Thanks for the clarification. Indeed, what you point out is interesting. For example, now that the U.S. is, in a way, more like the Europeans were during WWII, where we have more of an OIl deficit (I think we're still close to being the #1 producer, but our production does not equal even 50% of our consumption), maybe indeed we can try to use history to predict what might happen. Maybe we will see a similar situation here in the states, with folks reaching for production of some gaseous and liquid fuels, similar to what they tried to do during the crunch of WWII in Europe.
I do think we see the slow creep of EV introduction into U.S. Society... and renewable powering of such.... with such quiet matters as continued GEM production. Sure, it's (relatively) boring and slow and inadequate for all but a trip to get groceries on a slow road. But, for right or for wrong, these slow 2 wheel and 4 wheel EVs aren't quite going away. A GEM executive told me things are going pretty well financially, and this was backing up what D-C said at a press conference. Here in the states we have this odd problem, as I've been told by others, that our "middle" classification of speed doesn't exist adequately. So, in Europe, you see a few more (not enough, but more) of these "city" type cars, which are not quite adequate to go at safe highway speeds, but are sufficient and very useful for traveling at city speeds. And those vehicles may tend to be EVs as well as gasoline powered. But here in the U.S. one of the reasons you don't see them is that, I'm told, we have an inadequate legal way of addressing these vehicles, and so either you're legally qualified for the highway vehicles, or you're low speed, but with no middle ground. Doubtless there's something I've misunderstood or mis-represented... but I'm just trying to pass on what I've been told as best I can in an area that I'm not good with (Legal stuff). On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:22:33 +0200, you wrote: > >MM, > >I am all for escalating the production of electric cars and think that it >should >be an important element of the energy strategy. It is very interesting things >happening, especially the engine in the wheel. It enhances the possibilities >of flexible fuel alternatives. The only thing is, that I do not think that >it will >help with an energy crises to make this happen. Therefore I wanted to make >clear, what happened during WWII and that in an oil crises, the electric >vehicle >would not be a priority action. > >You also have to remember that US never had any oil crisis during WWII and >any oil restrictions. At that time, US was by far the leading oil producer. It >was Europe and Japan, that had the problems and in Europe it was more >than one million gengas vehicles on the road. A large percentage of the >existing vehicles. > >What I was trying to say, is that in a crises, the immediate alternatives are >biofuels and gengas or synthetic fuel from coal. US, with less than 1% of >electricity from wind and solar, problems with production from NG, have small >chances to find relief in using electric cars. > >Oil reserves also include the known shale reserves, it is not like we have any >large known reserves unaccounted for. It is a common misunderstanding, >that known oil reserves are equal to easy recoverable oil. This is not the >case >and exuberate the problem, by leading people to belive that it is some magical >solution available. > >Electric cars and PV, is something that I support and let us hope that this >will >develop out of a more long term strategy. I am afraid that a sudden crises >would >be bad for such development and tilt all resources toward coal development. > >Hakan > > > >At 19:40 02/05/2004, you wrote: >>I've spoken with Doug a few times and if I understood his WWII point >>correctly, I am complete agreement with the basics of it: the U.S. is >>not behaving as though it is at war, sacrifices are not being asked of >>its citizens to the extent that would happen in a very serious life >>and death struggle, and, particularly, virtually nothing seems to be >>asked by way of identifying fuel sourcing as any sort of issue >>connected in any way, at all, with the war or the health of the >>economy. >> >>I don't think Doug was trying to refer to anything having to do with >>gengas or coal. Could be wrong. I think he was referring to building >>EVs and powering them with PV, (as he has done with his own EVs for >>some time now) instead of needlessly crushing them for half-baked >>half-hearted reasons, as is now being done by Toyota, Ford, GM. Such >>crushing would have been so decried in WWII, as the >>anti-U.S.-fuel-Independence act that it is, that it would never have >>been allowed. >> >>Interestingly, about Doug, he does not deny that there is a fair >>amoutn of Oil in the world. It is his view that there is plenty for >>awhile, but not at these prices.... that we could, for example, get a >>lot of oil from shale here in the U.S., but prices per barrel would be >>many times what they are now. >> >>Another note is that his son is in the PV business in LA, and is >>presently suing Ford, because Ford won't let him keep the Ranger EV he >>managed to lease from them. Again, this sort of BS would never happen >>during WWII. Never. If we Americans are really at war, even if it is >>by some different definition of a "war" (and I'm not asking to debate >>whether those here think the war is just or correct.... only asking if >>it is really claimed to be on), then I'm not quite sure why we aren't >>bringing to bear all the actions that one takes in a war, such as fuel >>conservation, contributions and teamwork by everyone in the Country to >>to take part in some way, efforts to engage in International Diplomacy >>to do a better job of involving those who might be potential allies, >>etc. >> >>My working theory is that there is, in fact, an edict against any >>manufacturer allowing any real number of non-Petroleum-company-powered >>vehicles on the road, in the U.S. and perhaps elsehwere. ..... That >>we are, to some extent, the "United States of Oil". >> >>This theory is far from perfect, and more conspiratorial than I >>usually allow myself, but it sort of helps explain the various petty >>programs to rip the existing EVs from the fingers of those who want to >>keep them, the refusal to allow an EV-only mode on the Toyota Prius >>(as is apparently allowed in Japan), the lack of a more numerous >>market for diesels here, etc. I don't think all of this >>lack-of-consumer-choice-in-fuels, or in vehicles which use those >>alt-fuels which are available, is just an accident. I'm sure we'd >>hear many convincing explanations for these events in isolation (such >>as safety and legal reasons for Toyota's hybrid configuration and >>legal reasons for destroying cars) but I don't think these anti-demand >>actions, when piled together, are plausible to me as "must" happens >>for multi-billion-dollar companies which fight legal battles as or >>when they feel like it. Also, of course, we have the very quiet >>who-the-heck-can-figure-out-what's-going-on fact of an Oil company >>having a very strong financial and legal stake in the battery >>technology which is enabling the hybrids. >> >>I thought Doug's discussion of one of those vehicles, presently not >>allowed by the powers-that-be to make its way into consumer hands (or >>even to get much PR) was very worth my while. It was built, by the >>way, by the company that built that VW with a fossil-fuel-burning >>genset as a plug-in-hybrid. >> >> >>On Sun, 02 May 2004 12:17:11 +0200, you wrote: >> >> > >> >MM, >> > >> >The crash program in WWII, was gengas (producer gas) units and conversions. >> >It is likely that a new crash program would be the same, with gasification >> >from coal. A lot of the electricity production comes from oil and coal and >> >a rapid rise in electricity production is not possible in a crash >> >situation. When you loose the oil, will create a shortage in electricity >> also. >> > >> >With own oil for 10 years and NG for 7 years, coal for electricity >> >production and gengas as transport fuel, seems to be the only possible >> >route in a crash situation. Apart from reduction of energy use by rationing >> >program, which will result in a lot of forced energy saving measures. Thing >> >that will happen is a ban of using air conditioning, reduced >> >indoor temperatures in winter etc. Rationing on production and use of >> >certain materials in products, like aluminium etc. >> > >> >Hakan >> > >> >At 21:37 01/05/2004, you wrote: >> >>On Sat, 01 May 2004 12:24:45 -0700, Doug Korthof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >>Hi, >> >>Is it a time of "oil emergency" supposedly severe enough to >> >>justify environmental waivers and foreign wars? The need for >> >>oil is supposedly to keep our economy running, a national security >> >>issue. But is it really so? >> >> >> >>If it were a real emergency, as in WW-II, there would be a crash >> >>program of building Electric Cars. Mass production techniques >> >>would drive the cost of a 120 mile range EV down below $8000. >> >> >> >>But if it's really a way to avoid losing lives of our troops, >> >>and dis-entangling ourselves from the messy politics of the >> >>middle east, surely it would be cost-effective to give them away >> >>for free. >> >> >> >>Powering such an EV can be done with off-peak electric; for those >> >>in sunny climes, a crash program of solar rooftop electric will >> >>enable people to live COST FREE as well as (essentially) OIL-FREE. >> >> >> >>80% of our gasoline is expended on round trips from our homes of >> >>80 miles or less. If just half of those "runabout" cars were >> >>replaced with "national emergency" Electric Cars, we would >> >>NOT NEED TO IMPORT OVERSEAS OIL. That's right, domestic and >> >>other North American supplies would suffice. How many Electric >> >>Cars would this take? Let's say 30 million. At a cost of $240B, >> >>that would be less than this year's bill for blowing up Iraq, not >> >>to mention all the other troops and expenses that protect foreign >> >>oil and cater to the whims of oil dictators. >> >> >> >>Basically, an EV1 electric car using simple lead-acid recyclable >> >>batteries goes 110 miles on the energy equivalent of a half-gallon >> >>of gasoline. The average gas car travels about 10 miles on >> >>the same quantity of gasoline. >> >> >> >>Hence, we would cut our energy bill by 90% by going to EVs. >> >>It would be no smog, and no foreign wars. All we have to >> >>do is show the will, the national commitment. It is possible, >> >>even necessary, but without leadership, it won't happen. >> >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >>First day driving the ACPropulsion car >> >> >> >>The AC-150 is the name of the motor-controller-charger unit which is >> >>the heart of the EV. Just add batteries and ergonomic controls, and >> >>you have an EV that rocks! >> >> >> >>I am fortunate enough to be driving a vehicle made by >> >><<http://ACPropulsion.com.>http://ACPropulsion.com.>http://ACPropulsion. >> com. This "AC-150" (until it >> >>gets a name) is the >> >>successor vehicle to the EV1 and uses even more advanced technology. >> >> >> >>But it is not as polished as you would expect from a production >> >>vehicle, it's more like a drag racer. >> >> >> >>There are 8 "bars of power", and a hefty reserve under that. I am >> >>trying to coddle the new batteries, which are about half as good as >> >>the Panasonic lead-acid batteries on the old 1997 EV1. This car is >> >>almost like being thrown back in time to the 1997 EV1 with the >> >>allegedly defective Delco batteries, which had only 60-70 miles >> >>range. An EV is no better than its batteries, and GM seems to have >> >>sabotaged the original EV1. >> >> >> >>Restraint lasts only up to the freeway entrance, as a big pickup >> >>truck starts eating my extension cord. Of course, it disappears in >> >>the electron cloud as I crank up the power just a tiny bit, swooping >> >>onto the freeway. Not easy to restrain the power, when there is so >> >>much. But these first few outing are just for cycling the batteries. >> >> >> >>One of the neatest features is a slide control for the regenerative >> >>braking. Push it up, you are all coast; pull it down, you are 100% >> >>regen. This brings the car to a stop very fast, so you don't need >> >>much brake; on the other hand, don't pull your foot off the pedal >> >>too fast! Other neat features including variable charging and cruise >> >>control. >> >> >> >>On the 57 fwy north, wave and beep at a Prius "hybrid" in lane 3. >> >>For some reason, he is only going 55. We want to encourage people to >> >>associate Prius with electric car. Some day, the oil companies will >> >>allow hybrids that can be plugged in. Meanwhile, this is the same >> >>tactic, in reverse, that was used by the Oilies: they put out >> >>hybrids, and when people saw our EV1, they thought it was a hybrid! >> >>Because that's all that was permitted to be advertised! >> >> >> >>The greatest thing about this AC-150 is the similarity to the >> >>vanished EV1, although it is a tad heavier. Is that why GM is >> >>carefully destroying all the light-weight EV1 bodies in a mass >> >>grave somewhere? >> >> >> >>When GM destroyed ALL the EV1 they confiscated so far, they only >> >>pulled the batteries and tires. ALL the motors, controllers, and >> >>the light-weight, marvelously aerodynamic bodies were nibbled and >> >>destroyed. If they were interested in asset recovery, they would >> >>sell the parts for a profit, or let people buy the car for a >> >>souvenir: instead, they go to great lengths to make sure that all >> >>its parts are destroyed. >> >> >> >>At SCAQMD, one lone, scared EV1 was hunched over its charging >> >>cord, as if knowing that its days were numbered. >> >> >> >>A security guard came up and said, "...no one wants >> >>those, they don't make them any more...". I guess this copy would >> >>fetch $50,000 cash on the barrel head, if GM were not going to >> >>vindictively destroy it. I offered the guy $30k for the car, but he >> >>said he could not deliver it. Still, he'll probably continue to >> >>believe "nobody wants them". >> >> >> >>The fast charger yieds 4 bars of power (there are 8 total) in about >> >>20 minutes. The EV1 is limited to charging on the magnecharger. >> >>The "AC-150" can charge from the fast charging connector (50A) or >> >>the Avcon (29A) or normal 120 (29A). >> >> >> >>Making the transition to the 57 north, it was fun to swoop past a >> >>corvette, who shut down in despair. The AC-150 went about 60-65, >> >>with the cruise control, until the jam-up. >> >> >> >>We decide to head north to the source, AC Propulsion offices. I >> >>behave until hitting the 57 entrance on Sunset Crossing, zooming out >> >>in front of all slow traffic. This car reminds me of the EV1, when >> >>you always leave the pack in the dust. Even with the RAV4-EV, you >> >>can usually be in front. With this car, you can stay in front of >> >>any car, if you so choose, and not using too much power either. The >> >>slow mustang in front of me paused, confused by merging with a >> >>truck. Cars were crowding us, but the EV merged around it all, >> >>flowing smoothly into the lane 2 traffic pattern. >> >> >> >>Arriving at ACpropulsion with 3 bars of power (out of 8). Inside >> >>this building is the source of the most advanced EV technology in >> >>the world. No one can equal the power and convenience of the AC-150, >> >>which forms the heart of the EV, and certainly no once can equal its >> >>performance. They are rumored to be working on Lithium battery packs >> >>that contain almost 5 times the juice of the car I am driving, and >> >>weighs only half as much as the 28 cruddy batteries that are in it >> >>now. What performance this car would have, with that kind of >> >>batteries! ACP is also supposed to be converting a Scion to an EV. I >> >>wonder how much they have to cut out, where they put the batteries, >> >>how they hook it up to the transaxle. I hear the Scion transaxle is >> >>the transmission, so it probably takes some engineering. >> >> >> >>Then there is the legendary T-Zero. With the latest version of the >> >>AC-150 (reputedly called "gen II") and new batteries, it goes 0 to >> >>60 in 3.6 seconds and goes up to 300 miles on a charge. >> >> >> >>Total trip was 90 miles, using appx. 13-14 bars of power. This means >> >>about 6-7 miles per bar, or a range of 48-56 miles for the 8 bars of >> >>power on the dash. In addition, there is a big reserve, but I am >> >>keeping the batteries mostly full during the break-in period, and >> >>this was just the first freeway excursion. >> >> >> >><<http://ev1.org/ac150>http://ev1.org/ac150>http://ev1.org/ac150 for >> pictures >> >> >> >>first posted to >> >><<http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/electric_vehicles_for_sale>http:// >> autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/electric_vehicles_for_sale>http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/electric_vehicles_for_sale >> >> >> >> >> >>You are receiving this email as 301 of 595 >> >> >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>This information concerns preserving the clean air act, >> >>the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, cleaning up our >> >>oil-soaked environment and exposing the hidden cost of gasoline. >> >>If you are not interested, or wish to be removed, please send >> >>the following: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>Or send any mail to <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asking >> >>to remove , number 301. >> >>Join the Yahoo group promoting EVs >> >><<http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/electric_vehicles_for_sale/>http:/ >> /autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/electric_vehicles_for_sale/>http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/electric_vehicles_for_sale/ >> >>GM should revive the EV1, not throw away an avid fan club of that car >> > > > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
