|
Respectfully, I
think you are caught up in surface thinking...
Unfortunately
the "all-electric" economy is no better than an ICE economy.
That is the dirty little secret all the greenies are content to turn a blind eye
to. Until we start tapping less polluting sources of electric generation
for the grid we are all just fooling ourselves. The end-to-end cleanest
transportation technology available today is high efficiency hybrid ICE/electric
systems.... now if those 30% efficient solar cells someone here posted about a
couple days ago are real and mass producible we may have a new winning
combo.
That's just
looking at the electric side... what do we do with all those toxic dead
batteries that will generated as they are regularly replaced??? It's
like the paper recycling lie... reprocessing paper generates a tremendous amount
of unnecessary toxic water and air pollution. It would be far "greener" if
someone used it as feed stock for a biomass plant instead...
Same kind of lie as the polystyrene big-mac containers... EPS can be
recycled/reused, the film coated corrugated packaging they switched to is
not.
" Batteries in all-electric
vehicles must be externally recharged. (Hybrid gasoline/electric vehicles
continuously recharge the batteries during normal operation of the vehicle. Although hybrid vehicles are not ZEVs,
they are an extremely efficient use of gasoline-derived energy.) Usually lead-acid batteries in electric
vehicles are connected to a charger that plugs into an ordinary source of 110-V
electricity. A complete analysis of
how "clean" an electric vehicle is would have to take into account the emissions
produced by electric companies to generate the electricity used in
recharging. As discussed above,
emissions from electricity production depend on the method used to generate
electricity and vary from one region of the country to another. In parts of the midwest where
high-nitrogen-content fuel is burned to generate electricity (see Box 2), the
benefits of electric vehicles are debatable."
"Electricity production has enormous local and
global effects on the environment and human health. The burning of fossil fuels
to produce electricity is the nation's largest source of air pollution. Power
plant emissions contribute to respiratory illnesses, such as asthma, bronchitis,
emphysema and cancer. The air pollutants also are a major factor in the
destruction of forests and lakes due to acid rain. And fossil fuel combustion is
the principal source of greenhouse gases that are the cause of global climate
change. Generating electricity with nuclear power produces radioactive waste
that must be isolated from the environment for tens of thousands of
years."
"At present, for
the vast majority of the country, neither electric vehicles or comparable
gasoline-powered vehicles holds a solid advantage over the other in cleanliness.
This balance will probably not change any time in the near future as the problem
with electric vehicles is not inherent to them, but rather to the means by which
we generate our electricity. Although electric vehicles offer some compelling
advantages over internal combustion engine vehicles in terms of pollution
management, the real advantage of electric vehicles lies in the future when more
electricity is produced from cleaner sources."
-john
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 11:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Finally, a real FC vehicle? It is about time for an ecologically sound transportation vehicle to hit
the market in mass production. The Prius was a giant step, but even at 50+ mpg
it still burns way too much gasoline for some eco-conscious consumer/commuters
(yes, although a distinct minority, there are a few out there, even in the
culture of super-size-it, SUV-loving, multi-polluting, cell-phone-bonded,
natural-resource guzzlers.)
This slick 2-wheeler is coming out soon - not in 2005,
unfortunately -
but they claim to be tooling up the factory now (have we heard that
before?):
there are many other sites with more detail.
The good news:
1) They are tooling up for a 2006 introduction
2) It is not a cheesy slapped-together kludge
3) It is well-thought out and looks great
4) 150 mile range
5) plenty of speed
6) Longer battery life - Deep discharge cycles minimized by the fuel cell
"trickle"
7) emission free (except for the remote power plant supplying the
grid)
The "not clear" news (potentially bad)
1) the fuel cell is the Protonex NGen 500 watt fuel cell system with
Vectrix's high performance battery-powered electric maxi-scooter. The fuel cell
is said to double the range of the scooter. But 500 watts ??? That is not
much more than a human can deliver by peddling and this vehicle is
comparatively heavy. Is there a huge advantage over an improved electric bike
(Wavecrest, etc) ?
2) projected cost is high; will probably be $10 k when delivered
3) Where are you going to refuel with H2?
The bad news
1) Not all-weather
2) Should be a methanol FC (or have a reformer) instead of H2 for
flexibility
3) Cost
4) Cost
5) Cost
The fuel cell / electric hybrid configuration does provide synergy by using
the best aspects of the individual technologies. The battery pack provides most
of the power while the fuel cell provides a continuous "trickle charge" to keep
the batteries "topped-off", greatly extending the range of the scooter (and
battery life). The fuel cell shuts down automatically when the battery pack is
charged and operates at only its optimum efficiency. Fuel cells are not nearly
as efficient when stressed to the max. When you stop at a traffic light the
batteries keep getting charged, etc. There is also regeneration from
braking.
All-in-all, the most apt summation that one can provide for this product is *long overdue* but... ... from the perspective of someone who would like have the option of
pedaling...after all, if it is going to be used in good weather only, why
not pedal when you get the urge?... it would be great to see a souped
up combination of the Wavecrest or other nicely designed electric bicycle with
this:
which looks a little kludgey.
Although Keith may be partially correct that most Americans do not give a
damn about energy efficiency or ecology, as long as they can afford the cost of
polluting, I think that is an overstatement. Perhaps 10 to 20 percent of
all commuters, maybe more, do care. Many are even activists- if you don't
believe that, try driving in SF on the designated bike days - even the cabs
go nowhere.
This all is indicative of a neglected market worth pursuing, as the success
of the Prius has stunned Detroit. (some would say the success is modest, but it
is the *trend* which is important - with 6 month waiting lists in Cal,
it is said to be the only such auto with a "real" waiting list since
the Miyata).
...but if the transportation option you propose to introduce is going
to be basically a "fair weather" option, then it cannot cost $10 K, because it
will never be suitable for the only vehicle which one must own. Almost
every younger "aware" person that you hear expressing opinions in new groups,
seems to agree that they would spend a few thousand for a fair-weather
transportation, hybrid-battery option (with a fuel-cell for extended mileage),
battery power for hills, ALSO self-powered capability - but ... if there is no
H2 readily available for convenient refills, then it MUST be a methanol or other
liquid fuel option. These Vetrix guys must have missed 'Marketing 101'.
BTW this company PalCan just opened a new plant in China, so don't be
surprised to see a Canadian designed, Chinese built triple-hybrid bicycle
(battery, methanol fuel-cell, human power).
This might be the first real test in the transportation marketplace to see
how adept and quick the Chinese are at identifying markets, and getting there
the "first-est with the most-est"... What nation on earth needs this kind of
product more than China - for their own people?
Jones
|
- RE: Finally, a real FC vehicle? John Steck
- RE: Finally, a real FC vehicle? Jones Beene
