Recent Comments:
Shell opens combination hydrogen and gasoline station in LA {Autoblog Green}
Jun 27th 2008 11:47AM Using electricity and water to make hydrogen, and then using hydrogen to make electricity for the vehicle's motor doesn't make any sense from an efficiency standpoint.
Why can't we just have fuel stations with electric chargers that charge EV's instead of going the hydrogen route. Seems like it would be more efficient process, and cheaper too.
I guess another good question would be how much more electricity will Shell have to use for electrolysis than what would be needed to fill up EV's?
Gingrich presents three ways to lower gas prices {Autoblog Green}
Jun 25th 2008 1:44PM Can anyone please identify where Newt was when he made this speech and what was the date? I can't find it anywhere.
-BJD
McCain proposes $300 million prize for better battery {Autoblog Green}
Jun 23rd 2008 12:16PM Golden Boy,
This relates to the previous McCain article where he was touting more nuclear and clean coal. My question was why and what would all this new electricity be usd for?
McCain has finally connected the dots. By "plugging" electric cars, McCain's ideas for more nuclear, clean coal now make sense.
Golden Boy, you were correct in that McCain has touted electric vehicles in the past. I thank you for citing examples. But look now, he is getting very specific, wouldn't you say?
This is all very exciting stuff, as both Pres. candidates are talking about "real" solutions to our problems with energy security and oil dependancy.
The next six months are going to get very interesting indeed.
-BJD
A McCain presidency would mean electric cars powered by nuclear plants, clean coal {Autoblog Green}
Jun 19th 2008 1:55PM Golden Boy,
That's just it. McCain hasn't said ANYTHING about electric plug-in vehicles. You can't tout clean coal and more nukes as means to improve our energy security and reduce our dependance on foreign oil unless you are also touting electric cars, period.
In one of McCains debates against the other republican runners, he was asked a direct question. What can we do to address $100 oil. His answer: Hybrids, wind, solar, nuclear, and clean coal. Now in my mind, hybrids can reduce oil demand but not my much. And without electric vehicles, more wind, solar, nuclear, and clean coal will do nothing to address oil consumption. Get it???
McCain needs to include electric vehicles in his dialogue because too many people are being greenwashed into believing that more clean coal/nukes will somehow reduce our dependance on foreign oil.
And don't get me wrong. I love James Woolsey. You should listen to his speeches about plug-ins and energy security. Very compelling stuff. Being an advisor to McCain just makes me wonder what the hell McCain is thinking.
A McCain presidency would mean electric cars powered by nuclear plants, clean coal {Autoblog Green}
Jun 19th 2008 12:10PM Here's the biggest problem with McCain when it comes to touting clean coal and more nuclear plants.
Why is there no mention from him about what exactly is the purpose of all this new electrical capacity? He says it's to help the environment. Yes, that's true and noble, but that still doesn't explain what the electricity is for. He also says its to help us become more energy secure. How in the hell can that be true if he has never been a supporter of plug-in hybrid cars and pure EV's. He's failing to make the connection.
Even more strange. One of his closest energy advisors is James Woolsey (ex Cia director and now staunch supporter of plug-in electric cars). If Woolsey has McCain's ear, this leads me to conclude 2 things. One, McCain is stupid and cannot comprehend the connection between more clean coal/nuclear and electrification of transportation, or two, he's too damn chicken to go against his supporters/constituents/party to support plug-in vehicles. That would go against their interests.
Get real McCain. If you want more clean coal and nuclear, the most convincing case you have for doing it is by supporting electric cars in a parallel fashion. It would not just help the environment. It would help erradicate our oil addiction, improve energy security, trim the trade defecit, stimulate the economy, and strengthen our foreign policy. You and your defecit hawks and neo-cons don't have a good track record with the environment, so why would you take this tack? Your traditional strengths lie with national security and fiscal responsibility, so go on and do the right thing. Tout clean coal and nuclear, as well as electric cars. Otherwise, stick to your traditional calls for more domestic drilling.
Tom Friedman takes on the idiocy of a gas tax holiday {Autoblog Green}
May 1st 2008 10:45AM Sam, I'm sorry but when are people going to fully understand that you cannot associate the use of solar and wind energy as a solution to oil consumption. Oil is used to produce gas that runs cars. Solar and wind do not power cars. That is unless we electrify our transportation network.
People need to understand this important fact. Too many politicians (McCain) and others (I just can't believe Thomas Friedman just did it in his article even though he's smarter than that) are just plain wrong to say or even infer that reducing oil tax royalties to stimulate production of wind and solar energy will solve our addiction to oil and high gas prices.
Someone (maybe you) should write your own op-ed on this crazy association. The public is being brainwashed. Several months ago, McCain was asked a direct question in the GOB debates...."What's the solution to high oil prices?" He answered with 5 things....increase CAFE, hybrids, wind, solar, and nuclear. Only the first two would result in using gas more efficiently, while the last three have no effect on gas consumption.
Please somebody get the facts straight.
The solution to higher gas prices, addicition to oil is to electrify the transporation industry.
Robert Zubrin talks about requiring all cars to be flex-fuel capable {Autoblog Green}
Jan 2nd 2008 7:12PM Haven't read the book, but if I'm interpreting the headline correctly, I am really mystified how one can arise at the conclusion that if every vehicle in the US were flex fuel we'd no longer be dependent on foreign oil.
To elaborate, the US consumes abount 20 million barrels of oil per day, and of this 12.5 million barrels are imports.
The US transportation sector consumes about 13.8 million barrels of oil per day, and of this, approximately 13 million barrels of oil are used to make gasoline and diesel fuel for all the cars and trucks in America.
Since 13.8 mbpd is still greater than 12.5 mbpd, then technically speaking,there would still have to be imports into the US. Not to mention the fact that domestic oil production is waning, flex-fuel vehicles by their very definition still require 15% gasoline, means that we would have even a greater reliance on foreign oil imports than I've alluded to above.
Not a complete fix, but I do applaud Zubrin's vision.
Now it's pen-on-paper official: President Bush signs 35 mpg CAFE into law {Autoblog Green}
Dec 19th 2007 2:40PM Hey Sebastian,
When you find out, could you provide more detail on the $90 million per year funding for plug-ins? Who distributes the funds? How many years is this program? Who stands to receive the funding? Is it USCAR, or is there a competetive bid or selection process?
$90 million per year is a significant leap over prior DOE funding in the realm of battery research grants.
Volvo & Saab teaming up to bring 10 plug-in hybrids on the road by 2009 {Autoblog Green}
Dec 12th 2007 12:38PM This seems very strange.
First of all Saab is owned by GM and Volvo is owned by Ford. So this would mean a collaboration of sorts. Here in the US, these two companies, along with Chrysler formed USCAR, a collaboration to promote future vehicle technology. Here's their web site:
http://www.uscar.org/guest/index.php
I believe the reason USCAR was established was to pool together R&D funds and pursue government matching grants. Else, why would these competing car companies be working with each other?
I'll bet SAAB and Volvo are doing the same over in Europe. See if the article mentions any gov. funds or grants. It's the only reason I see for collaboration.
Toshiba's new SCiB battery charges in 5 minutes, releases March 2008 for electric vehicles {Autoblog Green}
Dec 11th 2007 7:32PM Many of the folks on AltairNano's message board (yahoo/finance) have digested today's news from Toshiba. At first, the 5-minute charge claimed by Toshiba was seen as a threat to Altair's Nanosafe battery, but no longer. The 5-minute charge time claimed by Toshiba is actually on the module level (10 cells placed in series), and does not reflect the time it takes to charge an entire battery pack, as in something like a 16- or 32kw-hr pack that Altair claims it's Nanosafe battery pack can charge in under 10 minutes.
It's also important to note that Toshiba's claim is only for 90% charge status, while the Nanosafe battery can easily charge to 100% without any resistance (i.e. it takes even longer for the Toshiba battery to charge from 90% to 100% than it does from 80% to 90%).
Lastly, since Toshiba didn't release the energy density figures, several Alti geeks had to run the numbers....and they don't look good for Toshiba.
Will somebody (EDTA, others?) please create a standard protocal for measuring and releasing statistics on the performance of Li-Ion batteries? Any company can describe how well their batteries perform in a million different ways, so as their battery appears to be superior.
