[Oeva-list] O/T subsidies

Theoldcars at aol.com Theoldcars at aol.com
Tue Apr 26 20:41:20 PDT 2011


Hello Steve
 
Response to some of your points. To make it a little easier I put our names 
 at the start. 
 
Steve: "It seems that in practice, the Leaf can not provide a 100 mile,  
un-recharged
range at suburban road speeds and with a modicum of climate  control, ie 
heat."


Don: If you moderate the temperature only as needed you can lower the loss. 
 Also you can preheat or cool the vehicle while its still on the charger 
using  you phone. There is a slight loss heating or cooling but its not that 
bad. You  can also improve your range if you drive like an EV driver. 
 
Steve: "(My employer, who, in other areas touts their "green" record, has  
declined
to provide any form of on-site chargeing facilities, citing  liability as 
their concern.)"
 
Don: Employers are just like everyone else. They have their own concerns  
and priority's. I offered employees free charging and their own parking  
charging locations for any employee interested in driving electric  years ago. 
Soon learned people even if given the fuel for free find it more  convenient 
to stick with what they know. I think it will take 5 or 6 dollar a  gallon 
gas before wallet shock is enough for the majority to consider  other 
alternatives. 


Steve: "I'd rather see us subsidize neither one.. and allow domestic oil  
production
where it is econnomically feasable. (This includes removal of any  subsidy
currently in  place for oil..) Remember that the royalties for  US drilled
offshort oil come back to the US Treasury."
 
Don: Well that just seems to be the way the United States works. Full of  
special interest that cost us all a lot more in the end. Some we agree on and 
 others we don't. I don't see this system changing anytime soon. I also 
don't  ever see an end to the cost of subsidizing oil including the added cost 
of being  the world police to maintain the flow of oil. I just can't get my 
arms around  using a limited resource and calling it economically feasible. 
Yes it might be  that today but tomorrow its always going to cost more. I 
don't need to ride this  bus to the end of the line to see where it goes. Its 
not going to be good for  our nation to keep hanging on to the hope that 
prices will become feasible 
 

Steve: "Really? Where? Neither Iraq or Afghanistan have significant  
quantities of
oil. We don't have a significant presence in any of the other  oil producing
regions... (Libia, you might argue has some US presence.. and  that would
be true.)"

>
 
Don: I believe we still have about 50,000 troops in Iraq as of this year.  
They reduced the number and have pulled back to the forts but Iraq is  
anything but a sure bet. 10,000 in Kuwait and 8000 in Qatar. 
 
We also keep a very strong show of force close by with aircraft  carriers 
and the escort fleet that surrounds them. We have 10 aircraft  carriers and 
several of them are stationed to maintain the flow of oil when  a show of 
force is ordered. Even if they actually are doing nothing they still  cost a 
lot of money. Its not just one aircraft carrier there is a whole fleet  that 
moves with them. It is hard to find the exact  amount but it is estimated 
that we spend 50 billion dollars a year just on  the Middle East. Who knows 
what the real cost is but regardless of the amount  its a waste of money. 
 
Steve:"So you are going to subsidize production of this new technology.. in 
 Japan?"
 
Don: Well better Japan then China which seems to be making everything.  
China is another huge problem but that is way off topic for EVs. 
 
Don: Nissan is going to start building the Leaf and the battery packs here  
in the US. Nissan already has started construction of a battery plant. The  
battery plant building is the size of 16 football fields. As far  as 
vehicles made here very little of GM, Ford or Chrysler parts  are made here. Most 
of the car parts come from all over the world. I know this  to be true since 
we see the labels and they say where they are made. We buy a  half a 
million in factory made OEM parts a year and most are not made in  the United 
States. 
 
 
Steve:"Don, I'm glad you are an early adopter.. I've done the same with  
some other
technologies.. and it's important to get some EV's out in the real  world
to see if they can replace ICE's."
 
Don: To see if they can actually replace ICE vehicles has already  been 
done. See link 
 
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV) 
 
Don: The RAV4 EV had a one hundred mile range and some have already gone  
150,000 miles on the original NiMH battery pack. Unfortunately Chevron/Texaco 
 bought a controlling interest in the NiMH battery and flat refused to sell 
the  NiMH battery for an EV. I know this to be true because I called the 
company and  asked them about buying a large quantity of NiMH batteries. They 
were  very nice to talk to but I was told they were only interested in 
working with  Hybrids. If I was working on Hybrids they would have been more then 
willing to  proceed. It did not matter that these were an OEM part in an 
OEM vehicle and the  same exact replacement battery. He told me he would like 
to but he was just  following orders.  
 
Don: I will leave it to speculation as to their motive but I bet they did  
not spend even one days profit to buy out the rights to the NiMH battery. 
Great  for them which turned out to be terrible for the rest of the world. 
 
See link 
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries) 
 
Steve: "It's only a small part of the problem..
 
Don: I really disagree with you on this. Oil imports are no small problem  
and they are growing problem. I don't call the one of the largest transfers 
of  wealth in the history of the world a small problem. Were selling out our 
 country for oil because that is what were use to buying. In fact it is 
such  a large problem our nation would literally come to a standstill if the 
flow  stopped. In a couple of weeks it would become a nation wide crisis.   

Steve: "A larger part of the problem is that US companies are content to  
send
productive work overseas. And that US consumers are willing to  buy
stuff built overseas, to the detriment of their own economy. And  that
no one sees this as "unpatriotic"."
 
Don: I do see buying items made in China as being unpatriotic however it is 
 getting almost impossible to find anything not made in China. I now look 
at the  item and decide how badly I really need it. Most of the time I put it 
back if  made in China. I will though buy from anywhere else in the world 
if there is not  a USA option.  
 
Steve: "At least until you have to replace the battery pack. The current  
fleet of
Preius are beginning to come to the end of their useful battery  life.. and
I understand that the "warranty" is often being fulfilled by  replacing the
now dead pack with packs salveged from wrecked vehicles."
 
Don: I just talked to a 2003 Prius owner who now has their vehicle in our  
shop. He just replaced his pack at a cost of around 3000 dollars. His 
vehicle  has 200,000 miles on it and is still going strong. Their range had 
dropped a  little and it turned out the pack was failing. I did ask why not get a 
used pack  and they felt it has done so well it was worth just getting a new 
one. The  warranty is 100,000 miles and I have not heard anything about 
Toyota providing  used packs under warranty replacements  .

Steve: "It is interesting  that you bring up Kenedy's speech about the 
Apollo
program. It occurred  during one of the most productive times in US
history.. and was largely  conducted by US companies, using US workers.
(I know this, first hand.. I was  one of them for 13 years.)"
 
Don: I am old enough to remember when Kennedy made the speech. We could  
have productive times now as well if the United States would become energy  
self sufficient. It can be done as a nation or if enough people see  the 
importance to act on their own. 

Steve: "This is largly true..  although you still need lubricants of 
various types."
 
Don: AC drive EV OEM vehicles are a little different then DC  drive which 
are usually used during conversions using a stick  transmission. AC motors 
have many advantages which is why  you only see AC systems used by 
manufacturers. No brushes and regen is  a given A simple gear reduction of around 11 to 
1.  There are less  lubricants used in an EV. In the stock OEM S-10 EV gear 
reduction  the fluid is never changed. Yes you still have lube points but 
that is about it.  The rest are sealed and some are not intended to be 
changed.
 
I know the RAV4 EV, S-10 EV and the Ranger EV fairly well since I have  to 
do all their service work. None of these I bought new and were in need of  
some service work. Mostly replacement modules in the pack. 
 
The Leaf is the next generation of EV. It is an amazing vehicle I expect it 
 to do very well and Nissan is definitely committed. So this is very good 
news  for anyone considering an EV. 
 
Don
 
 
 
In a message dated 4/25/2011 8:18:40 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
oeva-list-request at oeva.org writes:

Message:  3
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Steve's Account"  <stevel at fern.com>
Subject: [Oeva-list] subsidies.
To:  oeva-list at oeva.org
Message-ID:  <alpine.LNX.2.00.1104241947480.31055 at hub.fern.com>
Content-Type:  TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

Thank you, Don, for your  thoughtful reply.

> Hello Steve
>
> I have spent a  considerable amount of time reviewing your reply.
>
> For the vast  majority of drivers 100 miles of EV range is a game changer.
> So the  Leaf makes what was wishful thinking now a reality.

It seems that in  practice, the Leaf can not provide a 100 mile, 
un-recharged
range at  suburban road speeds and with a modicum of climate control, ie  
heat.


> Some of your beliefs may be a bit skewed as Alan pointed  out  your
> misconception of the current charging time. It takes  about 25  minutes 
to 
> charge for 80 miles of additional  range.

Provided you can find a charger at your intended destination  that meets 
your
needs for the faster charge.

(My employer, who, in  other areas touts their "green" record, has declined
to provide any form of  on-site chargeing facilities, citing liability as 
their  concern.)

> Just as you seem to try and point out about electric.  The true cost of 
oil
> if far greater then at the pump. I would rather  see us subsidize electric
> then  subsidize imported  oil.

I'd rather see us subsidize neither one.. and allow domestic oil  production
where it is econnomically feasable. (This includes removal of  any subsidy
currently in  place for oil..) Remember that the royalties  for US drilled
offshort oil come back to the US Treasury.


>  Right now we are spending a lot of money to
> keep our  military in  many parts of the world to maintain the flow of 
oil.

Really? Where?  Neither Iraq or Afghanistan have significant quantities of
oil.

We  don't have a significant presence in any of the other oil  producing
regions... (Libia, you might argue has some US presence.. and  that would
be true.)

> If
> oil was not  a critical  resource for the United States we would not be
> spending untold   billions of dollars to do this. The sad part is this 
money being
> spent  produces  nothing but a temporary supply line. On the other hand 
if  we
> took an equal  amount of funds and invested it here in the  United States 
we
> will have spent our  money far more  wisely.

Which is why I'm advocating for US based drilling. You are  definately right
we should be spending it here!

[snip]

> I  would not be surprised if there is more oil that can be tapped. The
>  problem is there will never be an unlimited supply so it will continue  
> to  be a costly resource.

Every time they have predicted  the "end of oil", so far, they were wrong.
The first such prediction  started in 1919.

But.. your point is valid.. it has gotten more  difficult.

> The least expensive oil has already been  found so  new oil is only going 
> to cost more.

Agreed.. which gives us  the oppertunity to fund other technologies, by
creating a demand.

No  energy source is free.

> I cringed when BP TV  ads said they  were going
> to cover the 20 billion dollar clean up of the  Gulf.  Yes they will pay 
for
> it but that just means higher oil prices.  Businesses  pass cost on so 
what I
> heard BP saying is your going  to be paying for the  clean up but BP will
> take the  credit.


Thus is it ever.. When the banks mismanaged resources.. it  wasn't the 
banks that paid.. it was us.

And our litigious society  hasn't learned that cleaning up from a disaster
is only made more expensive  when you involve the courts.

Is is just because no one could be found  to blame that FEMA covers some
disasters and not others?

I find it  interesting that the government will endemnify certain industries
for  "accidents", (nuclear power) and pillory others.

>
> I don't  really see your point in the following sentence?
>
> "In addition,  many of the generation facilities and transmission  
facilities
>  have been paid for either by the government or by rate   payers."

In looking at the types of "subsidies" various industries get,  electric 
power
has received neumerous subsidies over it's history,  including the examples
above. None of the major hydro projects could have  been completed without
the government bankrolling them, even if it was  eventually paid back.

Using electric power as a "fuel source" is, as  such subsidized by the
existance of a distrubution network, at least  partially funded by
others.
>
> Yes we have a good start for  the infrastructure of electric as a fuel. 
Just
> another reason to make  full use of that investment. There is nothing paid
> for by  the  government it is all taken from the tax payer. Just like 
tobacco
>  in  Oregon is charged taxes that is then used to fund roads. I am not  
sure
> about the logic of taxing tobacco for roads but it does not have  any
> bearing what type of fuel should be on the roads.

My guess  is that "Sombody has to police up all the cigarette butts!" and
your car is  about the only public place you might smoke without being
arrested!  :-)
>
> More oil is not the answer and more oil would only delay  the inevitable. 
We
> should conserve what we have as there are many uses  that would cost far
> more or  there really is not a good  alternative. That is why it is such a
> waste to use a  limited  resource for local driving.

On this we largly  agree.

>
> The other reason additional oil is not the answer  is at some point we  
are
> going to be forced to find an  alternative. It would be a very unwise
> decision to delay lowering our  independence of oil. By procrastinating 
> this will
> only serve  to increase the cost of oil and drain our country of even  
more
>  money.

Which is why I say "domestic drilling"..

> You idea to  control prices with more oil has merit if we could
> produce an excess  of oil at a lower cost. This would not be a permanent 
fix more
> like  putting a band aid on when you need major surgery. If we actually  
start
> replacing our dependence on oil that would help reduce oil  prices. Unlike
> trying  to find more oil finding an alternative  energy would be a long 
term
> answer.

And I think that hybrids  are the near term answer.. At least until purely
electric vechcles can come  closer to meeting the typical need.
>
> There must be a lot of  people in Oregon who agree that we can have  
cleaner
> electric.  PGE?s renewable power program is the most successful  program 
of
>  its kind in the country. My businesses buy 100 percent  wind. So not 
only  is
> our business powered by wind so are the EVs.

Well.. as I  understand PGE's program.. it's not that they ACTUALLY BUY
wind produced  power to meet every killowatt hour of the subscribers to the
program.. but  that they invest in schemes that may evenutally generate
wind power. And  that, currently, there are not enough wind generation 
plants
actually in  use to come anywhere NEAR meeting the use by their  
subscribers.


> In our case your claim of a dirty grid is less  valid. We are willingly
> paying more and everyone will benefit. Not  only will it help make 
electric a
> cleaner fuel it will keep more of  our money here and provide long term  
local
> jobs. I would like to  see more done but this is a  good start.

What I've never  understood is... the power companies don't pay a dime for
"wind" fuel.. So  why is it that they charge a premium price for power that,
were it  generated that way, would be cheaper?

Since a given electron can't be  traced to it's source, your only hope of
keeping the power companies honest  is to demand that they show that they
have a source for each kwh they are  selling.
>
> You make a point that electric is a dirty fuel. You  have a choice you can
> pay less and make it so or you can pay more and  clean the grid up  
faster if
> this is a concern to you. This again  is where I agree with Lan. If  were
> going to be using coal then  it would be much easier to make it cleaner 
in 
> one location then in  millions of vehicles.

Except that they don't hold power plants to the  same standards they do
cars.. and since cars are replaced more quicly than  power plants, it's
easier to modify the car fleet than the power company  plants.

>
> Really there are other options for clean electric.  As an example go a
> little over half way down the page at this  link

Oh.. I'd love to see us use geothermal power... It makes a lot  more sense
than many of the other alternatives.

And I'd like to see  us REQUIRE that any new building built in an area
that requires over a  certain number of heating degree days or cooling
degree days per year use  ground source heating and cooling systems.

We could significantly cut  the "fixed point" utilzation of fuel if we
did this. (As opposed to mobile  uses of power such as cars, trains, ships,
aircraft etc.)

It is  interesting that you bring up Kenedy's speech about the Apollo
program. It  occured during one of the most productive times in US
history.. and was  largely conducted by US companies, using US workers.
(I know this, first  hand.. I was one of them for 13 years.)

>
> The United States  is going broke and oil is a big part of the  problem.

It's only a  small part of the problem..

A larger part of the problem is that US  companies are content to send
productive work overseas. And that US  consumers are willing to buy
stuff built overseas, to the detriment of  their own economy. And that
no one sees this as "unpatriotic".

>  Were all either part of the problem or part of the solution. I  really  
> feel EVs
> can be a huge part of the solution.

cigarette  butts
> EVs also have a very long  list of
> other positives.  However you don't need to be a fan or fanatic to drive 
> an EV anymore.  Nissan with the Leaf has now made it possible  to go 
about 
> your  daily driving more convenient and in  the long run less  costly.

It's not quite that effective.. but it's getting  closer.

> No more going out of your way to find and  wait at a  gas station.

Nope.. now you hike MILES to the nearest charging  station.. only to find
that it's not compatible with your vehicle or not  otherwise available.


> No more 
> engine oil changes,  transmission or axle oil  changes. No more air 
filters,
>   belts or major engine services.  Even your brakes  will last longer  
> because your motor turns into a generator which helps stop the   vehicle.

This is largly true.. although you still need lubricants of  various types.

> Also since it is very doubtful
> gas will go  down in the future you  having an alternative fuel vehicle 
that
>  is free from future oil price hikes. New  vehicles are usually always  a
> poor investment. However with an EV with such a  long warranty  back by a 
> major manufacturer is about as good as it gets.

At  least until you have to replace the battery pack. The current fleet  of
Preius are beginning to come to the end of their useful battery life..  and
I understand that the "warranty" is often being fulfilled by replacing  the
now dead pack with packs salveged from wrecked  vehicles.


> But wait  there's more with the
> 7500  dollar federal tax credit taken off the top its  almost a steal  
while
> these funds last.

I'm glad the subsidy is in effect, for  now.. but I'd like to see them
compete on a one to one basis, especially  for vehicles produced overseas.
>
> Although the electric supply  has a lot to do with EVs. I am afraid  much 
of
> this post is  getting away from what the OEVA is here for. I also don't
> want to bore  anyone with my point of views. Sometimes that is easier 
said 
> then  done for a fanatic.
>
> Don
>
Don, I'm glad you are an  early adopter.. I've done the same with some other
technologies.. and it's  important to get some EV's out in the real world
to see if they can replace  ICE's.

I think, for some, the current product will do just  fine.

And I think hybrids will help fill in the gap. (And it looks like  we will
have a small flood of hybrids, soon.. Lexus, Lincoln and others  have
already begun advertizing them.)

We may soon see "battery  replacement" versions of EV's, where you stop in
and swap batteries,  instead of re-charging, leaving the heavy, expensive,
fast charging systems  at "gas stations".

Just as we have "propane exchange" racks at grocery  stores now, battery
exchanges might work as well.

The existing crop  of EV's will start to prove that, one way or the other.

I'm looing  forward to the general availability of the EV Transit. If they
can do that,  with reasonable range and purchase price.. I'd seriously take 
a
look at  it.

Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110426/61e81f62/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Oeva-list mailing list