EVcast #285: Evcast Opposes Clean Energy

Just a general piece of advice for the EVcast.  The conversations might be more interesting if the guests were not stoned when you called them.

quote comment add new comment

I think both the battery backers and the fuel cell fans need to check their ego's at the door and realize that both technologies have their advantages and their problems. Problems that in time for both can probably be solved. The goal is polution / carbon reduced (neither is totally clean yet) electric transportion power. The two technologies can push each other and may the best win in its setting. I believe that battery will win for cars and hydrogen for heavy long haul trucking. However I am willing to admit that the answer could suprise us all. The key to to have those who support electric transportation stop fighting each other and push toward a common goal. As for the argument that supporting hydrogen is just supporting the big oil companies get real. No matter which wins big mega companies are going to be calling most of the shots be it oil or electric corporations. Who do you think is investing in hydrogen, solar, and battery development. Just remember it was very recent that the debate was which is best for portable computer data storage CD's or DVD's. The winner was....flash memory.

quote comment add new comment

I am sharing my thoughts sorry if you think I am writing a book below.

quote comment add new comment

Please understand that world ecosystem will re-transform itself though we can help by putting a vehicle that consists of all:  "PFCEV," Plug-In Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle powered by Biomass fuels that can turn the loop around to grown the rain forest back and put clean air back into the loop of photosynthesis reaction.

This above is extremely pure energy via plug-in I would be for Solar, Wind and Nuclear Power for charging purposes.

Battery replacement with Fuel Stacks from Fuel Cell Systems along with ultra-capacitors.

This has been proven via engineering, science and technological communities worldwide though electric vehicles might stop some of it though the well-to-wheel vs GHG vs BEV still creates pollution via power plants regardless along with Carbon Monoxide Gas from the battery systems from experience whether AGM, NiMH or Lithium Batteries.

"Stop the fighting who's right and wrong, I am saying that it will take all systems to make things work !"

quote comment add new comment

Holy cow. Was Seth stoned? He was halarious! I have his book too, it's excellent reading for those with a mechanical, hands-on background. I had no idea Bob Batson has died though, that's a real shame. It's downed my whole evening. Sniff.

I need a hug.

quote comment add new comment

I think both the battery backers and the fuel cell fans need to check their ego's at the door and realize that both technologies have their advantages and their problems. Problems that in time for both can probably be solved.


The actual argument was hydrogen vs. EV's, which is why the somewhat heavy debate. It should have been fuel cells vs. battery EV's to make it an "apple vs. apple" argument. We talked about it in the chat room during EVCast #232 when Joe Lado was guest. I remarked then that the alternative/substitute energy field should fight the good fight instead of each other. The argument isn't and never was about "them vs. us"; it has been/is about correct information, truth, dispelling FUD, etc...

What has come from those tinkering in the field [open source], is an end to corporate dominance of the technology; de-centralization of energy.

BTW, flash memory didn't win out; it gave further options. In the computer industry, it's the right tool for the job.


Peace
marcus

quote comment add new comment

  Regarding computer memory, the story is much more complex than the one sentence leads you to believe

Hard drives:  Despite 30 plus years of people predicting its death, hard drives are still the most widely used storage device for computers.

RAM: Oh but hard drives are too slow for the CPU, so we need RAM.  OH but RAM forgets when the power is off wo we need hard drives, or ROM, or FLASH

CD/DVD: Well, it will be a cold day in hell before we live without these.  But with the advent of the internet being a data source, perhaps we shall see less in our homes and the material will come from hard drives on the internet into hard drives or flash in our houses.

FLASH: Got to love flash as a "personal" storage device. iPods, cameras, cell phones.

   It is actually remarkable the wide variety of data storage methods used daily and often on one single computer.

   By comparison, the ICE engine has a real monopoly on transportation.

Later

John C. Briggs

quote comment add new comment

hey gav, it's bob brandt that passed this month, not bob batson...

quote comment add new comment

Apple Leaves U.S. Chamber Over Its Climate Position

By David A. Fahrenthold

Washington Post Staff Writer

“In a letter to the Chamber's president, Apple Vice President Catherine Novelli wrote, "Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the Chamber at odds with us in this effort." As a result, Novelli said, "we have decided to resign our membership effective immediately." …”

“Tuesday, October 6, 2009 Apple's decision makes it the fourth major company in several weeks to pull out because of the Chamber's climate policy, said Pete Altman, a Natural Resources Defense Council activist. The others have been the power companies Pacific Gas and Electric, PNM Resources, and Exelon.

In addition, Nike resigned from its position on the Chamber's board but not its membership.

"What we're seeing is the Chamber is clearly out of step with more and more companies," said Altman, whose group supports the climate legislation passed earlier this summer by the House. A similar bill was introduced last week in the Senate.”

quote comment add new comment

"Let all the technologies happily co-exist"

Why do people still talk like this about Hydrogen?  Are they uninformed?  Am I missing something?

   My understanding, is that Fuel Cell vehicles require 3 to 4 times the electricity to power them as does a pure electric vehicle.  This, my friends, is what is known as a "show stopper".  Even without, all the numerous other problems with hydrogen, the fact that it is an "electro-guzzler" makes it unsuitable.

    From a government funding perspective, the situation has finally been corrected, so I don't think there is much to complain about any longer.  It was just frustrating for years watching hydrogen get funding and EVs get nothing.  That has now been corrected and EVs are getting government support in many ways.

    Personally, every time I hear someone espouse the opinion that all technologies should be supported equally, I think they are a little lazy in their argument.  We should really support some technology unless and until it either succeeds or something better comes along.

     For me, for now, I am supporting strong hybrids like the Prius.  If a lot of people adopted this technology, it would do more for the environment than all the EV promised-potential that we have heard about.   If the Volt works out, I think the E-REV technology is the next thing that deserves our support. It is the bridge to pure electric transportation.

Later
John C. Briggs

quote comment add new comment

Why do people still talk like this about Hydrogen? Are they uninformed? Am I missing something?


Yes, you are missing something.

For starters, there is no "pure electric vehicle" vs. fuel cell. There are electric vehicles (EV's) with an access-to-energy. Your access-to-energy can be on-board or off-board. Off-board-access-to-energy vehicles are those vehicles deriving their energy source from with out of the vehicle, such as rail cars/street cars with the electric cable overhead, or bumper cars at amusement parks and carnivals, or via Nikola Tesla's method. On-board-access-to-energy vehicles derive their power from batteries, capacitors, or fuel cells stored within the vehicle. Thus, the comparison of a battery regarding an EV would be a capacitor or fuel cell.

Secondly, there are various types of fuel cells; mostly application specific--mobile vs. stationary. PEMFC, which is one using hydrogen, is "a / the" candidate for transportation. [Now here it comes...] IF you can bring costs down and efficiency up, as well as broaden operating parameters, PEMFC would have a chance to power homes and buildings as well. So, the push for FUEL CELLS [not hydrogen] is about generating a multi-purpose energy tool.

Can't comment on the electricity requirment as I am uncertain as to what you mean by "...Fuel Cell vehicles require 3 to 4 times the electricity to power them as does a pure electric vehicle."


Peace
marcus

quote comment add new comment

Nice show guys and gal!  I enjoyed the interview with- shoot!  forgot his name!  the gentleman from the US Chamber of Commerce.  He gave an excellent statement about their stance, a much more ballanced one than the 'headlines' did, as you also alluded to Bo.  It would be interesting to see if you could get a follow-up interview with one of the critics of the Chamber, to respond to this interview.

quote comment add new comment

The comment about fuel cell vehicles requiring 3 to 4 times as much energy as EVs is correct. It comes from doing a full "well to wheels" energy accounting. Basically, what the fuel cell folks miss is that it takes one heck of a lot of energy to make hydrogen. So much so that it makes much more sense to just put that energy into EV batteries straight away. An EV is 85% (or more) efficient, whereas a fuel cell car will never be more than 50% efficient. The chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen is massively exothermic (ever watch a Space Shuttle launch?), so fuel cells put off huge amounts of heat. Just look at all the radiators stuffed into fuel cell cars, with their attendant coolant, pumps, hoses and the like. This is not the case with batteries, which are really very efficient, by the way. There is a place for fuel cells, just not in cars. No amount of fancy engineering can ever overcome the basic physics involved in (a) making hydrogen, and (b) mixing hydrogen with oxygen. This is not an issue of being egalitarian with regard to energy sources for green vehicles. It is a simple matter of science. This is why energy secretary Steven Chu recommending cutting back the overspending on hydrogen. We don't have time to waste on it, especially when battery EVs are doable TODAY!

quote comment add new comment

I know that these types of forums are not the place where people read and change their minds. People in general are not open minded. One of the hardest things to learn is to be open minded enough to change your personal point of view when faced information that shows you that what you believed before was incorrect. I think it was because when writing my thesis I was in the mood of discovery or maybe it was because I was looking at a variety of alternative fuels and assessing them, but what ever it was, I went from being a hydrogen fuel advocate to a person who clearly understood that in the natural pecking order of things in the economy hydrogen simple could not compete with the other alternatives. There were simply too many barriers for its entry into the economy and to many of those barriers were insurmountable. I tried at the time to break up the barriers into categories of scientific, logistic, economic, engineering, business, and several others. The list of most other alternative were typically short, but hydrogen vehicles had barriers in every category. Not only that some barriers seemed ridiculously hard. When I found this problem with a fuel that I previously had been a vocal proponent of, it was hard for me to believe what I was seeing. So I kept digging, which only made things much worse. I finally had to let go of my hope for hydrogen and come to the reality that it just wasn't going to happen. For me, at the time, ethanol seemed the best alternative. I had studied how Brazil had moved it into their economy before the advent of Flexible Fuel Vehicles. We could do the same. Natural gas and electricity seemed to have the benefit of having their distribution networks built in and were lower cost than traditional fuels. I came to the exact same conclusion as Joseph J. Romm did in his book The Hype About Hydrogen.

quote comment add new comment

"100% Biomass" will reduce the pollution levels via Climate Treaty is a fact and Fuel Cells can create less pollution."  All the major companies that are funding your electric vehicles and are getting ready for the release of fuel cell vehicles that run on many different fuels that include electric motors to in-wheel motors along with ultracapacitors that is the next energy storage for the future.

EV Hype: Mileage Conversion.......

I will never believe that "EV's" will ever drive there 250 to 700 mpg conversion rate, they can prove in equivalent to gasoline with my comparison of the Honda Insight (Manual Transmission) and my friend has been getting an average of about 750 miles a fill and when I see the "Electric Vehicle's" travel the same distance on one complete charge without a range extender, I would not call it a relative theory anymore.

EV Hype: Zero Emissions........

Power is not 100% made of solar, wind, geo-thermal, and biomass fuel cells, which other sources will pollute and also will not put back into the ecosystem by the way of photosynthesis loop.

quote comment add new comment

Hi Bo, Ryan, and Shannon -

Bob Tregilus here from the Electric Auto Association of Northern Nevada < http://ElectricNevada.org>.

I'd like to respond to a couple of points made on last week's show regarding the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

First, you have to be careful of spin. If you look at their website on energy "The Institute for 21st Century Energy" you'll find lots of talk about clean coal, nukes, and oil and gas drilling, "oh, and by the way we support renewables too." At least that is the sense I got from looking at their site < http://bit.ly/1js2Yp>.

On climate change, the Chamber makes the case that global warming is good for you. As we know they recently lost a number of high profile members because of their fringe stance on anthropomorphic contributions to climate change as well as the global impacts of a warming climate.

Back in June the Chamber submitted an 86 page "comment" to the EPA containing a number of questionable assertions such as:

"The [EPA] Administrator has thus ignored analyses that show that a warming of even 3 [degrees] C in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans because the reduction of wintertime mortality/morbidity would be several times larger than the increase in summertime heat stress- related mortality/morbidity."

And in the appendix they wrote:

"Humans have become less susceptible to the effects of heat due to a combination of adaptations, particularly air conditioning. The availability of air conditioning is expected to continue to increase."

And:

"Reduced exposure to cold days is a significant factor in the increased life expectancy experienced in the U.S. over the past 30 years. This benefit from reduced exposure to cold can be further attributed to people migrating to warmer climates." < http://bit.ly/abUYa>.

Further they are charter members of the drill, baby, drill crowd stating that we should, "Immediately Expand Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Exploration and Production" < http://bit.ly/1js2Yp>.

But we already have been drilling like crazy. In an AP report from a year ago entitled "Death rate among oil workers alarmingly high" the AP says the number of oil field deaths had risen 70 percent between 2002 and 2007. This is because of a drilling boom that began around 2001 - oil field employment nearly doubled from 290,000 in 2002 to 428,000 in 2007 < http://bit.ly/hmwbf>.

On Cap and Trade, and I don't like it either, but prefer Cap and Dividend < http://capanddividend.org> where carbon is capped at the 120 or so primary sources, taxed, and the dividends are distributed equally to Americans sort of like the Alaskan Permanent Dividend Fund - but that another program. And by the way Greenpeace, the Rain Forest Action Network and others also oppose the cap and trade bill, on the other side you'll can find "big green" groups like the Sierra Club supporting the bill.

But in any case the Chamber states:

"The European Union launched the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in 2005. The ETS is a cap and trade program for Europe’s power and industrial sectors, which roughly account for about 45 percent of all emissions. The ETS was implemented to help Europe meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. However, analysts say that Europe is not on track to meet its Kyoto obligations, due to overly-generous allocations and price volatility in the carbon market." < http://bit.ly/MhEjd>

Sorry, wrong: For several years the EU has been on track to meet Kyoto targets and in the time frame where Kyoto matters - 2008-2012 - they are beating their targets < http://bit.ly/2A2F2B>. To keep this short I posted a link in the comments for show #285.

Regarding the Clean Air Act: Like most of this stuff it's all real complicated but the Clean Air Act covers only six criteria pollutants: SO2, NO2, CO, O3, Pb, and particulate matter. CO2 is not among them but was recently added, sort of. It's complicated. Importantly, power plants are currently covered on the Clean Air Act, however, the heavily polluting coal plants dating to the 50s and before were grandfathered in. The legislators felt they would be phased out, but that hasn't happened. In any case, the Waxman/Markey cap and trade bill removes that authority from the EPA to regulate coal plants under the Clean Air Act - this is a step backwards, and frankly it's insane < http://bit.ly/3GsvUe>.

So, while I'm not a big fan of Move On political actions I support PIA on joining with them regarding Toyota and the US Chamber of Commerce. Actually, I don't believe they go far enough - the EV community should be bashing Toyota for their bashing of plug-ins! Toyota, read my lips: "No plug? No deal!"

quote comment add new comment

Hi Bo, Ryan, and Shannon -

Bob Tregilus here from the Electric Auto Association of Northern Nevada.

I'd like to respond to a couple of points made on last week's show regarding the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

First, you have to be careful of spin. If you look at their website The Institute for 21st Century Energy you'll find lots of talk about clean coal, nukes, and oil and gas drilling, "Oh, and by the way we support renewables too." At least that is the sense I got from looking at their site.

On climate change, the Chamber makes the case that global warming is good for you. As we know they recently lost a number of high profile members because of their fringe stance on anthropomorphic contributions to climate change as well as the global impacts of a warming climate.

Back in June the Chamber submitted an 86 page "comment" to the EPA containing a number of questionable assertions such as:

"The [EPA] Administrator has thus ignored analyses that show that a warming of even 3 [degrees] C in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans because the reduction of wintertime mortality/morbidity would be several times larger than the increase in summertime heat stress- related mortality/morbidity."

And in the appendix they wrote:

"Humans have become less susceptible to the effects of heat due to a combination of adaptations, particularly air conditioning. The availability of air conditioning is expected to continue to increase."

And:

"Reduced exposure to cold days is a significant factor in the increased life expectancy experienced in the U.S. over the past 30 years. This benefit from reduced exposure to cold can be further attributed to people migrating to warmer climates."

Further they are charter members of the drill, baby, drill crowd stating that we should, "Immediately Expand Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Exploration and Production."

But we already have been drilling like crazy. In an AP report from a year ago entitled "Death rate among oil workers alarmingly high" the AP says the number of oil field deaths had risen 70 percent between 2002 and 2007. This is because of a drilling boom that began around 2001 - oil field employment nearly doubled from 290,000 in 2002 to 428,000 in 2007.

On Cap and Trade, and I don't like it either, but prefer Cap and Dividend where carbon is capped at the 120 or so primary sources, taxed, and the dividends are distributed equally to Americans sort of like the Alaskan Permanent Dividend Fund - but that another program. And by the way Greenpeace, the Rain Forest Action Network and others also oppose the cap and trade bill, on the other side you'll can find "big green" groups like the Sierra Club supporting the bill.

But in any case the Chamber states:

"The European Union launched the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in 2005. The ETS is a cap and trade program for Europe’s power and industrial sectors, which roughly account for about 45 percent of all emissions. The ETS was implemented to help Europe meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. However, analysts say that Europe is not on track to meet its Kyoto obligations, due to overly-generous allocations and price volatility in the carbon market."

Sorry, wrong: For several years the EU has been on track to meet Kyoto targets and in the time frame where Kyoto matters - 2008-2012 - they are beating their targets.

Regarding the Clean Air Act: Like most of this stuff it's all real complicated but the Clean Air Act covers only six criteria pollutants: SO2, NO2, CO, O3, Pb, and particulate matter. CO2 is not among them but was recently added, sort of. It's complicated. Importantly, power plants are currently covered on the Clean Air Act, however, the heavily polluting coal plants dating to the 50s and before were grandfathered in. The legislators felt they would be phased out, but that hasn't happened. In any case, the Waxman/Markey cap and trade bill removes that authority from the EPA to regulate coal plants under the Clean Air Act - this is a step backwards, and frankly it's insane.

So, while I'm not a big fan of Move On political actions I support PIA on joining with them regarding Toyota and the US Chamber of Commerce. Actually, I don't believe they go far enough - the EV community should be bashing Toyota for their bashing of plug-ins! Toyota, read my lips: "No plug? No deal!"

quote comment add new comment

Daniel Davids said on Friday, November 6th 2009 @ 6:06 PM:

The comment about fuel cell vehicles requiring 3 to 4 times as much energy as EVs is correct. It comes from doing a full "well to wheels" energy accounting.

1. Who stated it was incorrect???!!! I said no comment was made because of the uncertainty as to what was meant.

2. I thank you for that clarification.

3. I see the alternative / substitute energy groups will continue to fight each other citing the oil/gas/coal argument of where you got your energy from. As the saying goes -- With friends like you, who needs enemies. :D

4. The rest appears to be statements of absolution on technology that changes as the crow flies. I made my point that this is about EV's and their on-board-access-to-energy systems; not EV's vs. hydrogen or batteries vs. hydrogen.


Joseph Lado said on Friday, November 6th 2009 @ 10:36 PM:

I know that these types of forums are not the place where people read and change their minds. People in general are not open minded. One of the hardest things to learn is to be open minded enough to change your personal point of view when faced information that shows you that what you believed before was incorrect.


You really shouldn't be so hard on yourself, Joe. I'm sure one day your mind will open up. :D


Peace
marcus

quote comment add new comment

Can't really figure it out. It is really something that needs to be discussed time and time again and be re evaluated. I have heard that electric vehicles seemed to ruin the car bumpers. I just don't know how did this thing happened and on how can I relate this to the topic.

quote comment add new comment