Tesla Founders Blog

I agree with everything you’ve stated Martin. But I would add that the Auto and Petroleum industries have acted like the Tobacco companies for way too many years now. I think they knew that what they were doing was ultimately bad for the planet, and for the USA, bad for our economic health as well, but they did not and still are not facing up to the climate and social concerns that burning fossel fuel brings about. They have stiffled alternatives for years because of their big hammer ability to kill or delay new technologies. They had to be drug, kicking and screaming, into higher CAFE standards and safety features even within their own technology .

So, should we give them the loan guarantees, yes, but the leaders of these companies need to be replaced by others out there who can drive the revamped companies to new solutions for transportation. I don’t know where you find these new leaders, but they are probably somewhere buried in the company’s research structures.

Ford Fusion? Sounds like a good name for an EV company… .

Seriously though Martin, your point is well made, and well taken. The collapse of the US auto industry would have a severe, and possibly long-term, impact on the average North American family, perhaps more so than the collapse of several Wall St. banks and insurance companies. As you pointed out, one of the core problems is the current cost of health care in the US. One of the reasons why the D3 shifted so much production to Ontario was because workers here are already covered by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). Although the automakers provided additional health care coverage, they still saved a fortune in health care costs. Universal, single payer health care coverage should be the highest priority for all Americans. The scare-mongers from the HMOs and the insurance companies will tell everybody that it’s too expensive, but the truth is, on a societal level, it’s the cheapest, most efficient way to deliver good quality health care for the greatest number of people. The government doesn’t tell you which doctor you have to see, or which hospital you have to go to, it just pays the bill. You never know how much the bill was, in fact, most Canadians have probably forgotten that there IS a bill for health care services. My point is, fixing health care in America would go a long way to fixing other problems, including the D3.

Despite some of my predictions and warnings in the recent past, of the precarious state of the D3, I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of average Americans (or Canadians), or of the US as a whole, if these companies collapsed. Many jobs would be lost, and instead of paying income taxes, the people affected would instead be drawing unemployment benefits. This would not be good for a country that is already burdened by unprecedented national debt.

The real problem is that even when the D3 receive these loan guarantees (and they will), they will still end up laying off tens of thousands of workers & moving production to lower cost labor markets, because it’s the only way they can escape the onerous demands of the UAW and become competitive again. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that unions are bad, but when they become too powerful they can end up killing the golden goose.

The most likely scenario that I see is that these companies will end up being restructured. Brands & subsidiaries will be sold off, product lines will be trimmed, and unfortunately, lots of people will lose their jobs. The “bailout” will come, but there will be lots of conditions. attached.

I want to applaud Martin in the work he has done with Tesla. It has been awhile since ive posted here, but i am an auto enthusiest who is very concerned with the Detroit 3. Detroit should have continued the EV1 program in the 90’s. Maybe if the had done just that and developed the car fully GM would not be in the place it is now, and America wouldnt have to spend 40 grand for a semi eletric..GM was massively stupid to let EV go. My question for Martin is, how much of the EV1 was benched marked for Tesla? Or was the TZERO more of the car that was looked at, i think Martin has mentioned this before.

Many Thanks, Francisco

Martin sez:

Both the EV-1 and the tZero contained lessons for us at Tesla – the EV-1 because it was the best production EV ever made, and the tZero because it was one of the first high-performance EVs on the road, though certainly not ready for production. Both used AC induction motors, as does the Tesla.

When Martin said that he had not bought an American car lately, what he failed to mention is that we hold on to our cars for a long time. Our oldest is a 1942 Ford Jeep (this car was originally Martin’s grandfather’s, so this car has been in the family a LONG time). Other vehicles that we purchased new include a 1997 BMW, 2000 4Runner, 2005 Mazda (purchased only because the kids would no longer fit in the back of the Audi TT), and of course the Tesla.

3 Musketeers? Marie Antoinettes? Cartel?

Instead of loaning/giving money to big3, could we give rush incentives to consumers to go out and buy those new American cars languishing on the lots? (e.g.: special, substantial tax credit if you buy a US made car that gets more than 30MPG?)

Need to shrink, but can’t?

“Who Killed Detroit?”

Do we think another year will really make a difference?

Martin, thanks for linking that WP article by Daniel Lyons, interesting quotes from you and Musk there indeed. I’m wondering about the solution for the coolant pump consumption issue as they claim this will be solved shortly. Is it just a software tweak issue or it includes some hardware overhaul as well or combination of both afterall? If I’m not mistaken I’ve seen figures as 150Wh needed for the coolant thingy, which is not that bad for ~53kWh batt. pack..

Martin, unfortunately I left Germany almost 40 years before my retirement age so I can’t speak of this first hand, but a quick web search suggests that retirees in Germany have to pay for their health insurance out of their (state) pension. I’m pretty sure that the employer is only liable for their part of the contributions during the actual time of employment, not during retirement.

p.s. Since you don’t yet own an American car, I’d suggest the Cadillac CTS-V series, recently named by Edmunds to be the best sports sedan in the entire world, beating all German competitors.

Martin sez:

o 1968 Ford LTD (302 cid)
o 1966 Ford Mustang (302 cid)
o 1975 Chevrolet Caprice Classic (350 cid)
o 1985 Pontiac Fiero (V6) (my first new car)
o 1970 Lincoln Mark III (460 cid)
o 1964 Ford F-100 (292 cid)
o 1989 Ford Crown Victoria (302 cid) (new)
o 1942 Ford GPW (134 cid) (which I still own)
o 1966 Bowen McLaughlin/York M274A4 (42 cid) (which I still own)
o 2008 Tesla Roadster

Yes the US automakers made more profit on the big SUVs but they should have also made at least one version of a super economy (electric) vehicle at the same time. That would show foresight. The stockholder could be convinced that this ongoing experiment is future worthy. The Prius is an example of this type of thinking. I’m for giving them a bailout but there must be strings. We have wanted them to build fuel saving cars for a long time and they would only do it when it was mandated. Since nothing gets done until they are forced-to, now the bailouts should include a REQUIREMENT for automakers to have an electric car line. In fact if you want to sell cars in the US you have to have to offer an electric car. No excuses and it shuts up the investors. Marketing for the line needs to be commensurate as well. We all know that they can sell us anything if they try. The hype around the Volt is an example of that. We have them over a barrel and should get what we want.

Cagey, Martin does own an American car. It’s Electric.

This is a clear display of a blatant lack of fundamental economic understanding. Welfare is welfare, and will always have the same consequences. Martin claims that 34 billion is a drop in the bucket. Who is to say the auto makers won’t be back for more? Bankruptcy was created so that investors and workers would not lose everything suddenly. The big 3 will be bought, divvied up, and revived in one form or another. The UAW will restructure it’s expectations for pay (or dissolve entirely). Life will move on. Part manufacturers will sell to expanded foreign operations. Particularly valuable designs (the volt) can be sold off and make their way to market if the merits of the design warrant it.

And no, Martin does not avoid criticism for helping bankrupt the big 3 when he bought a Tesla. He did not buy a GM, Chrysler, or Ford, the companies he claims are necessary to America, for 20 years. He was just as big a part of their destruction.

On a side note: I can’t stand those their rail against foreign subsidies. Think about what a subsidy is. Foreign governments are taxing their people to give us a product at a greatly reduced price. We should be gobbling up as much quality subsidized cars as we can. In the long run it will be those governments and nations with money problems.

A lack of tariffs between the states is the number one reason America grew into the economic powerhouse it was. There were few places on earth with such a large area that people were free to trade and exert a comparative advantage to the benefit of everyone. From the orange growers in Florida, to the automakers in Michigan, everywhere in America has a comparative advantage in one industry or another and in time has led to the strongest economy in the world. By Martin’s argument we should pass tariffs on products from states that already have some kind of government monopolized/subsidized/marginalized health care system. We already see how expensive health care is for these companies, why pass that burden onto the average American? Simply ridiculous suggestions and fundamental notions.

P.S. re. Ford Fusion quality, my brother has worked as an auto salesman now and then (for Toyota and Ford, and Hyundai earlier, I think), since he retired early. Earlier this year he bought a Fusion- says it’s a nice car except for engine noise being a little notcieable. He also has a Hyundai Elantra (his wife uses to commute)-which he really likes. He said that at Toyota they sold a heck of a lot of Camrys. I said that, for the money, Hyundais in general looked really good compared to Japanese cars- he agreed, but said that Toyotas had “brand name cachet” and so also resale value-that being the reason they sold so well vs. Hyundai and Ford (especially). With “quality and design, inside and out” anyone could pull equal to or knock Toyota off the top of the hill. I don’t see Toyota having stand out “breaking away from the pack” design happening, overall-for me, at least.

Mayors Reed, Newsom oppose tech fund use for automakers’ bailout

BREAKING: Automakers to get $15 billion in federal loans

Martin, isn’t it a bit easy to say it’s all due to the financial sector? seems to me that GM has been working on a glass jaw for a long time with the main reason being the bizarre mafia like UAW contracts where they pay for twice as many people than work for them. a monster burden. then you could argue that they would also be less vulnerable if they hadn’t fought carb but embraced it. series hybrid and lighter cars have been possible for quite a while and plugin hybrids have been possible since at least their Ovonic NIMH tech even without them developing anything. imagine if they had put their weight behind progress 40 years ago instead of against it. seems to me that the financial crisis has very little to do with it. just the triggering last straw.

what if you offered your services to Obama in starting a small radical gov funded automaker along the lines of Aptera and Loremo. a whole new breed of vehicles that the obtuse big 3 would never envision on their own. especially the inline2 or tandem like this concept draft:
http://www.zev.dk/design/Freeranger-v2-03.jpg
which you might observe has the same people and cargo capacity as the Tesla Roadster yet so light and aerodynamic that it can be largely free to drive it

Martin sez:

I am also saying that this current crisis – the immediate problem right this moment – is not the fault of Detroit. So this is not the time to decide to chuck America’s auto manufacturing core.

Martin:

I can agree with most everything you have stated, but with some caveats. Yes, no question that the sins of Detroit pale in comparison to those on Wall Street. Thanks to the latter cosa nostra, I am now forced to bury any hope of early retirement –if not retirement someday, period.

Nonetheless, the other evening while pondering the situation, I had to ask myself exactly why we refer to those in Detroit as “domestic” auto makers. Because the companies originated in this country? Because their presidents and CEOs hold U.S. passports? Don’t all the Big 3 (”Big 2.2″) now have factories –and employees– throughout the world?

By the same token, the so-called “foreign” car companies now have numerous plants in this country, employing tens of thousands of American workers, in almost all cases earning as much, if not more, than those in the UAW. For example, your 1997 BMW was made in Spartansburg, South Carolina. Our Subaru Outback was made in Lafayette, Indiana. Are they really and truly “foreign” cars then?

Obviously, those companies, and their American workers, are also facing the same economic crisis. I have to wonder: why are they not up on capitol hill also, knocking on congress’s door with hat-in-hand? I suppose that the short answer is that they are probably already getting bailouts in their “home” countries (Japan, Germany?). Yet somehow… I doubt that said money is being shipped overseas to these U.S. plants and employees. I might be wrong about that, but I doubt it.

At any rate, should the Detroit head honchos be bailed out with our tax dollars? Well, since we’re bailing out Wall Street (the real culprits), I suppose it would be hypocritical not to also lend a hand to Detroit. Nonetheless, although I can shrug off Ford and Chrysler, were I a congressman I would insist upon a long list of conditions for GM.

To begin with, I would demand answers to several key questions, with concrete evidence to back up those answers:

* How much did Texaco/Chevron pay GM for the NiMH patents?

* What stipulations beyond mere cash-for-NiMH did GM agree to in that contract?

* Why didn’t GM sell at least a few hundred EV1s to those interested buyers, and set aside the hundreds more for parts and repairs while they lasted? Why did GM crush all of them instead? If Toyota could do that with the RAV4-EV, why couldn’t GM?

* Why did GM gut the few EV1s donated to museums or universities, rather than leaving them intact and in running order?

* Where is the study, survey, questionnaire, customer feedback data that substantiates GM’s broken record claim that there was “no customer demand” for the EV1?

I would also insist on this condition (probably more!):

* GM must also develop and sell to the public a pure EV model of the Volt, in which the gasoline generator is substituted with a larger battery pack sufficient to take the vehicle at least 125 miles per charge. (In essence, this isn’t much different than selling a car with either a 4- or 6- or 8-cylinder ICE. Yes, the EV version will likely cost more than the PHEV version, at least until mass production lowers the price of lithium, but that’s tough frijoles: they need to put them BOTH in the showrooms and let the consumer decide.)

And… if I were on the board of Plug-In America, I would only let GM march with us in the inaugural parade if they agreed to borrow back the EV1 in the Smithsonian, restored it to pristine running condition, and drive it at the front of our procession.

Yes… I am still fuming about the EV1. And I just don’t think that GM should get a dime of public money while still lying to said public about that debacle. Time to ‘fess up.

Martin sez:

Maybe we need an open-source project to craft the GM bailout program

Re. the Detroit bailout conditions- congress didn’t put any conditions on bailing out Wall St. firms like AIG-even though their management was “GM -like” for years also-and the same goes for the ” GM -like management” of congress and the Fed Reserve. I read somewhere that there has been a war going on for years at GM between the progressive people (as in engineers and designers) and the bean counters. The article said that everyone running Detroit for years has come from a financial background. Instead of “doing the right thing”, pushing into the future, etc. -and banking on it paying off in the long run- they looked at how to make profits in the mid & short run, with “the future, progress, pride in product, etc.” being expendable .This is the exact same problem with congress: the war between progressive members and “the staus quo, short-term vision, ‘lobbyist- feed -trough -using’ hicks”. Result: Detroit moves in fits and starts, and much of the whole country moves in fits and starts-now being the “fit” phase (mother of all version). Jimmy Carter was jumping all over green tech. until OPEC lowered oil prices and stopped the embargo-whereby the bean counters reigned supreme again . The whole country (minus Silicon Valley and other similar bright spots) has the mentality of financial guys and lawyers, namely: what’s in it for me, now-and what’s in my best interest/my client’s best interest-now-and to heck with any other consideration-because “other considerations” have nothing to do with “my client”, so they are hypothetical and are for chumps and suckers (this also includes avg. people racking up big credit card debt and getting stuck in stupid mortgages)-yeah, the problem is everywhere-like roaches. So: CEO’s pay themselves “thru the roof” pay, the UAW sez “look at that, will you !?”-and go for everything they can get, so as not to be suckers-and Detroit sends in the lawyers to keep MPG standards low (till halibut freezes over and the north pole melts), and to sue Calif. – Pelosi should say “you want money?- drop your stupid suit” (though with Obama in , it would be as dead as a dodo anyway). From what I know of the demise of the english auto industry, it was caused by total “high class bean counters” at the top and total “us against them, what’s my take ?” attitude from the low class autoworkers (per english class system M.O.)- so that the good guys, like Donald Healey (an engineer- like Mr. Honda) didn’t stand a chance, in the long run-which was what he was trying to look at. His last Austin Healey design (which never got built, except for one prototype-since British Leyland, who owned Austin, I believe, didn’t fund it- there was more profit to be had in trucks and busses, the bean counters said) was a larger, wider version of the 3000 model,with 2 small back seats, per Porsche), and designed specifically for the U.S. market- having a plusher interior pitched to U.S. tastes. Instead, the Japanese got the U.S. market (with cars like the Datsun 240Z). So, in addition to the above “what’s wrong with the MO. of this country” there is another, sinister, element: flat out conning and lying, via all the lobbyist p.r.-and per the whole halibutin’ Bush admin. from top to bottom. You see it also in newspaper editorials and columnist articles-because “maybe” the papers have some big advertisers who wants lies perpetuated. I just read a columnist article that said that Obama’s green push was a sham-the tech. isn’t there yet, so it would be inefficient, etc. The column (by Rich Lowry of “The National Review”) was titled: “Barack Obama’s Code Green Economy”, with subtitle: “Don’t buy the hype about alternative energy and job creation”. This guy says, in part: Jimmy Carter launched a kind of “green jobs” program a full decade ago …. that was an embarrassing bust” . Incredible-no doubt this liar full well knows that the tech. in those days, in many areas, couldn’t hold a candle to what’s out there now-and what’s coming fast. He mentioned wind power and bio-fuels, and the “smart” elect. grid- but not a peep from this guy re. solar or geothermal-and “we know why”. Incredible. JFK had his famous” Ask not… ” line. Now this country is riddled with cynical, calculating liars and mis-informers-who are ONLY asking “what can I do to push my vested interests at all costs, and using any con I can pull,if required, by the way ?” -spoken like a true bean counter/lawyer. So: there (above) is the trouble with this country in a nutshell. Now millions of totally “innocent bystander, non-lawyer-like” people the world over are getting clobbered because we in the U.S.- and elsewhere- suffer these lawyer-esque fools and their mentality gladly.

Senator calls for GM head to step down…

The headline on the story I linked above has been changed and the story watered down. I guess they changed their minds and didn’t want it to be quite so pointed. It still talks about a call for mgmt changes at GM though.

I wanted to ask the other people on this blog, and as well as Martin, if anyone thinks that americas current grid system can withstand millions of plugin electrics? i remember back a few summers ago when the whole northeast corridor was black cause of some sort of summer overusage. Also one of the “experts” asked to testify on capital hill for the bailout, the first round, said that the grid could not withstand more then 1,000,000 electric vehicles. Can America withstand the probably onslaught of plug in electrics without being put into the dark?

Martin sez:

This would be a high-class problem: investing in the grid infrastructure because 40% of us are no longer burning gasoline would be an excellent way for us to invest in the future!

I stand corrected (been a long time since last heard): it’s “why,why,why,why-welcome to the working week”-though in terms of college grads now (and hundreds of thousands of others) I prefer welcome to the (non-) working world. Seemed like 20 seconds, but it’s 1:29 (per You Tube). Some apropos lyrics to the current Rat Race Recession times. Elvis also begs to dream and differ from the hollow lies.

Yanquetino, thanks for your comments about reasons for hydrogen fuel cell development. Here’s a link about some of the CARB events, notably the role of that repulsive little weasel and former CARB chairman, Alan Lloyd, who was also chairman of the California Fuel Cell Partnership. It’s pretty obvious that he was bought off by powerful interests.

http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=690&first=7971&end=7970

Some more about those events is in this link (while it lasts) to a movie:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=+%22who+killed+the+electric+car%22+site%3Avideo.google.com&__q=&btnG=Search+Videos&lr=&dur=3&st=&dis_ft=&so=0&num=100#hl=en&q=%20%22who%20killed%20the%20electric%20car%22%20site%3Avideo.google.com&__q=&btnG=Search%20Videos&lr=&dur=3&st=&dis_ft=&so=0&num=100&filter=0&start=0

I had to wince when I read “these gas guzzlers are as much the fault of the people who bought them as they are the fault of the manufacturer.” SUVs were presented in that text as an either/or propostion along with the EV1 program, although it would have been possible to continue selling both. And then I read that GM shut down the EV-1 program because the car might suggest to customers that “…the highly profitable SUV is a bad idea.”

The people who bought them deserved a little less blame if GM crushed millions of dollars worth of perfectly good cars just to deprive the SUV customers of possibly stumbling onto knowledge about alternatives.

I intended to bite my tongue, however, until I read that CARB and the ZEV mandate were the reason for fuel cell development. And then that the main thing to mention about crushing the EV-1 was that it was a ill-considered PR move. We also got about five more years and counting of doing nearly nothing about the severe public health problems of smog, about global climate change, about peak oil, about national security concerns related to oil, about the economic disasters of huge oil consumption and the middle east involvement.

There are not many ways of making an even remotely practical Zero Emissions Vehicle. Since the car companies were dead set against making EVs in quantity (probably mostly because they didn’t foresee much or any profit any time soon. They were shocked when Prius was a huge success), they lied about their practicality and lied about the demand for them. To offer an alternative, they then they lied their heads off about the promise of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in the near future. That was the only alternative ZEV that was at all plausible.

“… a classic example of why government should not mandate any particular technology, but should instead mandate outcomes.” I’m thinking of seat belts and air bags.

Martin sez:

And please don’t bite your tongue – your thoughtful comments are always welcome in the debates here.

No argument from me that the government shouldn’t MANDATE a particular solution, but I do feel that the government should fund many different alternatives, because one solution will not fit all needs.

For instance, the hydraulic energy storage systems that Eaton and Peterbuilt offer for large vehicles, like garbage and delivery trucks, are far more COST efficient, than batteries will ever be for those vehicle applications. Likewise, long haul vehicles – cargo ships, trains and tractor / trailers – would be able to go very long distances without carrying around tons upon tons of batteries, but instead, carry very light and very small 700 bar hydrogen tanks.

I do believe that hydrogen fuel cells will most likely be used in trucking, so a hydrogen infrastructure would be COST efficient for that application. It may not be the most ENERGY efficient, but it would be the most COST efficient.

Speaking of MANDATES, how do you feel about the government demanding the automakers give up their right to sue CA and other states over tougher air quality standards than imposed by the EPA, in return for the bailout money? To me, firstly, the Congress extorting companies to give up their rights should result in Congressmen being impeached. Secondly, if you don’t hold auto companies to a single national standard, the major automakers will certainly be forced to charge much higher prices, but more likely go out of business. Thirdly, consumers aren’t being made aware of the financial impacts of these proposals, and therefore aren’t allowed to vote on it. Dems still can’t see how fragile our economy is.

Martin sez:

Regarding giving up rights – I don’t think it is at all unreasonable to require companies to give up rights in exchange for a large financial bailout. Not at all. It is, after all, a free country: the companies are more than free to decline the bailout.

Certainly, CARB’s function is grandfathered in – I am not disputing its legality. The question really is, OK, now that the EPA is in existence, and the 2007 CAFE standards moved a long way towards giving CA and the rest of the country far more efficient vehicles, as they had wanted, why load on more restrictions that apply only to certain markets? I don’t believe the rest of the country should have to pay higher prices for vehicles, because of legislation passed in CA (and a few other states).

Regardless, given the current economic / financial circumstances, I would be very surprised if Obama changed Bush’s current policy of giving the automakers a waiver from those CA laws – it would simply kill their businesses, as they are already suffering.

Martin sez:

So this somewhat odd system of CARB and the EPA has worked to help make cars cleaner.

Japan just announced it’s joining the “Better Place” project and putting in EV charging stations. So far Australia, Israel, Denmark, Hawaii and San Fran, have also joined “Better Place”. The Better Place deal seems especially good for fleet car use (govt. and otherwise) AND for urban rental cars. Instead of filling up the tank with gas before returning the rental car, you charge up with cheaper electricity-and pocket the savings. So now why don’t other U.S. cities (or whole states, per Hawaii) take off their blinders and get with it ?

Wikipedia has article on the movie “Who killed the Elect. Car” mentioning the 5 things bogus with hydrogen-they also say that with Li-Ion batteries the EV-1 range would have been 300 miles-wonder how many batteries (do they mean the same size battery area ?) and what cost ? EV-1 had a great low drag CD, no ?-has to beat open roofed Tesla Roadster. If a GM Volt sized Li-ion battery pack were put in the low drag (and light weight ?) EV-1, I wonder what the range would be ?

# Martin wrote:
## The trouble with true V2G is that it costs too much: the wear and tear on the batteries makes the electricity that washes through a vehicle’s battery too expensive.

Yes, good point for 500 cycle Li-Ions, but maybe something with much higher cycle life will emerge and change the equation. Will Eestor ever produce a real ultracap product? Imagine if we got millions of cycles. If not that then maybe some of those nanotech anode/cathode improvements and chemistry improvements on lithium to get the cycle life in the high thousands.

Martin sez:

As far as I can tell, the whole eestore thing is/was a scam. I have yet to see one single ultracap that has energy density even close to their claims.

# Martin wrote:
## As far as I can tell, the whole eestore thing is/was a scam. I have yet to see one single ultracap that has energy density even close to their claims.

That is TERRIBLY disappointing. ( Whatof the Zenn highway? )

Is Austin turning into some alt energy scam center?

Martin sed:

As far as I can tell, the whole eestore thing is/was a scam. I have yet to see one single ultracap that has energy density even close to their claims.

————————————————

I suspect that you’re right, Martin. According to what information I have been able to glean, something smells mighty rotten with that supposed “game-changer” from EEStor.

The CEO of ZENN, Ian Clifford, clearly announced in the stockholders’ meeting last March 28 that “EEStor has publicly committed to commercialization in 2008 and their first production line will be used to supply ZENN Motor Company.”

A little over a month ago, nervous stockholders inquired if said timeline was still on track, and ZENN’s customer relations rep, Catherine Scrimgeour, wrote on October 27 (scroll down to post #26 on this forum topic: “We remain confident in EEStor’s stated ability to deliver a production prototype in 2008.”

However, just five days ago, at ReportonBusiness.com, Ian Clifford was asked point-blank “if EESTOR will still deliver their product to Zenn by the end of this year. Can you confirm this?”

His reply? “The timeline for the delivery of an EESU is entire[ly] within the purview of EEStor and as such I cannot comment on delivery timelines.”

Whoa…! Well, he most certainly DID comment on delivery timelines way back in March. Yet NOW he “cannot comment”??? Yow! Anybody see the writing on the wall with such sidestepping and backsliding? It sure sounds to me like he has recently had a very… uh… “strained” telephone conversation with Dick Weir.

Also in that March 28 stockholders’ meeting, when asked about alternative plans, should EEStor not deliver, Clifford stated this:

First of all, I will restate that we are really very pleased with the progress that EEStor has been making and are confident in their end solution. But we’re not naive to timing difficulties as a possibility, or theoretically the chance that they cannot achieve what they state, even though they are as close as they are. So for the low-speed vehicle market space, that does not require an EEStor solution, it brings certain advantages, but it is not a requirement, and for the cityZENN application we can certainly –and will, if necessary– introduce the cityZENN vehicle in the same timeline with alternative battery technologies, albeit with a lessened range capability, which is one of the key benefits that EEStor brings –amongst others. And there are advances being made in the lithium-ion world, and others, that will allow us to, and we’re very cognizant of what those are and continually track and research –both for competitive reasons and also from possible backup reasons– what those technologies are. So we will be in the market, with both low-speed and highway-capable vehicles, with or without EEStor, but we certainly hope and expect to be with EEStor.”

And he also reported under the “cityZENN status” that “ZMC is in the advanced stage of negotiations with several OEMs for new, suitable host vehicles.”

Yet in ZENN’s latest newsletter (October 25, 2008), he reported that ZENN’s participation in the “Eco Clean Car Fair ’08 on November 7-9 in Nagoya, Japan” will allow ZENN “to further establish the Company’s relationship with prospective Japanese OEM partners.”

What…?!!! I thought they were “in the advanced stage of negotiations” way last March! Yet they still haven’t finalized an agreement with any OEM to provide the gliders for the cityZENN?! Maybe I don’t understand the definition of “advanced”…?

I am no manufacturing expert, but it seems to me that, if they don’t already have an OEM lined up, it will be extremely difficult to produce the cityZENN by fall 2009, as stated in the stockholders meeting –with or without EEStor.

It is really too bad, because Clifford actually strikes me as a really nice guy, perhaps… too nice: the very kind of trusting individual whom scam artists like to target. I get the sneaking suspicion that it is now starting to dawn on him that he has EGGstor all over his face.

Martin sez:

I’m afraid that ZENN was a victim of wishful thinking – one of the most common pitfalls for entrepreneurs, even more so when they are on a mission.

Re: V2G debate

Certainly, using today’s very expensive EV batteries for renewable energy storage is not a cost effective solution but it probably will be some day so planning for that eventuality would be prudent. There are other forms of V2G that are very cost effective today. One being load shedding to avoid grid overload problems. The other being load balancing (?) as an emergency solution to stabalize the grid. If the northeast had 50,000 EV’s plugged at the time of the blackout, it could have been avoided altogether. Neither of these V2G solutions threaten the battery life. With the technology in place for these solutions, then renewable energy storage will be easy to implement when the costs are in line. Project Better Place has a unique opportunity to capatilize on this opportunity.

Martin sez:

To martin and anyone who wants to chime in. With the Volt, and Prius, it seems to me and including Tesla that the batteries at current will last and im not sure exactly, but around 100,000 miles. In southern california where i live, people like to drive and drive alot. So what i was wondering is that in 10 years time when a prius and other mild and full hybrids, including the Volt, who will want to pay the total resale+ value for a new battery when their car will be worth half if not a fraction of the cost of a new battery? Doesn’t seem worth it to me, if a batter will cost almost 10,000 when a 4 -7 year old Prius will be worth maybe half that. Why would anyone in this downtrodden economy knowing they will shell out more then what their car will be worth in the future, buy a plug in , or hybrid? …i can see the benifit though of a plug in espically in very cold climates, and places where people would not use their car as much, and extend the life of the battery pack.

Thanks Alot, Martin, and Everyone.

Anatoly had an idea for algae fuel plants (in a post a long time ago, on a Tesla Motors website far, far away): using fiber optic cables to get light below the surface of ponds, on into growing vats, to grow more algae. Per that concept: have trough mirror solar arrays-only focused on large diam. fiber optic cable (cable with a high melting temp., but of course)-maybe right below this cable is the usual small fluid tube so that power is also generated for the algae plant (maybe have larger than usual diam. of solar mirror trough to make for larger focal spot for this ?). This bonus of solar plant power as well would lower cost of the patented (due to use of genetically engineered super-fast growing & oil rich algae) “Algore ™ Biofuel” product. Then with the light cables criss-crossing the algae pond underwater,can grow a lot thicker algae mat. Then, get with the municipality on some waste water to feed the algae, maybe-but I guess yeast is cheap enough (?). Then just pull the S.S. United States (already retro-fitted to be the greenest, state-of -the-art-est ship afloat-including, even, down to all lifeboat covers made of solar fabric -per “PowerFilm” Co.) up to the Algore ™ Plant jetty from its nearby dock. Big savings to be had in not having to transport oil to the ship. Green ship, green fuel ,green cash savings ! Lordy, lordy won’t someone save that poor ship ! (ref. Brooks, M.: Blazing Saddles)

Martin,

Who is your pick for Car Czar?

My short list is Mitt Romney, Jack Welch and Lee Iococca.

Martin sez:

Steve Chu, the guy recently chosen to become the next Secretary of Energy, gave a Google lecture in 2007 on the Energy Problem:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=energy+%22steve+chu%22+site%3Avideo.google.com&__q=energy&btnG=Search+Videos&lr=&dur=&st=&dis_ft=&so=0&num=100#

He’s a fairly young and very bright guy, whose background is in fairly esoteric experimental physics. But he talked for an hour or so about energy, and identified transportation as the most difficult and important part of the energy equation, or words to that effect, without once mentioning electric cars or batteries.

He’s extremely cranked up about biofuels, however. He dismisses the value of corn, etc. and concentrates on cellulosic ethanol, for which there’s not yet a commercially viable process to yield reasonably priced fuel for vehicles. Investing billions on bioengineering is seen as the important next step. Bioengineering is extremely tricky, but it’s endlessly fascinating to a lot of people who get paid to do it. As the guy who now runs the National Lab at Berkeley, which is involved heavily with that bioengineering effort, Chu has what could be thought of as a conflict of interest.

I didn’t notice any claim that the resultant fuel would be competitive with, or less expensive than gasoline, or that it would produce a zero emission vehicle.

Anyhow, he wouldn’t be my first choice for the Energy post, but he’s not at all ignorant of science, or a political hack, as might be expected from the present administration. That’s a big plus, but it’s hard not to notice that the ethanol would be distributed and sold through gas stations, by the usual suspects.

I took the trouble to write down one of his thoughts which I liked a lot.

“We’re actually trying to get industrial partners (for the bioengineering effort), not only for the money. But this is very different. Because it’s not academic research. Academic research; what do you do? You write a bunch of papers, and you make sure that those bunch of papers will get you funding for the next cycle of three to five years. And after you write the papers you go onto the next thing, because what you’re really trying to do is to get famous. This is different, because it’s trying to solve a problem. But it’s a problem of industrial strength. And in order to solve this problem you need much more than personal fame.”

Another video, Energy Symposium: The Rosenfeld Effect – Session Three , features Chu in the second half. It’s a similar presentation.

I should mention that the guy in the first half, Robert Socolow, has some strange ideas about carbon sequestration, specifically with respect to a proposed Long Beach oil company project, which are strongly opposed by leading energy and environment experts. One of those guys, Joe Romm, is in session five, which is a classic.

I can’t resist.

Dan Frederickson, why did you not mention the Miastrada which is way more efficient and roomy than the Loremo, and riders have a lot more space and protection than in the Aptera?

But as to Detroit, the failure is a failure to innovate, but innovation is impossible if a car has to be designed so people can visually identify with it. That is market reality as espoused by our host. In the end the auto industry is a fashion industry.

I continue to look at the automobile history. Why not go back to the Messerschmitt or the Isetta? The main thing seems to be that people want to “ride tall” or in reverse they do not want to “ride puny.” But even with that problem solved with the Miastrada, there is an amazing resistance to anything not built according to fashion.

So in the end, I just hope Detroit manages to do a decent job of copying the Prius. That will go a long way to solving both oil dependency and global warming. For starters, that means a 37% efficient engine. That requirement does not seem to get mentioned.

Martin sez:

Jim, is there a Miastrada car (or eve a prototype) that some can see, drive, and evaluate? If not, then you most also compare it to a Tardis, which has far more interior room, despite its diminutive exterior dimensions.

Mercury News: Tesla plant in San Jose could be delayed by Big Three auto bailout

Martin sez:

me

# Martin wrote:
## Something is wrong with your link. Want to try again?

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11188709?nclick_check=1

“Tesla plant in San Jose could be delayed by Big Three auto bailout
By Matt Nauman
Mercury News
Posted: 12/10/2008 05:28:49 PM PST
Tesla Motors’ plans to build an electric-car factory in San Jose could be delayed by the proposed Big Three auto bailout, a high-ranking Tesla executive said Wednesday.

That’s because the government money Tesla needs to build its $250 million factory off Highway 237 in North San Jose may be headed for Detroit to rescue General Motors and Chrysler from bankruptcy.

But the situation remains fluid, and Tesla remains hopeful that the $450 million in loans it has requested will be granted, Diarmuid O’Connell, Tesla’s vice president of business development, said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

The U.S. House approved the bailout late Wednesday, but strong Republican opposition in the Senate could scuttle it. Or Congress could restore any bailout money, which would be drawn from the $25 billion fund initially set up to improve auto fuel efficiency.

Tesla’s proposed plant is to build an electric four-door sedan that’s half the price of the $109,000 electric Roadster it’s now making in England. The factory was slated to open in late 2010 when it was announced by Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk and San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed in September, but that date already got pushed back to mid-2011 when Tesla couldn’t get financing and had to lay off some employees in October.

Tesla doesn’t have an official position on the proposed $14 billion bailout, which is backed by congressional Democrats and the White House. But the company worries that Congress “is mortgaging the future to address the crisis of the present,” O’Connell said.

Congress authorized a $25 billion Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program in 2007 to accelerate the construction or retrofitting of auto plants that would build high-mileage vehicles, and it appropriated the money for the program in September of this year. Startups such as Tesla — as well as Ford, GM and Chrysler — sought funds from the program.

Tesla has asked for a $350 million loan to help it build the factory to manufacture its $57,499 Model S in San Jose, and a $100 million loan to expand its electric-motor-and-battery powertrain operation. The Department of Energy, which manages the fund, had said it would start awarding money as soon as Dec. 31.

But that was before abysmal auto sales in October and November brought the Detroit Three to the brink of failure. Congressional Democrats hoped to assist automakers from the $700 billion financial-industry bailout fund, but the White House insisted that the money come from the Advanced Technology Vehicles program.

A delay in Tesla’s loans could mean a delay of its San Jose factory, Musk said Tuesday as he handed the keys to the company’s 100th Roadster model to its new owner. The company would have to wait for the world’s financial markets to recover, something that could take one to two years, he said.

O’Connell remains hopeful, he said, because of a promise by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to quickly restore the Advanced Technology Vehicles fund if it is spent bailing out the Big Three.

“We will not permit any funds to be borrowed from the advanced technology program unless there is a guarantee that those funds will be replenished in a matter of weeks,” Pelosi said last week.

“We do take comfort in the speaker’s position,” O’Connell said.

In a Dec. 5 letter to Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, and the mayors of San Jose and San Francisco argued against a diversion of the advance-vehicle funds.

Applying those moneys “toward operating costs of the auto manufacturers will stunt innovation, stifle economic growth and stall our national transition toward low-emission vehicles,” Chuck Reed and Gavin Newsom wrote.

A diversion could threaten Tesla’s plans for its 750,000-square-foot, 1,000-employee factory in San Jose, they added. Other local companies — such as Palo Alto’s Better Place, which has plans to build an electric-vehicle infrastructure in the Bay Area, Israel, Hawaii and elsewhere, and Coulomb Technologies, a San Jose company that builds chargers — also could be affected, they said.

One benefit of the debate over the auto industry, O’Connell said, is that it has ”raised the profile of companies such as Tesla Motors.”

“It has raised some fundamental questions about what kind of auto industry we want to have in the future,” he said.”

Note, Copyright © 2008 – San Jose Mercury News

Recently I got more spare time so I resumed looking through some blogs. I noticed here that EEStore did not deliver promised ultracapacitor. So finally that hype is over. Unfortunately reasons for that failure are not published and gone through analysis so potential to repeat this mistake still exist.
What I tried to explain couple years ago by predicting EEStore failure was based on fundamental physics of condensed matter. Basically any ultracapacitor eith best dielectric material would have 100 to 1000 times less energy density per volume compared to chemical energy of gasoline or hydrogen. Fundamental difference of ultracapacitor from the battery is that no ions are moving in the battery – just electrons. This fundamental fact makes a possibility of millions of recharge cycles for capacitor. But it also makes energy density lower by mentioned factors. Strangely enough it reflects general tendency mentioned by Martin that increase of recharge cycles correlates with decrease in energy capacity.

Martin was more practical and made basically same prediction by observing that EEStore did not demonstrate any working prototype of the capacitor they claim.
I guess the fact fairly high persistence of EEStore hype actually demonstrate how deperate U.S. society is looking for escape from oil dependence. People did not take similar to Martin’s practical approach to have real proof but instead prefer to believe in sweet dreams.

Repercussions of failed automaker bailout spreading quickly

Analtoly- personally I’m not only desperate to escape oil dependence, I’m desperate for fast and big green tech. progress-”pedal to the metal style”. Steven Chu, the new Dept. of Energy head , said the same actually- namely he said (a year or two ago): ” If I were the emperor of the world I’d put the pedal to the metal on green energy and tech.” I’m also desperate to rid D.C. of the entrenched and totally disgusting influence of the status quo weasels (and all their lies and cons). Per “today’s headlines” on this, it’s something that “the senate republicans” are telling the UAW to cut wages- or else -now being the “or else”- they being “the party of the rich and weasel-like, status quo and powers that be”. They didn’t tell Wall St. firms to do much of anything before they bailed them out. They were, of course, also blocking increase in the min. wage for years and years. Look, jokers, everyone has only one fairly short life-it’s nice for you guys that you’ve got it made-so now why don’t you focus on the TOTAL progress and TOTAL improvement of ALL of this country, o.k. !? You guys got a problem with that?-then I’ve got a problem with you guys ! Diehard republicans like Phil Gramm have some nerve in calling us a nation of whiners-he being one of the key guys leading to the economic meltdown-and he being party, thru his UBS bank U.S. branch chairman job, in finding illegal tax breaks for at least 20,000 rich (and no doubt heavily republican) tax-dodging, whining, Green Day Style American Idiots. Of course it’s also weird that the UAW doesn’t offer to cut wages, ahead of the coming cut anyway in the next year or two that I heard of. HOWEVER “the republicans” have a lot of nerve too on the face of it -wonder what the income/accumulated wealth of all those republican senators is anyway ?-whatever it is, guys from India of China could do twice as good a job for 1/5 their pay & perks . If those in the UAW are jerks, then ditto for many or most of those in congress . Again, without the economic meltdown-caused FULLY 1/2 by congress- Detroit wouldn’t be in such dire trouble- and could have gotten thru to 2009-10 when the Detroit UAW wages/benefits are supposed to “come in line” with other automakers. So: if we have jerks in the UAW we have republican jerks in congress as well. Maybe Obama can get the UAW to “offer more” come Jan.-but I tell you for the next 8 years (yes 8), he also better slam the “Bush-style, diehard republican M.O. and everything it stands for, and as close to ‘once and for all’ as possible”. I think he should maybe invite the worst of these guys onto Air Force One and re-enact the movie scene where Harrison Ford sez ” Get OFF of my plane !” (with parachutes this time- but over Somalia-where they belong).

About the biofuels I basically have one of my daugters study molecular and cell biology. We both share keen interest in how living things do photosynthesis. With that knowledge crossed with physics it is fairly obvious that algae photosynthesis has to be much more energy efficient from the fuel production point of view. This comes from the fact that land plants all need structural support (cellulose) taking a lot of energy to make. Microbic life (algae or bacteria) in water does not have this complication. It is also fairly obvious that only ocean water is not in short supply for fuel production. Freshwater has to be extremely scarce resource by definition if somebody realize that required biofuel energy to match current gasoline production has to be 100 times higher than all the food energy.
The last aspect is that at normal intensity of daylight about billion of photons (light particles) per second comes through smallest molecule capable to absorb photons by itself.
Even by taking into account that 10 – 100 layers of such molecules could participate we still need to absorb millions of photons per second. This requires that chemical reaction of photosynthesis take sub-microsecond time which is hardly possible because molecules transportation by diffusion into volume would make a bottleneck to any photosyntetic process at reaction rates orders of magnitude lower.
This fundamental issue actually is the main reason behind the fact that regardless of billions of years of photosynthesis evolution it still use just few percents of solar energy coming to land surface.
Algae has extra advantage here too because in single cell organism surrounded by water at least water molecules delivery at high rate is easy. Key limitations to high productivity photosynthesis would be carbon dioxide concentration. Algae could be selected to sirvive extremely carbonated water. So key aspects of high efficiensy algae biofuel reactor would be :
1. Use of ocean water at certain high enough pressure to dissolve high concentration of carbon dioxide in water.
2. Closed container with such water to allow that high pressure and reduce evaporation
3. Very high surface to volume ration for reactor volume with mentioned carbonated water. That surface should be used to allow 10 – 30 times lower light intensity to come from that surface compared to mid-day sunlight.
4. Mentioned reactor core with carbonated water should be arranged inside efficient heat echanger with extra low pressure water from the ocean to extract heat dissipation associated with overall photosyntetic process. High surface to volume ratio used for light would also be very useful for such heat extraction.

Under mentioned design conditions overall biofuel reactor could take relatively small overall land area because sunlight would be used for its total power instead of using 1% to 3% of power of light coming to land area covered by corn or other land plants proposed for biofuel. So land use would become comparable with at least 30% energy efficient solar electric generation because about 50% of photons energy ends up in chemical energy by algae photosynthesis.

As I could see from the press algae gradually becomes recognized leader for biofuel production technologies. I hope it would be soon recognized potential for ocean phitoplankton algae to use raw ocean water instead of freshwater so overall biofuel production would be revolving around ocean water use.
Carbonation of that water could initially be done by ehaust of coal power plants. So some pipelines to pump ocean water to vicinity of such power plants would be needed. This would fit nicely Texas conditions I guess.
Such a carbonation would create natural market demand for carbon dioxide. So finally such market would assign some real economic value to carbon dioxide so that it would become marketable product. That should create a chain reaction of technologies of collecting exaust of current gasoline engines by for example freezing carbon dioxide below -50 C temperature to get dry ice which is dense enough storage of car exaust. On a fueling station hot carbon dioxide stream would nicely take that stored carbon dioxide from the storage in car.
Finally described infrastructure manages a closed loop cycle of carbon dioxide recirculation between biofuel and carbon dioxide storage. That would be some way to manage zero emission cars and dramatically improve air quality.
Finally by having enough cras collecting exaust biofuel synthesis plants could be build by itself relying on infrstructure of pumping carbon dioxide via some pipelines from fueling stations to biofuel reactor plants.
Overall it would manage proper industrial efficiensy of biofuel synthesis matching current gasoline use by cars so that we could completely replace oil use. Coal based electricity generators would fill up overall carbon mass (like currensy) to keep that cycle properly fueled. Also some amount of carbon dioxide could be used from surroingding air gradually reducing carbon dioxide level in the air in general to safe levels.

Anatoly-and maybe bio-engineering better bio-fuel algae as well ? Doesn’t algae grow via yeast (+ other nutrients) as well as co2 ?-or is co2 the best ? Is there a way to store co2 coming out of coal plants (like in that submarine air scrubber material ?) for transporting to oceanside algae bio-fuel plants? Yeah, I’m bullish on algae-also Steven Chu, per the Helios Project. Another good thing about algae is that most of the U.S. population is on the coasts (east,west, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes)-also, a lot of coastal area major airports, and of course ship ports- perfect for algae fuel, since hardly any fuel transport cost to the ships and planes (let alone all the cars in the coastal cities)-even Chicago airport is “on the water” .Cars can go EV, but not big trucks, trains, planes and ships-which chew up vast fuel quantities and would be perfect for algae power -and replace eastern home heating oil with Algore ™ Brand Bio-fuel as well. Yes, it’s poifect !: algae bio-fuel plants at every coastal city. If it’s true (per what I came across online) that algae emits 78% less co2 than oil, then this is big. Also, most U.S. farmland is far inland- so no problem there re. algae fuel getting in the way of food production. As for the first guy to exit Obama’s Air Force One over Somalia-I nominate Phil Gramm-but we’ll be nice to him and give him a golden colored parachute (just not the type he had in mind when he first joined Weasel Corps.)

Treasury ready to prevent collapse of automakers

Yanq,

How disappointing that you won’t admit that Romney was the first public / private figure to insist that the big 3 offer restructuring plans, instead of merely begging for low interest loans to maintain the status quo. Your bias against any religion reveals how small you are.

Martin,

I would prefer that the Whitehouse not do anything, and simply let GM and Chrysler negotiate a Chapter 11 type restructuring. Given the sharp retraction in the American auto market, I cannot see the automakers become profitable without restructuring under Chapter 11.

Jason: Was Romney “the first” to insist on restructuring plans from the Big 3? News to me, but if you say so, I will readily “admit” it. Nonetheless, I fail to see how his hand being first in the air alters the fact that his overall perception of reality is south of the Enlightenment.

And if you wish to call me “small,” go ahead, knock yourself out: stick that scarlet “A” on my chest.

Martin sez:

Jim, is there a Miastrada car (or eve a prototype) that some can see, drive, and evaluate? If not, then you most also compare it to a Tardis, which has far more interior room, despite its diminutive exterior dimensions.

Does anyone know what kind of MPG a TARDIS gets? Being powered by the eye of harmony, a contained blackhole, and the very fabric of the universe, it’s probably better than a Prius. Maybe Team Gallifrey should enter into google’s contest….

This http://evworld.com/EVWORLD_TV.CFM?storyid=1595
is a link to a short video with Tom Gage of AC Propulsion, which has just finished shipping 500 drive trains, including batteries, to BMW for the Mini E. ACP is now involved in a big project with a Chinese car company. It’s great to learn that they’ve been very successful; I was worried when they didn’t do anything with their website for so long.

Yet another speech by Steve Chu is on EV World, I think it is. More of his stump speech, except this time he explains that batteries are not ready yet for practical electric cars, because they don’t last enough charge cycles. He explains away the more than a million running aroung in the Prius by saying the charge cycle is very shallow in a hybrid. Evidently he’s never heard of the RAV4-EV and other vehicles using the Panasonic EV-95 batteries.

Having dismissed the EV concept as impractical but maybe possible someday, he moves immediately to his true love, the chance of the Berkeley labs someday being able, with enough billions, to monkey around with genetic engineering to enable the practical production of cellulosic ethanol (only a few times more expensive than gasoline).

We seem to be stuck in some sort of Groundhog Day world which keeps repeating itself over and over; even on this blog, if you know what I mean.

I wouldn’t knock Steven Chu since “what would we prefer, the Bush dept. heads or a McCain choice” ? Bush had two energy dept. heads- the first was an ex- senator with a law degree, the current one has a chemical engineering degree but worked for Fidelity Investments for years prior. There are a number of long Chu speeches on You Tube, I’ll have to check them out given time- I skimmed one. The volume on the EV world speech comes in really low- but in EV world article they said: “Chu points out that a relatively small area of America’s Southwest could, if covered with PV or thermal solar, provide all the nation’s elect. power needs, which argues strongly for the advantages of elect.. vehicles”. Also: “Chu notes that a lab researcher at LBNL developed a new Li-metal battery with dry cobalt electrolyte that after 200 charge-discharge cycles has shown no degradation in energy storage capacity. Extrapolating, that would suggest it will last 1000 cycles” . Chu also said in a video that more research is needed into solar power-said that solar costs have dropped by a factor of 10 in past two decades and that we need to accelerate that trend. He’s pitching bio-fuel mainly for heavy transport use: planes, trucks, trains, ships-said 28% of world energy use is for transportation. For cars, the combo of EV car and solar power for home and car is IT ( with bio-fuel elect. generator backup for long trips)-which Chu shirley agrees with. The kicker is: IF bio-fuels emit less co2 overall (per algae supposedly emitting 78% less co2 than oil), then we’re talking. The oil mavens will be able to drop the price of oil way low if backed into a corner, so who cares about the cost of oil issue ? Need to “carbon tax” it , if it gets like as cheap as dirt . I say dump billions of dollars into all sorts of energy research- beats the halibut out of dumping billions into wars and military/ industrial spending. How many decades on end has the U.S. gone down that path anyway ? Chu has also been big on research into energy efficiency for buildings- which constitutes about 60% of U.S. energy use-and he’s been big on conservation. If the whole country followed the Calif. model re. this (is Texas listening finally ?), we would have had no rise in energy consumption since, like 1978-just like Calif. After the arab OPEC oil embargo/crisis of ‘73, Calif. got serious on this and made it stick. Carter got serious nationally but Reagan made sure it didn’t stick. Score on this “cheap and easy sitting duck way” to lower co2: Calif.- one, Banana Republic of the North D.C. -zero.

I predict that about seven hours from now TJ will write a post starting with “I wouldn’t knock Steven Chu”. I will be asleep then, so I wrote my reply early.

The moderator may want to remove this post and juggle the times around to make it seem less likely that I can predict the future.

Martin sez:

No way! this little gem is priceless

Steve-yeah, 10/4 that pick : Joe Romm (per wikipedia). Saw him in “Who Killed Elect. Car” movie but didn’t remember name. But maybe:” Obama also looking to put an asian in his admin. in a top slot”. Gee, at least Romm should be deputy. energy dept. head – again. But still, Chu probably beats the halibut out of anyone in a similar post in any admin. since Roger Revelle and Stewart Udall were in the JFK admin.

Hello Martin,

It is nice to see you reaction to my comment.

But I respectfully disagree with the typical statement that ANY biofuels in general compete for the same resources (land, freswater etc) typically used for food production.

With popular today approaches to biofuel based on land plants this statement would be correct and I share your opinion that it is a dead end basically. With land plants the only useful biofuel approach would be fuels derived from cellulose because it would basically just optimized utilization of byproducts of regular food production. I believe that nobody should try to shift much of regular agriculture toward fuel producing land plants anyway – from very basic resource constraints it would be creating more overall tension by shifting resources from food production to biofuel production.

But if we consider use of salt water plancton capable to do photosymthesis the picture changes. Such organisms are in general more efficient in converting solar energy to biomass and that biomass is much easily convertable to fuel compared to land plants derived biomass. It is also decisively critical that such organizms does not need freswater because they use ocean water instead which is not a scarce resource on Earth at all. They also do not need as much land as regular agricultural plans with proper design. Major reason for that I already mentioned. It is that chemical side of photosynthesis is fundamentally much slower process compared to absorbing photons. This is basically the reason why photovoltaics and thermal solar are typicall 10 – 100 times more powerful per area. This is also a reason for about 10 times higher efficiensy of photovoltaics and thermal solar compared to agricultural biofuels. Land plants basically could not use more than 3 – 5% of peak sunlight of typical mid-day conditions because of power limitations of chemical aspect of photosynthesis.
But in case of algae because single cell organisms are immersed in water we could illuminate them from all directions and from many points in water volume. Basically we need just very thing say 1/1000 meter flat layer of water with algae to be illuminated from both surfaces. In that case for a cube of 10×10x10 meters for example (size of a top of usual solar tower ballpark) we could derive overall illuminating area for about 5000 such layers in the described cube with 200 m^2 for each layer (two surfaces counted). I assumed 50% of cube is filled by described water & algae layers and another half by light transportation media. So overall illuminating our algae area with light in that cube would be 100000 m^2 which is about 25 acres area. So now we could collect light by typical solar tower mirrors reused from one of popular solar tower thermal solar design. Algae could absorb light at 3% to 10% typical mid-day solar intensity per area. So we should collect light from say 2 acres area for that cube to be in that range by redistributing it to mentioned 25 acres area inside our 10 meters across tank. So now we have at least ballpark the same (actually 2 – 3 times better) biomass production from algae in such reactor as for 25 acres of land plants. So we need 10 – 30 times less land area for solar collection for such a system compared to regular agricultural fields to produce same energy stored in biomass.
Algae is known to be much more robust in terms of needs for fertilizers. Being processed in closed volume such algae could be much easier protected from something trying to eat it. Water would not evaporate so water use efficiensy per unit of fuel mass would be dramatically better. In such reactor you could pump dirty carbon dioxide (basically cola power plant raw exaust for example) into water under high pressure increasing intensity of its delivery to photosyntetic cells. Finally if you build fairly manageable plastic pipeline to deliver ocean water into desert area you could use desert land similar to thermal solar to collect sunlight.
Biofuels could be pumped out via pipelines too to more populated areas. Pipelines moving liquids are much more energy efficient transportation compared to all known large distance electrical energy delivery. Oil pipelines are good example of that factor.
So overall described alagae based biofuel production concept do not compete actually with any resource used in regular agriculture. It would have comparable efficiensy and power production density for converting solar energy into biofuel as thermal solar and photovoltaics.
It would also have solved energy storage problem of solar power production. At large scale it could work as a carbon dioxide regulator for the air because even if China or India or Russia or anybody else on Earth still burn fossil fuels large scale described technology could in principle suck out all the associated carbon dioxide and othercombustion byproducts and convert them back to a fuel. So net effect would be like you sucked out the fuel all these countries burn into fuel you extract from such plants without buying it directly. So overall you could just pump that fuel into reserves into the same cavities intended for CO2 storage. Just storing fuel would be much better from capacity point of view and protection to keep it their.
On a strategic scale described factors look to me as a very good solution. I believe it is close to ultimate. Also as I described earlier it would finally create a real market price for carbon dioxide determined by the cost of sucking it from the air directly. So all sorts of carbon dioxide storage methods to redirect it to such plants would be created by market because it would reduce cost of carbon dioxide being massive scale raw input product for such plants.
Overall it should rebalance the situation with all infrastructural fossil fuel plants and cras etc. SO from market economy point of view that strategy is very evolutionary and open market. So it has to be successfuly provided manageable cost of described algae based plants.
I also read about small production scale experiment in ARizona with similar algae based biomass production. They actually get much higher than expected productivity per area and water use. They used fresh water and they did not solve problems of cleaning reactor cost etc. But it gives extra evidence for efficiensy of described approach.

Anatoly- so, “once again I was in the vanguard” ™ (perhaps. hopefully ?): re. algae-yes, a great power source after all for the S.S. United States ! (no ?-yes !). The City of Philadelphia should work with our former V.P. to set up an Algore ™ algae bio-fuel plant at the port . There was an industrial lubricant plant in either Philly or Pittsburgh (forget which) which was in the news a few months ago. It was about to close until owner tried getting into bio-fuel, combined also with restaurant grease, I think-which saved the company. I still wonder if, in addition to solar tower, large diam. trough solar mirrors focused on, like, 6″ diam. fiber optic cables (with fluid cable adjoining it for steam turbine power use) would work-with all these cables from individual trough mirror arrays going down into ponds or algae vats-vats the size of those aboveground round oil storage reservoirs (except maybe, as alternate, just plastic lined holes in the ground of similar size)- pump enough light in there via fiber optic cables to grow the algae as thick as crude oil sludge. There is article on Chu on “Wired News” website. He said the U.S. “should place green tech. research bets and go for a home run” . Right on! (also: boy howdy, about time and get the halibut on with it !) About time the 21st century officially started, after Bush *& Co. have delayed it for 8 years. I don’t think Chu will now push his pet bio-fuel slant, to exclusion of other green tech. After all , U.C. got $500 million from BP so he’s kind of covered on that front for awhile. I like his prior interest/push in regard to green buildings (since bldg. power is 60% of our energy use) and conservation-there could be HUGE co2 savings in these two areas. The kicker maybe about the price of car batteries is IF the batteries are charged via solar (the ONLY way to go), and solar for home use gets really cheap (per Nanosolar tech., maybe ?) then, once home solar is paid off in a lot less time than it now takes, the car power will be free. So, “after system payoff”, for all the years until you reach like 120,000 miles on the EV car-when the batteries are shot- you’ve got free power for EV (and home as well)- which more than makes up for the cost of replacing the batteries then (when they’ve got to be cheaper, like 10 years down the road-or more?)-vs. what the cost you would have paid for gas over those +10 years with a regular car. Though there are a lot of batteries in laptops, etc., just wait till the EV/plug-in hybrid car demand kicks in-there’s got to be some kind of economies of scale price decline. Also, both the Korean and Japanese (and now Chinese, perhaps?) are really making battery tech. a big priority-and you keeping hearing of potential advances from universities, like MIT. Re. algae-being a simple plant (with a short life span, perhaps ?) I wonder if it would be good/great candidate for genetic engineering into a better bio-fuel? If algae bio-fuel is now maybe airborne pie in the sky, I say bring that algae plane in for a landing and see how well the pies burn in our trucks, planes, trains & ships (best use, since no doubt they would taste terrible-or, maybe not ?). Ted Turner could ditch his buffalo burgers (Macca would approve) and do a veggie algae burger, cleverly seasoned to taste like buffalo. I read where algae is like 60% oil in its natural state-great from the start for fuel use ? – and for mimicking buffalo fat. Algae is no more out there than what Henry Ford did with soybeans in like the ’30’s- he was making car paint and upholstery out of it , and car seat foam- and then plastics later. Yeah , Henry would no doubt be way-stoked now re. algae-and EV cars and any other thing green tech. They say the original Model T got 25 mpg, -bet Henry would be shocked that that beats many cars now-he would have demanded action-a long time ago, like the EV-1 type action- I bet.

TJ asks,

“I wouldn’t knock Steven Chu since “what would we prefer, the Bush dept. heads or a McCain choice” ?”

Mrs. Palin, of course. Ha! JK

In all seriousness, I am pretty happy with the choice of Mr. Chu overall but the EV quotes are concerning. I hope they are inaccurate or taken out of context. I find it hard to believe he would ignore technology that actually exists and produced today, albeit relatively small production and mostly niche markets. These markets are expanding as the technology matures and costs come down. As Anotoly points out, battery costs need to come down significantly for long range battery only vehicles to become cost competitive in the high volume mainstream markets. Fortunately, this isn’t the only path to market for EV’s from where we are today. EREV’S, Plug-in hybrids, shorter range hybrids, performance EV’s, and battery swapping are all doable with some minor advancements and innovative application engineering. Just look at Tesla’s Model S concept. The car in the pictures shown (real or photoshopped) can compete well with Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, etc if the fit and finish is comparable. Certainly they are a long way from this concept to production and I believe $58,000 seems unrealistic for 250 miles range. $65,000 seems more doable, but even at that it would sell very well. But the cost be addressed with pack size too. As Martin has astutely reasoned in the past, many people don’t actually need 250 miles of range. So what would a 150 mile version cost, $59,000? Yes, you can’t expect to sell 200k of these next year, but 20-30k as Tesla has planned seems very reasonable. Besides battery production needs to ramp up. EREV’s and plug-ins like the GM Volt, Fisker Karma, Prius III, etc are coming (at least they are far along in development). These cars with satisfy those with concerns of range limitation. PBP is another way for EV’s to circumvent range limitation, albeit more radical of a change and several levels higher in risk. But the PBP risk is not so much technical as it is a risk of scale and marketing. SUV’s and pickups are a little behind but the newer generation of batteries pack plenty of power for them but EV will lag. The plug-in Saturn View was slated for 2011 and Chrysler announced their model recently (although I’m sceptical of Chrysler’s conviction and progress).

So, as others have pointed out, trucking (and heavy duty pickups) is the biggest consumer of oil that needs to be addressed. Perhaps biodiesel will answer the call here but their are other avenues as well. The technology exists today to engineer a system for “virtual” freght trains. With cruise control, wireless communication, on-board computers, proximity sensors, and real time highway information vehicles could be electronically tethered at close proximity. Also, states are starting to enact strict idling laws that require battery applications like Firefly’s first product implementation and outlet will be installed at truck stops. To enhance the battery system and electric motor assist seems like possible practical improvement that would improve efficency with regen on hilly terrain and for braking environments. Perhaps even a battery swapping, plug-in parralel or series hybrid solution is even more achievable for this market. There could be short battery semis to connect between the tractor and the freight semi-trailer. The truck stops already exist in the neceasary locations and swapping would be easy. What electric only range would a 120KWh pack and driving 65mph provide in this configuration, about 180 miles? Using these assumptions along with 8mpg for a deisel truck, $4/gallon of deisel, and 500 cycle cells the cost of the fuel savings from EV miles would be about $40,000. Suppose this configuration adds 1mpg for driving in range extended mode. This would add approximately $4000 more in savings over the life of the pack. How much would an 120KWh pack cost, about $45,000? How much is used pack with 90KWh capacity worth, $15,000? Of course diesel is back down to $2.50 today, so today’s savings would only be $27,500.

To Anatoly’s concern about cost effectiveness, I think in many applications the costs are near parity and some can be favorable for batteries. There are still the larger markets that the whole battery electric solution costs are not yet favorable but they aren’t far off. I am much more confident that battery costs can be brought down enough in the next five years to be cost competitive in the vast majority of applications than I am confident that biodeisel will become commercial viable and cost competitive in the same timeframe. This doesn’t even account for Martin’s concerns or all of the other side benefits to electric motors.

David-probably the Ariz. co. Anatoly mentioned is” GreenFuel Technologies Corp.” (see website). They say that their tech. can soak up up to 40% of power plant co2 emissions now . Said that algae grows up to 30 times faster than other plants-that looks good for fast /volume biofuel production- and what’s left over after making biofuel can be used as animal feed. There was an online news article earlier today , with photos (BBC News if I recall ) , of the new Chinese ” BYD Co.” plug-in hybrid car-BYD (Build Your Dream) being a 13 year old battery company that recently bought 2 Chinese car companies so that they can make their own EV / hybrid cars. Warren Buffet invested like $230 million in the co. this year. There is so much green tech. potential out there that it’s incredible-all it takes is those little green pieces of paper with historical presidents & other govt. officials on them. Once the economy comes back, green tech. could really push it forward. Now there is finally the possibility (with an economic boom fueled by green tech.) of serious govt. incentives/rebates for all things green-THAT could mitigate a lot of the battery cost problem right there-especially combined with state incentives. Also could put in some level of carbon tax. There are also billions upon billions of dollars out there each year in the govt. circles going to waste-per all sorts of the entrenched powers that be and lobbyist instigated deals/set-ups. The GM Volt car range would cover my daily commute using only battery power. Give enough people govt. incentives to go home solar and get cars like this and watch out. If we can all see how great the solar charged EV car is, Chu sees it or/will soon too-that’s for sure. What I see is all the rooftops all across the country (and parking lots even)-home and business-as “solar power farm fields lying fallow”. Talk about gigantic potential. Chu’s interest in green bldgs. is right down this alley. He said in a Wall St. Journal online article that “coal is my worst nightmare” . He also said that coal plants give off radiation (!) in the flyash. If need be to kick off “the green tech. economy” I say print more money and worry about inflation later. A thriving economy means more cash back to the govt. in taxes-and if car sales come back good, the govt. will get its pending loan cash back with interest-same for other bailout loans per thriving economy via “print,baby. print !”-and then the need to print will drop. I read that one reason the diehard republicans don’t want a Detroit bailout is that they are anti-union (their handlers being anti-union). I also read that overall, in terms of newer UAW hires, the pay for UAW auto workers is about the same as for non-union autoworkers in states like Alabama. The diehard republicans (at least the majority) had no ultimate problem with giving Bank of America and J.P. Morgan (for two) each $25 billion that they didn’t even ask for. But now they stand on their anti-labor principles even though the collapse of Detroit would be just like a banking collapse.

I drive about 12,000 miles per year in my Mini (that is I would if I didn’t drive my second car half the time) at like 30 mpg=400 gal. per yr. When the economy comes back maybe gas will be like $2.50 per gal.= $1000 for gas per year. Originally Tesla said batteries might last for 120,000 miles=10 years per my driving. I’d pay $10,000 in gas over 10 years driving Mini. If GM Volt goes like 40 miles per charge while Tesla Roadster goes like 200 miles, does Volt have 1/5 of the batteries of Tesla ?- if so,if battery replacement for Tesla= $20,000, Volt replacement= $4000. I could drive all year commuting on pure EV mode with Volt-so in 10 years I pay $10,000 in gas with Mini and $4000 with Volt. I read online that Volt batteries might cost $10,000-but they weren’t saying price-guess maybe cost of battery management system/whatever ups cost. Even so- that would be a wash with my gas Mini. Also, with the Japanese car makers having R & D JV’s with battery companies like Panasonic (per news earlier this year), I’m guessing they could beat Volt’s battery cost (and Koreans too?). There are already fed. and state govt. rebates for hybrid/EV cars, so with rebates-and increased “Obama factor rebates”- the Mini costs more over 10 years. Of course the Volt is no Aptera either-and the Mini is about as good as a regular gas car gets re. mpg

Oops, left a big item off my stream of consciousness Tractor-trailer example. Electricity costs. Retail rates at truck stops would probably average about 16 cents, so that’s roughly another $11,000 cost for battery solution. Clearly costs are not currently in line for a battery swapping model given my assumptions. But there are a lot of other factors and costs at play here. A large one being battery characteristics. I used basically the Roadster’s cell’s characteristics and those are 2-3 generations old now. A quick search for Panasonic Li cells found this: http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/images/pdf/Panasonic_LiIon_CGA103450A.pdf
Cell weight only for 120KWh pack would be about 1400lbs and 780 discharge cycles to 75% capacity under 1C ideal conditions. I’m sure Martin or others can better speak to current costs and technologies. I believe there is(are) a 1000 cycle LiCo cell(s) on the market now. For the Roadster and other consumer vehicles, improving cycle life is not as important as energy density and cost for large packs because calendar life and annual driving distances come into play. For freight carriers cycle life becomes much more important since they travel 100,000+ miles/year. Calendar life is not much of an issue. If 1000 cycle cells are available with similar characteristics to those used in my earlier post’s example, the roughly 2yr lifetime fuel savings becomes $88,000. Given electricity costs of $22,000 and $45,000 for the battery, the numbers don’t look so bad anymore except for the $4.00/gallon. Three months ago $4.00 would have been cheap and once the dust settles on the opening phase and the oil markets settle, I believe you can expect oil to be $60-80/barrel and deisel to be @$4.00 again. When the world economy starts to improve, lookout.

The great benefit to battery electrics as expressed before is that the technology exists today and is being implemented. I believe the encouragment of practical application (rewarding outcomes as Martin describes it) will move technology and implementation at a much higher rate than basic research. I’m all for open techonolgy discussions with technology roadmaps with scheduled updates to best encourage basic research but I believe more government effort should be in outcome based implementation. If a technology progresses enough, it will then be rewarded by the outcome based efforts. These outcome drivers should be reviewed annually or semi-annually to ensure they are as technology neutral as possible and effective.

Anatoly comments, “Until we have more practical data with reasonable experiments I would be extremely sceptical that battery cost so surely could be managed down enough even for current Li-ion battery capacity and recharge cycles ballpark.
People have being confident with ultimate fusion success, flywheels success, Stirling engine success, hydrogen fuel cells success without having any evidence exactly in the demonstrated style “…I am sure cost could be reduced by heavy investment to the area…”. But none of these areas managed low enough cost regardless of heavy investment.”

The biggest difference I see with batteries and these other technologies is that there really aren’t technological barriers anymore, rather they are cost barriers. That’s not to say other techs like biofuels, hydrogen, etc should be ignored. I believe they all should be discussed and continue to receive research attention but significant additional outcome drivers should be implemented to encourage oil alternatives.

By the way, I’m sure there are are a lot of concerns about “virtual” trains but does anyone have thoughts on this concept?

Mercedes to introduce an EV and a PFCV (plug-in fuel cell vehicle) – just as I predicted:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/11/mercedes-blue-zero-e-cell-two-more-benz-evs-coming-to-detroit/

TJ, I was just thanking you for some infomation. I wasn’t expecting you to take my concerns seriously, not when only $500,000,000 is involved in the conflict of interest, compared to billions in the news.

To David Kosowsky :

I looked through battery specifications via your reference. These cells are rated close to 2000 mAh charge capacity. Tesla Motors assumed 2200 mAh cells capacity from 2003 for the roadster. Finally I think they even downgraded to 2000 mAh cells. To me this story basically demonstrate flat Li-ion cells capacity for at least last 5 years. So battery progress of 90s is not extrapolating even today. Progress in battery capacity and cost per capacity is completely stopped over last 5 years at least.
In your interpretation battery capacity with cells you mentioned is better than what Tesla Roadster managed. So we getting illusion of steady progress. But you missed that at system level Tesla Motors battery pack added about 40% of weight of the battery pack compared to weight of just cells for fire prevention and thermal and other cells conditioning purposes. So your estimation of just dry cells capcity per weight is misleading because in fact at cells level there is no charge capacity and cost for charge capacity progress I could see over at least last 3 – 5 years.
Observing that saturation on the trend makes me sceptical about further significant cost per capacity reduction for batteries.

What does anyone think of the Top Gear review of The Tesla and how they said that they only got a 55 mile range out of the car.

Martin sez:

Chinese have created a platinum free catalyst for fuel cells using nickel:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21838/?nlid=1585&a=f

DSiry on auto downturn

Martin sez:

You don’t stop and clean house when your house is on fire.