EVcast.com is the home of the EVcast. The EVcast is a podcast dedicated to bringing consumers the latest information on electric vehicles in a non-technical, non-political, and entertaining way. Don't forget, you can also subscribe to this podcast via iTunes or your favorite podcatcher.
NEW! Stream the latest episode of the EVcast from your website by including this one simple line of javascript:
<script src="http://www.igroops.com/evcast.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Watch this Blog Notify me by e-mail any time a new post is made to this blog.
The EVcast is a podcast dedicated to bringing consumers the latest information on electric vehicles in a non-technical, non-political, and entertaining way.
Become Our Platinum SponsorProduct ID: 00000003Currently In Stock: 0
For the main sponsor, you get the big prize! A 622px wide x 100px tall banner that will appear on just about every page within EVcast.com, including blog posts. On the homepage, in place of the banner you will have a custom ... More »
Price: $2500.00
April 2009 Posts
Archives
Don't just listen to the EVcast -- experience and be a part of it! Join us at 1:00pm Eastern, M-F, in our live video broadcast and chat along with us!
Did you have Neil locked in a toilet cubicle? His audio was pretty average so I missed a few bits out of the interview. He was calling on a mobile phone I guess. Reminds me that I need a new microphone.
quote comment add new comment
Yes per BTU coal gives about twice the amount of carbon as gas but an electric car uses those BTUs about 3x- 4x more efficently than an ICE . Plus an electric car can achieve aerodynamic body shapes much easier than ICE cars and use regenerative breaking. That's why it costs about 2cent of electricity per mile as oppose to 12cent of gas per mile.
Is quadrillion a number? This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Meh . . . not one of your better shows. The sound quality of Neil was terrible and when I could understand the words he was saying, they really didn't make much sense. I did not find his arguments to be persuasive at all and stopped listening.
I understand where Neil Chambers is coming from with respect to EVs. He is from a school of urban planning called "New Urbanism". This is the idea that the suburbs are soulless industrial creations that isolate us from the community and create an unsustainable economic relationship based on profligate use of non-renewable fossil fuels and are agriculturally unsustainable because the sprawl created by building single use single family housing is built on farmland forcing the transport of food from further out. I saw this in the suburb I grew up in New Jersey with the loss of farms and orchards that got converted into sub-divisions. This movement has been written about by social critics like James Howard Kunstler in his books, "The Geography of Nowhere" and "The Long Emergency".
Neil Chambers point on the destruction of habitat is valid. If you build more cars you will need more roads then you will be able to fit more cars and thus force state and municipal governments to build more roads.
It would be great if we could rearrange our cities around 5 and 6 story mixed use town homes with a park commons where people can recreate after commuting by light rail or bicycle to their jobs only 3 to 5 miles away. However this restructuring of our cities will take at least 5 decades. It took 5 decades to destroy the inner cities when the push to the suburbs started after World War II and it will take as long to revitalize the inner cities to build this model of urban living again. It has taken Houston at lease 30 to 40 years just to get a simple rail hub that is only 7 miles of track long and it goes from the Houston Texans Reliant football stadium to the Houston Astros Minute Maid stadium on the other side. Where mixed use New Urbanist landscape is being built in Houston it is too expensive for working class families to afford. Enter the electric car.
This is where I vehemently disagree with Neil Chambers. He makes an ad-hoc comparison between a gallon of gasoline which produces 19 lbs of CO2 versus a lb of coal which he says produces substantially more. This is a false comparison. If you want to accurately account for CO2 emissions of gasoline powered cars versus electric cars you have to account for the Kw-hrs used to travel a fixed distance, like say a mile, then see how many BTU's of each fuel source are consumed, wheel to wells for EVs, and ICE cars from the pump for gasoline powered cars (OK ICE cars are already on third base (note to those out of the United States this is a baseball metaphor)) and then calculate the amount of CO2 emissions emitted based on benchmarks I laid on for consumption of both vehicles. That is the only honest way to do it. When you do it this way or just read the reports that Sherry Boschert has posted from the Department of Energy, a reputable scientific agency, on CO2 emissions foot prints for both vehicles.
It's also a bit of a stretch to believe that gasoline cars emit fewer pounds of CO2 versus EVs because EV's use either a miniscule amount of energy or none at all in comparison to ICE cars which idle their engines when they are stopped at intersections or drive thrus.
He then goes off the rails with respect to renewables and the possible use of hydrogen to store renewable energy. According to California Institute of Technology physicist David Goodstein http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/ it takes 6 gallons of gasoline to produce a gallon of gasoline in energy content of hydrogen if you electrolyze water to get it. You would have to get it from water as the other source, natural gas, has had a flat production rate for at least 2 decades and can't be counted on as a feedstock for the hydrogen. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/books/they-re-not-making-more.html
EVs will be needed for the time being so that our cities can be reformed around a more population dense people friendly, affordable living arrangement. It will be far easier for some to purchase a commercially made EV then moving their family out of a school district they like into one the don't like in order to reduce their commuting distance. Even after the transition EVs will not go away. It may be that we subscribe to a EV loaning service like ZipCar.
That's my take on it.
Rick, from the oil capitol of the world, Houston, TX.
Good comments Rick:
I agree with all of your points. Habitat is the highest environmental priority IMHO. Climate change is of course going have its greatest effects on habitats and ecosystems.
Nevertheless, I will say here as I have many places before - the significance of an environmental impact is in the eyes of the beholder. Comparing impacts of differing activities gets down to how one values (reducing) the impact. So any study that says one activity is better than another reflects the author's weighting of impacts. It is true we should favor dense infilled communities, but we have not and that dye is cast. Houston is the capitol of urban sprawl. EVs reduce one off of the most significant impacts of ICEs, smog. On a good day I can see 80 miles across the San Joaquin Valley. On a bad day I can see 15 miles and I breath some of the highest Ozone levels in the US. EVs are important to me.
Fred
Yeah, US cities are build & designed on the concept of cheap gas. The $4/gallon gas was a rude awakening in that such city designs are unsustainable. We really need to increase concentration and use mass transit better. It would be a bit of a shame if EVs prevented such a change from happening, but due to high battery costs, I don't think that will happen.
But the existing buildings are where they are and might as well be used. So EVs will enable people to live in the suburbs long into the future.
Dear Aptera Family Member, By now you are likely aware that there are changes happening daily at Aptera. As one of our most loyal supporters and part of the early foundation of our future, we want to update you about some vital issues, including when your vehicle will be available. Our most recent corporate commitment was that we would deliver the first production Typ-1, now known as the 2e, by the close of 2008. Despite our well-intentioned efforts, we were unable to complete that vehicle before the close of the year, so it's now slated for January 16. However, unlike prior plans, this vehicle will not be delivered to a retail customer. We will continue our builds but at a much slower rate starting with a small test fleet of the enhanced vehicles, then moving to our volume production launch on October 1, 2009. For months we have been receiving important feedback from you, our depositor community, and we have come to realize there were flaws in our initial product assumptions -- specifically as it pertains to satisfying the needs of real-world consumers. Our greatest degree of learning came just a few months ago when we asked all of you to participate in a brief survey. This critical piece of research requested insights about your expectations for our company and our products, and we discovered a notable disconnect between our product plan and realistic expectations. Some modifications had to be made. For example, you helped us realize that some trade-offs for convenience (like being able to grab a burger in a drive-thru) might be necessary to make the ownership experience more palatable, even if it cost us a couple tenths of a point on our drag coefficient. To navigate us through this process, we recruited a team of seasoned professionals from the automotive industry and the California tech sector. With a complete management team operating on one accord, we are now in a better position to resolve all of the fundamental product usage questions that have been brought to our attention by our initial depositors. As we move closer to volume production in the face of this challenged economy, it becomes increasingly important for us to accurately forecast our first year's production volume. To date, we have tried to provide the greatest flexibility possible by maintaining all deposits as fully refundable, and now it has become equally important for Aptera to properly model our operations to meet demand. To address this issue, we have created a proposition, known as "Lock-in," to reward your commitment to this point and in the future. Lock-in allows you to voluntarily convert your deposit from refundable to a firm, non-refundable one and receive an addition $250 credit towards the purchase of your Aptera vehicle. In other words, we will give you an additional 50% return on your money for sticking with us and taking the extra step. The Lock-in program is completely voluntary and no depositor will be penalized for electing not to participate, but only those who opt into the program will be eligible for the additional credit. As always, your deposit money will remain in escrow until you move to transact the purchase of your vehicle, which is when any and all credits will be applied. Aptera is not, and has no intention of using your deposit money to fund the company. We are prudently trying to plan our volume and capacity to assure we do not introduce waste into our system that could lead us down the unenviable path of some of our industry predecessors. And who knows, maybe Wall Street will see us as a role model for offering these types of returns on investments. To participate in the Lock-in program, email family@aptera.com with your full name, reservation number and the simple message, "I would like to Lock-in". You will receive a confirmation email, and your name and reservation will be added to the credit list. It is that simple. Our combination of automotive industry experience paired with the pervasive "why-not" attitude of the California entrepreneurial set will continue to make Aptera more effective in every aspect of our business. Our new team is teaching us fresh ways to listen to you and translate your comments and needs into the product, so here's our pledge: "We will manufacture the most efficient vehicle on the road and continue to apply the input we receive from our consumer." As we fly in the face of this challenged economy and write a new page in transportation history, we simply can't afford to cut corners. We are going to do what it takes to get it right, and we cannot get there without your help and continued support. You have stood with us faithfully and we promise that our vehicles will be worth the wait. We look forward to sharing our dream with you as Aptera introduces the world to the most energy efficient solution for personal mobility. Thank you for your support, The Aptera Team
Rod, Thanks for posting that.
These last minute changes really make me worried about Aptera's probability of success. They are delaying shipment for about 1 year. That is a long time in this EV battle. However, they may be the second one to market (after Tesla) and have some success. But I just don't see Aptera competing with the Chevy Volt, if/when it comes out.
LaterJohn C. Briggs
John,
I undestand your concern with respect to Aptera's viability but I do sincerely hope you're wrong on Aptera's ability to remain a player in the industry. They can't hope to compete with GM but the country is chock full of cottage industry EV suppliers and car companies and I'd hate to see them loose. Most of these car companies are on the right track with respect to the propulsion system that's going to drive the future even if, with respect to a number of them, their management arms are challenged in the area of integrity and competancy.
That Aptera letter listed above was sent out on January 6th, so that is not new news. That was sent out when they were unable to ship a vehicle to a customer in 2008 (their target date). As far as I know, they are still on schedule for shipping in October. But as we all know, these dates are subject to change.
The consistent thing about the EV biz is its inconsistency. ;-)
from the aptera forum about the April 4th event:
"Was at the Aptera "kegger" (yes they had a keg of beer there too) and left with an overall positive impression. It was highlighted by a long conversation with a very proud and candid Paul Wilbur. Here are the highlights of that conversation (in no particular order).The event was originally planned to be inside the museum. The capacity of that museum is 450, so they set that limit for the rsvp page. When the event sold out in 45 minutes, they went back to museum and asked if they could also have the back yard. Luckily, the museum was cooperative and they were able to invite anyone that wanted to come. The final tally was something like 718 guests.He is still sticking to the October release, but now says it will start small. He said the sure way to kill the car was to deliver it before it was right.He wants to comply with all the crash tests to ensure to the customer that the car is safe. And to shut up any competition (the big 3) who would say that the vehicle is unsafe. He recollected a conversation he had with the head of Tesla that he intended to pass all the crash tests. Including the hardest one which Tesla did not pass. (Can't remember the exact number, 208?)The charger will be auto selecting and will draw as much voltage/current as you can give it. The 8-10 hour recharge time is based on 110v/10a. But you will be able to give it 110v/15a, to 220v/30a. Not sure if it will take up to 220v/50a.Someone else asked if he can upgrade his e to an h. Paul said they were considering this possibility. He said that was a very interesting question. I said that I just wanted to upgrade to a 20kwh battery. Paul then leaned over to me and whispered, "you're gonna get you wish".They are still working on the particular way they will handle regen braking. He listed 3 or 4 ways they are investigating. But haven't finalized it yet.The next event will be April 23? 26?(can't remember) in the San Francisco area.I had numerous and enjoyable conversations with many other Aptera employees. All of whom were very nice. Left around 9:45, almost everyone else was gone by then."
Reposted by Fred, sounds like good hearsay. When you hear that they have not finalized on a regen design it makes me wonder about the whether it could possibly be ready in Oct. Maybe the first owners will be more like beta testers.
