[Vision2020] Chevy "Volt" Plug-In Electric "Hybrid"

Tue Jun 10 23:59:30 PDT 2008

Cynthia and others-

I'm not sure how to answer your question.

In my opinion, plug in electric cars should be available at every auto
dealership in the USA, though now in the form of hybrids, partly electric
cars are becoming mainstream, minus the plug in option.  No doubt the auto
makers will insist that because of their limited range, limited power, or
limited size, or the need to replace batteries, pure electric cars are/were
not profitable to sell.  The film you mention makes a different case
regarding the real motives to discourage adoption of electric cars.

As to who should "be put in prison to rot" for "killing" the electric car,
Cheney's offences are sufficient, with no mention of any plots regarding
marginalizing electric car availability, to send him up the river, or does
authorizing torture in violation of the Geneva Accords, lying to the
American public to lead us to a bloody war killing hundreds of thousands,
and outing CIA operatives, for political motives, not smack of treason, to
true patriots?

For short commutes (Moscow to Pullman and back or Troy to Moscow and back,
for example) an electric car powered solely by batteries is cheaper to power
with electricity, at current rates, than a similar car with gas.  Eventual
replacment of the batteries is a major cost that needs to be included, so
this may spoil the deal.  But with gas increasing to over 4 dollars a
gallon, as it may, and if this price is long term, an electric car looks
increasingly like a bargain.  If this choice became mainstream, the increase
on the electric grid demands might force an unfortunate increase in coal or
natural gas fired CO2 emitting electric power.  But with wind, solar and
other renewables (I'd mention hydro but damming even more rivers has other
negative impacts on the environment) powering the electric grid, electric
cars should offer a lower CO2 impact, and remain cheaper to power than gas
from oil, given oil heading to 200 dollars a barrel:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/PB2ch10_ss4.htm

>From URL above:

Even more exciting, recharging batteries with off-peak wind-generated
electricity would cost the equivalent of gasoline at 50¢ per gallon.
-----------------------
The new plug in gas or diesel electric hybrids, which can function like a
pure electric car for short commutes, but still offer a back up combustion
engine to power long trips, may become widespread shorty.  This may be the
best immediate prospect for the transition away from oil intensive and CO2
emitting transportation technology for consumers.  The problem of powering
all the electricity needed to charge millions of these vehicles without CO2
impacts, as I mentioned, is perhaps the real challenge, not the roll out of
the vehicles.  T. Boone Pickens, Texas billionaire oil man investing in wind
power, to the rescue:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/19/pickens.qa/
-------------------------
"Drive the USA in your Chevrolet!"  Remember this line, sung as it was in
the commercials?

Chevy "Volt" plug-in hybrid:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/07/detroit-auto-show-its-here-gms-plug-in-hybrid-is-the-chevy-v/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4215492.html

>From URL above:

*5. Battery Pack*

A 16-kwh li-ion battery pack provides enough power for up to 40 miles of
driving before the generator is required.

------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 6/10/08, cynthia nichols <cynthiann0 at mac.com> wrote:
>
> Ted, Very well put--could i just ask ONE question?
>
>
> Whatever happened to the electric car? I saw the movie "who killed the
> electric car?" and just cannot get it out of my head that we HAD the answer
> to at least the auto emissions thing (years ago) and someone/something
> deliberately squashed it. (No, it wasn't "market forces at work". People who
> had them wanted to keep them and weren't allowed to). Whatever forces did
> that , (did Cheney  have a hand in it ?),  whoever was in the (clandenstine)
> meetings to stop that experiment and stop its expansion should have all
> their assets seized and be put in prison to rot. And carmakers should be
> encouraged and/or  forced to produce them.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
>
>
> regards, cynthia
>
>
>  On Jun 9, 2008, at 2:10 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>  Saundra and ya'al
>
> ...And short term economic pressures that result in ignoring the massive
> long term economic impacts of climate change don't add up either.
>
> Nuclear waste is a major problem, along with the potential for a terrorist
> attack on nuclear facilities, proliferation of nuclear material, the impacts
> of uranium mining (nuclear fission based on uranium is, unless I've got the
> physics wrong, not a renewable resource, even with breader reactors creating
> more nuclear fuel, given uranium will deplete), the huge costs of nuclear
> plant construction, the fact that nuclear power plants have a limited life
> span, then require expensive "moth balling."
>
> However, coal power, 50% of US electric generation, has killed more people
> by far than nuclear power, with thousands of people with respiratory illness
> effected.  Pollution from China's out of control coal fired plants, with new
> plants coming on line every week (no joke!), drifts across the Pacific,
> raising air pollution levels at times in California to a level that gives
> little room for industries in California to pollute, and not exceed the air
> quality standards. Mercury emissions from coal fired plants has negative
> impact on wildlife and humans.  And the CO2 emissions from coal are
> gigantic, and potentially can increase dramatically globally.  Coal can be
> made cleaner, but CO2 sequestration is expensive and currently only an
> experimental technology.
>
> Newer nuclear plant designs are now safer, and nuclear waste can be reduced
> with more advanced processes, and stored in a safer form.  Consider France,
> Japan and Sweden. all relying heavily on nuclear power, with a good safety
> record, and waste management practices that people in those nations accept.
>
> I don't like nuclear or coal, but if the choice is between catastrophic
> climate change from continued massive CO2 emitting coal burning, or massive
> roll out of nuclear to replace coal, maybe nuclear should be promoted, if it
> truly replaces coal, and is not just another energy source promoting more
> energy intensive economic expansion while coal burning continues apace.
>
> Of course, this is a false choice, I think, given that there is sufficient
> wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave et.al. renewable energy to supply
> most of our needs, even transportation energy for cars and trucks,
> especially if coupled with conservation and changes in life style.  Save oil
> for powering jets, for example, and other very energy intensive technology,
> that cannot be powered except by either oil, coal to liquid, or biofuels. We
> can keep a high standard of living with mostly renewables, in my opinion.
> Oil should be saved for all the other uses so important in the manufacture
> of products, plastics, etc.
>
> Although I try to remain optimistic about the energy/climate change crisis
> (both problems must be solved simultaneously), I doubt radical change will
> happen for decades, perhaps too late to head off extreme climate change.
> Oil and coal are too entrenched as energy sources given current economic
> models and life styles to make the switch to renewables quickly.  Here in
> the US we have a "Saudi Arabia" size oil resource in the oil shale in
> Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, which is on the drawing board for development,
> though it is expensive and difficult to process. And though oil
> is increasing in price, coal remains cheap and abundant.  Nations heavily
> dependent on oil for their economies will resist giving up this income in a
> transition to renewables.  Corporations who are heavily invested in coal and
> oil will resist the change.  High oil prices might just force a switch to
> coal to liquids to power transportation, and coal is abundant on Earth.
> This is one reason why high oil prices may not in the long run reduce CO2
> emissions globally very much.  The CO2 emission potential from coal is
> greater than from oil.
>
> I wish I had a crystal ball to view our world in 100 years... I suspect our
> world in 2108 will be far more different than we are different now from
> 1908.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
> On 6/9/08, Saundra Lund <sslund_2007 at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Crapo said the bill should have included more incentives for
>> clean-burning energy technology like nuclear power production."
>>
>> Just one of MANY reasons I didn't vote Mr. "Let's Pretend Nuclear Waste
>> isn't a Real Problem."
>>
>>
>> Saundra Lund
>> Moscow, ID
>>
>> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
>> nothing.
>> ~ Edmund Burke
>>
>> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2008 through life
>> plus 70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce
>> outside the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
>> author.*****
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080610/18db2d26/attachment-0001.html 