« DOE to Invest Approximately $1.3B to Commercialize CCS Technology in Revamped FutureGen Program | Main | Euro Parliament Committee Backs “Green Award” Purchasing Criteria for Public Vehicles »
Ghosn: Nissan Can Lead in Mass-Marketing EVs
25 June 2008
Nissan will focus on battery electric vehicles (EVs) as a core product and will offer a range of high-quality products that are reliable, well-engineered, attractive and fun to drive, said Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn in a speech at the company’s annual general shareholders meeting in Japan.
Ghosn said that zero-emissions vehicles were the best solution to address the on-going growth in global demand for vehicles coupled with “the demand for a cleaner planet.” Nissan, along with Renault, said Ghosn, “has an opportunity to be a world leader in mass-marketing them.”
When I say “zero-emission” vehicles, I am referring to electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, cars that do not burn oil and release zero emissions into the air. Fuel cell vehicles are promising for the future—and Nissan continues to invest in their development—but the production and distribution of hydrogen is yet much more problematic than electricity or batteries. Because the battery technology is more advanced, we will introduce electric vehicles first.
Without the battery, the cost of the electric car should be comparable to that of a similar-sized car today. The lease of the battery plus the electricity cost should be lower than the cost of gasoline. If oil prices continue to stay at a high level, as expected, the electric car will become that much more attractive.
—Carlos Ghosn
Nissan plans to introduce an all-electric car in 2010 in the US and Japan, and mass-market it globally in 2012. The Nissan-Renault Alliance has also signed agreements with Project Better Place to mass-market electric vehicles in Israel and Denmark in 2011, and is currently negotiating with other countries in Europe and Asia, Ghosn said.
We will continue to develop a portfolio of green technologies to reduce CO2 emissions, including improvements to gasoline engines, clean diesel, hybrids, flex fuels and fuel cell vehicles. In September, we will introduce the X-TRAIL with clean diesel in Japan. In 2010 we will launch the clean-diesel Maxima in the United States and our own original hybrid technology.
—Carlos Ghosn
In remarks at a press conference after the meeting, Ghosn said that he believes electric cars will succeed because:
they are “zero-emissions. The others are not,” referring to hybrid and plug-in hybrid cars. “We believe zero-emission is part of what the global market is looking for and (is) ready to pay for,” he said.
Ghosn said that he hopes to sell 1 million of electric cars a year globally, although without specifying a date.
Nissan Motor, NEC Corporation, and NEC TOKIN Corporation formed a joint venture— Automotive Energy Supply Corporation (AESC)— in 2007 to develop and market lithium-ion batteries for hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.
For the next-generation of EV cells, AESC is working on a new cathode material of a nickel-mixed Mn spinel and a graphite carbon anode. The cell will feature an enlarged footprint, but will be thinner to increase heat discharge, and have a capacity of 30 Ah. (Earlier post.)
June 25, 2008 in Electric (Battery), Vehicle Manufacturers | Permalink | Comments (73) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/30563362
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ghosn: Nissan Can Lead in Mass-Marketing EVs:
Comments
What a refreshing contrast to the recent comments from GM Canada representatives that "there is no single bullet solution to future low emission vehicle technology", or something to that effect, what a load of crap. There is indeed a single bullet solution for 95% of the applications, and that is BEV's, and PHEV's for longer hauls. It's a NO BRAINER.
I will be glad to see GM go under.
Posted by: Mark_BC | Jun 25, 2008 8:13:52 AM
@Mark_BC
BEV's and PHEV's are two completely different animals, heck some PHEV's are different from other PHEV's. Hence, there is no single bullet. A lot of families depend on GM sticking around. If GM stay's on schedule with the Volt, they will be the first to market with a serial hybrid.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 25, 2008 8:38:54 AM
GM already had a good BEV when they finally put NIMH batteries in their EV1 about the time Osama parked a couple jets in the WTC. There are too many oil people sitting on the GM board. They deserve to die. Those GM workers can go across the street and assemble EVs for the competitors.
Posted by: jcmarching | Jun 25, 2008 8:45:23 AM
@Joseph
'If GM stay's on schedule with the Volt, they will be the first to market with a serial hybrid.'
..but 7 years behind Renault
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=582
Posted by: Thomas Lankester | Jun 25, 2008 8:52:24 AM
Let's hope Nissan sticks to their word, and brings forth these electric cars.
How did this get to be a GM bashing session again?
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jun 25, 2008 8:54:32 AM
Sounds like a good deal. However, all of this will depend on gas prices going the way they have been going . . . Up!
Posted by: Gerald Shields | Jun 25, 2008 8:56:41 AM
I think this turns to GM bashing because most people want GM to succeed, but they seem to be able to blindside themselves at every turn.
GM has consistently executed pretty bad strategy for over 30 years (look at their profitability, volume, market share as proof)
I think that the thing that made the US the powerhouse it was, was innovation, thomas edison, henry ford etc. This seems to have stagnated to the point where others are taking the initiative.
GM and Ford and Chrysler should get back to the gambling, innovation table, and play some hands, I am sure there are a lot of engineers in those companies who would love the challenge
Posted by: kevin | Jun 25, 2008 9:08:52 AM
I think this turns to GM bashing because most people want GM to succeed, but they seem to be able to blindside themselves at every turn.
GM has consistently executed pretty bad strategy for over 30 years (look at their profitability, volume, market share as proof)
I think that the thing that made the US the powerhouse it was, was innovation, thomas edison, henry ford etc. This seems to have stagnated to the point where others are taking the initiative.
GM and Ford and Chrysler should get back to the gambling, innovation table, and play some hands, I am sure there are a lot of engineers in those companies who would love the challenge
Posted by: kevin | Jun 25, 2008 9:10:18 AM
I think this turns to GM bashing because most people want GM to succeed, but they seem to be able to blindside themselves at every turn.
GM has consistently executed pretty bad strategy for over 30 years (look at their profitability, volume, market share as proof)
I think that the thing that made the US the powerhouse it was, was innovation, thomas edison, henry ford etc. This seems to have stagnated to the point where others are taking the initiative.
GM and Ford and Chrysler should get back to the gambling, innovation table, and play some hands, I am sure there are a lot of engineers in those companies who would love the challenge
Posted by: kevin | Jun 25, 2008 9:10:34 AM
I can really see an all EV at this point in time. What happens when you want to take a vacation that is over 100 miles away? Plug in with a 100 mile plus range for now is the best solution and hopefully a batter that can run for 400 - 600 miles. And places you can plug them in. Great move by Nissan. I used to only own Nissans so I would feel comfortable with their technology.
Posted by: | Jun 25, 2008 9:22:06 AM
Oops, I can't really see.
Sorry. Should have previewed :)
Posted by: | Jun 25, 2008 9:22:34 AM
There may well always be a place for ICE vehicles especially with ethanol blends to further stretch out our supplies but the EVs can be for the majority the majority of the time; I'd be happy to drive an EV and rent an ICE for those long trips.
Posted by: Mark M | Jun 25, 2008 9:32:43 AM
Electric car enthusiasts don’t let your zeal blind you to the very profound limitations in battery technology. What the world needs is a number of technology breakthroughs to make non fossil fuel transportation doable. When these advances come, you may be surprised at the results.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 25, 2008 9:40:13 AM
If you have only a BEV for daily driving what do you do for long trips? Easy: RENT A SERIAL HYBRID. One of the wackiest things auto marketing has accomplished in the last 20 years is to push vastly over capable vehicles to the public. Buy what you need for 90% of your driving. If that's a pickup or SUV, great! Otherwise, get something appropriate to your daily needs.
Posted by: Ron Fischer | Jun 25, 2008 10:43:30 AM
I think its great that someone is going to market mainstream EVs.
However this 0 emissions BS has to stop. Electricty production still/will always use(s) fossil fuels and produces alot of CO2,SO2,NOx, etc.
Posted by: reed | Jun 25, 2008 10:59:09 AM
Not a surprise, Ghosn has been hinting for awhile. He is running toward daylight, as the cliche says. Avoiding direct competition with many, many, hybrids.
He needs some of these events:
1) technology and (Chinese) mass production drive down the cost of batteries
2)long range is less important than many believe
3)zero emission vehicles are favored by regulators
GM gets bashed everyday and everyway. IMO it is because Ford and Chrysler aren't saying much. Chrysler seems comatose.
I grow uneasy about the Volt, now slated for 2011 in low volume.
Posted by: K | Jun 25, 2008 11:07:39 AM
Ghosn's going for a knock-out and Detroit's leading
with its chin. Toyota is being coy. They're in the
match too, trying to pull off a sucker-punch.
Posted by: swen | Jun 25, 2008 11:15:16 AM
but the production and distribution of hydrogen is yet much more problematic than electricity or batteries. Because the battery technology is more advanced, we will introduce electric vehicles first
Give BEV's a headstart, and hydrogen will never catch up. Is reality finally sinking in?
Posted by: Anne | Jun 25, 2008 11:31:13 AM
"One of the wackiest things auto marketing has accomplished in the last 20 years is to push vastly over capable vehicles to the public."
Well said Ron,
Posted by: Lucas | Jun 25, 2008 11:44:51 AM
"core product" vs GM Volt low volume.
Finally a CEO that can see where we need to go.
Posted by: | Jun 25, 2008 11:49:38 AM
I suspect that PHEV are far more practical then pure BEV at this point and with current battery technology. One thing that seems to get missed among those that want BEV (and seemingly hate H2 powered cars at the same time) is that while fuel cells may have a problem with building a new distribution infrastructure, the electric car craze has the exact same problem. Our current electrical grid both in terms of production capacity and in Delivery infrastructure can never handle the proposed load of all those cars. It's the second part, delivery infrastructure, that seems to get missed a lot, and I mean a great lot! The current grid structure is at it's limits right now and if NIMBY has stopped any number of new power plants it's also stopped or delayed a heck of a lot of infrastructure improvement in long transmission lines and high power transmission. Sure some say that we could put a solar panel on the roof of every house or windmills in every back yard, but have you ever considered that we're talking about 250 to 300 MILLION buildings in the US alone. Where's the production capacity for anything like that number of solar cells? Who's gonna pay that cost? How long do you think that would take? What do you do about a house like mine where the roof isn't facing due south, or my friends in Montana that sit at high latitudes which don't get as much solar energy as in say Florida? Consider that a large country home might have the same roof footage as an apartment building, but the apartment building has to charge 100 times the number of vehicles.
So we build a massive amount of power plants instead?
Then the country gets an electrical grid of wires that looks like the telegraph and telephone lines in downtowns used to before Ma Bell figured out how to multiplex circuits onto one wire. Consider the copper costs of all that wire, the number of towers to carry it, the sheer engineering level. What happens when a hurricane or tornado drops a portion of the net? Ever see pictures of all the people leaving Florida before a Hurricane? Now consider what happens as the increasing winds start knocking out infrastructure as they're trying to flee. Sorry gents but the Pure BEV may be wonderful if you look only at a daily average of most commuters needs against range and the green house gas emissions of just the car, but the reality is that any attempt to shift to it will require just as much infrastructure establishment as the Hydrogen future. PHEV is the short term solution, no doubt in my mind on that, but since we would use electricity to make H2 or to power batteries and since both require infrastructure support and development with enormous cost factors, I'm not sure anyone is willing to jump into either one right now, or at least no one with the money this will require.
Besides which do you think is going to be easier to get to market.
Plan A (BEV powered by Local solar power cells) Requires me to pay the costs of the installation, plus having to individually get permitting from my local code authorities who have no clue what standards to follow. (And don't even get me started on trying to find enough competent electricians/contractors to do the work.)
Plan B (BEV powered by massivly upgraded grid) which requires the utilities to jump through dozens of permitting and process hearings, local and state zoning, court challenges, and regulatory hassles for every mile of transmission line they want to build.
Plan C (H2 fuel cells) Which still requires the investment in electrical plants (have to do this either way) but lets the Electrical companies get subsidies for the increases and a few handouts, while allowing every single oil company and gas station to brag about how their building a greener future as they get permits for their gas station upgrades. Oh, and since the initial Hydrogen production will come from cracking fossil fuels will still allow them to sell their product but with a greenwash coating.
OK for one minute stop thinking as an environmentalist and start thinking like an investment banker. Which one looks like it's got the best potential for increasing your cash? Remember that that is the ONLY criteria for evaluating these things if you're in the investment business. Invest on any other basis and your creditors and investors (the people that gave you that money your going to use) will sue the socks off you for failure in "due diligence" and "Prudent use"
Larry
Posted by: Larry | Jun 25, 2008 11:50:49 AM
The lease of the battery plus the electricity cost should be lower than the cost of gasoline.
Is he planning on selling the car and leasing the battery? Hmmmm smart. No large up-front cost and no worries about an expensive battery breaking down. And it's still YOUR car.
It gives you the flexibility to start off by leasing a small (cheap) battery and upgrading to a beefier one if you need it. The old one is leased to someone else looking for something cheap.
Will the lease be per km or month?
Posted by: Anne | Jun 25, 2008 12:09:03 PM
Electricty production still/will always use(s) fossil fuels and produces alot of CO2,SO2,NOx, etc.
Ah, so your position is that when fossil fuels run out, as one day they inevitably must, we're going to have to stop using electricity?
And I guess you think that hydroelectric facilities, nuclear reactors, wind turbines, etc. don't actually exist.
Posted by: Paul F. Dietz | Jun 25, 2008 12:17:53 PM
@Larry:
Our current electrical grid both in terms of production capacity and in Delivery infrastructure can never handle the proposed load of all those cars.
Did you do the math on that? I did it for the UK recently. Turns out that if everyone switches to electric vehicles, that would increase the consumption of electricity by 15%.
According to the Department for Transport, there are 27 million cars in the UK, travelling an average of 14.500 km anually. Thats a little under 400 billion car kilometres. We all know an electric car travels around 6 km per kWh, so the extra load comes in at under 70 billion kWh. Electricity consumption in the UK in 2006 was around 400 billion kWh.
Electricity consumption in Britain grew by 30% in the last 20 years. The shift towards electric vehicles will be gradual over a period of at least 25 years.
So there is no problem, the grid will be just fine.
Posted by: Anne | Jun 25, 2008 12:24:41 PM
Why I think Superconductive storage will beat batteries in transportation applications:
The new iron oxyarsenide superconductor (IOS) has been tested to withstand 100 Tesla magnetic fields. This is the largest field that can be produced in the laboratory nondestructively. Higher fields can be produced using single coil loop destructive test to 250 Tesla but no one has figured out how to verify superconductivity in such a destructive test. What this means is that IOS is a very powerful superconductor.
The strength of the magnetic field is the measure of the energy storage potential of the superconductor.
It turns out that the energy stored in given volume is proportional to the square of the magnetic field. So if you can make a field 10 times as strong, you can store 100 times as much energy in the same volume. So we will see about 100 times the energy density if 250 Tesla can be verified over current superconductors.
Furthermore, the IOS temperature is up to 55k, that 15 K short of the 70K liquid nitrogen temperature, but well within the 20K liquid hydrogen temperature.
The experimental production method for IOS is compression of powder into a pellet under heat and pressure. This may lead to the commercial production of a thick wire form of iron superconductor as opposed to current copper oxide thin film vapor disposition of ceramic on a flat substrate. That is good.
Another IOS thick wire advantage is that you have the ability to pass a very large current through the wire without destroying the superconductivity. In fact, you should be able to pass through about a million amps per square centimeter of cross-sectional area, which is what the old-fashioned superconductors can do. Unfortunately, the copper oxide materials do not perform so well. They can carry perhaps a thousandth of the current without losing their superconducting properties
The limiting factor in power storage is the strength of the confinement enclosure. The huge magnetic fields will require an ultra-strong enclosure to hold in the magnetic pressure.
The projected size of a small car unit is about the size of a spear tire.
Another cause for hope is that there is an army of Chinese and Japanese researchers working on IOS. Therefore, rapid progress can be expected.
Putting all your hopes on batteries may not be prudent. Hopefully, competition may be around the corner.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 25, 2008 12:31:37 PM
Axil, what energy density are we talking about here?
Posted by: Anne | Jun 25, 2008 12:41:49 PM
Anne
Yes, leased batteries is a very interesting option, to promote and expand the use of extended electric range PHEVs and BEVs. More options the better. Let the best one win over time.
Yes, way too many people over-worry and exagerate about electricity production and distribution. There are a good half dozen mature technologies to produce cleaner electricity and distribution is not even a challenge. Why worry soo much for nothing?
Yes, PHEVs will be required for many long range/high power consumption applications, for one or two decades. Nothing wrong with that either.
Yes, most pure ICE machines will be progressively phased out over 20 - 30 years. The transistion may be challenging but is definately not impossible. Industries will adapt or fold. Users will adapt quickly enough.
Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 25, 2008 12:52:36 PM
Anne
Yes, leased batteries is a very interesting option, to promote and expand the use of extended electric range PHEVs and BEVs. More options the better. Let the best one win over time.
Yes, way too many people over-worry and exagerate about electricity production and distribution. There are a good half dozen mature technologies to produce cleaner electricity and distribution is not even a challenge. Why worry soo much for nothing?
Yes, PHEVs will be required for many long range/high power consumption applications, for one or two decades. Nothing wrong with that either.
Yes, most pure ICE machines will be progressively phased out over 20 - 30 years. The transistion may be challenging but is definately not impossible. Industries will adapt or fold. Users will adapt quickly enough.
Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 25, 2008 12:52:39 PM
Larry,
As I understand it, there is a lot of unused capacity in the grid at night when demand is low. We just need to get people to charge their cars at night and not in the peak of the day. So having charging stations at work, or rapid-charging "pumps" at gas stations is not scalable, but everyone charging at home would work fine.
Posted by: | Jun 25, 2008 12:53:08 PM
Anonymous,
As I showed, we are talking about an increase by only 15%. Not everybody will charge his car at exactly the same moment. Just like not everybody is filling it up at the pump at the same time. It will be spread out over the entire day, with humps (not spikes) around the rush hours.
The grid will be just fine.
Posted by: Anne | Jun 25, 2008 1:00:48 PM
In North America the power grid needs an overhaul anyway. Capacity will be added as demand increases. The technology is already there, and will improve in 20 - 40 years with fusion power. All that's needed is investment in infrastructure by govt.
For weekend trips you should clip on the ICE range extender trailer onto your EV for 600 miles+ range.
Posted by: | Jun 25, 2008 1:11:32 PM
what energy density are we talking about here?Magnetic field energy density is ½B²/μ0
For B = 100 T, the energy density is 3.98 GJ/m³, or about 1.1 kWh/liter.
Posted by: Reality Czech | Jun 25, 2008 1:23:11 PM
"However this 0 emissions BS has to stop. Electricty production still/will always use(s) fossil fuels and produces alot of CO2,SO2,NOx, etc."
Actually it's the "long tailpipe" BS that has to stop. It's not an argument, it's a caveat. Run a 0 emissions car from a 0 emissions energy source and you get 0 emissions. Don't like your grid? Clean it up.
Who is it that keeps parroting the "long tailpipe" crap anyway?
Posted by: Neil | Jun 25, 2008 1:29:10 PM
The ICE extender trailer that you rent at you local corner UHAUL store.. what do you think, 20kw and propane powered?.. dual use for power generation also.. and could also be used at home if the power goes out. That will prove popular in South Florida after a hurricane.
Posted by: Herm | Jun 25, 2008 1:35:36 PM
I agree with 100% with Mark_BC. It's a no brainer :-)
Posted by: Henrik | Jun 25, 2008 1:52:56 PM
Ghosn has shown leadership by quickly reformulating his company's strategy in line with what is required in this economic environment. He is not just going to do a single model, but multiple offerings of EVs. As long as Nissan can deliver on these promises, his company should do well.
Posted by: Lulu | Jun 25, 2008 2:21:14 PM
My Northwest, large areas of Canada, & Europe, & other places in the world are ready for EVs now. We produce power KW to HP with only 4% of the pollution of an ICE. & nearly none of that 4% is produced in cities. Next to our hydroelectric dams & power lines, the wind turbines are being built. Solar panels will take up no extra space under the power lines.
The people of this planet have to see tho, that EVs, built with the excesses of ICE are NOT for the future. Personly, my 35, 50, 53 & 75 MPG vehicles took care of my needs for 35 years, only needing to borrow my friend's hauling trucks 3 times.
Electric motors are dramatically & elegantly more efficient than ICE. May ICE die along with their fine & nano particles that cause people lung, heart, stroke, arteriosclerosis & ???? deaths & disease. Long live EVs.
For those people who can't see the EV future ahead, let EVs clear the air for you.
Posted by: litesong | Jun 25, 2008 2:43:52 PM
Expanding on Reality Czech number
Comparing a small car with 10 gallon fuel capability to a superconductor storage equivalent
For 10 gallons of gas (10) (36650) = 366500 watt-hours
The useful energy from gas
For ICE @ 30% efficiency = (.3)( 366500)= 109950 watt-hours
For a 100 Tesla superconductor the volume needed to store the equivalent magnetic energy
109950 watt-hours/1100 watts-hours/liter = 100 liters @ .95 efficiency = 105 Liters
Posted by: Axil | Jun 25, 2008 4:52:20 PM
Ghosn has already created a market for the Renault/Nissan BEV through Project Better Place, a ten year project to turn Israel and Denmark into all solar power/wind power/electric car societies. There is no question the project will have some splash over of electric cars into the other countries, including the U.S. The Governor of Hawaii and the Mayor of San Francisco are also considering a form of Project Better Place.
Ghosn's companies are not restrained by the U.S. lobbying alliance, The AAM, that controls and sets the schedules for Toyota, GM, Ford and Chrysler. I believe they have delayed the introduction of the BEVs for two years to allow their members to drain out their big SUVs, trucks, and inefficient cars.
For info on PBP See: http://www.projectbetterplace.com/
Posted by: Lad | Jun 25, 2008 5:16:25 PM
Superconductive storage is quite bad, actually. The problem is that the JxB forces require heavy structure to counter(*). It's no better than storage of a compressed gas. Darn that virial theorem!
Batteries, on the other hand, store energy in the chemical form, which involves no long range forces.
(*) Stationary SMES can transmit these forces through the ground and bedrock, so while the system mass is also large, most of that mass is preexisting rock.
Posted by: Paul F. Dietz | Jun 25, 2008 9:12:04 PM
Battery technology is the enabler.
With primitive batteries only HEVs were technically or financially viable. They started showing up five years ago.
In the next 3-10 years the battery size will double for the same cost, and that allows the PHEV, to flourish. Only when battery tech gets much larger by 200%, and prices drop to 15 to 1/10, will the BEV become practical for much more than a glorified NEV golf cart.
Call back in 2020 or so, for BEVs.
Posted by: | Jun 25, 2008 9:16:54 PM
There have already been studies on how many EV's can be supported by the current American power grid and it's between 80 to 100 million cars, that would never happen over night anyways so even as the EV became more popular they would just increase power to the grid as needed if needed.
As for and EV that can't get a few hundred miles per charge if not more is complete BS if the EV is designed the right way we can have EV's with todays batteries that get over 400 miles per charge, it's just a question of are people willing to drive a car that might not look sexy of cool. You know what I say if you don;t want one good then pay $5 $7 $10 dollar gas prices but me I will be driving to work in an egg that only cost me 5 cents a mile to drive.
The problem with EV's has really never been the technology but instead the low profit margins, think about it there no back end money being spent, no oil changes no transmission problems etc etc.
An electric motor can last just about forever just change the brushes and a few other minor details.
The auto industry is about to change from a greedy get as much money from stupid people as possible to a we make just enough money to keep going and have a steady low profit margin that will never change, most car companies will either go out of bussiness or merge with others, also they will go into the battery business as well to help with the low profit margin of making and selling EV's.
As for EV's not being zero emission this is true becuase of where the electricity comes from but it's alot easier to clean up a few thousand coal power plants then 200 million ice cars.
Plus we will build more nuclear power plants and I know your going to say what about the spent fuel rods, well in the near future all that nuclear waste will be using to make more electricity or completely neturalized, they technologies are going to come out very soon perhaps by 2025.
Now you and I can do alot aswell by not consuming so much useless crap and power down abit with or wasteful energy habits.
Aslo they need to allow American farmers to start to grow industrail hemp again this would offset some of our oil consumption by making things from hemp instead of oil.
Also hemp is a great crop to grow because it keep the soil healthy .
People just go do your only research and you will find the answer then tell people what you learn and tell them to research aswell.
P.S. hydrogen as a transportation energy will never happen, the cost are just to much and the technology is still 30 to 40 years away.
I think the only thing that will happen with hydrogen will be with renewable energy systems like wind and solar, what they can do is build hydrogen storage systems around these and then use some of the energy to make hydrogen and then use it at night to make power.
The changes the world are about to start going through will be good and bad for alot of people and there will be alot of bumbs in the road most small but a few big, I think no matter what we do alot of people will die perhaps even me, but this is the mess we let ourselfs get into and no one ever said life would be fair or easy.
The best thing to do is be prepared for the worse, even if the worse never happens.
Posted by: | Jun 25, 2008 9:29:59 PM
BS we could have been driving EV's 20 years ago even with lead acid batteries, if they would design cars to be pure aerodynamic this alone can increase the mpc by 50%
As for the cost of batteries today it all has to do with production, if you dont mass produce a product guess what the price stays high.
P.S. Don't be surprized if you see GM bring back the EV1 and say something like we can now offer this car because of the new battery technology out there (which ofcourse is BS they could have been producing the EV1 all this time)
Posted by: | Jun 25, 2008 9:35:31 PM
Funny thing: only two years ago Carlos Ghosn was determined and loud enemy of hybrid gas-electric vehicles, and biggest promoter of diesel cars (the ones with highest emissions of health harming substances). As a result, Nissan lagged behind and was forced to buy hybrid technology from Toyota.
His current announcement is pure greenwash. Any professional knows that battery electric vehicles will never be mainstream passenger vehicles. Aside from battery problems, there is fundamental limiting factor of fast charge: it requires expensive 100 KW charger with dangerously high voltage, heavy wires, and it will destabilize local electric grid.
Contrary to BEV, strong points of PHEV is that with long overnight charge PHEV do not require fast-charge and high energy battery, could be charged by regular household outlet, do not require expensive and dangerous fast charger, will not destabilize the grid, will not require additional electricity generating capacity for decades, will utilize cheap night-time electricity; PHEVs will not get stranded on the road when battery will run low, do not require recharging infrastructure, and will offer unlimited mobility on gas tank on long trips – again, without any additional infrastructure, while using electricity for 90% of regular vehicle use.
Arguably the best nische for BEVs is overnight charged fleets of city delivery vehicles and alike. The only hope for pure EV I see if it will have ability of convenient refueling by liquid energy carrier; example: PHEV with direct methanol fuel cell range extender.
Posted by: Andrey Levin | Jun 25, 2008 9:38:30 PM
Quoth Paul Dietz:
Superconductive storage is quite bad, actually. The problem is that the JxB forces require heavy structure to counter(*). It's no better than storage of a compressed gas.It does have some advantages over conventional gases, though:
- Its ratio of specific heats is unity.
- The conversion efficiency of stored compression energy to work is also roughly unity.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 25, 2008 11:08:59 PM
@ Paul F. Dietz
Batteries, on the other hand, store energy in the chemical form, which involves no long range forces.
Help me understand.
With current technology, how big a battery (dimensions) is needed to equal the energy equivalent of 10 gallons of gas, and how fast can you charge it.
It's no better than storage of a compressed gas.
Unlike gas, you don’t need a new infrastructure to charge with electricity.
The problem is that the JxB forces require heavy structure to counter
What are the breakthroughs needed to engineer a heavy structure?
Posted by: Axil | Jun 25, 2008 11:15:20 PM
@ Paul F. Dietz
Remember to keep the charge level no lower the 40%
Posted by: Axil | Jun 25, 2008 11:29:56 PM
One thing is guaranteed - in a USA-based forum, any mention of battery powered vehicle progress will be rubbished as not feasible, or not practical, or not wise, or not desirable.
It happens here on this site every day.
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Guys - if the USA wants to collectively shake its head and miss out on participating in a whole new industry - fine. The rest of the world will just get on with it - and 5-7 years from now Americans will find themselves 100% reliant on foreign car imports.
"..Renault and Nissan are poised to bypass rivals fixated on hybrids. The partners have a new plan that moves them straight into pure electric vehicles by 2011.." (automotivenews.com 4 Feb 2008)
"..So we plan to introduce an all-electric car by 2009/10. I predict that they will become commonplace by 2015 thanks to new battery technology" (Tom Lane (head of Product Planning at Nissan. Nov 2007)
"Eventually the Volkswagen Group plans to introduce full battery electric vehicles, probably powered by Sanyo lithium batteries." (May 28 2008)
31 Jan 2008 -- Jochen Schmalholz, head of BMW's clean-energy technology, told Drive that BMW is considering electric vehicles to fill the 15 to 20 year void before hydrogen vehicles will actually be practical. BMW has even predicted that hydrogen cars could still be 30 years out...
May 2008 -- BMW will decide this year whether to build an electric vehicle, Friedrich Eichiner, board member for corporate and brand development, said.
"In its day, the internal combustion engine was a wonderful device that served us well for over a century. That day, however, will soon be over - driven to extinction by unaffordable fuel costs and environmental legislation. It is time to move on." (Tom Whipple)
Eventually, Nissan “will have a whole lineup of electric cars. The electric car is not a niche product for us.”
5 May 2008 - Rupert Stadler, CEO of AUDI AG, has told a German weekly that the company sees a great future in electric cars. [Source: Reuters]
Fuji Heavy Industries president Ikuo Mori (at Geneva Motor Show 2008) said, “Subaru’s goal is to become the leading brand in the electric vehicle market.”
22 June 2008, The Times... last week Martin Winterkorn, chairman of Volkswagen, told Germany’s popular Bild newspaper: “The future belongs to the electric car.”
25 June 2008 - "The electric car market is the future. We are studying the possibility of joint projects regarding development," (Laurent Dassault, vice-chairman of Dassault Group the French maker of small mainly military aircraft)
Meanwhile in the commercial vehicles field, there are companies who have already identified a market in which the distance limitations of battery power are not a problem - the depot-based delivery fleet. There are tens of thousands of such fleets. Two UK companies have stolen a march and have hundreds of highway-capable all-electric trucks in service on UK streets. Check out the Case Studies page at http://www.smithelectricvehicles.com and visit http://www.modec.co.uk
Their success has prompted the arrival of four more UK makers of all-electric trucks and vans.
A few months ago the number of freely accessible recharging points on UK streets rose from 48 to 60, almost all in London. Now a further 250 are being installed at shopping malls nationwide, and over 1000 are expected by the end of 2008. Hotel chains are starting to offer free overnight recharging facilities. Restaurants are starting to see an advantage in offering one-hour and two-hour daytime fast-charge facilities, so the EV drivers will dine there.
Whatever happened to America's can-do attitude?
There are opportunities galore in the EV field, and all some Americans do each day is shake their heads and reel off excuses.
The future of road transport is electric. If the USA wants to stick with combustion-engined vehicles, that's OK - at least we'll know where to ship our unwanted ones!
Posted by: Stan Wellaway | Jun 26, 2008 1:41:38 AM
@ Axil and other promoters of Superconductive technologies in road-going cars:
Can you list a single application of any device (or part of a device) than needs to be kept at temps below -200 deg Cels all the time when operating, that costs less than one hundred thousand (today's) US dollars, that was sold in more than 10,000 samples, and that is warrantied for at least 2 years?
If you cannot think of any such device, is there a device that is kept at under -200 deg Cels that comes remotely close to the above requirements?
To me you're talking about a pie in the sky.
What about maintenance costs over years?
Superconductivity has been known for more than 50 years, but is impractical for everyday use.
If those Superconductive technologies are so good, why they were not used on space ships, price is not an issue there?
(As far as I know they use either photovoltaics plus some batteries, or some nuclear source of energy).
The most common problems when launching space ships (and most common cause of postponed launches) come from various issues related to fuel tanks and fuel (that are usually kept at very low temps).
Posted by: MG | Jun 26, 2008 3:10:24 AM
@Andrey Levin:
there is fundamental limiting factor of fast charge: it requires expensive 100 KW charger with dangerously high voltage, heavy wires, and it will destabilize local electric grid.
These fast charges will be offered at gas stations only. They only need to upgrade their grid connection. No energy company in the world will lift an eyebrow if you are requesting a 1MW connection. It's commonplace in the industry.
Your safety concern is misplaced. The huge quantities of gas are much more dangerous than a high power fast charger.
Because the adoption of EV's will be gradual, the expansions to the grid will be gradual. Just as the grid expanded due to washing machines, dish washers, microwaves, electric kettles, plasma, etc.
Please stop spreading FUD based on incorrect information.
Posted by: Anne | Jun 26, 2008 3:49:12 AM
Reed: ".. this 0 emissions BS has to stop. Electricty production still/will always use(s) fossil fuels and produces alot of CO2,SO2,NOx, etc."
Where Renault is head quartered emissions from BEVs will be pretty close to zero.
I'm not sure if there needs to be a big distinction between and PHEV and a BEV. It's a 500cc 20KW gen set. It could be an optional extra.
2010 seems to be the year for electric cars.
There should be lots of opportunities for companies to make smart charging applications etc. e.g. You tell your charger when you need your car (8am) and it negotiates the best time and price for electricity purchase with the grid.
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 7:19:26 AM
Paul F Deitz
Renewables are great but they will unfortunatly never be able fully supply us with energy,10-20% isnt going to cut it. Maybe if we built a thousand nuke plants we could make a dent in fossil fuel useage, but lets have atleast 1 foot in reality - that wont happen in our life time.
So we still have to supply 80% to at best 50% of the electricty demand. How are we going to do it? Well we are going to have to combust Carbon and make electricty.
What your solution, you cant just snap fingers and stop using fossil fuels (well maybe in fantasy land you can). You have to deal with reality and make the best choice available.
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 7:21:46 AM
Anne, I would also like to add that fast charge capability is by no means absolutely necessary for BEV operation. Who says that just because most current ICE vehicles can be refueled in 5 minutes and go 400 miles on a refill, that all future BEVs must therefore match or exceed this performance metric? Limited range BEVs charged overnight could serve the everyday driving needs of a very large percentage of commuters. Additionally, fast charging is not the only method of mirroring current ICE 5 minute fill-up performance being pursued. Project Better Place is looking at the idea of batteries that could be quickly swapped out by an automated system at service stations.
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Jun 26, 2008 7:55:06 AM
"Renewables are great but they will unfortunatly never be able fully supply us with energy,10-20% isnt going to cut it. "
Probably going off topic but if renewables are price competitive there's no reason they can't supply 100%.
In reality, for most countries, a mix of 1/3 nuclear, 1/3 renewables, and 1/3 fossil is quite achievable.
Posted by: Alex | Jun 26, 2008 9:15:33 AM
To all those who keep pushing variations of 'the long tailpipe myth' please read
http://www.radix.net/~futurev/pwrplnt.pdf
Posted by: ai_vin | Jun 26, 2008 9:21:16 AM
What your solution, you cant just snap fingers and stop using fossil fuels (well maybe in fantasy land you can). You have to deal with reality and make the best choice available.
You didn't answer my question. Is it your position that when fossil fuels run out, as they inevitably must, that we will have to stop using electricity? Are you saying that in a century or two, when the coal is gone, civiliation will revert to a pre-electrical industrial level?
But in any case, of course it is my position that there are many non-fossil fuel sources of electricity, and that eventually these will comprise essentially 100% of the electricity sources.
Posted by: Paul F. Dietz | Jun 26, 2008 9:22:30 AM
@MG
Thanks for thinking about the idea in my post.
To me you're talking about a pie in the sky.
Yes, this is my dream. Like so many here a GCC I am a dreamer; forgive me for my zeal.
Allow me to address some of your points as follows:
Can you list a single application of any device (or part of a device) than needs to be kept at temps below -200 deg Cels all the time when operating,
Liquid nitrogen costs 12 cents per liter, which is less than we pay for bottled drinking water, and far less then gasoline; so cold temperatures is not expensive.
that costs less than one hundred thousand (today's) US dollars, that was sold in more than 10,000 samples, and that is warrantied for at least 2 years?
Today, there is no mass market for these devices, but if they were sold by the millions I am sure the Chinese will get the price down.
What about maintenance costs over years?
The MTBF has to be very large. It’s not that complicated. It’s only a loop of iron wire. The electronic can be outside the cryogenic unit, in the charging/discharging system.
Superconductivity has been known for more than 50 years, but is impractical for everyday use
I am hoping that the new iron superconductors will overcome the problems that superconductivity has suffered from over these many years: a breakthrough that will make all possible.
If those Superconductive technologies are so good, why they were not used on space ships, price is not an issue there?
(As far as I know they use either photovoltaics plus some batteries, or some nuclear source of energy).
Solar power is the best space craft power source. Space craft needs power generation and not power storage.
The most common problems when launching space ships (and most common cause of postponed launches) come from various issues related to fuel tanks and fuel (that are usually kept at very low temps).
Space ships cannot afford heavy isolation; the condensations cause many problems.
I think that the number of breakthroughs that are needed to make batteries viable is more then the number to make superconductive power storage practical.
I hope the new iron superconductors are really unaffected by magnetic fields as they claim. A 2000 tesla unit could be held in your hand (4 liters).
Posted by: Axil | Jun 26, 2008 10:31:36 AM
What encloser material will the new iron oxyarsenide superconductor (IOS) storage unit be confined by?
Reference:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2006/10/superthread-100-times-stronger-than.html
Excerpt:
Superthread fibers, developed by Los Alamos scientist Yuntian Zhu, are 100 times stronger than steel (pound for pound for the same weight), tougher than diamonds, and roughly one-ten-thousandth of a human hair in diameter. This would be about 50 GPA.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 26, 2008 10:57:31 AM
To get back on topic, off this tangent of power generation and delivery, it is well known in the auto industry that Ghosn is a genius. He has the pulse of the industry in hand, and can understand the trends and effects of trends as well as anyone. In other words, his words carry alot of weight in many industry circles. More importantly, he is well aware of the effects of these offerings on his company's bottom line. Again worth listening to.
BEV are our future. It wont happen overnight, across the board. But any offering will increase the chances for additional improvements and better offerings down the line. ICE are here for many years. Just give us options with a BEV. Perhaps I will hand crank a generator to charge my BEV if my electric grid isnt up to the task. But I really have no fear that it will not. Additional increases in efficiency and super conducting will only make things better. Crawl before you walk before you run.
I would dearly love to get a small, battery powered, baby Nissan Frontier truck. Sell it to us without the battery pack, and lease the battery pack. Then when upgrades are better, put those in. Sort of like Ryobi does with its 18V One-Plus cordless tools. They offered a NiCad battery originally, and now they have Lithium batteries, that fit the same tools.
Perhaps Ryobi should make a car............
Posted by: Mark A | Jun 26, 2008 1:25:36 PM
"However this 0 emissions BS has to stop. Electricty production still/will always use(s) fossil fuels and produces alot of CO2,SO2,NOx, etc."
BS? I am already getting 0 emissions electricity. 50% small hydro, 50% wind. And it doesn't cost me a fortune either. Just extra 2 cents/kwh. May be $10-15/month to provide a better world for my son? Most worthwhile charity, I think. Don't believe me? Check www.greenmountainenergy.com and check for NJ.
Posted by: Sri | Jun 26, 2008 3:30:04 PM
Sri:
If you think that your 10$ per month subsidy to small hydro and wind makes much difference (aside from feeling good about yourself), you are wrong.
Let me give you an analogy. Al Gore flies by private jets, buys carbon offsets, and claims that his transportation is carbon-neutral. So, problem of carbon-free transportation is solved: give everybody private jet and require them to pay carbon offsets. Simple as that.
Wind, small hydro, and other renewables have same limitation as private jet with carbon offsets: both are not scalable to everybody.
Posted by: Andrey Levin | Jun 26, 2008 8:47:45 PM
@Stan W,
While the ability to posit arguments intended to motivate is nice and self-empowering, acknowledgment of facts also plays a role. The facts are that Toyota, Mitsubishi,Chevy, Tesla and a few handcrafted guys are the only manufacturers actually tooling up to mass produce PH-EVs for model year 2010-11. All the other guys are going to watch what happens.
If the first vehicles fly off the lot, they'll take note. If one or two burst into flame after catastrophic crash, water influenced short, etc. - they'll all say they're studying safety options. In the corporate world few CEOs really want to lead - that gets them fired. The few that do lead, accept the career risks, pursue a vision and try to deliver the best possible product with available materials at a reasonable price.
You really want to incentivize the manufacturers? Offer a $10k tax credit for any vehicle capable of minimum 40m A-EV. That shares the risk of new technology between "the people" who clamor for it and manufacturers who have to absorb the bulk of risk. If you want EVs on a more gradual development scale - don't share the risk. No brainer.
Posted by: EVNow! | Jun 27, 2008 7:42:40 AM
The limited range/slow charge problem.
The plan in Israel, where Nissan/Renault signed a contract with the government to sell the cars first and get help (taxation, infrastructure etc.) is This:
Use recharging stations where instead of charging the car, the whole battery will be quickly replaced.
Since Israel is small and densely populated, such stations can service most of the populace.
Most Israelis don't have garages, and park in the street, so it's a must-have.
Posted by: Guy Regev | Jun 27, 2008 5:14:11 PM
Audrey, You are misleading on so many levels.
Let's see.
--If you think that your 10$ per month subsidy to small hydro and wind makes much difference (aside from feeling good about yourself), you are wrong.--
You are missing the point. The feel good factor is not about the 10$ a month, although I don't see anything wrong with that. It's about reducing my carbon emissions and yes it does make a difference.
--Let me give you an analogy. Al Gore flies by private jets, buys carbon offsets, and claims that his transportation is carbon-neutral. So, problem of carbon-free transportation is solved: give everybody private jet and require them to pay carbon offsets. Simple as that.--
I don't see how this analogy even applies. I am not buying offsets. I am buying clean electricity with sustainable generation. But going to your analogy itself, till biofuel jets are introduced this is the only feasible option and it is scalable. Anybody who can own a private jet should be able to buy carbon offsets. There is enough carbon burned in other places that the carbon offsets can help clear. Is your only acceptable clean standard shunning all technology and living in a cave?
--Wind, small hydro, and other renewables have same limitation as private jet with carbon offsets: both are not scalable to everybody. --
The whole point of my post was to show reed that renewable energy is not out of reach. A few months back I read an article on scientific american detailing how solar energy alone can supply all of US electricity. With a mix like nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc clean energy can easily be scaled to everyone. If a little push comes from the government such as carbon tax these will becomes cheaper than conventional methods overnight.
BTW, I find it interesting you think creating a nationwide hydrogen infrastructure is feasible and creating clean electricity is not. You do realize hydrogen generated with dirty electricity is just money down the drain. Don't you?
Posted by: sri | Jun 28, 2008 6:44:31 AM
Sri:
Amount of electricity generated by solar, wind (but of course not nuclear) is severely limited by ability of grid to compensate for fluctuations. So, it does not matter how this 10% electricity will be consumed: 100% renewable by 10% of customers or all customers will use 10% renewables.
Same, BTW, is true for other popular green choices: supply of biodiesel and ethanol is severely limited, and it does not matter if it is consumed as B99 for some or as B5 for many, or E85 for some or E5 for everybody. Same with organic food: it does not reduce amount of synthetic fertilizers produced and used. Organic fertilizer (manure, in essence) can provide only about 10% of fertilizer’s needs, so farmer’s field growing pure organic food robs other fields from their share of manure. It does not matter how limited amount of wood waste is used: 100% on green powerplant or co-combusted in many coal power plant at 5%.
In most cases, widely distributed small percentage is better: it is much better for soil to have manure on all fields, have nationwide E5, or co-combust wood dust at 5% in coal burner (it is much more thermodynamically efficient than have 100% wood boiler). In your case with electricity, it does not matter: once fed in the grid, all electricity is undistinguishable.
PS: a am not a proponent of hydrogen; gaseous hydrogen is the worst energy carrier imaginable.
Posted by: Andrey Levin | Jun 29, 2008 1:27:25 AM
Audrey,
The limitations you mentioned are not total blocks for green power. First I believe nuclear should be a part of green mix. That along with small hydro, geothermal, bio fuels, etc can provide baseload. Also any large scale solar, wind installations will also have to implement some kind of storage. I won't go in to the details but there are a no. of economicaly viable options.
But for any option to work we have to start somewhere. Whether it's 10% or 1% if we keep dissing all new technologies we'll get nowhere. Like all new technologies they are initially going to be more expensive than established ones. Since our administration seems unwilling to support those I am doing my little part to encourage that. If all the customers think like you and to decide to skip green electricity those companies will simply go bankrupt and keep us with fossil fuels till we are totally out of them.
And regarding the hydrogen comment I guess I wrongly attributed some earlier comments to you. My bad.
Posted by: sri | Jun 29, 2008 7:19:54 AM
Audrey,
The limitations you mentioned are not total blocks for green power. First I believe nuclear should be a part of green mix. That along with small hydro, geothermal, bio fuels, etc can provide baseload. Also any large scale solar, wind installations will also have to implement some kind of storage. I won't go in to the details but there are a no. of economicaly viable options.
But for any option to work we have to start somewhere. Whether it's 10% or 1% if we keep dissing all new technologies we'll get nowhere. Like all new technologies they are initially going to be more expensive than established ones. Since our administration seems unwilling to support those I am doing my little part to encourage that. If all the customers think like you and to decide to skip green electricity those companies will simply go bankrupt and keep us with fossil fuels till we are totally out of them.
And regarding the hydrogen comment I guess I wrongly attributed some earlier comments to you. My bad.
Posted by: sri | Jun 29, 2008 7:21:02 AM
If speeches were autos we would all be driving PHEVs and BEVs.
"said Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn in a speech at the company’s annual general shareholders meeting in Japan."
One of the wackiest beliefs that won't go away is exemplified by “One of the wackiest things auto marketing has accomplished in the last 20 years is to push vastly over capable vehicles to the public.”
I recall when motor homes were very popular, NOT just with retired folks. All of us who were NOT into motor homes said “Rent one once a year for crisakes”. I thought it was just excess pride of ownership but I realize now that there must have been gangs of add-men that would terrorize these people if they would not buy.
Ron and Lucas; share with us; what stupid vehicle purchases were you forced to make?
I think I know which people are the conspiracy theorists that believe GM killed the electric car by withdrawing their EV1; The ones that say “oil people sitting on the GM board. They deserve to die”. Harsh times require harsh measures.
I assume they believe GM killed the Renault Electric Kangoo also see: http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=582.
Posted by: ToppaTom | Jun 30, 2008 5:01:24 AM
The natural progression of any technology is from simple to refined and complex. Electrified vehicles actual order of development is from:
a) pure ICE to
b) ICE and some EV, to
c) mostly EV, and some ICE, to
d) pure BEV.
Ghosn is blowing smoke. He got Israel a really tiny place, where you almost can't drive outside the range of today's BEV, without getting to a impassable border, to agree to a test.
Ditto for Denmark. But they are reserving judgement to see what the Israel experience actually turns out to be.
There must be a surplus of money among the contributors here. An automobile is either the second or first highest expenditure that most will ever make.
To think they would double that expenditure, to buy a BEV runabout and another regular vehicle for occasional use is, to misunderstand both economics and human nature. Not everyone is an over-compensated Hollywood Movie star able to indulge such toys.
Most people wil try to purchase the vehicle that most suits their immediate and other anticipated needs. And most people live in families, and need capacity for more than one individual.
The evidence is in already, NEVs do not sell in massive volumes. Period.
Even an "improved NEV" renamed to an "urban BEV runabout" will suffer the same fate. But there will be some who have the where with all to purchase. Just as there are those who queue to purchase the vaporware Tesla toy.
BEVs wil slowly become a higher and higher portion of the Electrified car scene, but that is a few decades away.
Consider the evolution of ships through two major changes of technology. It was an evolution in both cases. Ships evolved from:
a) rowed vessels (Pharaonic Egypt) to
b) rowed primarily, with some sail (Greco Roman Triremes) to
c) mostly sailed, but some rowed (Spanish galleons)
d) to full sail (English merchant & Navy)
e) ultimate sail (American clippers)
And another evolution to:
f) partial steam and sail (Fulton and mid 19th century combos, USS Merrimack, Great Eastern)
g) to all coal steam (Monitor and Merrimack to
h) oil turbo-steam (USS New Jersey et al)
i) diesel and nuclear steam. (ULCC and Nimitz class).
That is a transition of two whole technologies, and several sub technologies, coal to oil, and reciprocating to turbines, even fossil to fission.
Yet there is no discrete break with the past, technology evolves. We are in the early ICE-HEV era today. HEVs will proliferate, in type and choice.
It has some time to run based on battery technology. The natural progression is to more HEVs. And then to more EV less ICE contribution. The coming transition, beginning in less than half a decade from now, will be to improved HEVs and early PHEVs. PHEVs will build in importance, and serial PHEVs over compound parallel PHEVs will build later, for a considerable time.
Finally we will see a gradual transition to pure EVs, but that is a long way from happening. It needs at least one and maybe two improved battery chemistries over Li-Ion before it happens.
There is no urgency despite the caterwauling of the AGW hysterics or the Peakist myopics. We have centuries to solve those problems, if indeed there will still be an official problem in a few years.
The world has cooled for a decade, contrary to 1920s simplified mathematical theory. And now Mikolczi's revolutionary atmospheric theories based on non simplified assumptions, are dismantling the scientific basis for GHG caused warming.
Replacements for Oil are numerous; better ones are arriving, and all alternatives will contribute in their measure.
Posted by: | Jun 30, 2008 11:22:51 AM
@sri,
It late in his term, so I won't waste much time.
But Mr. Bush has brought forward research on improved Nuclear plants. He also re-incarnated Fusion Research. I had been terminated during the Clinton administration by his own congressional Democrats; despite Mr. Clinton's urging that no such thing be done. International efforts to build ITER collapsed, as a result.
Fusion research was set back a decade or more likely two. Mr. Bush brought it back to life, after arduous and unheralded negotiations. He enlisted and expanded the effort, to now include all the principal countries of the world.
The last scientific Fusion experiment is now underway. The next step after the ITER completes, is not more experiments, but the building of a commercial Fusion power plant.
Fusion is once again alive and coming. Now with or without the Democrat congress, with or without US participation, as Mr. Bush has negotiated the US to only contribute a maximum of 9% of the cost.
Commercial Fusion is close to success. Without Democrat "earmark" preferences, ITER would have cosntinued and be finished today. We would be designing the first commercial plants today.
Scientifically, Fusion has achieved more than break even. Even the present day experiments briefly generate more energy than the largest solar plant or wind mill in thr world.
We are now involved increasingly in adapting the technology for commercial use. No longer a question of "If"; more a question of "When". That commercialization will still take a couple of decades, nevertheless. There is a lot of necessary but routine engineering to do.
Meanwhile the Nuclear Renaissance is in full flower. Already 34 of the 45 proposed McCain Nuclear plants are deep into the pipeline to be built. Financing, sites, are acquired and licences are being sought and underway.
The reason for that is Mr. Bush's efforts and success in reforming construction and operation licensing. When costs are predictable, the eco-crazies leagal stalling constrained, Utilities spending their own money, have voted to build these Nuclear plants.
All are so-called standardized designs, "precertified" GEN III+ LWRs. These nuclear designs won't melt-down.
The GEN III+ have been designed to be incapable of "the China Syndrome". They no long require instantaneous operator control, whose errors did so much to create Three Mile Island.
These Nuclear plants have been designed to cool down under the natural circulation of water, rising when it warms and sinking when it cools. All able to automatically and unattended to turn themselves off within 72 hours, with no operator intervention required. These plants are ones that you can walk away from, unattended and they are still safe.
Even better, all have been designed to burn MOX, a mixture of Uranium and transuranics prinipally Plutonium, as well as 3-5% partially enriched Uranium.
They can even transmute some transuranics, like French reactors are able to do, and our domestic ones do not do efficiently.
That means they will continue to destroy forever the tens of thousands of surplussed cold war nuclear warheads that are no longer needed. The ones the politicians have already negotiated and set aside for destruction when suitable incinerator(s) are constructed. These plants are those Incinerators.
Furthermore the new plants can "Actinide Burn" and transmute, some of the quantity of long lived transuranics radio-isotopes that would have had to be stored for thousands of years, undisturbed, until safe.
These new Nuclear plants reduce the storage quantities to store in Death Valley at Yucca Mountain, by some 90%. Moreover, via the actinide burning transmutation, it will shorten the time for wate to be stored to a few hundred years, until safe.
These new nuclear plants go a long way to providing clean power for electric cars, un-proliferating the planet of nuclear weapon materials, while making waste storage much less of a problem.
Thank Mr. Bush for cajoling the nuclear plant builders to spend billions of their own monies designing these new Nuclear designs.
Then there is the creation of the US ABC, that helped make the Li-Ion battery practical for autos.
So he really hasn't been doing nothing. He has quietly been doing quite a lot. It just takes time to have the results show.
There is no question where he failed. He could not get the Democrats to open domestic fields to drill.
Democrats consistently voted not to add to domestic supplies and drill anywhere. Only Democrat would ever advance the proposition that we should continue to drill holes where there is no Oil. Only Democrats that have so little faith in their own nostrums, whose own programs don't work anyway, would tell anyone else to continue to do something that doesn't work.
Posted by: stas peterson | Jun 30, 2008 12:58:46 PM
EV's are an excellent opportunity in the case for an all electric society.
This case is persuasively set forth by
- Heetebrij (http://sargasso.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/heetebrij_2008-positioning-paper-ev-csp.doc),
- Mills (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/files/MillsMorganUSGridSupplyCorrected.pdf) and
- Romm (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electric_thermal/index.html)
Imagine a range of EV's driving around as taxi's at the next UN climate summit (http://www.cop15.dk/en), with large bumper stickers indicating they're running on electrons from renewables.
And another sticker stating that all EV's and all things electric can be run this way.
3rd sticker would state that large scale solar thermal addresses falling water tables (http://www.menarec.org/resources/CSP+for+Desalination-MENAREC4.pdf)
Thus EV's are more than solutions for personal transportation; they're the harbingers of a new energy / water era.
Emil Möller
U Maastricht
Posted by: Emil Möller | Jul 1, 2008 9:02:59 AM
Time to stop this zero emission BS,the entire Nation,soil and water is contaminated with mercury that the irresponsible power plants are spewing out.
I hope you don't believe it is your god given right to pollute and waste the resources we have left.
The rude awakening is coming!!
NO NUKES is GOOD NUKES !
Posted by: HHN | Jul 1, 2008 9:14:11 AM
Ghosn is following an forced orientation in producing Hybid car, which was first researched by Toyota and now BMW and Mercedes also do. If Nissan and Renault don't follow this trend, they can be let apart behind other car producers. Moreover, I think Nissan need to think about cheap car (like Tata} even they are very success with Murano and 350Z. More questions should be discussed. Will Nissan and Renault succeed if they buy over Chrysler? Should Nissan and Renault acquire GM when its stocks go down under 1$ in the first next year? and the last one is the Ghosn's strategy in cutting cost will succeed in case of financial crisis like present? I think the world is now focus on not only hybrid car but also on small and cheap car which involved low fuel used.
Posted by: Kentran | Nov 12, 2008 6:50:15 PM
