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
September 2009 Posts
Archives
Today's show starts w/ Bo's recap of Dan Rather Reports coverage of electric cars. Then Bo and Ryan move to the news: Fisker's MPG rating, Drew Barrymore's electric ride on the new Leno show, Mercedes Benz PHEV, possible electrification of the Chevy Spark, Govt stance on 3 wheeled vehicles, Tesla v. cycling community controversy....plus listener feedback.
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!
Once again nice show! Also Aptera says you should not name the Typ 2e or 2h a car but a vehicle. on the Aptera forum we are discussing this topic here: http://apteraforum.com/showthread.php?t=3212
quote comment add new comment
Great show guys, as usual. Although i have to say i was furious at hearing that Aptera was excluded from DOE funding because their "vehicle" isn't a "car" (meaning it doesn't have 4 wheels). This is complete BS. While not everyone is enamored with the Aptera's looks, the vehicle is a great fit for those commuters who don't need a full size sedan and are looking for a cool EV or hybird. Removing a wheel from the vehicle reduces the weight as well as making it more aerodynamic. they have also created the composite material that is strong and lightweight (perhaps even better than the steel being used on regular "cars"). the Aptera also meets or exceeds the crash rating of standard cars. I'm sure there are many cars that don't come close to their level of efficiency and safety. Why should they be rewarded and not Aptera? Cuz they have an extra wheel? BS!
1. Aptera opted to be designated / classified as a motorcycle. [Most companies do so as a faster route to market.]2. Aptera's crash rating with respect to "standard cars" carries no weight until it is classified as such [car] and undergoes testing for said classification.3. "Why should they be rewarded and not Aptera?" -- Why should Aptera be rewarded and not Harley-Davidson? Changing the designation for Aptera would result in a legal issue for the DOE to open funds to all "vehicles" no matter the "number of wheels".Conclusion: Aptera is at fault. If Aptera wishes access to the funds, then Aptera should re-classify its vehicle as a "car" and suffer the consequences.
46:06 "What's interetesting about the nanosolar technology is that it is not the big woffer based..."
It is wafer not woffer. You know like the thing Catholics eat at communion or the thin candy Necco wafer. This is even worse then how you pronounce Coulomb.
But seriously, thanks for bringing NanoSolar up as a point of discussion. Whenever anyone questions where you are going to get your power for your EV, the most beautiful answer has to be solar power. What can be better than solar power and EVs, even if the solar panels have to be mounted on your house rather than your car.
Regarding NanoSolar's efficiency claims, there is some reasons for caution and excitement. It looks like their current production technology is only 11% efficient. Compare this with the 22% efficiency of SunPower's silicon wafer technology. So NanoSolar current technlogy is only half as efficient as its peers.
The reason for some excitement about NanoSolar is new technology that they have developed that has a 16% efficiency as tested by NREL (a well respected government organization). If they can do this at a lower cost than silicon based systems, then this is great.
Perhaps for car based solar power, we should be most concerned about efficiency so that the limited surface area of the car can be used to generate the most electricity possible. In this case, silicon solar cells might be better. That is assuming that they can be packaged onto the car's surface easily.
However, for home based solar power, efficiency is a little less important than installed cost in terms of $/watt. Silicon based solar panels are now running at about $4.39 watt (thanks recession) uninstalled. Companies like NanoSolar are claiming prices of less than $1.00 per watt uninstalled. This looks to be a huge difference. However residential installation costs might add $5.00 per watt to both technologies. This would make NanoSolar $6.00/watt installed and Silicon PV $9.39/watt installed. This is less of a difference, but still significant.
So with cheap solar power and EVs, there might be a bright future ahead.
John C. Briggs
OK, EVcast Listeners, I have a challenge for you. Go on over to EcoModder and take the quiz to see how many EVs you can correctly identify.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/quiz-eco-cars.php?do=start&quiz_id=1
I got 19/22, can anyone beat that (no cheating).
I got the Tesla and the RAV4 wrong! Great viral tool for traffic! I think I just found a new feature to build into iGrOOps! Thanks John!
Bo, They did a nice job putting that quiz together. It was fun.LaterJohn C. Briggs
Woohoo!
I got two wrong. Some Ford American truck thing, and a mobile-closet looking thing called the Kewet Buddy. You owe me a beer John. ;)
Li batteries are recycled in high volume now. This company is a major recycling re-processor http://www.toxco.com/. In CA all stores that sell Li batteries by law have to take them back for recycling. It is illegal in CA to put batteries in the trash. This company recycles most of the rechargeable batteries in CA. It is a consortium of battery manufacturers. Li is recovered by recycling.
http://www.call2recycle.org/
Fred
Gav, Don't get ahead of yourself mate. Someone else might do better.John C. Briggs
