it is that, despite the fact that humans are more productive than at any time in history, the U.S. standard of living is going down? There is only one change - that is the level of government spending (and the incumbent wasted spending by businesses and individuals in meeting unfunded regulations). Taking the latter into account, our total tax rate is now nearly 75% of GDP.
> 
> No wonder no one can get ahead...


The change is that humans may be more productive but are Americans, and what are they "producing"? Reality shows, fast food, overpaid athletes, etc., while actual production of goods goes overseas, along with our money. You conveniently ignored the fact that Johnson controls would have built overseas without government subsidies, that's a fact. Spending some money in the short term will generate jobs and taxes here in the long term.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> Where you place the extra weight makes a big difference. The problem with the Tesla is the battery weight is not under the floor, so it's center of gravity is higher.


And to fit a battery that size under the car, the vehicle height will have to increase by the thickness of that battery. There will be some gain, but I doubt very much which I suspect is a big reason why they opted for the "midship" location. I hope you aren't thinking of the tango as a good example of the floor battery concept.



JRP3 said:


> Yes a heavier car may not handle as well, depending on how the weight is distributed. Remember, he wants us to drive heavier cars because they are safer, but doesn't want heavier cars because they don't handle as well. Rather a contradiction.


I rather think thats the point. Handling gets worse, and there is no added strength for the extra weight. Can you give an example of the ideal car? I know these ideas have been around for a long time and I am a proponent of composite construction but finding real world examples would strengthen the argument.



JRP3 said:


> Race cars are very light yet allow surviving crashes that would kill the driver of a normal, heavier car. Not saying we need race car engineering but that lighter safe cars can be built.


Sure, but a 50 year old main battle tank would also survive a collision with an average passenger car rather well too. I'm kidding of course, but either one is about as practical in the real world. Also note that occupant restraint systems are also much more cumbersome in F1 racing. F1 race tracks are also engineered to try and slow down the cars in a controlled manner. Everything about F1 racing is ahead of consumer passenger cars, not just the use of lightweight composite materials.

Although if you were to look at converted touring cars, they often they gain lots of weight in the form of metal re enforcing to make them safer as rules demand. Where it not for the stripped down interiors most would gain significant amounts of weight (and many do anyway).



JRP3 said:


> Heavier vehicles with a higher CG are also more prone to rollovers in a collision.


Wasn't talking about soft suspension SUVs or vans or minibuses. A tall, composite vehicle with the same weight distribution is just as prone to roll over as a heavier one. The material its made of is irrelevant.



JRP3 said:


> The bottom line is there will always be compromises in any vehicle, but to suggest we can't make lighter yet still reasonably safe vehicles is far from accurate.


Can you give an example?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> And to fit a battery that size under the car, the vehicle height will have to increase by the thickness of that battery.


Or you could have thinner seats with a more prone seating position, or less ground clearance. There are other options. Maybe not for the Tesla but for most passenger vehicles. Look at the Leaf, batteries under the seats. Look at the EV1 with the T shaped pack in the tunnel between the seats and behind them.



> I rather think thats the point. Handling gets worse, and there is no added strength for the extra weight.


A tight pack of cells does have some strength, there may be ways to use that and improve it for crash protection.


> Can you give an example of the ideal car?


For me it would be something like the Sunrise with an under floor pack, the skateboard concept. It might not be the absolute best handling vehicle, but so what, most cars are not. Good enough is good enough. I bet it would handle better than my RAV4 ICE, which is still good enough.


> I know these ideas have been around for a long time and I am a proponent of composite construction but finding real world examples would strengthen the argument.


Not sure how the failure of big auto makers to implement better technology means it can't be done.




> Can you give an example?


What's the safest car on the road today? Is it the heaviest? I doubt it.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> Or you could have thinner seats with a more prone seating position, or less ground clearance. There are other options. Maybe not for the Tesla but for most passenger vehicles. Look at the Leaf, batteries under the seats. Look at the EV1 with the T shaped pack in the tunnel between the seats and behind them.


Considering the amount of fuss that was made over the rocker panels being too high, I doubt tesla would have ever done that. The leaf also has a much higher over all stance and is almost the height of a cross over. EV1 was a reasonable configuration but that wasn't a belly battery either.



JRP3 said:


> A tight pack of cells does have some strength, there may be ways to use that and improve it for crash protection. For me it would be something like the Sunrise with an under floor pack, the skateboard concept. It might not be the absolute best handling vehicle, but so what, most cars are not. Good enough is good enough. I bet it would handle better than my RAV4 ICE, which is still good enough. Not sure how the failure of big auto makers to implement better technology means it can't be done.


I've heard that theory about batteries providing crumple protection many years ago. So the story goes, NTSB testing facilities used to drain flooded lead acid starting batteries for easier cleanup. Then they discovered that cars performed ever so slightly better with the batteries filled. Weather that effect can scale up on the scale you are suggesting is another matter however and thus far untested to my knowledge. In the case of the tesla, that line of thinking would have been extreemly unwise considering the nature of LiCo2 cells and thats why they opted for the midship location. LiFePO4 are better but considering the risk of thermal runaway (which all batteries are vulnerable to some degree), its still safer to install the batteries in a central location to prevent short, burnup or other dangers from happening in a crash.



JRP3 said:


> What's the safest car on the road today? Is it the heaviest? I doubt it.


I doubt its the lighest one either.

Not sure if its the heaviest, but the ford crown victoria is consistently rated near the top and I would also think there is good reason why police forces consistently prefer this relic of the land boat era. Hydroformed steel chassis backing the unibody does nothing to lighten the car but makes it much stronger than something like a leaf, tesla, aveo, saturn, corolla, fiero, focus, etc.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> Considering the amount of fuss that was made over the rocker panels being too high, I doubt tesla would have ever done that.


I think I clearly stated that Tesla wasn't really a candidate for that setup, it wasn't an ideal platform for a large pack, though they made the best of it.


> The leaf also has a much higher over all stance and is almost the height of a cross over.


Yet no one who has reviewed it complained about the handling that I'm aware of. I think you're sort of nit picking here, most vehicles are not the best handling possible, they don't need to be. I can tell you that my 1980 Corvette is heavier yet much better handling than my 1989 Doge Colt was.




> I've heard that theory about batteries providing crumple protection many years ago. So the story goes, NTSB testing facilities used to drain flooded lead acid starting batteries for easier cleanup. Then they discovered that cars performed ever so slightly better with the batteries filled.


Lithium cells are much tighter construction than lead acid and have very little free liquid. I think whatever strength they have could be used to somewhat beef up the structure. Point is you can't say you're just adding mass that has no other physical characteristics. Internal pack fusing can electronically break up the pack in an accident.




> Not sure if its the heaviest, but the ford crown victoria is consistently rated near the top and I would also think there is good reason why police forces consistently prefer this relic of the land boat era. Hydroformed steel chassis backing the unibody does nothing to lighten the car but makes it much stronger than something like a leaf, tesla, aveo, saturn, corolla, fiero, focus, etc.


Police often need to use their vehicle as a weapon so they need mass. A stiff frame may keep the car drivable after a crash but may also transfer more force to the occupants. However, I see few crown vics any more, mostly Chargers around here.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Nit picking or not, you have not given a real world example for why lighter cars are safer. In theory its plausible, but until there is data to back it up thats all it is. I am acutally planning to build such a car some day, but until then, I have no sure way of knowing that it will match the safety of whats already out there. 

Don't think there's much left to say on this.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> Nit picking or not, you have not given a real world example for why lighter cars are safer.


Well they could possibly stop faster, and potentially, as you yourself have argued, handle better, possibly avoiding an accident all together. However, I don't think I ever said lighter cars are safer, I said that lighter cars can be made to be safe. Again, unless every single person drives the safest vehicle possible, (they don't), all this concern over safety seems disingenuous at best. You're basically saying it's impossible to make a reasonably safe vehicle lighter with better materials and better design, a battery pack cannot be designed to aid crash worthiness, and that a heavier vehicle with a lower CG will always handle worse than a lighter vehicle with a higher CG. I disagree on all points.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> You're basically saying it's impossible to make a reasonably safe vehicle lighter with better materials and better design, a battery pack cannot be designed to aid crash worthiness, and that a heavier vehicle with a lower CG will always handle worse than a lighter vehicle with a higher CG.


That's not what I said. 

However I was asking for examples to back up those theories because crash tests and studies I have seen do not support the notion that lighter is safer when smashing one vehicle into another. Although I have never seen the battery in crumple zone theory tested with a battery on this scale. If you know of one please tell me because thats the configuration of my car.

Ease up a little, I was just trying to have a conversation.


----------



## mhud (Oct 19, 2009)

In terms of a subsidy, what would be acceptable to a libertarian? The only example I can think of is when a private party is doing the subsidizing. So unless Perot, Buffet, or Gates steps up to subsidize battery technology, that is not going to happen. The private sector will not handle all of our needs. For example, what private company would have designed and built GPS and made it freely available? Yet now we all enjoy the benefits of that. Some tech does not have near-term monetization potential and therefore businesses will just not go there. That's the place for long-term research and development funded by government and academia. 

PhantomPholly -- what would you think about a very specific wealth redistribution. Specifically, an extra tax on the thing that is deemed to be "bad," gasoline purchased by consumers at the pumps, with that tax money directly going to bounties for companies or individuals that are able to bring to market a battery with specifications decided beforehand. 

The "bounty" model is only one subsidization model. Others would be grants for companies to open laboratories, or simply low interest loans for the same purpose. I figure you'd be a fan of the bounty model because the only payout happens when there's a successful product at market. Meanwhile those funds are sitting around. (As if money would ever just sit around and not be spent elsewhere.)

I'll just recall when gas was approaching $5/Gal here in the US. All of the sudden, car commercials were mentioning "30MPG." Everyone cared about fuel efficiency. One benefit to our two wars. 

Edit: ...and those have only cost about a brazillian dollars since 2001.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Less regulation on drilling, are you kidding? Hello, BP anyone? If they had been regulated to install the proper blowout preventer maybe we wouldn't have had the disaster. Plenty of oil is right, we'd be drowning in it. Please stop with this insane idea that unregulated business is a good idea.


Hello? Is there anyone in there? The BP failure wasn't for want of reasonable regulations - it was for gross corruption and a "look the other way" relationship between regulators and business. That is EXACTLY what happens when you let government grow so large that no one can watch what they are up to.

Keep the existing safety regulations, pay the government inspectors $1 million for each violation they find - funded by the oil company - plus $50k/year. People will be lined up around the block for the opportunity at the job; there will be many new millionaires; and there will be almost zero safety violations. Back that up with a guarantee of lifetime in jail for "failure to properly inspect," and we will have true enforcement of the EXISTING regulations.

The regulations I'm talking about ditching are the insane ones telling the world that anyone but us can drill in our own waters and within our borders. That simply is not sane. Drill, baby, drill!



> Unregulated business means they will do whatever is cheapest and easiest to maximize profits, with no regard to consequences.


Which is why I have never recommended it. Move along.



> Batteries are not circuits or computers and their technology will probably not scale in the same way. I have no doubt there will be improvements, but there are physical and chemical barriers that slow or stop advancements.


True - but once again, we have demonstrated the potential in theory and in the lab for things like carbon nanotube capacitors. Let me say this again - it is only a manufacturing challenge. In business, this is a sure bet.



> The lead acid battery is a perfect example, I'm sure they improved a lot at first and then leveled off for decades.


Actually, they've approached the theoretical limits for lead acid. They can do tricks to increase surface area, but then things get gooed up. Nope, Pb acid is a dead pony - as is LiIon, if I were placing bets. Subsidizing one or more varieties of bad science simply lengthens the time it takes before someone will be willing to invest in it's replacement.



> And your desire for unregulated businesses, the end justifying the means, takes us where?


You really are stuck on this false trail, aren't you? "The ends justifies the means" is the Liberal's / oppressor's song - search on that phrase and Obama; Pelosi; Ried; etc. over the past two years. Libertarians like me say the ends never justifies the means except perhaps in brief moments of pure survival - and not even then if you caused the situation through bad ethics and principles.



> Oh that's right, businesses always do the right thing and need no oversight and will lift us all up with them.


Business will typically do the profitable thing. Safety - one of those silly principles you fail to grasp - is about the only valid excuse for regulating. Dictating salaries; prices; products; processes; or anything else about HOW a business accomplishes it's goal is simply tyrannical meddling.



> Ridiculous. You still ignore the fact that federally funded research has brought about technological advances faster than would have happened without.


False premise. Prove that better solutions in other areas would not have come about had that money not been diverted by government. Naturally you cannot, because you cannot prove a negative. 

Oh, certainly in focused areas a huge pot of stolen loot makes a difference - but once again we get back to the violation of principles, letting government pick winners and losers in the research funding game based on political, rather than economic (what really matters to people, that being things they will vote for with their dollars) criteria. In the long run government money tends to stifle research and development.



> So the government never tells people what's best and never should?


Members of Congress frequently opine on "what is best;" their track record for accuracy is in the toilet.



> Any set of laws and any government puts limits on individuals, that's the concession we make to live in a stable society.


In any rational government those limits are meaningless, because they are there simply to prevent people doing what they should not be doing anyway (e.g. violating someone elses safety or rights for your personal pleasure or profit). Telling people how many miles to drive, how to travel, what products to buy, how much they must pay, how much an employer must pay an employee - these are the traits of tyranny.

Well, you've posited a whole bunch of straw man arguments and I've torn each one to shreds. This has been fun, but clearly you have no interest in understanding basic ethics, principles, or economics when it interferes with your dream of liberal utopia. Go back to sleep now, the bad man won't say any more irritating words.....


----------



## meanderingthemaze (Jan 25, 2010)

Best quote on the thread:


> If you want safety you could drive with a helmet and body armor, yet no one does.


Could there be money in this? We could use it to subsize batteries! 

OK, c'mon guys, you're going about it all wrong. 

The only way to get subsidies to work is to subsidize conversions. Why? Because nobody will buy a lame product for their conversion. When word gets out, said company goes under, and losses are mitigated. The converters will pick the winners!!! And there is no corrupt corporation to take the profits. Or corrupt politicians if we keep an eye on them.

Just cut out the noise and you will see the answers. If that doesn't work, inject a little humor.


----------



## mhud (Oct 19, 2009)

meanderingthemaze said:


> The only way to get subsidies to work is to subsidize conversions.


For what it's worth, I bought my conversion hardware in December 2009 and I got 10% (of parts cost) off my 2009 taxes as a credit. 

I consider this a subsidy, and I don't see how this is a hand-out to a specific company, as PhantomPholly seems to indicate all subsidies are. The only time subsidies are hand-outs to specific companies are when the subsidies are so specific that they basically go to a single player in a market. 

Even in that case, a competitor could spring up to get some of that action. Not that anyone should support extremely specific subsidies.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> That's not what I said.
> 
> However I was asking for examples to back up those theories because crash tests and studies I have seen do not support the notion that lighter is safer when smashing one vehicle into another. Although I have never seen the battery in crumple zone theory tested with a battery on this scale. If you know of one please tell me because thats the configuration of my car.


Since this is all fairly new stuff I don't think there are any examples to give you. I simply see the possibilities. I said that better design and better materials can make a light vehicle safer than a heavier vehicle with less sophisticated design. I've already said that all things being equal a heavier vehicle will be safer. However, the heavy vehicles of the past that had no crumple zones would transfer the force of a crash to the occupants, yet lighter vehicles with modern engineering allow those forces to be absorbed, and therefore are safer. I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before.


> Ease up a little, I was just trying to have a conversation.


Didn't think I was coming on that hard, sorry. You getting sensitive on me?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Hello? Is there anyone in there? The BP failure wasn't for want of reasonable regulations - it was for gross corruption and a "look the other way" relationship between regulators and business. That is EXACTLY what happens when you let government grow so large that no one can watch what they are up to.
> 
> Keep the existing safety regulations, pay the government inspectors $1 million for each violation they find - funded by the oil company - plus $50k/year. People will be lined up around the block for the opportunity at the job; there will be many new millionaires; and there will be almost zero safety violations. Back that up with a guarantee of lifetime in jail for "failure to properly inspect," and we will have true enforcement of the EXISTING regulations.


Regulations that are not enforced are effectively the same as less or no regulations, just as actually enforcing regulations that are in place is effectively more regulation. I guess you don't realize it but you are actually arguing for more regulation, while calling for less.


> The regulations I'm talking about ditching are the insane ones telling the world that anyone but us can drill in our own waters and within our borders. That simply is not sane. Drill, baby, drill!
> 
> Which is why I have never recommended it. Move along.


Oh, so your moronic cry of "Drill baby drill" is not an example of less regulation? Right.


> True - but once again, we have demonstrated the potential in theory and in the lab for things like carbon nanotube capacitors. Let me say this again - it is only a manufacturing challenge. In business, this is a sure bet.


Um, news flash, laboratory work often does not translate into real world production.



> You really are stuck on this false trail, aren't you? "The ends justifies the means" is the Liberal's / oppressor's song - search on that phrase and Obama; Pelosi; Ried; etc. over the past two years. Libertarians like me say the ends never justifies the means except perhaps in brief moments of pure survival - and not even then if you caused the situation through bad ethics and principles.


Yet you want less regulation for business so they can generate their profits, the "ends", without having to worry about the consequences of their methods, the "means".


> Business will typically do the profitable thing. Safety - one of those silly principles you fail to grasp - is about the only valid excuse for regulating. Dictating salaries; prices; products; processes; or anything else about HOW a business accomplishes it's goal is simply tyrannical meddling.


No it simply addresses the means, which often compromise safety. Products and processes are often dangerous and harmful when not regulated properly. Business will barrel along with no regards to consequences if allowed.


> False premise. Prove that better solutions in other areas would not have come about had that money not been diverted by government. Naturally you cannot, because you cannot prove a negative.


I can prove that subsidies have created an increase in battery production in this country that would have gone over seas otherwise.


> Oh, certainly in focused areas a huge pot of stolen loot makes a difference - but once again we get back to the violation of principles, letting government pick winners and losers in the research funding game based on political, rather than economic (what really matters to people, that being things they will vote for with their dollars) criteria. In the long run government money tends to stifle research and development.


Good luck proving that 



> In any rational government those limits are meaningless, because they are there simply to prevent people doing what they should not be doing anyway (e.g. violating someone elses safety or rights for your personal pleasure or profit). Telling people how many miles to drive, how to travel, what products to buy, how much they must pay, how much an employer must pay an employee - these are the traits of tyranny.


Again you show your short sightedness. People driving unnecessary miles waste fuel, increase pollution which can affect us all, and contribute to putting our citizens at risk in foreign wars, in case you hadn't noticed.


> Well, you've posited a whole bunch of straw man arguments and I've torn each one to shreds. This has been fun, but clearly you have no interest in understanding basic ethics, principles, or economics when it interferes with your dream of liberal utopia. Go back to sleep now, the bad man won't say any more irritating words.....


The only thing you've torn to shreds is your limited grasp of reality, you must be hanging by a thread at this point. You contradict your own logic and have a simplistic shortsighted view of how the world works. No surprise, I've come to expect as much from you and have been rarely disappointed.


----------



## meanderingthemaze (Jan 25, 2010)

mhud said:


> For what it's worth, I bought my conversion hardware in December 2009 and I got 10% (of parts cost) off my 2009 taxes as a credit.
> 
> I consider this a subsidy, and I don't see how this is a hand-out to a specific company, as PhantomPholly seems to indicate all subsidies are. The only time subsidies are hand-outs to specific companies are when the subsidies are so specific that they basically go to a single player in a market.
> 
> Even in that case, a competitor could spring up to get some of that action. Not that anyone should support extremely specific subsidies.


I agree 100%. And right now, all the EV subsidies are going into the accounts of large automakers who stand to make great profits. We need have a converter association that can lobby for subsidies. That's our broken political system for you.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> Since this is all fairly new stuff I don't think there are any examples to give you. I simply see the possibilities. I said that better design and better materials can make a light vehicle safer than a heavier vehicle with less sophisticated design. I've already said that all things being equal a heavier vehicle will be safer. However, the heavy vehicles of the past that had no crumple zones would transfer the force of a crash to the occupants, yet lighter vehicles with modern engineering allow those forces to be absorbed, and therefore are safer. I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before.


 
Well I guess we agree then. But for what its worth I didn't mention older cars that predate crash testing.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

mhud said:


> For what it's worth, I bought my conversion hardware in December 2009 and I got 10% (of parts cost) off my 2009 taxes as a credit.
> 
> I consider this a subsidy, and I don't see how this is a hand-out to a specific company, as PhantomPholly seems to indicate all subsidies are. The only time subsidies are hand-outs to specific companies are when the subsidies are so specific that they basically go to a single player in a market.
> 
> Even in that case, a competitor could spring up to get some of that action. Not that anyone should support extremely specific subsidies.


Specifically a tax credit is not a subsidy, although in alleged purpose they are similar. I agree with the notion that "doing something to make your home more energy efficient" or "incentives to buy or build a more fuel efficient vehicle" would be less corrupt - but on the other hand history has shown that officials cannot avoid the temptation to play favorites. 

We have only to look to this administration's gross examples of cronyism (e.g. bailouts to the unions, negating legal contracts by Executive fiat; government support and funding of one particular window maker as "energy efficient" when in fact they were no more energy efficient, and were more expensive than, their competitors- the list seems endless). Tempting as it is to throw stones at this particular administration, history is rife with examples demonstrating that politicians cannot avoid the temptation to take one more step down that road.

Too, if we focus on the principles, we see that government has no business whatsoever using taxpayer money to manipulate the behavior of its citizens. Such ploys are merely Ponzi schemes to divert tax monies to select groups or individuals in exchange for votes - and at the end of the day all we have purchased is a corrupt government.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Too, if we focus on the principles, we see that government has no business whatsoever using taxpayer money to manipulate the behavior of its citizens.


 So you don't think we should have had the Manhattan Project, the "space race" to put a man on the moon, federal funding to build the interstate highway system, federally funded communications satellites, continued funding of defense projects during times of peace to keep a defense industry infrastructure in place...? All these are examples of the government using taxpayer dollars to manipulate citizens to do projects the government thinks need to be done for the good of the country.


----------



## umurali2000 (May 3, 2010)

Yes .. it is right thing to do ...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

meanderingthemaze said:


> I agree 100%. And right now, all the EV subsidies are going into the accounts of large automakers who stand to make great profits. We need have a converter association that can lobby for subsidies. That's our broken political system for you.


Problem is that subsidies for individual converters are less likely to make a significant difference than subsidies for manufacturing, there simply aren't enough of us. I'm all for subsidies for conversions but we are a drop in the bucket, real change needs to come with real volume, and only large companies can provide that.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> ...real change needs to come with real volume, and only large companies can provide that.


 Its traditionally been felt that after national defense, the main job of government is to promote commerce. This ensures income for the citizens, and for the government - so it can fund a strong defense as well as other things generally recognized as for the common good of the citizens. In a large economy, this means stimulating large companies as you say, to have a significant effect on employment and the economy. It also means investing in R&D in new areas that may be used in the private sector later to develop into the next generation's (or 2 or 3) large companies. Many "high tech" companies grew out of such technology originally funded by DARPA. This is the goal of present funding of development of batteries and evs. Of course there are always people looking to exploit this huge pool of money for their own benefit, regardless of what benefit it brings to the country. Good government resists this, and makes a good effort at ensuring funding of projects that will provide benefit to the country. We used to do fairly well at that, not very well more recently. I don't think the solution is to stop the funding. I think it is to elect better people to make the decisions. That will only happen if the citizens take responsibility to do so, and make the effort to inform themselves on voting records (not manipulative sound bites, and political advertisements) and vote for those who demonstrate this. I agree with the adage "You get the government you deserve."


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

I am against all subsidies for the reasons already stated, they just do not work. However I have another Idea, that will work. A $1,000,000,000 REWARD and exclusive patent rights for 10 years to the first individual or company who can develop a battery with the following specifications or something in the ball park.


$.20/wh
300 wh/kg
500 wh/liter
Minimum 3000 cycle life
90% DOD without deterioration
minimum 10C charge/discharge 
90% charge discharge efficiency

The reward would be high enough to cover R&D with profit, and the patent gives them 10 years to buy the world. Now that is an incentive that involves no public funding other than the reward which would pay itself back a million times over.


----------



## mhud (Oct 19, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> ...if we focus on the principles, we see that government has no business whatsoever using taxpayer money to manipulate the behavior of its citizens. Such ploys are merely Ponzi schemes to divert tax monies to select groups or individuals in exchange for votes - and at the end of the day all we have purchased is a corrupt government.


I don't agree. I would prefer to be "led" by tax incentives / disincentives than to have things be flat-out illegal. 

I don't expect a climate change denier to think it's important to artificially direct markets away from fossil fuels. But the fact is that market forces will not move us away from oil before it becomes prohibitively expensive to acquire. Markets don't plan ahead, they react. I like to think we're smarter than that. 

Perhaps I should remove my head from my ass?


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Sunking said:


> I am against all subsidies for the reasons already stated, they just do not work. However I have another Idea, that will work. A $1,000,000,000 REWARD and exclusive patent rights for 10 years to the first individual or company who can develop a battery with the following specifications or something in the ball park.
> 
> 
> $.20/wh
> ...


I wonder if that would be enough to cover the cost of getting through safety and other red tape or regulations. No doubt GM would claim you can't develop such a car for only that much (which is why I think its stupid to throw more money at established car companies that clearly wants EVs to fail).

I know for a fact it wouldn't cost me that much to prototype a car from the ground up but getting it through the gauntlet of safety regulations is another matter (reminds me a little of how the 2 party system keeps newcomers from bringing real change to amreican politics).

In any case I'm extremely weary of handing even more money in any form to GM in the hope that we can reform them into believing electric cars are the right thing to do. All they will do is take the money as usual. Whats needed are new startups that DO believe in the idea and don't have to sell zillions of them to turn a profit. Smaller, more nimble (and profitable) manufacturers that compete for their share of the market instead of having it given to them by subsidies.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

david85 said:


> I wonder if that would be enough to cover the cost of getting through safety and other red tape or regulations. No doubt GM would claim you can't develop such a car


I am not talking about a car, I am talking only about the battery. The technology for the EV is already in place.

The company that develops such a battery would become a monster of a company as all car makers, or anyone that needs a battery would have to buy from them or one of their licensed companies that make the battery. Think of it like Bill Gates and Microsoft, they get money (Royalty) for every PC made rather you use their product or not. So even if it cost more than a Billion to develop, who cares that will be pocket change.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Sunking said:


> I am against all subsidies for the reasons already stated, they just do not work. However I have another Idea, that will work. A $1,000,000,000 REWARD and exclusive patent rights for 10 years to the first individual or company who can develop a battery with the following specifications or something in the ball park.
> 
> 
> $.20/wh
> ...


Rewards like that won't stimulate much since only those who already have enough cash to spend on R&D would take the challenge, and only a few of those since it's a total gamble. Smaller companies with some good ideas might not be able to spend the time and money pursuing the prize. Spread that money among a number of companies gives us a larger pool of innovation to choose from and supports more jobs. Locking up the patent as you suggests allows a single company to control the technology, remember Chevron/Ovonics?


----------



## meanderingthemaze (Jan 25, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> Problem is that subsidies for individual converters are less likely to make a significant difference than subsidies for manufacturing, there simply aren't enough of us. I'm all for subsidies for conversions but we are a drop in the bucket, real change needs to come with real volume, and only large companies can provide that.


I don't think you can use current unsubsidized converter statistics to make that point. The number one reason people don't convert is because of the upfront cost coupled with the inability to secure financing for a conversion.
I think that if conversions were subsidized, we would see conversion business pop up all over the country, probably a lot of individuals from this forum would join in. If converters could secure $7500 from the feds and $6000 from state (like CO), in many cases conversions would be free to the DIYer. That would also open up a business structure such that people who aren't technically or mechanically inclined could then afford to pay someone to do it for them. Either way, conversions if subsidized on the same level as new production EVs, would be able to compete well with the used gas car market and would compete very well with the production EV market. I think that approach could make a huge difference. 

Of course, I really think that both conversion and new EVs have to be subsidized to really speed adoption at the level we need. Unfortunately we don't have a lobby in Washington, only big auto does.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Of all the ideas discussed here and in many other threads on the same topic I haven't seen a good model to go by for promoting EVs through subsidies. There are some examples for promotion of alternative energy that we can look at to get a basic idea but its still not a direct apples to apples comparison any more than comparing to the highway system or space program (although I don't think nasa has done much to write home about for over 20 years anyway).

Best we were able to do was write off the saturnEV build as a business expence under R&D. And R&D is exactly what it is but only time will tell if this can ever become a part of our usual business. Looking at the raw numbers for components, its possible to be profitable now, but our little shop doesn't yet have the means to produce conversions fast enough or efficiently enough in terms of man hours and I'm probably at least 2 years away from being able to prototype a controller. Subsidies might help slightly, but even a $7000 grant per vehicle produced would not solve our problems.

Considering the unstable nature of politically motivated funding I can tell you as some one that has is in business, making long term plans based on a theoretical hand out that may or may not survive the next election would be economic suicide (YES, we have looked it up). Governments and their priorities are always changing and even regular business inscentives can change from one month to the next.

Giving money to some one like GM for each car they produce could work like the cash for clunkers program, but as we know in that case it was extremely expensive (measured in the billions, not millions), and as such cannot be sustained for more than a few months, or a year at the most in a time like this. I guess it depends on what your definition of success is because it did sell many new cars but at a very high legacy cost for everyone else including those that couldn't afford a new car anyway. In the end a bailout happened anyway.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

meanderingthemaze said:


> I don't think you can use current unsubsidized converter statistics to make that point. The number one reason people don't convert is because of the upfront cost coupled with the inability to secure financing for a conversion.
> I think that if conversions were subsidized, we would see conversion business pop up all over the country, probably a lot of individuals from this forum would join in. If converters could secure $7500 from the feds and $6000 from state (like CO), in many cases conversions would be free to the DIYer. That would also open up a business structure such that people who aren't technically or mechanically inclined could then afford to pay someone to do it for them. Either way, conversions if subsidized on the same level as new production EVs, would be able to compete well with the used gas car market and would compete very well with the production EV market. I think that approach could make a huge difference.
> 
> Of course, I really think that both conversion and new EVs have to be subsidized to really speed adoption at the level we need. Unfortunately we don't have a lobby in Washington, only big auto does.


The numbers would still be very low in comparison with production EV's. Compare the 100 mile range Leaf, a brand new car, to the cost of a similarly capable and newer conversion. No shop can compete with that and pay themselves for their labor, and the general public will still be more comfortable with a new vehicle from a proven manufacturer. Even if the number of conversions suddenly tripled that's nothing compared to Nissan's first limited year of production, and no comparison to future production. 
I totally agree we should get somewhat larger subsides for converters, but the reality is that administering a few thousand subsides to individuals is more difficult and time consuming than a few large subsidies to manufacturers. Manufacturers are a known quantity, individuals and small shops are not. Plus, even with your plan of greater tax credits, individuals have to front the cost of the conversion first, so if upfront costs are prohibitive as you say, that doesn't do much to help.


----------



## meanderingthemaze (Jan 25, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> The numbers would still be very low in comparison with production EV's. Compare the 100 mile range Leaf, a brand new car, to the cost of a similarly capable and newer conversion. No shop can compete with that and pay themselves for their labor, and the general public will still be more comfortable with a new vehicle from a proven manufacturer. Even if the number of conversions suddenly tripled that's nothing compared to Nissan's first limited year of production, and no comparison to future production.
> I totally agree we should get somewhat larger subsides for converters, but the reality is that administering a few thousand subsides to individuals is more difficult and time consuming than a few large subsidies to manufacturers. Manufacturers are a known quantity, individuals and small shops are not. Plus, even with your plan of greater tax credits, individuals have to front the cost of the conversion first, so if upfront costs are prohibitive as you say, that doesn't do much to help.


In the long run numbers of production EVs will be greater but for the short term, I think we could pump out tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of conversions, but it would take group effort. I'm not the first to propose this. Search Felix Kramer of CalCars.org. It would be easier to do it through many shops then many individuals, but that could all be administered largely through existing beaurocratic channels. And it's not a reason to scrap an otherwise good idea.

Conversions could compete with the Leaf and do better. Unless you're talking about new leather seats and padding and other crap that is in new cars. Also, It's been reported that the Leaf is not going to get 100 miles under normal conditions. It's got a ~24kWh pack. When you run the A/C and drive on the freeway, the numbers were closer to 60 miles per charge. 

Also, with a new market, we might have access to better drive systems and other components developed specifically for converters. 

I prefer rebates to tax credits personally, but even with tax credits, I think people could make payments to a credit card until they receive their tax refund to pay it off or something. The point is it would lower the barrier dramatically spurring the growth of a potentially HUGE market. 

Just look at the current multi billion dollar industry around customizing gas guzzlers. It's huge, and there's no reason to think the EV market would be any different. Some people do the labor themselves, some pay others to do it for them. I am convinced their is a business model in there somewhere.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Past examples have always taught me to be very skeptical of projected range and fuel economy claims. I'm not saying 100 miles on 24kwh is impossible but it doesn't seem very likely with a car of that size, weight, and not so stellar drag CD. Frank Stronach was claiming 100 miles with a ford focus prototype conversion, but the next version was rated at only 80 miles with a near identical setup (battery capacity). Although the mitsubishi EV is claiming an even better wh/mile rating so who knows.

Anyone remember when TreeHugger.org was happy to parrot ford's press release of the F150 hydraulic hybrid that was said to get 60 MPG? I had a good laugh over that one but was saddened by how many ford fans actually believed it until I explained how impossible it was. Not a word of the truck ever since.


----------



## meanderingthemaze (Jan 25, 2010)

Exactly david38, in fact, those numbers might even be for 100% DOD. 

In another report, I saw Nissan claiming that: "we forecast we will be able to reduce the cost of battery production to $770/kWh very soon." Later in the article they quote a converter saying he got his for around $330/kWh. 

So, I think it is true that auto makers are going to pad their numbers to make more profit. And that is not a good thing. I think that we need to hold them accountable as well as the government, if we are going to subsidize them. The Leaf at mass production should cost more around the current price of a Prius, such that after rebates, it would be around $10k. That would be a much more fair cost and wold help speed the adoption of EVs faster. I think Nissan is going to do well on these subsidies, while we converters are going to be able to call ourselves "pioneers" but will be broke as a result of holding that title.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

meanderingthemaze said:


> In the long run numbers of production EVs will be greater but for the short term, I think we could pump out tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of conversions, but it would take group effort.


No way, the general public is simply not on board enough at this point, and not willing to pay for moderate performance and limited range, that's what's holding back more conversions, and EV's in general. Lower battery prices across the board and a greater selection of affordable, good performing AC drives are what will drive adoption of all EV's, OEM and conversions. Limited range expensive conversions will not sell in large numbers, no matter what the price is. The large volume of OEM production will drive prices of all components lower, the DIY market will never do that. The custom ICE market grew out of the large availability of stock ICE vehicles and components, not the other way around.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

meanderingthemaze said:


> Exactly david38, in fact, those numbers might even be for 100% DOD.


Nissan has clearly laid out under what conditions they got the 100 mile range, the EPA LA4 test cycle. They also got 130 miles under different conditions and 70 miles under another set of conditions. Like any EV range will differ with conditions.


> In another report, I saw Nissan claiming that: "we forecast we will be able to reduce the cost of battery production to $770/kWh very soon." Later in the article they quote a converter saying he got his for around $330/kWh.


Nissan is using LiMn chemistry which has a better density than LiFePO4, and is more costly at this time.


> So, I think it is true that auto makers are going to pad their numbers to make more profit. And that is not a good thing. I think that we need to hold them accountable as well as the government, if we are going to subsidize them. The Leaf at mass production should cost more around the current price of a Prius, such that after rebates, it would be around $10k. That would be a much more fair cost and wold help speed the adoption of EVs faster. I think Nissan is going to do well on these subsidies, while we converters are going to be able to call ourselves "pioneers" but will be broke as a result of holding that title.


No way is Nissan making huge money on the Leaf. A new vehicle with new low volume components is not profitable right off the assembly line. The subsidies will allow them to sell initial units as they ramp up volume and reduce costs.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> So you don't think we should have had the Manhattan Project, the "space race" to put a man on the moon, federal funding to build the interstate highway system, federally funded communications satellites, continued funding of defense projects during times of peace to keep a defense industry infrastructure in place...?


It continually fascinates me that whenever I discuss bad government and unethical legislation, people (generally Liberals) immediately point to some of the few ethically appropriate uses of government spending as if it justifies all of the unethical spending.

In order:
1. The Manhattan Project. Military spending during time of war to assure success. Exactly the sort of thing the Federal Government was conceived to undertake, when and only when necessary for the continued sovereignty of our nation and directly in support of the principles of our country.
2. The space race. Probably a waste of everyone's time and money. Most of the technologies that came out of it were on the cusp of discovery anyway (nylon; transistors; etc.). Some of the investment in research for military applications (national defense, a Constitutionally mandated purpose of the Federal government) was perfectly reasonable. We could have had 99% of the advancements for 10% of the cost had we pursued it simply as military investment instead of national ego (NOT a purpose of the Constitution). 
3. The Interstate Highway system. One of the very best implementations of multiple ethical purposes of government at once. Simultaneously supports our national defense (did you know that one out of every three miles of Interstate must be sufficiently straight to be used as an emergency landing strip, both for mechanical failure and also as alternate air strips for national defense?) and also one of the very few correct applications of the "General Welfare" clause - usable by citizen, even if only because groceries are delivered upon them - and providing economic benefit nation wide.
4. Federally funded communications satellites. See Interstate Highway system, above. Additionally provided a generation of international dependence upon our nation, and further assured our military dominance at minimal cost (most of the cost was recouped through fees charged to other countries). Brilliant - achieve military superiority at the expense of others!



> All these are examples of the government using taxpayer dollars to manipulate citizens to do projects the government thinks need to be done for the good of the country.


No, all of these are examples of outsourcing our investment in national defense while "encouraging the General Welfare" (e.g. promoting national prosperity).


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Maybe you can make yourself feel better knowing that some of the battery research technology will benefit the military.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> Nissan has clearly laid out under what conditions they got the 100 mile range, the EPA LA4 test cycle.


That explains it then. Thats an urban driving cycle and thats where EVs get better range typically due to regenerative braking and lower average speed.










Going by the example of other regen equipped vehicles like prius and EVs alike, highway range and economy is typically lower. How did they get 130 miles? I could certainly believe 70 miles at 60 MPH.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Maybe you can make yourself feel better knowing that some of the battery research technology will benefit the military.


It isn't about "feeling better" - that is for people addicted to emotions irrespective of logic or truth. Rather, it is about what is most likely to get us to our shared goal of abundant, inexpensive, and nonpolluting energy.

If it makes you feel better to believe that the government actually produces wealth and technology when the facts and all historical evidence demonstrate that the BEST government ever does is to cause no harm to the economy, then you are statistically more likely to be among the Liberals than the Constitutionalists.


----------



## meanderingthemaze (Jan 25, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> No way, the general public is simply not on board enough at this point, and not willing to pay for moderate performance and limited range, that's what's holding back more conversions, and EV's in general. Lower battery prices across the board and a greater selection of affordable, good performing AC drives are what will drive adoption of all EV's, OEM and conversions. Limited range expensive conversions will not sell in large numbers, no matter what the price is. The large volume of OEM production will drive prices of all components lower, the DIY market will never do that. The custom ICE market grew out of the large availability of stock ICE vehicles and components, not the other way around.


You could consider the conversion market is a specialized version of gas guzzler modding. So, it would just be another extension. And I think you can get performance and range for cheaper with a conversion. The Nissan Leaf is a good example. They are charging too much for that. A conversion would be cheaper with the same performance. Unfortunately, nobody will sell their drive systems to converters except a few companies. 

It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario where you need a larger market to get better parts, but need better parts to get a larger market. I think the subsidization model would help achieve this.

We can agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

meanderingthemaze said:


> It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario where you need a larger market to get better parts, but need better parts to get a larger market. I think the subsidization model would help achieve this.


What sort of market do you figure there would be for a 2nd or 3rd generation motor and controller setup? Something that could support regen, is programmable, and could deliver up to 100kw constant power. The reality is the components for such a system are really not that expensive especially if purchased in even a smaller bulk order. Learned a lot of that when I had to source parts to rebuild my brushless controller.

I hear there is a stronger following of EV groups and enthusiests in the LA area and socal in general. What do you think?

Its a question I have been mulling overe for the last little while because there's no way in hell I am going to shell out over $20k for a purpose built EV system like what MES is offering for the next car (or eventual upgrade to this one).


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

david85 said:


> How did they get 130 miles? I could certainly believe 70 miles at 60 MPH.


Think I found it:
http://wot.motortrend.com/6659795/g...af-ev-range-may-differ-by-40-miles/index.html

The chief engineer of the leaf design team is making some candid remarks about the cars range and based on what he is saying here, I think the 100 mile range is indeed a little optimistic.

130~140 mile range is for average speed of 40 mph or less and climate controls switched off (although I saw another article that stated the speed of 38 KILOMETERS per hour, so I'm not quite sure what to think about this).

But he is also claiming 105 miles at speeds of 60-70 MPH which I think is asking a little much but only time will tell after real customers start driving them in the real world. So far I think this is still the best electric car available right now in terms of what is being claimed and its more within reach than a tesla roadster.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> And I think you can get performance and range for cheaper with a conversion.


 You think so? Maybe with DC, but it seems the price difference, after the $7500 tax credit, would be small. I think cost would be the same or more with AC, depending on motor/controller/bms.



> So far I think this is still the best electric car available right now in terms of what is being claimed and its more within reach than a tesla roadster.


 The Coda sounds better to me. Whether either lives up to the advertisements is another matter. The president of Coda said its range is 100 miles - "real range" at 60 mph with AC on - the way he stated it. It uses a UQM motor/controller, something like 130 HP peak if I recall correctly. Early reports were it would be in the low $30k range, similar in price to the Leaf, but they have been pretty quiet on price. Based on the performance of my car (~ 60 mi @ 60 mph on level ground, 2250 lb/20.76kWh pack, 0.32 drag coeff, 18 Sq ft area) I don't expect the heavier and larger cross section Leaf, with slightly larger pack, can go 100 mi at 60 mph.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

tomofreno said:


> The Coda sounds better to me. Whether either lives up to the advertisements is another matter. The president of Coda said its range is 100 miles - "real range" at 60 mph with AC on - the way he stated it. It uses a UQM motor/controller, something like 130 HP peak if I recall correctly. Early reports were it would be in the low $30k range, similar in price to the Leaf, but they have been pretty quiet on price.


You might have me there because this is the first time I am hearing about it. Some brief searches turns up numbers like 45-49k after government rebates but looking at the raw specification numbers, the car does have some great potential.

Their specs here:
http://www.codaautomotive.com/tech_specs.html

Thanks for mentioning it.



tomofreno said:


> Based on the performance of my car (~ 60 mi @ 60 mph on level ground, 2250 lb/20.76kWh pack, 0.32 drag coeff, 18 Sq ft area) I don't expect the heavier and larger cross section Leaf, with slightly larger pack, can go 100 mi at 60 mph.


I'm about one step shy of being able to make a similar conclusion with my car. Built a towing hitch hard point for the front end so I can drag it home behind my truck if need. That means a range test is now safely possible. Only a matter of time now

Currently I've been able to get 80 miles rather easily on a fresh pack during our mild winter and I have yet to break that distance.


----------



## meanderingthemaze (Jan 25, 2010)

tomofreno said:


> You think so? Maybe with DC, but it seems the price difference, after the $7500 tax credit, would be small. I think cost would be the same or more with AC, depending on motor/controller/bms.


OK, I got excited, but I think at this point, apples to apples, a conversion could be done for the same price as a production EV the way they are pricing them. Partly because you don't have to build the car from the ground up. But that's including paying someone $6-7K in labor to convert it, which should be profitable to a business, right? And I think with a drop in price, things will only get better.



> The Coda sounds better to me. Whether either lives up to the advertisements is another matter. The president of Coda said its range is 100 miles - "real range" at 60 mph with AC on - the way he stated it. It uses a UQM motor/controller, something like 130 HP peak if I recall correctly. Early reports were it would be in the low $30k range, similar in price to the Leaf, but they have been pretty quiet on price. Based on the performance of my car (~ 60 mi @ 60 mph on level ground, 2250 lb/20.76kWh pack, 0.32 drag coeff, 18 Sq ft area) I don't expect the heavier and larger cross section Leaf, with slightly larger pack, can go 100 mi at 60 mph.


I have been sporting my Coda "End Dependence Day" shirt since last Earth Day and I really hope they don't become just another failed attempt at an EV company. I like their approach and they seem to be going for integrity over flashiness. But who knows. Time will tell. And yes, I hear the same thing, that they will have 100 miles REAL range under hard driving conditions. I think they told me their battery would be in the 35kWh range.


----------



## meanderingthemaze (Jan 25, 2010)

david85 said:


> I hear there is a stronger following of EV groups and enthusiests in the LA area and socal in general. What do you think?


Unfortunately I have not seen it. There are people around, but we're so spread out here that it seems not a whole lot has been gelling. There is an EVA meeting within LA County(not city) that I have gone to, but everyone there is just waiting for their production EV. The meetings are mostly presentations by companies. And while there are a couple converter-types that attend, there is really no talk of conversions as being a viable solution or cheaper alternative to buying a production EV, even at less performance. 

I think in the Bay Area (Palo Alto, San Francisco, etc) their is a MUCH bigger thing going on and even in San Diego. Of course Oregon and Washington have nice things happening too. But LA, strangely, seems behind the times in my opinion. But maybe I just haven't been invited to the party! 

That's why I'm trying to start something...http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/los-angeles-ev-car-club-success-48122.html


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I guess I heard wrong


----------



## the Brutus (Dec 9, 2009)

Hello Chaps, 

Here's my 2 cents worth on the subsidy topic. 

Things to consider:

1. Fossil fuel subsidies are in the range of 6-10 Billion AUD in Australia, and I imagine rather large in the US as well. The economics of EVs would improve if this were not the case. If you want to talk about market failure and the ability of subsidies to distort development, this is a good place to start. 

2. Imported oil: Australia and the US are similar in the extent to which they import foreign crude oil stocks, both bringing in close to half our usage from overseas. Both countries once used to produce the majority of their own oil domestically, and infrastructure and attitudes were built around having oil available locally and cheaply. These days the import of oil is a monstrous drain on the balance of payments,and is doing real economic harm. This cost needs to be considered, and factored into the costings of measures that help the situation. The value of an EV should include this. 

3. Electrical infrastructure: Western nations all have well developed electrical networks. Most also have the potential to access domestic sources of energy in order to increase electrical output. Most western nations don't have the ability to increase domestic oil production at any price.

4. DOmestic battery production: employs local people, does not consume resources. Batteries do not destroy the elements of which they are composed, they can me re-used indefinitely. Burning oil permanently destroys one of the most useful sources of long-chain aliphatic and aromatic organic chemicals, invaluable for the manufacture of synthetic compounds and composite materials. Its too useful to incinerate just to get around town, it should be saved for aviation and synthetic products, from a scientist's perspective. 

I would tend not to advocate a direct subsidy for EVs, as, like many, I am a bit skeptical of any Government's ability to pick a winner, and wary of the likelihood that research will be directed by technically-retarded bureaucrats with fat checkbooks, rather than engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs, if government funding becomes the biggest game in town.

I would rather see the following:

1. An end to fossil fuel subsidies, including those relating to company tax breaks for vehicle fleets. 

2. A tax on imported oil. A big one. in the order of 100% of its value. We should live within our resource's capacity. We need to keep dollars here, and a continual drain of billions is bleeding the economy to death. This will increase the cost of petroleum fuels, and so make EV's more viable. If Gasoline is 8 dollars a gallon, an EV will look rather more appealing than it does now, I am sure. 

3. Tax breaks for R+D on projects of national significance. make such research 150% tax deductible or more. New technology makes money. Germany knows this, we used to. Its time to remember, and make R+D economically worthwhile for companies. 

4. China presently provides land and capital for "green tech" product factories, including LiFe batteries. They get extremely generous tax regimes for the first few years of operation to give them a chance to get started. I think its not a bad idea. 

5. Transfer motor vehicle registration and insurance fees to the Drivers License, not the vehicle itself. Presently, owning an additional vehicle costs money even when its not in use, and so people try to do everything with one vehicle: commute, carry children, tow trailers, go shopping. An SUV is a superb compromise, it Does It All, but it does not do it all efficiently. A better arrangement is a V8 monster for towing things that gets used a dozen times a year, an EV, and a motorcycle or e-bike for summer commuting. With cheap gas and expensive registration, this doesn't make sense economically. If fuel was expensive, and registration cheap, charged on the person's driving history and not the vehicle type, this would encourage the use of a vehicle most suited to the job, not a Swiss Army Knife approach as at present. 

For what its worth, chaps. 

Cheers, 

Brett


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Interesting thoughts, I agree with much of what you say. However the fact remains that much of what you suggest either won't happen or would take quite a bit of time to implement. Subsidies can help immediately, and are doing so. Factories are being built right now because of them. The Chinese land grants, capital, and tax breaks you speak of are subsidies, and they are working for the Chinese.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Some brief searches turns up numbers like 45-49k after government rebates


 Sigh, I hope not. The Coda was my hope for a very capable electric car at a price at least some could afford and might be willing to pay. I'm tired of hearing of $40k+ cars that most people can't or won't buy.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

The most harsh tax regimes in china would still be considered a subsidy by many in the developed world so additional incentives on top of that is light years ahead of anything thats reasonably possible in places like canada, USA or oz. The cost of doing business over there is lower - period.
Sad truth is you don't need nearly as much money to get something off the ground in china and even less to keep it going with or without subsidies.

While its true that billions are invested in oil exploration, billions more are taken back in the form of taxes and royalties so on the whole it produces more money than it consumes (can that still be called a subsidy?). Money that can then be used for all sorts of other government programs - maybe even promoting EVs in theory. Choking off that revenue stream doesn't sound like a very good idea to me if money is at the heart of this issue. Either way you look at it, that would mean a smaller pool of cash to draw from.

Whats more likely to happen is more of what we are seeing right now with those pesky fuel cells still finding lobbyists that will be more successful than anyone in the EV world. Those are the subsidies I expect to see continue in the future since the system itself is inherently corruptible because of technically retarded bureaucrats and their political masters. Even if they are honest, which is unlikely, they are usually still ignorant at best or stupid at worst. And no matter how well intended an EV lobbyist might be, there will probably be 5 more better paid lobbyists pushing for money in other programs. I don't think its wise rely on that system to help put more electric cars on the road.

I do like the idea for auto insurance though. Unfortunately, it could amount to a massive loss in revenue for insurance companies so it will never happen (even though most of us can only drive one car at a time lol). As it is, I am probably not saving much money by using my EV and I have spotless driving record with the maximum discount under the province run insurance company. Often I am choked to see how much cheaper insurance is in the states. The truck is staying parked and generally only gets used once a week now but I probably am still losing money.


----------



## the Brutus (Dec 9, 2009)

@ David85, Youre quite right that it isn't likely, but it's what I think should happen, rather than what I think probably will happen. a man can dream, cant he?  

I have also found myself unable to drive more than one car at a time! still have to pay 1200/yr to keep a 3 ton Isuzu in rego, and use it once a week at most. 

As far as subsidies go, nearly half of them in Oz are (were? I finished uni 6 years ago, might be out of date) not related to fossil fuel production, exploration etc, but related to consumption, like tax concessions for corporate vehicle fleets. The point I am trying to make is that domestic oil and its economic benefits will be giving way to imported oil, and that is always going to be a net loss to the importer's balance of trade. I am willing to concede that subsidizing exploration etc might make sense, as you say, but I would maintain that I don't think subsidizing the consumption of an expensive foreign commodity is a good idea. 

Cheers for the reply, 

Brett


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

the Brutus said:


> Hello Chaps,
> 
> Here's my 2 cents worth on the subsidy topic.
> 
> ...


If you believe that one of the most profitable (gross dollars) industries in the world either need, or actually receives, "subsidies" (this was another whole thread) then you do not understand the meaning of the word.

What is being called subsidies are actually bribes to the oil industry re-direct their investments into areas that otherwise would not attract their earnings because they are not profitable ventures. In other words, they are being bribed to mis-allocate resources.



> 2. Imported oil: Australia and the US are similar in the extent to which they import foreign crude oil stocks, both bringing in close to half our usage from overseas. Both countries once used to produce the majority of their own oil domestically, and infrastructure and attitudes were built around having oil available locally and cheaply. These days the import of oil is a monstrous drain on the balance of payments,and is doing real economic harm. This cost needs to be considered, and factored into the costings of measures that help the situation. The value of an EV should include this.


This one's easy. Stop fighting the de-valuation of the dollar. DEMAND it. EVs are then cheap; gas expensive; and we stop selling our future to China.

However, our elected officials receive millions, probably billions in bribes to prevent this natural process from occurring.



> 3. Electrical infrastructure: Western nations all have well developed electrical networks. Most also have the potential to access domestic sources of energy in order to increase electrical output. Most western nations don't have the ability to increase domestic oil production at any price.
> 
> 4. DOmestic battery production: employs local people, does not consume resources. Batteries do not destroy the elements of which they are composed, they can me re-used indefinitely. Burning oil permanently destroys one of the most useful sources of long-chain aliphatic and aromatic organic chemicals, invaluable for the manufacture of synthetic compounds and composite materials. Its too useful to incinerate just to get around town, it should be saved for aviation and synthetic products, from a scientist's perspective.
> 
> I would tend not to advocate a direct subsidy for EVs, as, like many, I am a bit skeptical of any Government's ability to pick a winner, and wary of the likelihood that research will be directed by technically-retarded bureaucrats with fat checkbooks, rather than engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs, if government funding becomes the biggest game in town.


Good sentiment; unnecessary if we address the root cause of the corruption.


For the U.S.: Nationalize the Fed; repudiate the debt (which is all fake, part of the biggest scam in history). Allow the dollar to fall. Drill, baby, drill.

For Australia - similar notions.

Both countries have citizens more productive than anywhere in the world.



> I would rather see the following:
> 
> 1. An end to fossil fuel subsidies, including those relating to company tax breaks for vehicle fleets.


Here, here! Let's follow the principle: End all subsidies; particularly government gifts abroad called "aid" or other such nonsense which are really just bribes.



> 2. A tax on imported oil. A big one. in the order of 100% of its value. We should live within our resource's capacity. We need to keep dollars here, and a continual drain of billions is bleeding the economy to death. This will increase the cost of petroleum fuels, and so make EV's more viable. If Gasoline is 8 dollars a gallon, an EV will look rather more appealing than it does now, I am sure.


Nice sentiment, but protectionism never works in the long run.



> 3. Tax breaks for R+D on projects of national significance. make such research 150% tax deductible or more. New technology makes money. Germany knows this, we used to. Its time to remember, and make R+D economically worthwhile for companies.


Forget that. We (in both countries) waste around 5% of GDP on "tax compliance. What if that entire load (or over 95%) were suddenly lifted, and the tax structure re-aligned to promote national interests vs. foreign bribes? Such can be accomplished through a plan like the FairTax - which eliminates virtually ALL income and VAT taxes with a simple sales tax.



> 4. China presently provides land and capital for "green tech" product factories, including LiFe batteries. They get extremely generous tax regimes for the first few years of operation to give them a chance to get started. I think its not a bad idea.
> 
> 5. Transfer motor vehicle registration and insurance fees to the Drivers License, not the vehicle itself. Presently, owning an additional vehicle costs money even when its not in use, and so people try to do everything with one vehicle: commute, carry children, tow trailers, go shopping. An SUV is a superb compromise, it Does It All, but it does not do it all efficiently. A better arrangement is a V8 monster for towing things that gets used a dozen times a year, an EV, and a motorcycle or e-bike for summer commuting. With cheap gas and expensive registration, this doesn't make sense economically. If fuel was expensive, and registration cheap, charged on the person's driving history and not the vehicle type, this would encourage the use of a vehicle most suited to the job, not a Swiss Army Knife approach as at present.
> 
> ...


You have your spirit in the right place, but it is focused too tightly and not broadly founded in simple principles. Once you make that leap, you will see that most of our graft / corruption / wealth destroyers are really all the same - just dressed in different sheep skins.


----------



## zenndriver (Aug 14, 2010)

I think yes, it is the way to go, if we stop funding big oil and other countrys there will be a wave of tech happening not seen since the break up of ma bell, batterys it is true have not cought up with the demand, but the demand is so new that they are still scramblin' to get there products out and when they do the prices will drop, as for eestor it isnt a hoax millions have been poured in the project, but like all other companys there are trying do build something that does not exist and the world is watching.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I think most of the world has stopped watching at this point as they've missed all their deadlines.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

zenndriver said:


> as for eestor it isnt a hoax millions have been poured in the project, but like all other companys there are trying do build something that does not exist and the world is watching.


What do you know about them other than the money going into the project? 
Do you know something we don't?


----------



## zenndriver (Aug 14, 2010)

try as i might i am not computer savy and cannot get a e-mail to link up, The last e-mail I recieved from Zenn was in June of 09 and they had just sent 700.000 to the eestor as per their contract in dec of 09 they quit making Zenn and are now putting all there resources in to eestor. perhaps there is still something on there web site at www.zenncars.com


----------



## zenndriver (Aug 14, 2010)

yes i just checked the web site at the top the menue for invester tell you haw they are doing.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Is this it?​ 
http://www.zenncars.com/media/press_rel/04_09/ZMC-EEStor_release.pdf​


----------



## zenndriver (Aug 14, 2010)

yes thats the web site but on the home page at the top is invester click there and then on eestor.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

It basically says nothing of substance.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> It basically says nothing of substance.


My point exactly. Making claims of money being spend is not the same as proof of a working concept.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

http://www.theeestory.com seems to have a pretty good mix of skeptics and fan boys and is probably the best place for EEstor information.


----------



## juddmeyers (Jul 14, 2010)

I think your right that 10k and 250 probably pushes a lot of people over the edge, but haven't the oil companies bought the patents to Nickel Metal Hydrite, making it nearly unavailable. As for cost and range, I think a rethinking of lead cobalt could yeild both of those objectives, as well as ungodly charging cycles. Again, Arronsens original patents were bought up by the oily people, but there are still cars in the UK running from the 68-70 production run. Of course the US cars were only leased and all siezed just like the EV1.
If we don't make mass conversion the goal, Washington will pick EV winners and EV losers until the big 3 are the only ones who can produce an electric car. I live in Colorado. We have 30 year old cars without a speck of rust. If we can convert them, we take some control from the huge Global Multi National Corporations. I picture a 100 small conversion companies doing a few thousand conversions a year, once we can talk DC and the Banksters into providing proper financing for conversions.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

NiMH and lead are old news, at this point it doesn't matter if the patents are locked up, lithium beats them both. As for govt. funding only the big three, not even close. Many smaller companies, including Tesla, are benefiting from govt. help.


----------



## juddmeyers (Jul 14, 2010)

Tesla has a LOT OF MONEY behind it already and is also taking advantage of all governmental benefits. But you have to be big enough to do the crash test and air bag crap and ABS and that is not for even the medium fish. I know lithium ion is worlds apart in every important metric, except price. There is also a lot of extra expense for inverters and BMS. I would rather have a million starters out there than start out trying to compete against people with enough money to own politicians. If the financing isn't there, the first cars have to be cheap, and sitting around waiting for state of the art to become cheap is no option.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Lithium is cheaper than NiMH at this point. It's not just about funding automakers either, it's battery research and manufacturing, which will bring improved technologies, increased volume, and lower prices.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I still like NiMH and improvements have been made since the EV1 with problems like self discharge now eliminated (the latest AA cells I ordered are night and day compared to some of the early NiCad cells from 20 years ago), but cost is still a problem. Nickel is simply an expensive commodity either way you look at it. Lithium is cheaper for now. How long it will stay that way, who knows but might as well ride it while it lasts. If nickel makes a come back later on, I would welcome that.

I suspect you could assemble your own NiMH batteries with a bulk purchase similar to what some are doing with 18650 LiCo2 cells or a123 cells but again, the price doesn't make it worth while.

There is the advantage that NiMH is more forgiving and you can 100% discharge them without instant death and are also more able to survive without BMS but they still aren't bullet proof.

Believe it or not, I could probably even order Nickel Iron cells in prismatic form, but I don't see the point.

Even my LiFePO4 cells are a little dated by today's standards but I couldn't be happier with the results so far. From winter driving to the current heat wave they work just fine. (80 miles so far)


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Some others don't think NiMH is all that easy to work with:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-...s-for-the-electric-car-tp2319947p2319947.html


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> Some others don't think NiMH is all that easy to work with:
> http://electric-vehicle-discussion-...s-for-the-electric-car-tp2319947p2319947.html


Now that, I did not know. Good call.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Juddmeyers

Just so you know a patent now lasts 20 years (used to be 15 years)

The deal with a patent is that you get a monopoly for 20 years and then anybody can make it

No - you can not extend it - you can improve it and patent the improvement

Yes - you must publish it - anything not published on the patent is not protected

Anything patented before 1990 is now pubic domain

(the military is the exception to this rule)


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> Hi Juddmeyers
> 
> Just so you know a patent now lasts 20 years (used to be 15 years)
> 
> ...


One other set of notes:
- A Patent is typically for a Process. Generally, the courts have not ruled that you can Patent a chemistry (and god help us if they allow a Patent for Genetics - we might have to pay royalties to live...) but it is tricky because some medications have Patents.
- A Patent can be ruled invalid if you can show "prior art." Thus, if Henry Ford really had NiMH batteries any more recent Patents could be overturned. However, that too gets fuzzy because sometimes you can get a Patent on a Patent if you can show an improvement.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

angelika said:


> Current technology is really good enough. I don't necessarily agree with your $5K 250 mile magic number, I think $10K at 250 is good enough, and that's not too far off, in the right vehicle. EESTOR and such is probably a pipe dream, don't count on some magical revolutionary tech, just steady evolutionary progress.


It never matters what us individuals think, and particularly the opinions of those of us "Pro-EV" types are unlikely to sway consumer opinions.

What matters is achieving roughly price parity, or perhaps even lower price, than ICE in order to induce people to overcome their natural resistance to change and try something new.


----------



## DawidvC (Feb 14, 2010)

Some of the good points in EV's (longevity, low maintenance, no reliance on oil) is exactly the kind of thing automakers do not want in a car. If you regularly replace your car every 3 - 5 years, you buy a lot of cars, and automakers can expect to build and sell a large number of cars. If you only buy 2 or 3 cars during your life, they sell less to you, and end up making less money. This is also why cars are engineered not to last very long - a friend told me the following story:

In a car plant in Rosslynn South Africa they installed a car door in lieu of a gate. They counted how many times the door could be opened without failing. When the door exceeded their expectations, they re-engineered it so that it would fail sooner. 

This kind of thing is common among the larger automakers. They know that if they offer a 100 000km warranty, and the average life of critical components is 150 000km, they will make money off you sooner or later.

If I drive an EV, I would expect it at least to outlast its batteries. With LiFePO4 batteries, that could be close to 10 years. The current crop of automakers do not want you to change cars every 10 years. I think that it is worth while paying double the money for the same car (as EV) because in the long run I would be getting more car for my money. The money saved by not having to get it serviced every 10 - 15 000km is a bonus (That is twice yearly for me at this moment). 

Instead of funding electric cars, why not fund electric drag racing, street racing, circuit racing, and get people to understand the change in mindset needed for driving an EV. If EV's are percieved as the next IN thing, they will sell. If they sell, prices will drop. We also need more EV's like the Tesla - that is not where the money might be, but it is what get people interested.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

It gets worse then that. EVs that wear their batteries out will not have to be scrapped in ~10 time unless they are totally rusted out or otherwise abused or neglected.

Since motors will all likely be in the 90% range of efficiency, there would be no reason to scrap the car and the service life could be extended much longer.

A well maintained EV could have a nearly indefinite service life this way. I have no doubt that if the original EV1s were allowed to be sold even if powered by lead acid batteries, many of them would have been upgraded by now and exceeding the original design paramiters.

ICE powered cars built today however are complex machines filled with emission controls, thousands of moving parts and mired in a complicated array of assembly techniques that prevent servicing them easily as they age. This helps to devalue even the most advanced of luxury cars to the point where they are scrapped instead of repaired in old age. EVs would age very differently because they don't have pistons or automatic transmissions.

It takes control out of the hands of the OEM.


----------



## DawidvC (Feb 14, 2010)

My point as well. Very well stated David. In the industry motors of 50 years of age is not strange. I once worked on a machine ( running its original GE motor) nearly 80 years old! Think how cars would look and be engineered if they would last only half as long!

Dawid


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> It never matters what us individuals think, and particularly the opinions of those of us "Pro-EV" types are unlikely to sway consumer opinions.
> 
> What matters is achieving roughly price parity, or perhaps even lower price, than ICE in order to induce people to overcome their natural resistance to change and try something new.


You are responding to copy and paste spam, (which has been reported). At least it was repeating my wisdom


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

DawidvC said:


> My point as well. Very well stated David. In the industry motors of 50 years of age is not strange. I once worked on a machine ( running its original GE motor) nearly 80 years old! Think how cars would look and be engineered if they would last only half as long!
> 
> Dawid


This is the oldest example I know of for a working industrial motor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Locks


> The original gate machinery consisted of a huge drive wheel, powered by an electric motor, to which was attached a connecting rod, which in turn attached to the middle of the gate. These mechanisms were replaced with hydraulic struts beginning in January 1998, *after 84 years of service*. The gates are hollow and buoyant, much like the hull of a ship, and are so well balanced that two 19 kW (25 hp) motors are enough to move each gate leaf; if one motor fails, the other can still operate the gate at reduced speed.


I'll always have a soft spot for some ICEs (diesels in particular), but its hard to beat that kind of service life!


----------

