14 Comments

1. Cloud Master:

Just wondering……………….
Electric cars run on a battery. A battery does not create energy, it only stores energy. The battery must be charged. If everyone had an electric car we would collectively need increased electric generating capacity. Since most electric generation in this country involves the burning of fossil fuels, would we not just be shifting the carbon emissions from individual cars to power plants. Have any studies been done on the increased power plant emissions? Is there a cost savings? What will it cost to fill-up (charge) my electric automobile as compared to the cost of a tank of gas?

Jul 1, 2008 - 6:31 pm 2. Roger L Simon:

An excellent question, Cloud Master, which the videos above address in some detail. Of course there are no simple solutions – everything has compromises – but it seems clear that the electric people are on to something. My approach is to encourage innovation but the traditional methods now have serious problems. It’s a question of attitude. Being positive about the future and the possibility of innovation is probably necessary to having it. I applaud those who think creatively, even when they are wrong. We need that.

Jul 1, 2008 - 6:37 pm 3. David Thomson:

I strongly encourage new energy technologies. It is even good idea for the American people via their government to award inventors and entrepreneurs with large sums of money. But this is what must not be conveniently forgotten: we still must deal with the here and now realities! There is plenty of oil in the United States and the rest of the world. We are not going to run out anytime soon. Thus, it is foolish to hesitate drilling for more oil. I also feel uncomfortable with the very term “addiction.” Oil is presently a rational option. Addiction implies that one is somewhat like the proverbial derelict whose whole existence revolves around obtaining their next bottle of Mad Dog 20/20. This sort of rhetoric only further confuses matters.

Jul 2, 2008 - 1:06 am 4. Roger L Simon:

I agree, David. “Reliance on” might have been better than “addiction.” And obviously I support sensible drilling. If you check out the link, however, you will find this man Shai Agassi has a rather brilliant plan to change things quickly. Don’t know if it works, but it’s sure worth considering.

Jul 2, 2008 - 6:56 am 5. Lem:

It seems to me that as long as we are not prepared to put everything on the table, our attempts will be feeble and half hearted.

For instance, if you work with a computer (as I do) it doesn’t make sense to drive more than 20 miles when a secure network will do. Telecommuting/home office is something that can work.

It’s not just replacing petroleum with some other magic bullet, but also transforming the way we been doing things.

Jul 2, 2008 - 6:57 am 6. CR:

What about our addiction to food? In the 21st century isn’t it unthinkable that the human body is still powered by a millions-of-years-old set of seedplants dependent on a layer of topsoil and a steady source of rain?

And the farmers who produce this commodity are reaping their biggest profits ever and are not investing in newer, alternative food technologies. Windfall profits taxes on the food profiteers now!

Jul 2, 2008 - 7:37 am 7. Neobuzz:

Roger,

So you think the consumption of oil is an “addiction?” What nonsense! To the contrary, petroleum is a tonic that has done much to cure what has ailed us. Let me offer an example that you should appreciate. The real reason the residents of Bedford Falls were able to escape Mr. Potter’s slums and buy their own homes was not because the Building and Loan could provide financing, but because the automobile made it possible for residents of suburban tracts to drive to and from work and shopping. Following your logic, that the consumption of gasoline is some sort of addictive vice, George Bailey becomes the villain of this Capra classic and Mr. Potter is transformed into the hero. Is that the world you live in?

Could you please refrain from using the hackneyed, politically loaded, and, most importantly, inaccurate description of our use of oil as an “addiction.” The use of fossil fuels has done much to improve the health, happiness, and productivity of Americans and people around the globe. It is unfortunate that the supply of oil has been cornered by some of the most unsavory characters in our world, but you can’t deny its benefits. Can you name some other “addictive” substance that has done so much to enhance our quality of life?

Your truly,

Neobuzz

Jul 2, 2008 - 9:30 am 8. AlanC:

I have heard Shai Agassi for years as he was the Technology head for SAP where I have worked for 14 years.

He is brilliant and this is a great example of his out of the box systemic thinking. The hard part of this (and possibly his only real weakness) is that of underestimating all of the political problems involved in implementation. In a dictatorship this would be easier, but, in a democracy? There will be a whole lot of competing interests.

Nothing he mentions is not “doable” but it won’t be easy. Just imagine the disruption to install electrical outlets at every parking spot at a mall, or downtown, or at an airport. Majorly problematic, and BTW who goes first?

Also, for changing those batteries to “re-fuel” …. how many batteries would your gas station have on hand? How many truck loads would be moving in and out with new supplies? And that’s assuming that all cars have a standard cofiguration and can take a standard battery.

It’s a hell of an idea but the politics and engineering are outrageous.

Jul 2, 2008 - 1:20 pm 9. AnthonyE:

The guy is smooth and I am sure will make millions. But in answer to CloudMaster this is a bigger fraud than ethanol from corn. It is very well established that using oil or natural gas to make electricity and then driving a car with it is less efficient than using gasoline directly. So more crude oil is required, not less. His slick comment that we will “get the electrons from solar and wind” is a diversion. He forgot to talk about the investments required to develop all of that technology and put in that infrastructure. Political types are easy to fool.
And by the way – if we convert the world’s transportation to electrical and try to supply it via nuclear we will be out of nuclear fuel in two decades.

Jul 2, 2008 - 4:34 pm 10. Jamieirons:

Remember that much of the recharging will be done at night, when the grid is typically much underutilized. Mr. Agassi says that implementation of his idea would only involve a 6% expansion of electrical generating capacity, amortized over a handful of years.

It may be more doable than some of the objections here suggest.

Jamie Irons

Jul 2, 2008 - 8:48 pm 11. david foster:

“It is very well established that using oil or natural gas to make electricity and then driving a car with it is less efficient than using gasoline directly. So more crude oil is required, not less”…central power plants are considerably more efficient than car engines because they don’t have the space constraints and also because usually have access to rivers or streams for cooling water, which is thermodynamically important. Several analyses have shown that the cost of driving a car with electrical energy is lower than that of driving the same car with gasoline. (Energy cost only–not cost of the battery, which is an issue.)

Also, oil is not a major fuel for electricity production in the U.S.

Jul 3, 2008 - 5:43 am 12. James:

Hi Roger,

This guy is wrong or wild on two counts:

1) Expanding the electrical grid by 6% is not the same as increasing electricity usage by 6%. What this guy is proposing is to run the entire electrical grid at peak capacity all the time, rather than run it at peak capacity once/twice per day.

That will increase total electrical usage by 40%. That will require a large increase in natural gas usage. This might make sense for Israel, given its constraints, but its not necessarily a good idea for larger countries.

2) His investors require government mandates to invest. In his case, the government basically shuts down internal combustion engine sales through taxes, which gives the investors an incentive to build the network.

What if someone builds a plant which produces ethanol for $1/gal from garbage? Too bad, the electric guy had the government kill that program so he wins instead. He specifically said that a necessary step in his program is to tax cars that run on gasoline (ICE engines) at a such a high rate that no one will buy them.

I guess a guy can make a lot of money if he can convince the government to kill all of his potential competitors.

Jim

Jul 3, 2008 - 5:57 am 13. Michael Markowitz:

Nice presentation but seriously flawed.

He asserts that there are electircal outlets “everywhere” in Sweden and Canada for block heaters. I don’t know about Sweden, I do know about Canada. There are not.

He asserts that the cars would go “130 miles” on a charge. Listen to the RenaultNissan guy, “130 kilometers”. Already a 40% decline in capacity.

I found Agassi’s little speech about the brilliance of Israel’s formula for a tax disincentive for gas cars very distressing. Especially the brilliant innovation of an ever increasing tax on the electric cars.

Early in his speech he talked about having a 5 seater to go on a road trip with the guys. Later he talks about saving a gas car to use for the road trip with the guys. Does that mean the electric 5 seater just turned into a 2 seater?

Much more troubling to me was the third aspect of affordability: Can’t afford to be seen in a Hummer! Teaching 5th graders about evil cars! Wow. What a crock. I hope this guy lectures at my daughters school. She’ll cut him down to size.

I am all for new cleaner technologies but not statists dictating what I do, when and how.

Jul 3, 2008 - 8:05 am 14. david levavi:

The advantages of electric cars over cars driven by internal combustion are elegant proof of Mies van der Rohe’s dictum, less is more. Many fewer moving parts. No pollution. No grease. No combustion. No noise. No vibration. No Transmission. No idle.

Shai Agassi’s plan is refreshingly realistic in its approach to the consumer. It makes no elitist assumptions about knowing what the customer wants better than the customer. The customer wants a mean ride. Muscular and roomy and formidably slick. Fantasy trumps practical necessity and Agassi’s plan caters to it as automobile manufactures always have.

And Agassi’s plan grapples directly with the which-comes-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg question that always ends discussion of hydrogen fuel. The manufactures won’t build a hydrogen car until hydrogen distribution and fueling are in place and the energy suppliers won’t consider hydrogen distribution and vending before hydrogen cars are on the road. Agassi’s plan tackles automobile manufacture and fuel distribution simultaneously.

I’m a guy who prefers stick even in NYC where I live. I’ve owned British and Italian roadsters. A fine tuned roadster with a crisp, short-throw shifter on a mountain road is a treat. If I had my druthers I’d be driving a six-speed mid-engine Boxter or NSX.

But I’m psyched on electric. Electric promises to be a whole new experience. Smooth, quiet power. Wildly elegant. I can’t wait. The next step is exchanging tires for a cushion of air a few inches off the ground. The technology is availabe.

I’m not competent to address the issue of cost for charging batteries off the grid vs cost for various fuels for internal combustion. But nuclear is back on the table and technology for petroleum extraction from coal and shale is advancing. The grid serves regardless of fuel source. And net energy consumption by an electric vehicle has to be considerably less than that of an internal combustion equivalent. The economics of electric cars should be advantageous.

Tesla has demonstrated outstanding performance and acceptable range. And given current incentives, longer lived batteries with a range of three and four hundred miles can’t be far away. The nanowire lithium ion battery in development at Stanford sounds especially promising.

Its nice to see Israeli mathematicians, scientists and engineers, in Silicon Valley and in Israel, playing so prominent a role in helping the industrial world move beyond intolerable dependence on OPEC. Reminds you of Chaim Weitzman’s critical contribution to British arms during the First World War. Likewise the contributions of Jewish mathematicians and physicists to the conclusion the Second World War with a minimum of American casualties.

Poetic justice for the greedy and malevolent Saudis. Let them drink it.

Jul 4, 2008 - 8:18 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: