OT but only kind of

[F4Phantom]

This is information I suppose all of us should be aware of, in the past it has been small crackpot sites displaying this kind of information, its interesting to see it being endorsed by such a large company.


http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html

[Traian]

Put your BMW away and ride a bicycle you evil monsters of doom!...

[DanDombrowski]

I dont believe for a second that auto makers discourage electric cars because they make less money on maintenance. The DEALER makes the money on oil changes and brakes (while the auto maker sells the parts, admittedly). To claim that it is a billion dollar industry is misleading.

On top of that, the auto maker is in a position to capitalize on the money you would have spent on oil. If an electric car costs more than a gasoline car, but still less than the gas car + the gas, then the auto maker is taking revenue away from the oil company for itself.

Don't tell me the auto makers don't want to sell electric cars. They want to sell what people will buy. If people bought electrics, they would sell them.

[F4Phantom]

Although I dont believe in huge conspiricy theorys I also believe that people/companies dont change unless they are forced too. History has shown that car companies would prefer to just keep on doing what they have always done. Recently in an article with ford chairman Australia we were told "ford has identified fuel economy as an important improvement to make on future models" From this statement I have to ask what the friggen hell have these guys been doing for the last 20 years? I would have thought fuel economy would have to be something first and formost to be improved with evey new model. In fact I am amazed a new model is legally aloud to use more fuel than an old model. This is the case with the falcon and commodore and the engines stay the same and the car gets heavier, they use more fuel. I will say from the latest stats from BMW, each respective model now has more power and is more efficient than older models, at least some companies have the technical genious to make real improvements.

[granit_silber]

This is information I suppose all of us should be aware of, in the past it has been small crackpot sites displaying this kind of information, its interesting to see it being endorsed by such a large company.


http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html
Everyone on every side of this issue has their own set of "almost truths" and neat marketing. Here's one from that site.
"A Hydrogen Fuel-cell car cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce..."

Yep, that's why BMW will have a fleet of H2 powered 7's in the U.S. next year. (Rondell, June 2006). If you look deeper into this site it's more about conspiracy than conservation. I really like the way that the Bush administration is pulled into the fray because they joined the lawsuit against C.A.R.B., nevermind that C.A.R.B overstepped the laws of the United States (states rights vs. federal rights) and began to get to big for it britches, also nevermind that it's the Bush Administration NOT the U.S. Government, and nevermind that one of the goverenment's (i.e. The Bush Administration) jobs is to enforce our laws (sometimes with more zeal than others), it's the administrations ties to "big oil" that caused it to get involved.

I have no doubt that a lot of people have made a lot of money in backrooms over this but if you change the topic and director it's a remake of Farenheit 9/11.

-ashley

[Bill R.]

a hydrogen fuel cell car costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce. FACT. At current costs.
The bmw cars that you state are not fuel cell cars , ie as in electric motors deriving their power straight from a hydrogen fuel cell generating electricity. They are internal combustion engines that are burning hydrogen as fuel. With a very limited number of refueling stations in the US. To be exact there are 10 open to the public and operational in all of the US and Canada of which 5 are in california... so its a long long ways to the next refueling station for those bmw's

As far as CARB goes, the Bush admin jumping in was something that was unprecedented. CARB for the most part has done nothing but good whether you wish to believe it or not. IF you do a little research you'll see those high output bmw engines that you have came about as a direct result of CARB always pressing for lower emissions.
And yes it is the Bush administration since this was an unprecedented move . Here's link to some more info on the issue from some of those wild eyed conspiracy theorists at PBS (http://www.pbs.org/now/science/caautoemissions2.html)

Back to the fuel cell cars, since i follow these issues fairly closely. I would guess that Honda is going to be the first to market with a hydrogen fuel cell car. And the first prototypes are going to be very expensive to produce. But if anybody can make them affordable honda will.









Everyone on every side of this issue has their own set of "almost truths" and neat marketing. Here's one from that site.
"A Hydrogen Fuel-cell car cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce..."

Yep, that's why BMW will have a fleet of H2 powered 7's in the U.S. next year. (Rondell, June 2006). If you look deeper into this site it's more about conspiracy than conservation. I really like the way that the Bush administration is pulled into the fray because they joined the lawsuit against C.A.R.B., nevermind that C.A.R.B overstepped the laws of the United States (states rights vs. federal rights) and began to get to big for it britches, also nevermind that it's the Bush Administration NOT the U.S. Government, and nevermind that one of the goverenment's (i.e. The Bush Administration) jobs is to enforce our laws (sometimes with more zeal than others), it's the administrations ties to "big oil" that caused it to get involved.

I have no doubt that a lot of people have made a lot of money in backrooms over this but if you change the topic and director it's a remake of Farenheit 9/11.

-ashley

[granit_silber]

a hydrogen fuel cell car costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce. FACT. At current costs.
The bmw cars that you state are not fuel cell cars , ie as in electric motors deriving their power straight from a hydrogen fuel cell generating electricity. They are internal combustion engines that are burning hydrogen as fuel. With a very limited number of refueling stations in the US. To be exact there are 10 open to the public and operational in all of the US and Canada of which 5 are in california... so its a long long ways to the next refueling station for those bmw's

As far as CARB goes, the Bush admin jumping in was something that was unprecedented. CARB for the most part has done nothing but good whether you wish to believe it or not. IF you do a little research you'll see those high output bmw engines that you have came about as a direct result of CARB always pressing for lower emissions.
And yes it is the Bush administration since this was an unprecedented move . Here's link to some more info on the issue from some of those wild eyed conspiracy theorists at PBS (http://www.pbs.org/now/science/caautoemissions2.html)

Back to the fuel cell cars, since i follow these issues fairly closely. I would guess that Honda is going to be the first to market with a hydrogen fuel cell car. And the first prototypes are going to be very expensive to produce. But if anybody can make them affordable honda will.

Bill,

I was confused, I was under the impression that "fuel-cell" referred to the tank of hydrogen the car carries. I now know there's a difference. My bad.

Next: I wasn't bagging on CARB. The point was that they were overstepping there boundaries of power. Like when a Judge makes rather than interprets law.

Next: Just because something is unprecedented doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Part of the President's job is to enforce the law of our land. I wasn't making a political statement for or against Bush.

Next: I didn't say anything about PBS.

Next: My statement about the moviemakers was that they turned research into alternative technologies into (what seemed to me) a blame game. I'm not naive enough to think that things aren't going on in the back room, but can't we leave out the republican/neo-con conspiracy crap just once?

Finally: My post wasn't an attack on anybody, just my thoughts. I HAVE researched some of the alternative fuel technologies out there, but I also don't believe everything that anybody tells me.


-ashley

[kyleN20]

drove in it, its awsome

[Blitzkrieg Bob]

to burn coal.

[jasshrie]

Hey guys, I hate to jump in here, but couldn't resist :)
I've spent a good portion of my career working on, with or doing research for hybrids, electrics and fuel cell hybrid vehicles... There is a real good reason why we aren't driving these now...

The pollution a car creates while being driven is only a fraction of the total pollution the vehicle creates in life cycle analysis. When the pollution caused by manufacturing, transporting, and recycling a vehicle is calculated into the picture, the electrics and hybrid vehicle's pollution goes way beyond that of a normal gasoline or diesel vehicle.

As far as hydrogen internal combustion engine (ICE) cars go, those definately have the lowest operational emissions, however, take a second to think about where the hydrogen comes from (H2). Sure, it is the most abundant element on the planet, but to get it into a usable form is quite difficult and emission intensive. The cheapest way is to refine it from natural gas which is pumped out of the ground just like oil, but with a significant emission penalty since the rest of the constituents of the Natural gas have to be burned or seperated. Electrolysis of water uses more than twice as much energy to create an amount of hydrogen than the hydrogen will have after you create it... and that energy has to come from somewhere....

In the end, the best thing that can be done in my opinion is to promote the direct injection diesel engines. They use less fuel, thus less CO2 and come real close to the tail pipe emissions of the newest gasoline vehicles which makes them an environmentalists vehicle of choice. BMW has some really nice diesels out now, as do VW, Mercedes Benz, Ford, Citroen/Peugot, Alfa Romeo, Fiat, and the others as well.

The real conspiracy in my view lies in why the USA is so resistant to modern diesel engines using a low sulfer diesel fuel to achieve less tailpipe emissions. The diesels have TONS of power and save fuel as well as being the cleanest vehicles for the environment in a total life cycle analysis. Why isn't that marketed in the USA?

If anyone has interest in reading more about studies using this type of analysis, I will try to find some online sources and post them to this topic in the forum.

[e39dream]

well, from what I gather, electric cars were coming right along until fomoco pulled the monopoly move. it's amazing what a huge corporation can do, huh?

[jasshrie]

well, from what I gather, electric cars were coming right along until fomoco pulled the monopoly move. it's amazing what a huge corporation can do, huh?

Well, coming right along?? Ford was selling their electric cars for one-third (1/3) of what it cost to make them. why you may ask? Does anyone remember that little piece of California legislation called the ZEV mandate which required automotive companies to sell certain percentages of ZEV (zero emission vehicles) or pay HUGE fines to the government?

The calculation went something like this:
selling one ZEV Ranger means that you can then turn around and sell 20 Lincoln Navigators. The profits on the large SUVs are crazy and they easily cover the losses of the ZEVs. And for the fuel cell vehicles it was more like 1 sale means 125 Navigators... If the costs of the Fuel Cells had come down, they would have pursued that more aggressively.... however, that legislation fell flat when the law makers finally realised it didn't make sense since the technology just wasn't up to the forecasted levels of when the law was written, and that a slight increase in CAFE numbers would be much more beneficial than the ZEV mandate.

Thus, when the ZEV mandate was scrapped, so were the electric vehicles.
For the record, it was GM and Toyota that sued California to get the law changed, not Ford.

I mean don't get me wrong, they are cool toys, I have driven more than my fair share of electric vehicles, but in the long run, when you must recycle the battery packs, the cost of the EVs in dollars and pollution is too high for me.

[F4Phantom]

As for the life cycle discussion I agree that recycling batts and charging them causes emissions. BUT as we know, 20,000,000 cars exhausts are going to be a lot less efficient than a few power stations where they can burn fossil fuels under much better conditions. The modern Li car can go as far as a petrol car on one charge, the only real problem is charging time, so although you could do 800 miles a week in an electric car, you cant do it in 1 day. I see fuel cells as a diversion to put off actually doing something now. At the end of it all, electric cars can happen, and quickly unlike fuel cells. BMW's approach for hydrogen is the best solution, you get to drive an ICE, have the power, sound, characteristics of a normal car. You dont need expensive or rare metals to use like a fuel cell. I also think BMW are protecting their own interests as they are an engine maker known to deliver the untimate sound and feel with high revving engines. What will they market when they all cars use an electric motor? BMW certainly wont have that special feel anymore. So there are two good solutions, electric which has a power grid in place but not the "complete" technology to make owning one as good as a petrol car, or BMW hydrogen where the cars are ready to rock but the infastructure is not in place and its doubtful wether it ever will be given that making hydrogen is so hard to do. Getting it from natural gas or other fossill fuels is the worst idea I have ever heard!