Please play nice. "I'm sorry you're stupid" is no way to have a conversation.

The big difference, of course, is that nobody is proposing a 'black hole tax' (though some consider them ALL black hole taxes ) When pols like Merkel propose to 'limit temperature rise to 2deg C', it shows just how far removed they are from the science. Does any scientist actually claim we can control the earth's average temperature?
BTW Matt, I'm with you on the that people don't seem to take reasonable actions without sensationalistic ramblings like AIT.


SO, how 'bout that CAFE law...
Whaddaya think - do companies figure out how to make lighter SUVs, or convince people that they don't really want to sit higher and 'feel' safer (even if they're not safer ) Or do they just market/price the hell out of select small cars in hopes of selling enough of them to get the average up? Or C: buy enough pols and biotch enough to get the standards lowered/pushed out?

 

Here's my take on it. Encouraging public trans isn't gonna change anything, nor is carpooling. They'll use it or they won't. The gov't needs to get involved. Carmakers only want to sell as many $$ as they can. Gas companies want us to use as much gas as possible. Jacking up the price of gas with a big tax hike probably will somebody lynched, even though it would probably work quickly if they announced the schedule in advance. So forcing carmakers to at least get better mileage is all the gov't has enough guts to do. Remember the gas guzzler tax? Now there was a joke. Personally I think if it applied to more cars, if gas went up .75/gallon, if there were annual registration penalties based on MPG all that would lower sales of big cars a lot. Heck, a friend of mine recently bought a huge Dodge truck because it had an $8000 discount just to get it off the lot. He'd have never bought it without that.

 

Ever since mankind started keeping detailed and widespread records of the weather there have been dire predictions of either a catastrophic warming or cooling trend every few decades. Each time the scaremongers have been proven wrong. Up until recently these scares served primarily to sell books and newspapers. Starting in the 1970’s it started becoming political, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union the radicals who had advocated the end of capitalism and “consumerism” moved into the green movement. With the majority of fervent greenies if you scratch the green you find red beneath. Before they advocated for the destruction of western society in the name of politics, now they advocate for that destruction in the name of the Earth. For the true believer, Environmentalism has become a religion, those who disbelieve are infidels and any scientist who is not convinced is an apostate.

Two recent examples serve to illustrate the point, Acid Rain and the Ozone Hole. Both of these received hysterical press coverage. The destruction of Earths forests and a virtual pandemic of cancer were predicted. Once hugely expensive scrubbers were installed on US coal fired power plants the entire problem of acid rain disappeared despite the fact that China, Russia, India and a host of other countries far more than made up for any reduction in US emissions. Similarly, once Freon was banned in the US (but not much of the rest of the world) and replaced with a corrosive and possibly carcinogenic, but patentable, alternative, the ozone hole scare was forgotten. NASA and the rest of the scientific community has completely backed down from their dire predictions but Freon remains banned and DuPont gets massive profits from their patented replacement chemical.

The last few years have been very tough on the global warming crowd. Most of their claims have been demonstrated to be vastly overstated if not false. The tide is turning, as more evidence is gathered, the proposition that mankind (especially the US of course) is causing a climatological catastrophe is being steadily debunked. The opportunistic politicians trying to ride the scare into power will disavow it if they want to remain viable and the fear mongering press will simply move on to the next over hyped terror.

It’s funny that as a certain politician has bet his future on a coming disaster, and won an Oscar and a Nobel in the process, many of those he quoted to make his predictions have distanced themselves from him.

 

[quote=Dr Obnxs;1948612]the Tesla is doing well, The Tesla is a great car but at a starting price of $100,000.00 is out of reach to the average American. The sad part about this is if companies were able to make NIMH EV cars they would be alot cheaper than 100k. After a few years of operation of the EV1 GM realized that they were not going to make any money on servicing these cars. Nothing wore out on them, not even the brakes, as the electric motor greatly assisted in slowing these cars down. They decided to kill the project and all the EV1 cars were crushed. All the original cars were leased because so many of the top GM execs were against the car. The patent for the large scale NIMH batteries was sold to Texaco and a week after that Chevron bought Texaco. Currently Toyota buys it's NIMH batteries from Cobasys Corp. (which is owned by Chevron) and these batteries cannot be put into any plug in vehicle to be imported into the US. A great documentary on this subject is "Who Killed The Electric Car". There is also a ton of info on the net on EV autos.

 

ladisney: are you related to Bill O'Reilly (lol)? The global warming dudes will indeed move on to something else pretty quick and leave Gore to fly around in his jet sounding off to whoever will listen to him. All I have to say about all that is: bring back aeresol spray Right Guard deoderant! Then they won't stink so bad.

 

Feel free to post these patent numbers - patents are in the public domain.
If Chevron doesn't want Toyota to use NiMH batteries, why does it sell them to Toyota?? Toyota has US plants - why not build them in the US, then they are not imported.

 

Back to the original question about CAFE law. There is an assumption I have noticed in almost all discussions about fuel economy, and fuel consumption. Everyone assumes cars travel X miles per year (12,000-15,000) By regulating the fuel economy per vehicle, you can control the fuel consumption. In my experience, cars don't go anywhere on their own, at least not intentionally.

A group called CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates) published the numbers for miles driven per LICENSED DRIVER in the US. It has increased from about 10,000 miles in 1980 to close to 14,000 now. Canadian figures are currently about 16,000 KM per year (10,000 miles) now. Europe is far less. You can argue that in Europe you don't have to travel very far because of the dense cities and available public transit. Last time I looked, Canada has much of the same suburban sprawl and wide open spaces as the US, so why do they drive 40% fewer miles than their neighbours to the south?

They also found that Americans have historically spent between 3.6 and 3.8% of their income on motor fuel. This number does not change even as gas prices go up and down and vehicle fuel economy changes. As economist would say, the demand for gasoline is highly price elastic.

Everyone signed off on the CAFE law since it will not change anything.

1) Oil companies will sell the same amount of fuel. They know drivers will just drive more miles.
2) Car companies have the technology, so cannot complain too much.
3) Politicians look good "fighting for the environment and saving americans billions of dollars"

The only action that will reduce the use of fuel is the increase in its cost. It will go up in the long term, we need to look at how much the price is currently subsidized, bite the bullet, and pay the piper. An artificially low price is as damaging as an artificially high one. By artificially depressing the price of any good, you remove any incentive to develop an alternative.

 

They will only sell these NiMH batteries to gasoline powered cars (hybrid). The key here is gasoline. No more plug in NiMH plug in cars will be sold in the US until Chevron decides to build one.

 

Several auto companies have diesel electric cars in the works. Like diesel electric submarines, the diesel engine powers a generator that feeds a battery that in turn powers the electric motors that drive the car. This type of hybrid dates from before WWI and is capable of very high power bursts while still achieving excellent fuel economy. A small highly efficient diesel engine running at its optimum RPM needs to run only a fraction of the time to power a car in city traffic. The car batteries may also be charged with home AC power.

If the government really wants to promote this type of technology they should require the Post Office to buy them for mounted delivery routes. That would ensure a big enough market to get the unit price down and force the government, through its wholly owned subsidiary, the USPS, to deal with the teething problems associated with transitional technology.

 

Copied from Wikepedia:Patent encumbrance of NiMH batteriesIn 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacturing, including patents controlling the manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries. In 2001, Texaco purchased GM's share in GM Ovonics. A few months later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics.[4] Chevron's influence over Cobasys extends beyond a strict 50/50 joint venture. Chevron holds a 19.99% interest in ECD Ovonics.[5] Chevron also maintains veto power over any sale or licensing of NiMH technology.[6] In addition, Chevron maintains the right to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD Ovonics does not fulfill its contractual obligations.[6] On September 10, 2007, Chevron filed a legal claim that ECD Ovonics has not fulfilled its obligations. ECD Ovonics disputes this claim.[7] NiMH patent expires in 2015.In her book, Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America, published in February 2007, Sherry Boschert argues that large-format NiMH batteries are commercially viable but that Cobasys refuses to sell or license them to small companies or individuals. Boschert reveals that Cobasys accepts only very large orders for these batteries. When Boschert conducted her research, major auto makers showed little interest in large orders for large-format NiMH batteries. However, Toyota employees complained about the difficulty in getting smaller orders of large format NiMH batteries to service the existing 825 RAV-4EVs. Since no other companies were willing to make large orders, Cobasys was not manufacturing nor licensing any large format NiMH battery technology for automotive purposes. Boschert concludes that "it's possible that Cobasys (Chevron) is squelching all access to large NiMH batteries through its control of patent licenses in order to remove a competitor to gasoline. Or it's possible that Cobasys simply wants the market for itself and is waiting for a major automaker to start producing plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles." [8]

 

I found a link with some comments and references to both the new law and the way the CAFE figures are calculated.

CAFE Standard

Two items to note.

1) The MPG numbers used for CAFE calculation is based on the 1975 derived fuel economy calculation method. This had been changed twice since it was notoriously inaccurate and optimistic. Using this calculation, plus the E85 offset, a Yukon/Tahoe gets an CAFE rating of 28.5 MPG. The MINI Cooper is 42.5193 MPG and the new Cooper S Auto is 36.
2) Under the old law, the fleet average was sales weighted. For every 650Ci Convertible sold (21.1711 MPG) one MINI Cooper at 42.5193 would raise the fleet average to 31.8452. The new law does not seem to use sales weighting, but rather models offered. You can sell as many 10 MPG cars as you want, as long as you offer one 60 MPG car model for each 10 MPG model in the lineup. You do not need to sell the 60 MPG cars.

Fudge the definition of MPG and the definition of 'average' no problem.

 

I've been ignoring this thread, but finally read it. What an immensely entertaining read about an immensely non-entertaining topic.

We're all going to die, anyway.

More NAMers need to run for HIGH public office. Because, truly, we know EVERYTHING. And are imminently noble and well-intentioned.

I love NAM.

And this is the end of my non-value-adding post.

 

Man-bear-pig will kill us all!

Come on guys I'm super Cereal

 

Can I assume the Wiki reference is your source here? So in 2015 (assuming nobody builds a better mousetrap by then) when the patent expires we'll see cars powered by this battery?


POSSIBLE does not mean FACT, and even that is one person's conclusion - a person who wrote a book based on a conspiracy theory. And even she claims that Cobasys might be waiting for someone to use the product in quantity.
I'm STILL looking for the patent number that precludes the use of a battery technology. I'd be interested in reading it. As Boschert repeatedly mentions this patent, surely she's identified it somewhere. Or it just sounds good.
As for not producing large format in small quantities, there are many manufacturing reasons for EOQs (Economic Order Quantities). "they won't make me five, they want me to buy 1,000)" doesn't mean they won't sell the product, it may mean that it doesn't make sense to do a small production run.
Ask M7 if they'll make you one AGS - they won't, as the production costs are higher than the selling cost of one item.

Only because Chevron bought the patent for the Fountain of Youth, and it knows young people drive more than old people, so it will keep letting us die.

 

To find the patent number you need to put in Stanford R. Ovshinsky on the search. He is the original owner of the patent before he sold it to GM. Caution though, you will find over 100 patents under his name mostly related to the NiMH battery.

 

So which one(s) did he sell to GM, and which support your claims that no company can sell a car that uses NiMH batteries?

 

I was afraid of something like that. I cannot find the link to the actual definitions in the law itself though. There are hardly any cars for sale here that have the number 35mpg on the window, and that includes the hybrids. I don't think any of them get 35mpg combined.

 

It’s funny that as a certain politician has bet his future on a coming disaster, and won an Oscar and a Nobel in the process, many of those he quoted to make his predictions have distanced themselves from him.[/quote]

Remember,"He did'nt invent the internet, but he did invent global warming":impatient

 

We should just forget trying to engineer demand with CAFE standards and face the one truth that oil is a strategic natural resource of finite supply. It's use has consequences for the environment, and obtaining it has geopolitical consequences. Therefore, let's simply agree that it should be used wisely. No one can argue that grocery trips in a 6000 lb vehicle is a wise use. To encourage wise use, price it according to its value as a strategic resource.

Let's set a goal, like a 30% reduction in fossil fuel use from 2006 levels, and increase taxes on fuels until that goal is reached. Add $.50 per gallon increases each year until the goal is met, and eventually, people will make different choices. Everyone will know what the goal is and what they can do to meet it.

Use the tax revenue to stockpile petroleum for reserves and have vehicle users pay for highway infrastructure. Heck, use it to pay for the damn wars.

You can bet auto makers will be forced to respond to a new call for high mileage vehicles. No one will be forced to build or buy a car they don't want (after all, that's what CAFE standards do). I imagine we'll have to get to $6/gal before we catch on, but we will catch on.

 

"Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

What this is saying is that he got the prize for the awarness he created. Crap on him all you want, but he's just done what "the other side" has done for years and years. But just like the "it's not a problem" side has done, I'm sure that you can find lots of very quotable individuals that are even more extreme than Al's cliams...... What's much more interesting reading is the acceptance speach from the IPCC representative. If you're interested, you can read it here....

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...ecture_en.html

Matt

 

They are trying to build a 100 mpg car of the future now in a contest that not only looks at MPG it is also looking a greenhouse gasses. Technology needs to be challenged and if you shoot high who knows where you will land. In the mean time having gotten rid of my SUV and Vans for my mini's seemed to help my pocketbook. Besides I now use the word "fun" when I describe my driving experience.

 

Chevron bought all the patents. Stanford R Ovshinsky = Ovonics. Ovonics is owned by Chevron along with all the patents. Ovshinsky still works for Ovonics. There are a number of patents that would apply to the NiMH car but I think patent #6,413,670 would cover it. There are other patents there that cover hybrid cars using NiMH. Another interesting read is: http://investor.chevron.com/phoenix....highlight=This is the press release for the purchase of Ovonics by Chevron dated Oct.20th, 2000. After reading this tell me, how many plug in electric cars have been sold in the US that are NiMH powered.

 

There are other suppliers of NiMH technology. Here are some links on Nilar (based on Phillips battery IP) and some converstion companies.

www.nilar.com

www.pluginconversions.com
www.pluginsupply.com
www.hybridplugs.com

You can buy plug in conversions based on lead acid now and Li Ion shortly. One of the companies is working with Nilar to release a NiMH battery conversion pack.

Times change quickly now. A123 started making LiIon batteries for power tools (claim to fame was re-engineered electrode to increase peak current and extend operating temps to lower values) and has been selected by GM for the Volt. There's another LiIon battery supplier that working with some other electric supercar manufacturer that has other claims of improvement as well.

Battery tech is moving fast.

Matt

 

Link to National Academy of Science report on CAFE Standards.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10172&page=69

 

I've only gotten through about half of the body (it's way too long for Rubbus ) the executive summary shouldn't be too long for most. What's interesting is that a lot of it's content reflects many of the points made in this thread already. It's also interesting that they conclude CAFE standards aren't a very good way of skinning the cat, and that other methods would work better. Unforntunantly, most of those (all of those?) other methods have higher barriers to implementation than CAFE regulations...

Anyone really interested in this issue would be well served to read the whole report.

Thanks for the link.

Matt