Electric Vehicle Bunkum Fraud And Waste - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 21, 2011, 12:36:11 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--The present administration of the US had is loaning Fisker Karma 529 million dollars to make electric cars, with the assurance that this will not be another dead loser like Solyndra. We shall see, but it looks to me like the administration is spending money like a drunken sailor. How is a loan to a company, which will be doing the production in Finland, supposed to help US unemployment? See below link for ABC news story about the Fisker Karma loan. It is a long article, but stay with it, it contains a lot of information.http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875--And, see the next link for an assessment of the MPG of the Fisker Karma.http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/10/20/update-fisker-karma-electric-car-gets-worse-mileage-than-an-suv/--Do not get me wrong. I love the idea of electric cars. It is a very cool idea. As for PV electric power; being independent of the power company is a very attractive idea. The problem is that the government is so much worse than the marketplace at developing technology. Take the Space Shuttle: (1 Projected cost to LEO; $100 per pound, actual cost $10,000 per pound, cost of non-reusable launch vehicle $6,000 per pound. (2 Projected frequency of launch; once per week, actual frequency once every 12 weeks. This monster gobbled up nearly all the money that could have been spent on space related projects, or at least left in the hands of the citizens.--I am not against small government grants for research, but government big footing in the market place is wasting our children's money. Who would you give more credit to for the Web. Darpa or the Woz."World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade." Jimmy Carter 1977Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Kiriakos-GR
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 21, 2011, 01:09:27 pm
content: I loved the part : spending money like a drunken sailorThe logical plan would be to pay the dollars on American companies to do the R&D,but the point is that some long sharks they do not like the idea of gasoline to loose it first place as product.And they sabotagethe electric cars idea ...Currently the major R&D about electrical cars had be made by the Japanese like Honda and Toyota.And that's a fact.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 21, 2011, 04:06:39 pm
content: It seems to me that electric cars are a good idea, but in practice they don't save any pollution or fuel in most countries. All electric cars do is shift the fuel burning and pollution to the many coal and gas fired generators that make up a large part of the electric production in many countries. So not only do you not reduce the problem, you now introduce huge waste of battery disposal, and you introduce another two layers of inefficiency of power conversion.Burn fuel to make electricity at roughly the same efficiency of burning the fuel directly to move a car, use this to charge batteries at 80% efficiency, use the electricity from the batteries at another 80% efficiency, and now you have burned 30% more fuel to go the same distance. These numbers are not real, just a illustration.If electric cars are to make sense, the whole world needs to go with thorium based nuclear reactors. Then this clean and completely safe energy will run all our electrical needs without all the problems of pollution and safety.

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 12:59:41 am
content: QuoteThe positive side is that vehicles are no longer exclusively dependent on fossil fuels. One could potentially source electrical energy through other schemes, if they are available.QuoteI don't think battery waste is going to be a problem. I think the opposite. Increased demand will create a whole new industry around battery recycling. Demand is not the only factor, the value of metals used in the battery is another, especially if we are talking about lithium.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 10:49:44 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on October 21, 2011, 12:36:11 pmWow, $529M, is that all?Drop in the bucket, and likely better spent than other money the government throws around.It costs more than that to refit each SSBN sub in the US arsenal of folly...Dave.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 12:22:33 pm
content: Dear Dave:--Granting arguendo that the US is wasting money by not immediately instituting unilateral nuclear disarmament, I still do not see how the Fisker deal is going to help with unemployment.--With regard to the Warren interview, all I can say is wow, what a hard hitting WaPo interview. Watching it one would almost think the Democrat Senate did not vote for the Tarp program, or that both Candidate and President Elect Obama did not give it full support.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Economy/story?id=6638175&page=1"President-elect Barack Obama told Democratic senators in a closed lunch today that he needs the second $350 billion authorized by Congress as part of the TARP legislation last year and that he'll veto any move by Congress to cut that funding off.--If you look at George Bush's record carefully, you will see that he has a horrible spending record, and that he has regularly thrown in with Democrats on huge spending bills, like the Drug, Agriculture, Education etc. bills. Bush could only be deemed conservative if you consider that he wasted money at one third the rate of the present administration."A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls." Al GoreBest RegardsClear Ether

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 02:11:56 pm
content: Since when has politics actually fixed problems the right way? Or even fix the problem in the first place?What they could do is to raise the gasoline taxes. That's really an easy way to encourage greater efficiency. And it gives revenue which could then be used for subsidizing alternative energy.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 02:55:36 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on October 22, 2011, 02:11:56 pmSo your proposing a tax upon efficiency, in favour of a technology that still depends on fossil fuels? That helps mankind, how exactly?Lets obliterate the grid charging inefficient transport with yet undetermined disposal consequences. Yeah great idea.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 06:53:44 pm
content: What would make more sense is a nonlinear tax on gasoline, so the SUV drivers get affected a lot while the hybrid and eco car drivers are affected very little or not at all. Maybe add an extra $0.50 per gallon for any vehicle that gets less than 25 MPG EPA highway unless it's a commercial vehicle.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 08:17:45 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on October 22, 2011, 06:53:44 pmNo it wouldn't make more sense. It would just be punitive taxation on un-green thought, especially if it gives breaks to hybrid owners who purchased un-green products though ignorance and 'green' thought.

author: DrGeoff
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 08:51:46 pm
content: Quote from: AntiProtonBoy on October 22, 2011, 12:59:41 amCheck out redox batteries. They look like a really good idea when it comes to electric vehicles since the charge is held in the two solutions which can be pumped in and out of the vehicle like current liquid fuels, thereby avoiding the whole recharging hassle.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 09:21:46 pm
content: Dear NiHaoMike:--Let me see now. Your solution is more taxes. And not more taxes to decrease the already huge debt, but more taxes, to be spent immediately to subsidize companies that cannot hack it in the market place.--I take it that you think a lot of selfish people are driving larger vehicles than they need. People who own SUVs are already paying a lot of taxes; sales tax, fuel tax, registration, etc. Possibly you think a family that cannot get the entire family and their camping gear into an eco car should be taxed for having too many children. Next you will want to tax people for having houses that are too large.--It seems to me that if quality hybrid and electric cars were available in the market place at a reasonable price, people would buy them. But having the government trying to force the situtation is already proving to be rife with waste fraud and abuse.--The current financial crises was caused by the "Community Reinvestment Act", Carter and Clinton, with feeble protests from the Republicans who at the time controlled neither the Senate or the House. This act forced Banks to finance homes for people who had no hope of paying the money back. To keep things under the carpet so to speak, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought these mortgages so the banks could continue to make more shoddy mortgage loans. When it came a cropper, they decided to blame the banks (after bailing them out), and of course George Bush. See below Wiki link for the rundown on the Community Reinvestment Act.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act--For the Statists all this mucking around with the energy economy and the marketplace is a win win deal. If it does not work and looses tons more money we can just blame the Bankers, Big Oil and, you guessed it Bush."If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." Ronald ReaganBest RegardsClear Ether

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 09:42:05 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on October 22, 2011, 06:53:44 pmAnd what does that achieve other than tax inequality. Extra tax on all trucks, vans, service vehicles, tow vehicles which are already paying more tax via their higher fuel consumption. What makes a car eco other than some marketing hype and a sticker with smiling dolphins on it. How are hybrids more eco than pickups if their only capability is the relocation of the clueless?QuoteWhy stop there, why not extra tax on television screen size, extra tax on HiFi output? You can hear music adequately from a 1W amplifier after all. Why not a disproportionate tax on coloured clothing? Those dyes cannot be good for the environment, can they.Why not double the tax on on second and third multimeters? After all you can get by with one, or participate in a meter pool when two or more are required simultaneously.,and the theoretical savings on manufacture and consumables can be concocted up by the same geniuses that extol the virtues of hybrids.If people want to live in caves dressed in muslin and dying of exposure that is their choice but don't expect me to subsidise it. I've yet to see any indication of electric vehicles broaching any gap of their inherent relative inefficiency. FFS we are supposed to be the intelligent species, when did any real solution involve not doing stuff? Messing about with abandoned technology is unlikely to deliver anything other than a power bill you cannot jump over, there are clever alternatives but most will not be realised while ever the foolish see taxation as a solution.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 09:46:09 pm
content: To Uncle Vernon"--Well said, Sir."There are two possible outcomes: if the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery." Enrico FermiBest RegardsClear Ether

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 10:32:27 pm
content: QuoteNote that "eco cars" are not just hybrids and EVs. It also includes regular compact cars and some midsize cars. I don't see how a compact car could be any worse for the environment than a SUV.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 10:48:36 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on October 22, 2011, 10:32:27 pmThat's a nothing argument when a hybrid and an SUV are not functionally interchangeable! Can a hybrid carry a family of four and enough tools for a days work? In Hybrid world you'd need at least two hybrids to partially replace the functionality of one SUV. Redo the sums on that basis and the two required Noddy cars aren't looking quite so green.What peeves me with these dumb arguemen ts in favour of financially forcing all and sundry into boring single use buzz boxes is that the logic assumes usage and function. If tooling around in a Prius works for you, and you enjoy driving with a knee in each ear then go for it, pay the extra, be happy. But lets stop it there shall we, why should my work subsidise your commute? To hell with that and to hell with the cost this subsidisation by taxation nonsense is imposing upon ALL of the community.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 11:18:02 pm
content: Dear NiHaoMike:--Just to make sure I am not mistaking your attitude, let me ask a test question. Should people with houses larger than they need be subject to extra taxes?"World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade." Jimmy Carter 1977Best RegardsClear Ether

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2011, 11:54:42 pm
content: QuoteIt's actually quite hard to find a mainstream car that cannot seat 4. Also consider that most SUVs on the road have less than 5 people most of the time, most often 1 or 2. So on average, there will be a savings. (Also, rental vehicles could be exempt from the tax.)QuoteYes with limitations. Those with low incomes will not be subject to the tax. Adding alternative energy devices (solar panels or windmills) cuts down on the tax, as does upgrading insulation and adding Low-E film to windows. Also reduce or eliminate the tax for those with thermostats that limit the heat to 68F or below, A/C to 78F or above, and hot water to 120F or less. Maybe even another reduction or elimination of the tax for installing an in home real time power indicator.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2011, 01:31:35 am
content: This doesn't sound like a discussion between engineers.Sounds more like fossil fuel junkies trying justify why their have to get their fix.Even though we know the trajectory we are on is insane, we are so hooked that we just don't care about anyone in 100 years time, 1000 years time or 10,000 years time. Somehow they are going to be so smart that they can solve all the problems that we couldn't be bothered with right now because life is too easy. They can solve all their problems with nuclear fusion, even though for us, fusion has been 50 years in the future ever since the 1950's.We know that manufacturing and energy can be achieved with zero environmental costs, because we are surrounded everywhere with nature that has been doing it for millions of years. We know that we can get electricity through solar power, and silicon is one of the most available elements on the planet. We just don't know how to refine it cheaply. We know that Diamond and Graphene are potentially great semiconductors, and again we have no shortage of carbon - just pull it out of the atmosphere and you could manufacture your solar cells anywhere on the planet.There is nuclear power, but it is just not clean, it is just not safe, and it is just incredibly toxic. Leaving piles of toxic decaying rubbish is just not a good gift for our grandchildren.We are not going to snap out of this current insanity until we wean ourselves from the fossil fuel fix, and at least electric cars are a first tentative step.OK - right now, electric cars are not great, but I remember when 2MBytes of memory for a 80286 based PC was $2000. Back then, buying 4GBytes of ram for $60 was just not even thought about as a possibility. It was an insane idea. If we start buying electric cars, they will get better each year, and in 50 years kids will find it incredibly funny that there were once people who seriously believed that petrol cars were better then electric.Then we might remember that as engineers, it is crazy needing energy to move a 1 tonne lump of metal so that an 80kG person can get to and from work everyday.It is crazy that we are using the air we breath as a rubbish dump, and then trying to justify why it is OK.We are all probably using 1000 times more energy when we really need, and we have seen a glimpses of this in the fact that handheld devices that can run all day on tiny batteries can now do more then PC's consuming 200W used to be able to do.We are the guys who invent the future. We don't have to be a victim to our ignorance.First, we have to remember that we are the guys who invent the future.Richard.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2011, 01:59:59 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on October 22, 2011, 09:21:46 pmThank you. I note the following comments in that article:Every empirical study that has looked at CRA loans has concluded that they were safer than subprime mortgages that were purely profit driven, and CRA loans accounted for a tiny fraction of total subprime mortgages.The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis. At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA, calling it a "scapegoat" and declaring it "NOT guilty."Nobel laureate Paul Krugman noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA. According to Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan, Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress, Robert Gordon of the American Prospect, Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation, Daniel Gross of Slate, and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.Legal and financial experts have noted that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA.Finally, I would note that the CRA is still in force, and yet try to obtain a self-certified 100% mortgage today and see how far you get. For that matter, try to obtain a 90% mortgage with good credit and a secure job, and learn how to bang your head against a wall.Let's put the blame where it lies, shall we? With greedy rich people taking huge risks in search of profit by lending recklessly without regard to the consequences. The government didn't force financial institutions to make reckless loans, the directors did that quite voluntarily. Whatever blame lies with the government is a lack of restraint and regulatory oversight.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 23, 2011, 02:59:55 am
content: Quote from: amspire on October 23, 2011, 01:31:35 amFossil fuel junkies? Why not"ELECTRIC SCEPTICS"? Think of some real emotive names to bandy about. Quality engineering that! Proven by crackpots the world over to add weight to a hollow argument.QuoteDo what? where did the 100 years time come into it? More to the point how will adopting less efficient fossil fuel based technology help future generations? Have any one of the electric car proponents done the sums on what kind of demand moving even 10% of our vehicle fleet to electric would place on our national grids? What you are proposing after all is coal fired automobiles.QuoteMeanwhile back in reality land the environmental impact of a massive increase in battery production and disposal would pose substantial environmental impacts.QuoteWe know how to produce electricity from beer too, but like solar panels we are a long way from being able to produce the substantial quantities required solely from such means.QuoteIf its that easy wouldn't current efforts and the copious amounts of public funds current being sunken intoelectric car folly be better spent on such research. Then of course that old chestnut of storage emerges, do we have to hope it's windy at night?QuoteI real terms and even accounting for the tragic incidents that have occurred nuclear is comparatively very clean. It's just a mighty bummer if an incident occurs in your backyard. I'm not proposing letting governments that cannot provide clean drinking water in flood zones loose with anything with such potential for catastrophe.QuoteHow? Until you effect quantum change in how we generate electricity we would be proposing coal fired cars. And inefficient ones to boot.QuoteYeah some real serious engineering there. How have you determined electric technology will evolve at the same rate as computing? Whats to say electrical automotive evolution wont follow a similar rate to that of internal combustion. Advances haven't exactly been rapid for the last eighty years of the technology, have they? But now they will ramp up? Why? Because a bunch of knobs think it would be good?QuoteWe don't! But for every saving in weigh achieved in current day automobiles, there is some bunch of knobs in bowties declaring that we need more Kgs of "save us from ourselves technology". It's happening already with Electric and Hybrid vehicles, with UK authorities legislating that noisemakes be fitted to quiet cars. Will a baby seat weigh less in an electric car, or will it be safe for the whole family to travel about prone to reduce wind resistance?QuoteWho said it's OK? Why is producing bucket more coal based pollution an alternative to gasoline based emissions?QuoteWe are? Neither created nor destroyed, is how it goes. Try telling aspirational Indians or Chinese they should lower their expectations, see how you get on. Where is the 1000 times efficiency improvement in heating and cooling?Less dependence on fossil fuels would be great,but why if all this emerging technology is so good, should we be contemplating such diminution of lifestyle. Some great engineering there. Live in well insulated boxes emerging only to travel to work at the solar panel plant via some kind of uncomfortable pram like contraption.Engineering? The loony left is anti engineering! No one is proposing oblivion and status quo, but electric cars are not likely to be any kind of solution until so more fundamental issues are resolved.QuoteWhich is exactly why you need to think the electric car thing through a little further.

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2011, 03:23:09 am
content: As I said, we are so addicted to using fossil fuel energy, there seems to be no alternative.It is an addiction.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2011, 03:52:21 am
content: QuoteFor cooling, it's actually a remarkably old invention that has been refined with newer materials and technology. A simple fan, using ceramic blades and inverter technology for higher air speed, can reduce or eliminate the need for more elaborate cooling devices. When that by itself is not enough, my friend Brittany Benzaia has developed a hybrid A/C (evaporative cooler followed by water cycle chiller) that gets over 40 SEER even in above 100F weather. During milder conditions, it will switch into "bypass" (evaporative only) mode for even greater efficiency. Add in a sensor and director to only direct the airflow to where it is needed and an overall 1000x reduction in energy use is possible, though difficult. It is silly to cool down an entire room if the objective is to just cool down the people in it.For heating, it's an even older invention that has no moving parts and needs no energy to operate. Wear a jacket will really reduce the need for heat. For what's left, use directed heat sources. Again, it's silly to heat up an entire room just to keep the people warm. Indeed, by controlling heat loss, they'll generate enough heat to stay warm. A 1000x improvement is more than possible, although it would not be considered an improvement in technology.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2011, 03:57:10 am
content: I'm sorry,guys,you have all made excellent points,but it's boring as batshit!I'm too old to care,so I'm going to go & play Ham Radio!VK6ZGO

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 23, 2011, 07:05:13 am
content: Dear IanB:--Where to begin. You have quoted a bunch of administration suits, three progressive think tanks, and Paul "Tin Foil Hat" Krugman. Interesting that you quote Mr. Krugman quoting statistics from 2009 well after the implosion, no? See below another interesting quote from the Nobel Laureate.“If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack, and we needed a massive build-up to counter the space alien threat, and inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months,” Paul Krugman--In any case just because some banks were not directly under the jurisdiction of CRA does not mean they were not getting its message. They were being jawboned by Democrats to keep ladling the beans and pork, and Fannie and Freddie kept buying the shoddy mortgages. When this potential meltdown was mentioned by George Bush among others, we were told by Barney Frank, and I quote:"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Barney Frank--When you start talking about "greedy rich people", I sense hatred and envy, and I get the feeling that you are counseling for class warfare rather than sound policy. By the way, I missed where you addressed Fannie and Freddie in your remarks.--P.S. The gentle reader (provided he is not a greedy rich person) might want to examine the picture of a police office (or "pig" in leftist parlance) shown restraining an occupier, to see if said LEO is actually dragging the person by the throat as described in the text of the article, from one of IanB's objective news sources the American Prospect.http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_nypd_a_movements_best_friendBest RegardsClear Ether

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2011, 09:30:56 am
content: I rest my case!VK6ZGO

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 23, 2011, 11:47:25 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--VK6ZGO just posted "I rest my case" but he already said he was leaving (out of boredom) to play with his Ham Radio. I guess he just could not resist another put down. Usually when I find a boring thread I just move on, rather than poo poo. Ham Radio, as near as I can tell is people using radio to talk to each other about radio. Now since I was a voice intercept operator once upon a time, I find Ham Radio interesting, but a lot of people probably do not. I wonder if shortly after the telephone was invented, if they had Telephone Clubs, where people would call each other up and talk about telephones. Well I have to go now. I am going to look for boring threads so I can make posts about how boring it they are, rather than making an interesting post.--Back on topic, I noticed some things about the Electric Vehicle to Fueled Vehicle comparison:(1 They usually compare the state of the art EV to the average FV. This is not a fair comparison. The comparison should be between a state of the art EV and a state of the art FV, say a European Turbo Diesel.(2 They usually compute costs of electricity vs gasoline without deducting the taxes. This works very much to the advantage of the EV. And the government has already indicated that they will probably just switch to a "per mile" tax, when (read if) the time comes.(3 They say electricity does not have to come from fossil fuel, it could come from PV or Wind or Hydro or Nuclear. Lets get real. How many of the Eco types are really in favor of Hydro or Nuclear.(4 They argue that the useful lifetime of a vehicle is 100 thousand miles. Ha, these folks need to learn about oil changes. But assuming a useful vehicle life of 100 thousand miles (actually 93 thousand is the figure I have seen most often quoted) also works in favor of the EV.--I cannot prove it just yet, but I have a sneaking suspicion that all the government subsidies and full blown propaganda campaigns are probably hurting progress in Photovoltaic power and Electric Vehicles.--If Tesla Motors ever shows a profit would somebody please post it prominently on this blog."Marconi invented the radio but he had to wait years and years till anything decent was on." Johnny CarsonBest RegardsClear Ether

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 07, 2012, 07:14:03 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Please refer to the earlier post by DJ wherein he provide a link to a fawning Washington Post interview with Elizabeth Warren, the designated nominee to run against Scott Brown for the Senate seat formerly held by Teddy Kennedy (rich, drunkard, vehicular homicide veteran), "Lion of the Senate". In this interview by the WP, Ms. Warren, tries to pretend that, then candidate Obama, and the Democrats in the House and Senate had nothing to do with the fascistic Troubled Asset Relief Program whereby the Republican and the Democratic fascists conspired to give public monies to failed financial institutions instead of letting them fail.--Lately Ms. Warren has been up to more of her tricks. See below link to an article from Reason Magazine (Libertarian).http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/30/elizabeth-warren-earns-429000-worth-mill--So Ms. Warren has a net worth of 15 million, lives in a 5 million dollar house, her last years income was reported at 430 thousand and she owns 8 million dollars in stocks and mutual funds (which own stocks), yet she is able to say with a straight face:--“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios...""The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill 1874 - 1965Best Regards

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2012, 09:14:05 pm
content: Geez you guys... don't you know that the answer to our transport fuel problems is HHO?Throw a jam-jar under the hood of your car, toss in a little baking soda and fill with water then drop some electrodes in, hook it across your battery and direct the "powerful, highly combustible HHO gas" into your engine's intake. Voila -- instant fuel savings!Oh what? That doesn't work like the snake-oil merchants promised it would?Obviously you've got to use PWM to chop up the DC going into that jar and then set the frequency to "resonate" the water molecules so that you're not constrained by Faraday's silly laws.What's that? It still doesn't work -- you're still getting under-unity?Of course -- *you* don't know the right frequency or duty-cycle to use (unlike that God amongst snake-oil merchants, Stan Meyer -- who was killed by big-oil, don't you know?).And if you don't believe any of this then you're just in the employ of "big oil" -- you're simply trying to suppress this technology because it poses a massive threat to the likes of Exxon, Shell, BP etc.Gosh... PT Barnum was right eh?

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 07, 2012, 10:32:21 pm
content: Dear RCMR:--Without magnetic resonance intrafrication, and proper use of interdimensional zero point energy, this approach is doomed to failure. Still there must be some hope for this technology, otherwise the government would be loaning it money.“Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people."W. C. Fields (William Claude Dunkenfield) 1880 1946Best RegardsClear Ether

author: WBB
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2012, 10:58:29 pm
content: Have we not progressed far enough as to be able to shoehorn a nuclear reactor into a car yet? Electric vehicles, in their current state, suck. It's that simple. Moving the emissions from the tail pipe to a smoke stack is pointless. I don't really understand the smug attitude from people driving electrics.Seriously, if the average person went through 4-5 vehicles in their lifetime, each powered by a chunk of metal smaller than a marble, would we not be better off?

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2012, 12:14:21 am
content: Quote from: WBB on February 07, 2012, 10:58:29 pmBack in the 1950s we believed we could have nuclear cars--it was "just around the corner"!The promised breakthroughs in lightweight shielding didn't happen.In those countries that have nuclear power,the electricity from those type of power plants does not cause "greenhouse gases" or any normal type of air pollution,apart from that incurred in mining,transport & handling,so no "smokestack"Obviously they have their own quite different problems,but that is not the matter at hand.It is obviously more efficient to burn fuel in internal combustion engines & use the energy so provided to directly do work,than to use the fuel to make steam,then drive turbines,then alternators,then charge batteries to drive motors.In the early days,the costs of obtaining & transporting fuel was minimal,the electricity grid was nowhere near as extensive as today,sothe inherent efficiency of internal combustion engines won the day.This advantage isslowlybeing whittled away,as transport costs become greater for vehicle fuel.The Electricity grid,on the other hand,costs as much to run if there is no power used,or if it is at full capacity,( I'm not referring to generation,simply to the external plant that distributes power).I was always dubious about Hybrids,but it seems they do work OK.The "buzzbox" idea is a bit silly,as they now have Hybrid Camrys,which are exactly like normal ones,& quite large enough to drive long distances in Australia,& I would assume,the USA.Very low consumption IC cars are also available.This is the normal thing that happens when different technology appears---the older tech usually improves significantly!Nuvistors,anyone?I don't haveanyanswers,& I bet nobody on this forum has all the answers.

author: WBB
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2012, 12:36:58 am
content: My "smokestack" comment was referring to the plug in cars. You're only moving the source of pollution, not reducing it in any way.Nuclear power really doesn't seem that far fetched to me. It seems we're spending tons of money improving battery technology. That's great, but doesn't do anything to help reduce fossil fuel dependency.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 08, 2012, 01:06:47 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on February 08, 2012, 12:14:21 amWhat as? Roadblocks for the use of the chronically clueless?QuoteSo how does the buzzbox bit cease to apply? An underpowered variant of a Camry still equals buzzbox despite its ability to cast a longer shadow than it's hatchback cousin.QuoteSays who? Those having to travel such distances on a routine basis are hardly jumping at the chance to cross trade to Hybrid Camrys. The hybrid has some advantage with mixed city/highway usage but long distance travel is not and never will be a strong point.QuoteIndeed they are and for the most point the low combustion IC buzzbox is a better proposition then most of the "bucket-o-batteries" options.QuoteIndeed it is! Although the improvements in old IC and Electric Car technologies have been incremental rather than significant or rapid.QuoteI do! How about we go back to engineering principles and plain old common sense! It'd be one heck of an improvement over the snake oil and emotive garbage we are suffering at present!I can run near two tonnes of Falcon with a 5L engine for marginally more fuel than say a Mazda 3 at highway speed, at city cycle I cannot compete. Change the equation to carrying a few hundred Kgs of tools and equipment and I can do a lot better, fuel wise, than the buzzbox. It's a case of right tool for the job! Something the hybrid fanclub fails to consider.What irks me is the one size fits all mentality and junk science being applied to every transport argument. Every time, it is assumed that all travel is undertaken by some smug knob with a briefcase and a dumb look, in an empty car from leafy suburbs to the CBD.If we are really so concerned about saving fuel we'd be looking at power to weight equations, for every increase in vehicle efficiency we have another knob in a bowtie deciding 13 airbags are not sufficient and a market demand that says buzzboxes need 9 speakers, power windows, six cupholders and power windows. It's all bunkum.With some clever thinking we could shave hundreds of Kilograms (pounds for the yanks) of vehicle weights in every class and could achieve savings in fuel consumption and emissions that no hybrid is ever going to deliver.For most of the population, going easy on the McDonalds and cleaning the boot would realise the same fuel savings as spending 50% over the oddson a hybrid. For everybody else kid yourself your Prius is making a difference to anything other than dealer profits, enjoy, just don't expect me or anyone else with a clue to embrace your folly.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 08, 2012, 01:21:57 am
content: Quote from: WBB on February 07, 2012, 10:58:29 pmYeah, that'd be a good idea, let panel beaters that cant master 12V tail light circuits loose with lowest cost reactor repair!QuoteRoad going ones do! There is a place for electric vehicles and it's not on the highway.QuoteIt's worse than pointless. It is simply impossible without a monumental increase in generation capacity.QuoteThe chronically clueless have never had a problem being smug, they always will, I could live with that. What really irks is hypocritical politicians that promote such nonsense yet still feel the need to be chauffeur driven about in large vehicles for any frivolous purpose.QuoteSeriously if we cannot feel confident that income generating power stations can be responsibly run, how could we even contemplate similar technology even being considered for consumer use?

author: sonicj
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2012, 03:40:24 am
content: The pipeline decision is plain sick. Our country has pipelines carrying petroleum products from coast to coast and from border to border, yet we can't add one more thatwillproduce jobs andgenerate incomefor the country. "Environmental concerns" and "Green Energy" are easy scapegoats for pushing personal & political agendas. Disagree with them and you're a planet murderer, quietly continue living & consuming responsibly and get ****ed in the ***.If I drive a electric vehicle, it will be because I enjoy pullings gobs of current when I mash the pedal, not because I think its going to make two s**ts of difference to mother earth.-sj

author: damo
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2012, 04:27:02 am
content: Wow, what an emotional topic. People getting bored and irked on the same threadI've done some research on electric cars and there are definitely 2 camps here. Those that like em and those that don't. Personally, I have a foot in each camp.I would probably agree with the post that says the right tool for the job. I.e. for cruising the city short distances would probably favour the EV while on the highway for long distances and hauling loads (including tools) probably favours the IC.I read an interesting discussion on the AEVA forum involving a dude who wanted to know if they could convert a van to electric for the purpose of courier work. The answer was no of course, but some interesting discussion point came about. For this application, the battery would need to be so big that they would need to haul a trailer of batteries to get the range, which would in turn require more energy to run, in turn needing more batteries in a vicious cycle. One solution was to have several battery pack which would be changed every hour or so, but this created down time for the vehicle etc.Another discussion point... electricity is currently cheap, but if you increase the demand without increasing the supply, the price will go up. Soon enough the EV will cost as much to run as an IC. I'm doubtful that a PV/wind solution is the answer as there is still the storage problem. PV only works during the day while wind energy only works while the wind is blowing and usually only when it's blowing at a certain bandwidth of rate. I've seen calculations (for an EV case) where the EV person was saying they run their EV on PV power. This was disproved as the amount of energy generated by the PV was less than the consumption of the EV, thus the claim only worked with a feed in tariff.With the moving to a smoke stack point, an EV enthusiast would argue that it would be easier to control the pollution from a centralised point rather than from the millions of tail pipes. I agree somewhat with this, but there has to be some incentive for the central stack to keep their backyard clean.As for waste batteries, this is a moot point as the batteries commonly used in EV's are recyclable. Not many EVs use SLAs anymore preferring lithium batteries for their light weight, high energy density and low <insert effect here> (the one which takes effect on heavily loaded batteries). New battery technology is being developed all the time.Probably more I could say on the matter, but this should be enough to stir the pot (awaits TLDR)

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2012, 08:46:04 am
content: If a large proportion of cars were electric pedestrian fatalities would go through the roof. I was nearly one when walking through the car park at the local garden center, I was keeping an ear open for moving cars when out of the corner of my eye I caught sight of a car coming straight at me at about 20 miles an hour in the confined space of the parking lot driven by a very old man. It was not making a sound that could be heard above all the other noise After I had jumped out of the way I noticed that the badge said Prius. If they are going to have these things there should be a mandatory noise producer on them that runs when the electric motors do, A bleeper like fork trucks have would do.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 08, 2012, 09:11:23 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on February 08, 2012, 08:46:04 amAn so it perpetuates. Then we need strobe lights for the deaf! Day-glo paint for the chronically bewildered! An extra few air bags to be ready for triple flip with pike! Extinguishers in case of lightning strike to the battery pack! Same nonsense every car manufacturer (and vehicle owner) has suffered for the last few decades.I'm not against safe design far from it but consider for a moment how much all these add-on are bloating the weight and the price of modern vehicles. How many air bags never get used and end up in land fill after a decade of increasing fuel consumption? The things are only for fools too stupid to wear a seatbelt anyway.Moving is dangerous has been since man evolved to walking upright, watch where you are going, look out through the windscreen. and most incidents will be avoided with little fuss and lower fuel consumption regardless of type.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2012, 09:48:16 am
content: Its not the person who is looking out for trouble its the person who does not>Like the old man in the Prius that nearly had me, One moment the car was standing in its parking space the next moment without warning it is doing 20 miles an hour without making a sound no engine noise. I am used to working in an industrial environment with moving machinery all around but when it moves without sound or warning the risk's go through the roof. The Prius is a sales gimmick and no one should be hurt or killed because of a gimmick.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2012, 11:25:45 am
content: The typical efficiency of an electric motor and battery system is nearly 95%.Have you seen the Prius's cooling system? It's water cooled (actually, oil of some kind) but it has a tiny radiator, compared to an ICE. It's got a 20kW inverter and it probably dissipates around 500W of that.There was a paper on it, showed at one point battery-to-wheel efficiency of greater than 98%.Not that I'm in favour of the Prius... but... it could be more efficient.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2012, 07:44:03 pm
content: Silent vehicles are common, look at any current VW for a silent vehicle. At idle or low speed most of the exterior noise is tyre or road related, at least until you get to over 2000RPM. Same with new BMW or Mercedes as well, they are designed to be quiet. US designed cars are tinny, and noisy as well when idling. Only exception is Toyota, they are silent. I have a hybrid and non hybrid Lexus that parks next to me, you cannot tell them apart noise wise when moving in the parking bay, all tyre noise and a slight engine noise from the non hybrid if you are standing at the rear and bend down. As to the hybrid being sluggish, it definitely is not. My VW was quiet until the rear exhaust box rotted through, now it is an aftermarket box ( and header as it also had cracked) and is a little louder, but still not loud. Definitely hard to hear at idle, unless you are close. German sound proofing and attention to detail count.

author: Dieselrunner88
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2012, 03:09:36 pm
content: Energy efficiency and emmisions are two different arguments. As engineers we should all be finding ways to make the energy work better for us. However the problem with automobiles is that the car company's only make what they can sell because they are in this for a profit. A super energy efficient car is not an easy sell. Ugly, expensive, low power, ect. so they don't make one.The US government Needs to be cut off. they are not in this for profit they only are interested in spending money in a way that keeps the rich richer.my opinion on the current state of taxes.You should not steal. The Government doesn't like competition.

author: nukie
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2012, 01:19:15 am
content: We got all the right stuff for electric cars now except for one problem. The battery charging time and capacity. They shouldn't be making electric cars at all, it's not practical yet. They should be investing in battery companies for research into new storage technology. Once that's achieve then the electric car is possible.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2012, 02:10:12 am
content: Quote from: nukie on February 13, 2012, 01:19:15 amActually -- we don't have "all the right stuff for electric cars now" -- adequate generation and energy distribution infrastructure is missing for a start.Then there's the issue of things like battery packs which will have an actual useful life of less than two years with a significant capital replacement cost.There's also the skyrocketing price of rare-earth metals which make the most efficient motors.What we have is "borderline viable" technology but, thanks to the ever-increasing price of fossil fuels, EVs will eventually cross the threshold and become economically viable.I have to say that if I could afford it, and a suitable vehicle was available, I'd buy one to commute to and from the workshop in bad weather (I presently walk the 10Km round trip when the weather's fine). The main reason I'd buy an EV for this purpose is that the maintenance costs would be far lower than my IC-powered vehicle (oil change at 6mths, regardless of Kms traveled) and if I got a few solar panels, it'd be even cheaper to run -- given the short-haul and long (12 hours) time it would be sitting outside while I'm working.I've toyed with the concept of building a small one or two-seater EV out of composite materials - but the horrendous levels of red tape and bureaucracy one has to face in order to get such a vehicle onto the road is a major disincentive.Governments have to shoulder some responsibility for the failure of the EV too.Although they bitch and moan about the horrors of carbon emissions from conventional vehicles -- they do nothing to really promote EVs as a viable alternative.Why is that?Well in most countries, governments are collecting a king's ransom from fuel taxes. They don't want to lose that valuable revenue stream to EVs.Sigh!

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2012, 04:33:07 am
content: Quote from: RCMR on February 13, 2012, 02:10:12 amYes, we should not try anything until all issues have optimized solutions.QuoteOne thing you can be sure to never have to worry about is governments running out of taxing ideas.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2012, 12:49:46 pm
content: Quote from: PeteInTexas on February 13, 2012, 04:33:07 amEco stuff is so great, make things that don't work powered by wishful thinking and still appear virtuous.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2012, 05:48:59 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on February 13, 2012, 12:49:46 pmWhat does not work? Hybrids have measurable reduction in gas consumption albeit not in all situations. Wind power works. Solar power works. None are drop-in replacements for all use cases but if you'd recall, the internal combustion engine was not a drop-in replacement for the horse and buggy either (not enough roads, not enough gas stations, military might not global enough, etc.)

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2012, 07:25:14 pm
content: Well, I suppose the good thing about EVs is they are untaxable when charged by solar, wind or other sources (renewable or not), IF you do it yourself.The government will find another way to tax them, though.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 13, 2012, 09:15:50 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Soon governments will require that all EV's have a WIMWIFI (While In Motion WIreless FIdelity) WIFI chip allowing instantaneous taxation by the centimeter traveled. Of course, a somewhat higher rate will be needed for the chip they will eventually imbed in the old tallywhacker. Mark of the beast, indeed.“Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people."W. C. Fields (William Claude Dunkenfield) 1880 1946Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 13, 2012, 10:59:00 pm
content: Quote from: PeteInTexas on February 13, 2012, 05:48:59 pm

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2012, 01:25:18 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on February 13, 2012, 07:25:14 pmWell actually,all vehicles on the road are taxed when you licence them.The Brits are more realistic :-You will see cars advertised as "taxed",meaning registered for use on the road.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 14, 2012, 05:05:39 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--First of all, let me say that I find myself in complete accord with, the recent statements by EEVblog's distinguished elder statesman and chairman emeritus of the Australian Avuncular Curmudgeon Society and Storm Window Company, Uncle Vernon, who is the long lost brother, by a different Mother of USA Country Hall of Fame Recording Star Don Williams. See picture.--There have been a number of statements made in this thread of late that would give Maxwell and Clausius the vapors. If not outright bite the furniture hissy fits. Please allow me to address a few of them:1) "The typical efficiency of an electric motor and battery system is nearly 95%."--As with a magician, you must watch the other hand. Lets see, in most cases, coal is mined and transported to the Power Plant. Then, it is burned to to make steam to drive steam turbines. The steam turbines drive generators, which power step up transformers. High voltage transmission lines then transmit the electricity to step down transformers. It is then sent to a charging station where batteries are charged. There are losses at each of these steps. But, yes a clever driver can get his car to the bottom of the hill without wasting any gas at all, nearly.2) "However the problem with automobiles is that the car company's only make what they can sell because they are in this for a profit."--Yes if only car companies would make cars they cannot sell, and make sure to lose money while they are doing it. But wait a minute! General Motors, Fisker, and Tesla are all doing this very thing, right now. But, using taxpayer money of course.3) "Yes, we should not try anything until all issues have optimized solutions."--Translation: Some mean people, who do not like puppies and kitties, are against using taxpayer money to fund companies like Solyndra to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, so that they can then, go bankrupt.4) "Eco stuff is so great, make things that don't work powered by wishful thinking and still appear virtuous."--How did such a sensible quote get in here? Happy accident, I guess. Well said Rufus.5) "Hybrids have measurable reduction in gas consumption albeit not in all situations. Wind power works. Solar power works."--Yes, Hybrids replace some gas consumption with coal consumption. This is where I came in. Wind power works in small isolated installations. But, Big Government sponsored Bird Bopping Egg Beaters are a proven dead loser gobbling lots and lots of Feed In Tariffs from hard pressed rate payers. Solar, the same story as Wind, except now poor rate payers get to buy the rich gal a new solar roof.6)"...but if you'd recall, the internal combustion engine was not a drop-in replacement for the horse and buggy..."--Yes, luckily the government stepped in with a 25 percent tax on horses, horse feed, wagons and buggies, in order to buy horseless carriages for wealthy people.--So lets all close our eyes and, cross our fingers just as hard as we can, and hum the "The Whiffin Poof Song" into the rain barrel, until the Magic Energy Fairy comes and makes all those mean people, who don't like kitties and puppies, quit saying mean things about pie in the sky and free lunches.“Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people."W. C. Fields (William Claude Dunkenfield) 1880 1946Best RegardsClear Ether

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2012, 05:32:00 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 14, 2012, 05:05:39 amReally,though,Sarge,I don't disagree with you,--It's just that you & Unc do like to go over the top a bit!

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2012, 05:49:04 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 14, 2012, 05:05:39 amGreetings Sgt:Do you understand that if demand for a good increases, its price increases and that alternate or even substitute goods become an economic necessity?Do you understand that if supply for a good decreases, its price increases and that alternate or even substitute goods become an economic necessity?If the good in question is unleaded gasoline, what do you think is the "switching cost" to alternates or substitutes from an individual, state, and global perspective?Can the transition to alternates or substitutes be made without undue inconveniences to the modern lifestyle?

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 14, 2012, 08:25:43 am
content: Dear PeteInTexas:--I take it from your recent post that you are trying to go the long way around to mention the "Law of Supply and Demand". When demand for a good increases, the price only increases if the supply does not increase. That is why LCD TV,s no longer cost $5,000. When supply of a good decreases the price only increases if the demand does not decrease. Presently the supply of petroleum and natural gas is increasing. You can also get a price increase if the value of any given currency decreases in relation to the value of the commodity. I.E. the dollar is worth less so petroleum appears to be worth more in dollars, while its value in gold has changed much, much less.--As I have stated previously the rule of thumb for mined commodities is "A doubling of price increases the exploitable reserves by a factor of ten" At present the price of crude oil has more to do with, politics and finance than raw aggregate demand. Let me explain: If there is a real physical shortage of petroleum and natural gas (the two being somewhat mutually fungible" it would be very difficult to summon up more over night. But suppose for a moment that supply is limited by, OPEC, a War in Nigeria, Russia sitting on supplies like OPEC, and production falling off in Mexico and Venesuala due to their approaching failed state status. Add to all of this the US banning drilling on both coasts, the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic, while withholding drilling leases and holding out Canadian Pipeline Oil. If those withholding supply leave it go on too long, then of course alternative supplies and commodities become competitive. That is why they periodically relax control and prices fall suddenly. Look at all the sharp spikes in the historical constant dollar price of petroleum.--The marketplace is one of those things that generally benefits from government neglect. If the government ran the Farmer's Market then green peppers would be 5 cents apiece but the supply would equal zero. You cannot set prices, they have to set themselves. This is what Adam Smith calls the "Unseen Hand".--When and if alternative vehicles and alternative energy sources become commercially viable, no force on earth (except government) can stop them from coming to market."Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level."Enrico Fermi 1901 1954Best RegardsClear Ether

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2012, 12:45:49 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--This just in. I started this thread with a mention of the half billion plus US loan to Fisker Automotive. Now an excellent, fact based article, has been picked up and published by the American Spectator.See the below link.http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/14/why-is-the-government-subsidiz"Why Is the Government Subsidizing a $104,000 Car? By William Tucker 2.14.12Is Fisker Automotive the next Solyndra? Maybe, but that misses the larger point.""The first $193 million went to save the floundering Karma venture, while the next $336 million would launch the NINA, a "people's" version of the Karma that would sell for $45,000 -- only $39,000 with federal tax credits.""Meanwhile, back in Finland, Fisker was having a little trouble meeting its Karma production schedules. Although promised for 2009, the first models did not roll off the assembly line until July 2011. Instead of the 1,300 supposedly already under wraps, the first delivery to the United States consisted of 239 cars. Six months later, when a leak in the cooling system that might cause battery fires prompted a recall, an inventory discovered fewer than 50 cars sold. The rest were still sitting on the lots. To compensate for poor sales, Fisker upped the price to $116,000.""The seating foam is made from soy-based bio fiber, the carpet backing composed of recycled post-consumer materials, and the trim sourced from 'fallen, sunken and rescued wood,' including some that has spent the last 300 years resting at the bottom of Lake Michigan.""About the Author: William Tucker is the author of Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey.--Keep humming into that rain barrel."Wish in one hand and, whiz in the other, and see which one fills up first."Gator Dundee 1948 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 05:21:13 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 14, 2012, 08:25:43 amSurely, you are not claiming gas prices will trend cheaper into the future?!Quote"Drill baby drill!" this will save us.BTW, the fact "serious money" thinks tar sands and fracking are commercially viable means we are literally reaching the bottom of the oil barrel.QuoteYou will be amazed to know how much the "free market" rely on government intervention. Why do you think corporations spend billions lobbying and buying elections? Do you really believe Mitt Romney's various super pacs don't want any ROI? A truly free market would look like Somalia.QuoteThen why are you, Sgt, disparaging hybrid technology and the people that chose it. You obviously concede that there can be a time when alternative and alternative energy sources are viable. Well, wake up! The economic reality for a growing number of people is such that that time is here.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 06:12:24 am
content: Quote from: PeteInTexas on February 17, 2012, 05:21:13 amWhat metric do you use to validate this so called hybrid economy? You could drive the distance equivalent of here to the moon on the fuel you can purchase with the sticker price premiums Hybrids currently demand.You and Al Gore can bang on and over emphasise all you want on peak oil but even at our current rising fuel cost, petrol is still a comparatively cheap source of energy. No one (well no one sane) is saying it's an endless resource. But the save the plant lobby is way overplaying their hand.Current hybrids are a joke, suitable only for Doctor's wives and nutjobs looking to bore a crowd silly explaining how they payed more for less. There is no historical precedent for the world ever accepting such an outcome. Sure equations change over time fuel economy matter now while once it was unimportant. Buying a Prius and boring half the planet about why buzzboxes are supposed to be good is no kind of solution to anything other than some car makers bottom line.There is lots that can be developed to improve current technologies and to adopt newer ones. The current wave of hybids have nothing to do with any of this, they are just good marketing to satiate nut jobs and their elected representatives.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 06:21:39 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on February 17, 2012, 06:12:24 amDid you factor in the value of the fuel NOT used?

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 06:25:19 am
content: Quote from: PeteInTexas on February 17, 2012, 06:21:39 amSure enough did!Do the sums!!

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 06:33:18 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on February 17, 2012, 06:12:24 amIf you don't foresee petrol cost decreasing, don't you think you need to start working on alternatives? Have you thought about what it would take for economies, lifestyles, to switch to a different source, cost wise and attitude wise? Its not like switching from croissant to bagels in the morning.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 06:52:12 am
content: Quote from: PeteInTexas on February 17, 2012, 06:33:18 amMe personally. No I don't see the need for me to be working on anything. If you mean do we as a community need to consider alternatives. Yes of course we should. What has development of alternatives got to do with dumping underdone and inneffective product on the marketplace?QuoteSure have. I though long enough to know that paying more to get less is no kind of alternative at all!QuoteNo it's far more complicated, like selecting between Ford, Mazda, Kia and Toyota. The hybrid option in that selection costs way over the odds is far from the best performer andis notthe lowest consumer per KM of fuel.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 11:50:23 am
content: Dear UV:--You may be wasting your time, trying to reason with the EV crowd. They are statists and utilitarians. They believe in more and more government control. They also believe that the facts are what ever the need to be in order to promote more government control. First they say the are going to drive a Hybrid to save money. Then when it is pointed out that Hybrids generally do not save money, then, they switch over to the argument about how they are saving the planet, unlike those mean, mean, people who do not love puppies, and kitties, and EV's.--Besides, they say EV's cause less air pollution. When it is pointed out that air pollution is created by coal fired generating plants, then they switch over to making incomprehensible arguments about supply and demand, and claiming the Somalia is the best example of a capitalist economy, like there are a lot of free market capitalists operating in Somalia.--Then they are back to claiming that EV's do not use fuel. "Did you factor in the value of the fuel NOT used?" Disregarding the burning of fuel at the generating plant, a point they decided to evade last week. They just cannot get 2 plus 2 equals 4 not 11, through their "holier than thow" heads. If "2 and 2" evades them, then you can be sure that thermodynamics, conservation of energy, and the impossibility of "perpetual motion" is way, way off of their radar. Hence my remark about Clausius and Maxwell getting the vapors and having "bite the furniture" hissy fits.--No mater how many times you tell them:"I am not against EV's and hybrids, and PV solar, what I am against it the government taking money away from people of modest means to fund these money losing toys for relatively affluent people. Sell all of this stuff you want, just do not ask mom and pop to pay for it."--They never respond to the point made. It is always some namby pamby hogwash about how ICE's were not drop in replacements for the horse, like if you are not for government subsidies going to rich people, you are ignorant and against progress. No proven facts, no sources quoted, just more sanctimonious finger wagging.--No point made, ever really registers with them, ten minutes from now they will be making the claim, again, that there is no air pollution created in powering EVs. Wait and see."He was born ignorant, and has been losing ground ever since."Fred Allen 1894 1956Best RegardsClear Ether

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 12:07:47 pm
content: The most environmentally friendly car other than the one up on blocks is an old clunker as the amount of energy used to manufacture cars has gone up exponentially. what you save in better fuel economy is far offset by manufacturing.

author: harnon
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 12:59:23 pm
content: I think we can all agree that internal combustion engines are the best we have at the moment, but they areHORRENDOUSLY inefficient.Quote from: G7PSK on February 17, 2012, 12:07:47 pmTo my knowledge, manufacturing emissions and resources have decreased significantly over time for almost all modern car manufacturers. I don't really have a source for this other than anecdotal discussions with managers at car manufacturing plants. The use of recycled materials is also much more significant now than it was - theEU has a directiveof something like only 5% of a car's mass to go to landfill by 2015More anecdotal stats, although you could verify it with some rough calculations, are that about 80% of a vehicles energy is required after it rolls off the factory floor. It follows that you can save a pile of energy and cost by making vehicles more efficient. How much money you save depends on how expensive that energy is!Quote from: SgtRock on February 17, 2012, 11:50:23 amI'm a big fan of EV technology, but agree that all of these technologies have their place. I've been part of some trials with hybrid delivery trucks, and found that for delivering heavy products you actually emit more with a hybrid as the batteries take up usable payload mass and you need more journeys.For light products, emissions and costs are substantially reduced and there IS a rapid monetary payoff. The equation changes if you are driving a lot of country miles (e.g. interstate trucking) where CNG/LNG become more viable alternatives purely on a cost basis.For most passenger cars where they aren't running as many miles there probably isn't going to be a financial payoff but then again I don't think thats why most people buy hybrids.The most interesting advances that I have seen recently are simple mechanical solutions - stop start engines (already in cars), mechanical flywheels (in F1 race cars and prototyped by some manufacturers) and simple aerodynamics can save a fair chunk of fuel at a modest cost increase.Quote from: SgtRock on February 17, 2012, 11:50:23 amHuh? I think governments have poured far more money into bailing out big car manufacturers than a few electric vehicle projects. i.e.billions hereandmillions herejust to name the most recent examples.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 05:35:15 pm
content: Dear Harnon:-- Your response to my statement that the statists "...believe in more and more government control." was:"Huh? I think governments have poured far more money into bailing out big car manufacturers than a few electric vehicle projects. i.e. billions here and millions here just to name the most recent examples."--Maybe it is just me, but I do not think the fact that, government told investors and bond holders to go spit, while (using taxpayer money) to give large percentages of the auto companies to unions (who give campaign contributions to you know who), is a good example of the government seeking less control. It does conform to a text book definition of Fascism, as does bailing out banks, in order to increase control.--If you get to count this kind of activity as a blow for market freedom and against statist government control, I think you just might win the argument. Excuse me, I think I have the vapors, I think I will take a break and BITE SOME FURNITURE, ARRRRG!!!"I sell here, Sir, what all the world desires to have—POWER."James Watt 1736 1819Best RegardsClear Ether

author: harnon
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 07:27:43 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 17, 2012, 05:35:15 pmI'm actually trying to get to grips with your argument... Maybe I've misunderstood, but I read it as the "government gave some money to make a new electric vehicle, therefore all people who buy electric/hybrid vehicles want more government control." I was pointing out the flaw with that argument. Were you trying to make a different point?

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 09:04:32 pm
content: Dear Harnon:--Please read the post again. What I am saying is that people who first say that hybrids save money, and then give that argument up, and say they are trying to save the planet, and then say that electric vehicles do not cause pollution, and when that is proven false, then state that EV's save fuel (if you do not count the fuel at the generating plant), are playing some kind of statist game where the exact facts do not matter, what matters is taking money from mom and pop so some rich gal can drive around in a subsidized EV, or hybrid.--Please notice that I said:""I am not against EV's and hybrids, and PV solar, what I am against it the government taking money away from people of modest means to fund these money losing toys for relatively affluent people. Sell all of this stuff you want, just do not ask mom and pop to pay for it."--Somehow you have taken this statement and stood it on its head:"...therefore all people who buy electric/hybrid vehicles want more government control."--Clearly the statists who want more government control, are the people who want the government to subsidize EVs, Hybrids, and PV solar and not as you stated "all people who buy electric/hybrid vehicles"--Nice try, but no cigar. You were doing better with the argument that the government taking over car companies was a good example of the government not asserting government control."He was born ignorant, and has been losing ground ever since."Fred Allen 1894 1956Best RegardsClear Ether

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 09:21:23 pm
content: Quote from: harnon on February 17, 2012, 12:59:23 pmThe emissions of the car manufacturer may have gone down,but that is due to them actually buying in more ready made sub assembly which they do not factor in in the energy equations, things like the electronics, the old cars had no or very little in the way of electronics, tailored blanks for panels ( sheet metal that is made up of different thicknesses and specification ,laser cut and welded together ready for pressing) greater use of aluminium and other alloys as well as plastics these all take vast amounts of energy, so when a automaker says that their factory is using less energy its due to having farmed that energy use out to others in a way that twenty years ago the didn't.

author: harnon
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2012, 11:35:20 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on February 17, 2012, 09:21:23 pmI suppose its would be hard to find out with any certainty as there probably isn't much data recorded from the "olden days" of vehicle production. On the flipside, with the distributed nature of modern production chains its very difficult to calculate overall energy usage accurately. Perhaps I should ask my materials prof who heads upthis!

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2012, 04:40:16 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 14, 2012, 05:05:39 amI've never seen a hybrid car with a coal burning compartment.Must be in the 2013 model year.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2012, 04:00:26 pm
content: Quote from: PeteInTexas on February 18, 2012, 04:40:16 amWow, dumb, please don't bother me with technical details, I am far too busy saving the planet.If it has a (used) charging socket it is burning some coal instead of gasoline.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2012, 07:26:58 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on February 18, 2012, 04:00:26 pmWe are not talking about all-electric vehicles because those are not hybrids. We are talking about the Prius and the Volt in particular, hybrids that do not need to be "plugged-in" to charge.Apparently SgtRock does not know what he is criticizing just like how his quotes need basic fact checks.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 18, 2012, 09:45:20 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--See below the latest quote from PIT:"We are not talking about all-electric vehicles because those are not hybrids. We are talking about the Prius and the Volt in particular, hybrids that do not need to be "plugged-in" to charge.Apparently SgtRock does not know what he is criticizing just like how his quotes need basic fact checks."--Indeed, I am sorry, I thought Hybrid Vehicles had a gasoline engine, that used fuel. And, that this engine was used to charge the batteries. I did not know the batteries were charged by magic. Notice that in the above quote PIT manages to avoid using the words "gasoline engine". Why would that be? It would be because he is talking about "Fuel not used". He wanted Uncle Vernon to count the "Fuel not used". So it was pointed out to him that when charging the batteries, the fuel (usually coal) is used at the generating station.--So now he says the batteries can be charged with out being "plugged-in", like they aren't plugged in to the, inverter, which is powered by the generator, which is powered by the gasoline engine. So there you have it folks, the Hybrid save fuel by using a gasoline engine to charge the batteries so, that electric motors can be used to haul a box of batteries around. Maybe we could put a windmill on the roof to charge the batteries.--I will say this though, most people, having been proved wrong on every point, would have give up by now, but not our PIT.--Question for all: Who is doing the most to save money and to save the planet. Me by continuing to drive a 10 year old Hyundai Hatchback, or PIT by buying and driving a brand new Prius?“Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people."W. C. Fields (William Claude Dunkenfield) 1880 - 1946Best RegardsClear Ether

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2012, 03:01:23 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on February 18, 2012, 04:00:26 pmOr natural gas,or uranium,or perhaps some of the water flowing through a hydro-electric scheme.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2012, 04:54:36 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 18, 2012, 09:45:20 pmOf course its a gasoline enginerechargingthe batteries. That is why your coal comment is mildly amusing and fully ridiculous.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2012, 05:10:47 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 18, 2012, 09:45:20 pmYou must be a barber at another life seeing as how good you are at splitting hairs.QuoteHybrids save fuel by not using any when stopped at a red light, by taking advantage of regenerative braking, etc. These savings do not materialize in all driving situations. None of these are false.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2012, 09:29:54 am
content: How much electricity is lost in transmission, 20%-30% so there is no way that a car which is purely electrical can be more efficient.As for the things like the prius saving fuel, they only do so due to the engine being stopped under certain conditions, there are now cars coming onto the market that have engines that are stopped and started automatically when the car stops or is coasting.Hybrid technology is only here due to subsidies in development and production, if the same subsidies had been put into gas turbines we would have gas turbine cars on the road, or water wheel cars if the subsidies had been put there.sail cars would make for interesting driving when you had to start tacking along the road against the oncoming traffic.

author: harnon
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2012, 12:00:22 pm
content: Quote from: PeteInTexas on February 19, 2012, 04:54:36 amUsing the engine to generate power is only one way... don't forget regenerative braking!Other companiesare also working on recovering energy from the aerodynamic forces which could be interesting - more for race cars at the moment though where the aero forces are much higher.Quote from: G7PSK on February 19, 2012, 09:29:54 amTransmission line efficiency is irrelevant for most hybrids which aren't plug in. Its more relevant for full EVs, but just looking at transmission line efficiency is really looking at about 1% of the answer. For instance some of the things you would have to consider for a full picture are - how efficient is an electric engine vs an ICE engine? How much energy is used getting the energy to the point of use (e.g. 20% transmission line loss, but fuel is driven to the bowser in trucks burning... fuel)? How much energy is used to prepare the energy for usage? How is the energy being used? etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. I certainly haven't seen any figures that go into this much detail, have you?If people use the argument "but electricity comes from a coal plant" to say EVs are less efficient than ICE cars, it follows that the petrol supply chain should also be tracked back to its source! Again, I'm not saying I know the answer just pointing out the inconsistencies in the argument.Quote from: G7PSK on February 19, 2012, 09:29:54 amIndependent testing I've seen shows around a 6-8% drop incityusage with stop start technology. Other mechanical methods are more promising (i.e. flywheel mentioned previously). Energy saved/used is down to where / how the car is being used.Quote from: G7PSK on February 19, 2012, 09:29:54 amThat sounds kind of fun!

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2012, 02:08:32 pm
content: The Swiss had a bus in the 50's that ran on a flywheel, It was spun up by electric motor at one stop and again at the next etc.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 19, 2012, 04:05:51 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Harnon has said:"...your coal comment is mildly amusing and fully ridiculous."--My coal comment was:-Yes, Hybrids replace some gas consumption with coal consumption.--Keep in mind the salient point of my comment was to counter the idea that "hybrid vehicles in the EV mode do not use fuel" when indeed they do cause fuel to be used at the generation station, and engender efficiency losses at every point in between. Which I explained at length. Not as fully ridiculous and quite a different "kettle of fish", than what Harnon was trying to make out, no?--Harnon did do us a service, however, by bringing up non plug in hybrids. These kinds of vehicles are becoming more significant every day. In fact as gas prices go higher (but of course you must subtract gas taxes from this equation, to get an idea of what is government policy as opposed to actual cost effectiveness), non plug in hybrids become cost effective. Right now some are approaching the break even point. But of course conventional technology is not holding still, so nothing is certain yet. Non-plug in hybrids also appear to be more competitive, the more miles driven, unless you have to replace the batteries.--The information I would like to see is, say for instance, total cost of operating a non-plug in hybrid, including fuel costs, batteries, repairs and, initial cost minus resale amount, compared to the same analysis for say a Jetta diesel, divided by the miles driven in each case to get a true cost per mile.--If this kind of technology is successful (in the long run), it will indeed have my blessing. Or course if it is successfull it will not need my blessing. My only problem with any of these technologies is when distorted facts are used to justify the government spending taxpayer money, as in "EV's cause no pollution and use no fossil fuels".--In invite all to read and comment (as PIT has already done) in the related thread "Mann Made Global Warming Takes An Arrow In The Knee From NASA" (see link below).https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/mann-made-global-warming-takes-an-arrow-in-the-knee-from-nasa/msg88513/#msg88513--The thread is related because much of the original impetus for EV's and Hybrid EV's came from the AGW (Mann made GW) jihadis. So if AFW takes an arrow in the knee, then the entire EV batallion is forced to debate on a rational "dollars and cents" basis, which, in the end will be a good thing.--I think that probably everyone on this forum wants to see successful EV's and Hybrids, they just do not necessarily want to the the present US administration cram flaming Chevy Volts from Government Motors down our throats."I sell here, Sir, what all the world desires to have—POWER."James Watt 1736 1819Best RegardsClear Ether

author: harnon
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2012, 06:18:02 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 19, 2012, 04:05:51 pmWrong, check again (or better yet use the quote button to prevent incorrect attribution of comments).Quote from: SgtRock on February 19, 2012, 04:05:51 pmCompletely wrong formosthybrids, as has been pointed out several times above - most hybrids don't connect to mains power (which is not all coal generated by the way) they use the gas engine and braking energy to charge the batteries.Quote from: SgtRock on February 19, 2012, 04:05:51 pmTechnically wrong, (ignoring attributing somebody else's comment to me again...) batteries are mostly charged during petrol engine operation, not during "EV" mode, but we get your point (as agreed several times above) that plug in hybrids do have to get their electricity from somewhere.Quote from: SgtRock on February 19, 2012, 04:05:51 pmUm... To clarify, we are talking about distinct categories here - "non plug in" hybrids such as the Prius which were the first to market, "plug in hybrids" such as some of the new Prius models, and full EVs such as the Volt or Leaf which do not have a petrol engine but charge from mains.Quote from: SgtRock on February 19, 2012, 04:05:51 pmCorrect at last! The cost effectiveness of any vehicle technology depends on the usage (but not necessarily the distance driven, as any lorry/truck/trailer operator will tell you). But (also as I've said before) some people don't buy a hybrid because its cheaper.Quote from: SgtRock on February 19, 2012, 04:05:51 pmA lot of opinion here not backed up by any form of evidence. I'm more than happy to have the discussion on the basis of dollars and cents i.e. verifiable facts rather than opinion. As I may have said before I've been involved in real world trials which did just this for heavy vehicles, and I've talked to people who have done the same testing for passenger vehicles with various mechanical and electric hybrid technologies. Yes, generally these tests just measure fuel efficiency on the road, not the whole supply chain (as addressed above several times).Quote from: SgtRock on February 19, 2012, 04:05:51 pmIf its based on a similar wide application of opinion devoid of facts, I'm not really interested.Quote from: SgtRock on February 19, 2012, 04:05:51 pmTo be honest I thinkthere are many more things the government collects taxes onwhich spend a lot more money and probably deserve closer scrutiny from its citizens in terms of bang for buck.Meh, I'm bored.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 19, 2012, 08:49:21 pm
content: Dear Harnon:--Upon inspection, I see that you are correct, I attributed a statement by PIT to you, due to the use of the confusing quote tags. I have seen several cases where quotes were incorrectly attributed to me, do to the use of the tags. The case here involves the use multiple overlapping quote tags where the first quote directly below the quote tag is not the one associated with the quote tag. I realize that they are supposed to nest within each other like Matroshka dolls, but they are inherently confusing. Now your use of the quote tag method is indeed unambiguous because you do not lump a bunch of nested quotes all together. While quote tags are convenient for some, in my opinion, they are not an improvement on "quotation marks" which have been in use by newspapers and books for lo these many years, although they were free to use the quote tag form, if they thought it more clear. I have yet to have anyone misattribute, one of my quotations using "quotation marks". In any case I apologize for the misattribution.--Despite the fact that you are bored, you manage pretty good syntax, spelling, usage and typing. You are not confusing and you are easy to read. Thanks. Now to your main points, Sir. Now with regard to your attempts to conflate an ICE powered vehicle with EV's; You may notice that the title of the thread, (which was started by me) has "Electric Vehicle" in the title. That being the case, up until the point where you introduced the words non plugin hybrid, was a discussion of "Electric Vehicles" IE; vehicles which plug in. Non plugin hybrids are not EV's per se, just a form of ICE powered vehicle. Maybe if you were not so bored, you might have noticed the thrust of the proceeding arguments. Nice try again, though.--Now with regard to your comment about this thread being a:"...wide application of opinion devoid of facts..."--Now I realize, Sir, that you are bored, and probably loath, to read the entire boring thread from start to end, but I am afraid I cannot allow you to inadvertently (by incomplete reading) deceive the readers of the thread by stating it is "devoid of facts". Please notice I began the thread with two links to "factual" articles. IE:http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/10/20/update-fisker-karma-electric-car-gets-worse-mileage-than-an-suv/--So far, boredom, has caused you to confuse a discussion of EV's, which plug in, with a discussion of ICE powered vehicles, which do not plug in. And boredom has caused you to characterize a thread which starts with (and contains even more) factual articles by national media outlets (ABC and Forbes) and being "devoid of facts". Perhaps you might want to consider commenting, oh hum, on subjects, which do not bore you.--And finally, you stated:"To be honest I think there are many more things the government collects taxes on which spend a lot more money and probably deserve closer scrutiny from its citizens in terms of bang for buck.Meh, I'm bored."--I would agree with that. But you see this is the EEVblog, and it is concerned with things electrical. And, by careful reading I happen to know that there is tremendous interest (and hope for) Electrical Vehicles, and Photo Voltaic Solar in this forum, and much less interest in confiscatory Corporate income taxes, and other examples of economy suppressing government tax policy stupidity.“Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people."W. C. Fields (William Claude Dunkenfield) 1880 - 1946Best RegardsClear Ether

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2012, 10:32:59 pm
content: Hybrids are potentially more efficient because a gasoline engine / ICE can be run at its maximum power point to continuously charge a battery.For the engine this means:- no gear shifts (and thus no acceleration/deceleration)- less mechanical losses in the drive train- higher efficiency operating at ~1,200 RPM instead of 700 - 3,000 RPM- less mechanical wear = longer operating timesBattery lifetime must be considered, but time will tell if electric cars are more reliable or not.For the car as a whole:- regenerative braking to recharge the battery = energy saved- less losses in gearbox (most electric cars have a single reduction gearbox and a few have two speed gearboxes) = energy saved- higher overall mpg- ability to charge from alternate green sources (depending on vehicle) = less pollutionCoal produces 0.33 kg CO2 per kWh, and petrol produces 0.24 kg CO2 per kWh. Sounds bad, right? But remember an average electric vehicle motor is about 90% efficient, whereas an ICE is around 30% - so it's closer to 0.11 kg per unit vs. 0.24 kg per unit. Half the pollution. Not a solution, but a start. And moving to electricity allows essentially any energy source to be used.Source for above data:http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/cut-carbon-reduce-costs/calculate/carbon-footprinting/pages/conversion-factors.aspxI would like to see the development of alternative energy. There is the idea of covering 1% of the Sahara desert in solar panels, which would provide enough electricity to power the entire Earth. The only major issue is that the Sahara does not receive 24/7 solar. Also it would cost a few billion pounds, probably.And then maybe we can look at having dodgem-type cars on motorways. A coil under the road providing power to the vehicle, and an electric meter in the vehicle to measure energy consumption (to bill the customer, of course.)

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2012, 12:12:32 am
content: Dear Tom66:--You stated:"Hybrids are potentially more efficient because a gasoline engine / ICE can be run at its maximum power point to continuously charge a battery.For the engine this means:- no gear shifts (and thus no acceleration/deceleration)- less mechanical losses in the drive train- higher efficiency operating at ~1,200 RPM instead of 700 - 3,000 RPM- less mechanical wear = longer operating timesBattery lifetime must be considered, but time will tell if electric cars are more reliable or not.For the car as a whole:- regenerative braking to recharge the battery = energy saved- less losses in gearbox (most electric cars have a single reduction gearbox and a few have two speed gearboxes) = energy saved- higher overall mpg- ability to charge from alternate green sources (depending on vehicle) = less pollutionCoal produces 0.33 kg per kWh, and petrol produces 0.24 kg per kWh. Sounds bad, right? But remember an average electric vehicle motor is about 90% efficient, whereas an ICE is around 30% - so it's closer to 0.11 kg per unit vs. 0.24 kg per unit. Half the pollution. Not a solution, but a start. And moving to electricity allows essentially any energy source to be used.Source for above data:http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/cut-carbon-reduce-costs/calculate/carbon-footprinting/pages/conversion-factors.aspxI would like to see the development of alternative energy. There is the idea of covering 1% of the Sahara desert in solar panels, which would provide enough electricity to power the entire Earth. The only major issue is that the Sahara does not receive 24/7 solar. Also it would cost a few billion pounds, probably.And then maybe we can look at having dodgem-type cars on motorways. A coil under the road providing power to the vehicle, and an electric meter in the vehicle to measure energy consumption (to bill the customer, of course.)"--What a well thought out and well presented statement of the facts. I agree with all you have said about hybrid vehicles in the non EV mode. Inasmuch as the limited purview of this thread was limited to "Electric Vehicles", objections have been only to deceptive claims made with regard to EVs, and subsequent government funding of money losing companies.--I do, however have one small nit to pick with regard to your statement that:"Coal produces 0.33 kg per kWh, and petrol produces 0.24 kg per kWh. Sounds bad, right? But remember an average electric vehicle motor is about 90% efficient, whereas an ICE is around 30% - so it's closer to 0.11 kg per unit vs. 0.24 kg per unit. Half the pollution. Not a solution, but a start. And moving to electricity allows essentially any energy source to be used."--I think you are inadvertently giving us a fast count. Before the rated output of a generating plant can be used by an EV, it has to be sent through the grid system to the charging station. You seem to have forgotten about the efficiency losses at the step up transformers, the transmission lines, the step down transformers, and the battery charging process. Taking these into consideration would significantly affect your estimation. With that small caveat I completely agree with all you have said. Excellent post."Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora.""It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer."William of Occam 1285 - 1349Best RegardsClear Ether

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2012, 05:25:55 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:Read and decide for yourself:http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/leaked-docs-heartland-institute-think-tank-pays-climate-contrarians-very-well.arsBasically, its about "institutes" funded by monied donors to pay climate change contrarians. The authenticity of some documents are in dispute.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2012, 05:57:21 am
content: Quote from: harnon on February 19, 2012, 06:18:02 pmI don't know why you bother, even a chimp would have no trouble with quoting and yet Rock has trouble using it or is too impolite to use it.Trying to determine attribution from an unquoted mess simply isn't worth the effort, I recommend the ignore button!

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2012, 06:24:56 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:Quote from: Uncle Vernon on February 20, 2012, 05:57:21 am--I really do not see that this is any improvement over ordinary "quotation marks" which take up way, way less space. But to each his own. I certainly did not mean to be impolite. And I did indeed sincerely apologize for the misattribution.--Also, I am not sure I am able to successfully extract the intended meaning of the statement:"Trying to determine attribute from an unquoted mess simply is worth the effort"--Is that English? It reminds me of the Wun Hung Low Soldering Iron email with the phrase "Happy for you to desoldering please"--I am indeed glad to have Uncle Vernon's input, and have gotten used to his insulting way of expressing himself. You see not using quote tags and making minor errors is impolite, but comparing people to chimps is not. Like I said, I am always glad to have Uncle Vernon's take, but I do sometimes wonder about the cognitive dissonance of UV repeatedly posting in a thread started by someone, he supposedly is ignoring, while begging everyone to also ignore. It is a poser."There once was a nuncle called Vernon,Who had a real problem learnin'The folks he'd imploreHis foes to ignore,So hot was his jealousy burnin"Gator Dundee 1948 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2012, 06:33:42 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:Dear PeteInTexas:--Would you please repost your arstechnica post over at:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/mann-made-global-warming-takes-an-arrow-in-the-knee-from-nasa/msg88513/#msg88513--and then erase it here. That thread is the global warming thread. I am more thank happy to discuss it with you but I am trying to keep the two topics separate. In the interest of clarity. Thanks."There once was a nuncle called Vernon,Who had a real problem learnin'The folks he'd implorehis foes to ignore,so hot was his jealousy burnin"Gator Dundee 1948 -Best RegardsClear Etherhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/mann-made-global-warming-takes-an-arrow-in-the-knee-from-nasa/msg88513/#msg88513

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2012, 04:00:05 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 20, 2012, 12:12:32 amI can't remember the source, but I recall reading that the average efficiency of grid transmission in the UK is about 97% - which is pretty good. That is why 750kV is used instead of 230V to transmit electrical power. I believe (but I may be wrong) that the source in question takes this into account as it applies for home users.However, the efficiency of the charging station would of course still need to be accounted for. I don't want to make a guess there, but I do know a typical SMPS can be at least 80% efficient. I think charging stations would benefit from using a moderately high DC voltage (around 50 - 100V) to provide the 400V or so required to charge the batteries; this would require a higher input current, but lower Rds-ON MOSFETs could potentially be used, and there's no need for PFC or any similar system.I'm in favour of homes having a "40V DC" (34V - 41V range) system, because it would be significantly safer than 230V/115V and allow for lower cost charging devices, consumer appliances and LED lighting. For example 10 WLEDs could be chained off the power rails with a small resistor or a buck or boost converter could be used. And power supplies would be significantly simpler if they were just buck converters, without a need to galvanically or optically isolate anything. Just a thought.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2012, 05:49:15 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--PeteInTexas has posted:"Read and decide for yourself:http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/leaked-docs-heartland-institute-think-tank-pays-climate-contrarians-very-well.arsBasically, its about "institutes" funded by monied donors to pay climate change contrarians. The authenticity of some documents are in dispute."---Indeed, the main documents are very much in dispute and are thought to be forgeries. I have an eye infection, but I will be gathering up all the facts and articles for a "Full Monty" expose of this latest attempted hoax by the Global Warming Alarmists and making a post in the next couple of days. I will be posting the expose over at my Global Warming thread:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/mann-made-global-warming-takes-an-arrow-in-the-knee-from-nasa/msg88513/#msg88513--But I will post a notice in this thread when I do, as the two threads are becoming inexorably tangled. I invite everyone to read and post on the above thread, and many have already."I'll have the Alfalfa sandwich, and the smashed yeast"Woody Allen 1935 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2012, 06:21:30 am
content: Only in America!http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/the-hybrid-with-a-gun-rack-20120222-1tnf7.html

author: ilikepez
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2012, 09:58:49 am
content: Don't you have firearms in Australia?

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2012, 10:45:21 am
content: Quote from: ilikepez on February 22, 2012, 09:58:49 amYou don't get it? Do you?

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2012, 11:23:05 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 22, 2012, 05:49:15 amHere's a follow-uphttp://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/environment-researcher-admits-leaking-climate-docs-claims-theyre-genuine.ars?comments=1#comments-barWhat I get out of this is, though it is unfortunate unethical means were used to obtains documents, what is clear is there is at least one well funded "institute" in the role of climate change denial attack machine; not to address scientific findings by scientific means but to misdirect and subvert the conversation away from actual facts (like confusing the issue with political or social engineering motivations real or imagined).

author: ilikepez
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2012, 04:11:50 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on February 22, 2012, 10:45:21 amDo you?

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 23, 2012, 05:56:39 am
content: Quote from: ilikepez on February 23, 2012, 04:11:50 amAlways have done!

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 23, 2012, 09:46:39 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Since all of you in this thread have been exposed to this "material", I decided to post my refutation here, as well as at -https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/mann-made-global-warming-takes-an-arrow-in-the-knee-from-nasa/msg93164/#msg93164- so you can make up you own minds.--PeteInTexas has posted:"Read and decide for yourself:http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/leaked-docs-heartland-institute-think-tank-pays-climate-contrarians-very-well.arsBasically, its about "institutes" funded by monied donors to pay climate change contrarians. The authenticity of some documents are in dispute."--PeteInTexas has also posted:"Here's a follow-uphttp://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/environment-researcher-admits-leaking-climate-docs-claims-theyre-genuine.ars?comments=1#comments-barWhat I get out of this is, though it is unfortunate unethical means were used to obtains documents, what is clear is there is at least one well funded "institute" in the role of climate change denial attack machine; not to address scientific findings by scientific means but to misdirect and subvert the conversation away from actual facts (like confusing the issue with political or social engineering motivations real or imagined).--What I get out of this is that Peter Gleick has decided to join:Gary Sic Reagan begged the Iranians to keep the Embassy Hostages until he took office. And Reagan even went so far as to have his VP pilot a Top Secret mission in an SR71 to talk to the Iranians. You see by personally piloting an SR71 to Paris, George Bush Sr. could have just made it to Paris and back, without being missed at official functions.Congressional hearings (run by Democrats) found no evidence to support any of these viscous hate filled lies.Dan Rather George W. Bush tried to get out of Viet Nam service (although he volunteered for service in Viet Nam, something Rather never mentioned), by joining the Texas National Guard, in order to get an extremely dangerous job flying the unstable F108. But the 30 year old documents were proven to have been typed in Word Perfect on a Windows machine, "Fake but Accurate" was then the cry.Michael Moore George W. Bush released the Bin Ladin family, at a time when all airports were closed, because of the close ties between the Bin Ladin and Bush Families and their dealings in Oil. Bush knew 911 was coming, but did nothing to stop it. Even the NY Slimes and Washington Compost would not put this crap in their papers.Al Gore: Who said he wanted every vote counted in Florida, while at the same time filing suit to prevent Military Absentee Ballots from being counted. Al Gore subsequently made the "Documentary" "An Inconvenient Truth", replete with falsehoods, oversimplifications and outright attempts to deceive.Michael Mann Constructs the "Hockey Stick" to sweep the Medieval Warming Period, and the Little Ice Age, under the rug. When asked for his data, he refuses to provide it. Indeed it is customary for Scientists to provide their data so that it can be checked. When asked again it turns out, most of it has been inadvertently destroyed. His motto: "Hide the decline"--Now there you have, me harties, a motley crew, Arrrg.--See the below link with excerpts (with teaser quotes) for an expanded understanding of the Peter Gleick hoax:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/global-warming-alarmists-resort-to-hoax.php"Many commentators have critiqued Gleick’s actions, and in particular, addressed the question whether at least one of the documents he published–the only significant one, really–was forged by him."http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-scientist-admits-duping-skeptic-group-to-obtain-documents/2012/02/21/gIQAr7aGRR_story.html"He said he used someone a false name to obtain internal documents from Heartland after receiving an anonymous memo containing information about its funders and about its “apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy.”--Oh he did, did he? Well, we have his word for it. Or maybe he obtained additional documents in order to make his hoax document look more plausible. We will never know because he was interrupted en flagrante delicto.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100138560/peter-gleick-the-johann-hari-of-climate-science/"So now we know the identity of the Fakegate fake. His name is Peter Gleick, he has a PhD from Berkeley, he's the winner of a MacArthur genius award, he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and he runs a Californian research organization called the Pacific Institute which advises, inter alia, on "integrity" in science....The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security."http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/21/gleick_admits_to_heartland_hack/"Gleick's crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.""Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick."--Fake but accurate. I suppose. Any questions?"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum."Augustus De Morgan 1806 -1871Best RegardsClear Ether

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2012, 10:45:13 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 23, 2012, 09:46:39 pmI don't condone the "pretexting" behaviour but, if the document in question is fake, why did Heartland respond with more related documents? Shouldn't the response have been something like "This document you are asking about is fake." Only now that a PR mess is in their hands do they claim its fake.At the very least, somebody thought the content of the allegedly fake document was reasonable enough to respond to. And that is enough to show what Heartland is up to and incriminating enough as to their "strategy". Like I said, the reader will have to decide for themselves.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 23, 2012, 11:32:32 pm
content: Dear PeteInTexas:--Please at least, pay enough attention, to get those facts which are not in dispute, correct. We only have Gleick's word for any of this but as of yesterday, Gleick states that he requested documents under an assumed name, not that the documents were sent to him in a response to an allegation. So far as I know, no one, repeat no one, is alleging that documents were sent to anyone to refute any allegations by anyone.--If indeed Gleick was mailed any documents, we do not know what fake name was used, it is impossible to say for sure, but it seems likely that he used the name of someone who was trusted by the person he was requesting the documents from.--I hope someone gets a handle on this before some poor dupe commits suicide, as happened the the Andrew Gilligan BBC scandal, where BBC was forced to retract the accusation that the Blair government had falsified intelligence about Saddam Hussein, after a government minister who had been promised anonymity, was subsequently outed and took his own life.--Now, Gleick has already put the lives of people and their families in jeopardy, and has admitted he lied about some things, why should grant him any credibility or good intentions whatsoever."He was born ignorant, and has been losing ground ever since."Fred Allen 1894 1956Best RegardsClear Ether

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2012, 07:40:30 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on February 23, 2012, 11:32:32 pmI seriously can't understand what you are trying to say here.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2012, 08:04:09 pm
content: Dear PeteInTexas--You said:"I don't condone the "pretexting" behaviour  but, if the document in question is fake, why did Heartland respond with more related documents?--I will try to synopsize. Peter Gleick alleges that he was sent a super secret insider memo. Gleick then alleges that he used a false identity to obtain other documents which contained "personal information" as well as details of funding and disbursement.--You see, No one even alleges that "Heartland respond with more related documents?". Gleick claims that Heartland sent him the documents in question because he used a false identity. He has made no announcement as to the pretext used. You see, we already know that Heartland did not send anything to anyone named "Peter Gleick". And if, indeed they ever sent anything to anybody, other than a trusted friend, would they not have redacted "personal and family details"?--I have not been able as yet to get a copy of the alleged documents. When I do I will go over them an give you my honest analysis. You might want to know that many people who have had a look at the "Secret Insider Memo", say that is is clearly a forgery, because it makes multiple mistakes, which no insider would be likely to make.--I it looks very much like Peter Gleick used the illegally obtained documents to assist him in forging the "Secret Insider Memo" and to include with it, when he did a mass release to all of the AGW alarmist sites. Even the tinfoil hat greenie weenies, either could not stomach or could not swallow all of this, so one or more of them ratted him out so to speak.--This just in. The Administration's favorite Stalinist bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency scrubbed their database of grants to Peter Gleick's Pacific Institute. See link below:http://junkscience.com/2012/02/23/breaking-epa-scrubs-web-site-of-gleick-grants/--After they had been caught they restored the information:http://junkscience.com/2012/02/24/sneaky-epa-restores-gleick-grants-to-grant-awards-database/--Just let me see if I understand your position. It is wrong to raise private money to encourage teachers to include information about both sides of the AGW controversy. But it is right to use taxpayer money to encourage the teaching of only one side. Is that about right?--Please consider giving us a synopsis of events (considering those facts not in dispute) from your point of view. I am not to sure I even understand, what you are trying to allege."Three weeks in the lab will save you a day in the library every time"R. Stanley Williams 1951 -Best RegardsClear Ether