The Post Peak Car
Posted by Chris Vernon on November 25, 2007 - 7:00pm in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: batteries, car, electric car [list all tags]
Fig 1. Chantal poses with the little 500 at the Ecoauto fair in Torino, September 2007. It is not a toy car, it is Chantal who is a tall girl.
Fig 2. Nevertheless, Chantal can fit in, more or less. Picture taken at the Ecoauto fair, in Torino, September 2007.
It is always a shock when people understand that peak oil is about to arrive (or that it has already arrived). Reactions vary from utter despair to groundless optimism. Some people immediately jump to the conclusion that the great dieoff is just around the corner. Others, instead, are sure that some technological marvel will save us. In both cases, the bottom line is that there is nothing that can be done: either we are doomed, or someone will come up with the miracle solution at the last moment.
But passivity is never a good strategy. We can adapt; and if there are no perfect solutions for the incoming petroleum scarcity, there are at least some that may be good enough. That is why we built our retrofitted, battery powered Fiat 500. We don’t claim it is the first retrofitted vehicle in the world, nor that it is the solution to all problems brought by peak oil. But we do believe that it is an example of a way for maintaining some low cost transportation for the troubled times ahead. It is a true “post peak car” that has the additional advantage that it can be used for focussing people’s attention on the reality of the incoming peak oil
Let’s go more in detail. Why use batteries? Why retrofitting an old car? There is a chain of reasoning that led us to that. As we know, our transportation system runs on liquid fuels obtained almost exclusively from crude oil. With oil becoming scarce, we’ll have to cut on travelling and use more public transportation. But that can’t be the definitive solution. No country of the world has a public transportation system that can completely replace private vehicles. Expanding public transportation to that level would be so fantastically expensive to be unimaginable, especially in the difficult period that will follow peak oil. And, of course, it will take a while before we manage to raze down the suburbs and relocate everyone in towns. Transporting people, then, is only part of the problem: we also need to carry merchandise. You can’t use bicycles to bring food to supermarkets’ shelves. So, we still need vehicles able to carry people and things around.
The rush, right now, is all for synthetic fuels and biofuels. But that’s not the solution. Robert Hirsch showed in his, by now famous, 2005 report that we don’t have enough time and we don’t have enough money for building the infrastructure that would be needed to liquefy coal or gas. And even if we could somehow find the resources needed, that would be the perfect way to ruin an entire planet by generating a runaway greenhouse effect. Biofuels won’t do, either, too inefficient and needing too much land; not a good strategy if we also want to eat. In any case, the old internal combustion engine is so inefficient that we won’t be able to afford to keep using it in the post-peak world. Hydrogen cars could be more efficient, but the technology won’t be ready soon enough and the cost of the infrastructure that would be needed is out of this planet. In short, there is no technology available right now that could be used to make vehicles which don't need petroleum derived fuels and which have the same prices as those we have now.
But, if we can’t have everything, we can at least have something. The post peak paradigm is to do things that work; not perfect, maybe, but good enough. We can have clean and efficient vehicles that don’t depend on fossil fuels if we accept the limitations of battery powered electric vehicles. These vehicles won’t have the range and the performances we are used to, but are efficient, non polluting, already exist, and don’t need a specific infrastructure. The recent development of lithium batteries for traction is a small quantum leap that has greatly improved the energy/weight ratio of electric vehicles. But even the old lead batteries can propel a vehicle far enough to be interesting for an average commuter or for carrying goods around.
The strong point of battery powered vehicles in a post-peak world is their flexibility. Batteries can be recharged with anything that produces electricity. Normally, the existing power grid would be used and, in this case, electricity is still produced mainly by fossil fuels. But that is going to change: the energy that powers the grid will be increasingly produced by renewable sources. It is also possible to conceive stand-alone renewable plants dedicated to recharging vehicles’ batteries. In both cases, the batteries of electric vehicles will also provide an energy storage system; something that renewables badly need.
Despite the advantages of battery powered vehicles, if you shop around for a purely electric car you’ll find that a tiny, electric 2-seater costs more than a traditional compact car. Electric cars are expensive because they are made in small numbers and they are made in small numbers because they are expensive; a classic catch-22 situation. The big car companies never wanted to engage in making electric vehicles in numbers sufficient to escape this problem: surely you heard the story of the ill fated EV1, an electric car first created and then killed by General Motors.
The situation with prices may improve as electric cars gradually enter the market. But, in a post peak world, cars may never be again the inexpensive commodity we have grown used to. In a pre-peak situation, the common wisdom is that scrapping perfectly working cars for new ones is a good idea since, it is believed, it increases the GDP, creates jobs, etc. But in a post-peak world, you can’t afford to throw away things that still work. So, there comes the idea of retrofitting old cars: you change what you must (the engine) and keep what you can still use (the body).
The job of retrofitting an old vehicle is relatively easy. You get rid of the old engine and replace it with an electric one. Coupling the new engine with the old transmission is not the optimum in terms of efficiency, but it is the easy way. Lithium batteries won’t occupy much more space than the old fuel tank; lead batteries are bulkier and will need more creative solutions, but it can be done. Then you need a few more details: a voltage converter for powering the car’s electric system (lights and the rest) and an inverter in order to be able to charge the batteries from an ordinary AC outlet. The result is a vehicle that runs and is much more efficient than the old one. It won’t be able to do the same things that a standard internal combustion engine or hybrid car can do; it doesn’t have the same speed, power or range. But you have a form of transportation that can carry people where they need to go: commute in and out of town and carry goods from the supermarket to home. Even more important than that, a battery retrofitted truck can still take food to a supermarket. Also, a battery retrofitted ambulance can carry patients to the hospital; all that even in the most difficult situation of fuel shortage.
Fig 3. The electric engine of the little 500. It fits easily in the much larger space left by the old engine. Note also the lack of fans and cooling. The electric engine is so efficient that it doesn’t need to be cooled.
We experimented with these ideas using an old Fiat 500. It is a car designed in the 1950s that belongs to the generation of the “cars for the people,” of which the Volkswagen “Beetle” is the best known example. These cars were efficient, light, and inexpensive; much different from the present generation of hormone fattened McCars. The Fiat 500, in particular, was a marvel of engineering. Not much larger than a toy car, it could nevertheless carry four people. It even had built-in air conditioned in the form of a foldable hardtop. They don’t make them any more, but there are still at least two hundred thousands Fiat 500 running in Italy. Many are kept in tip-top shape by owners who are emotionally attached to their old “cinquino” (“the little five hundred” in Italian) but people also keep those cars because they are practical, inexpensive, and reliable. You can still easily find spare parts and, if you are careful to keep the body from rusting, the 500 can keep running forever, or almost so.
So, we took the old Fiat 500 (vintage 1970) which had belonged to Pietro Cambi’s father. We exchanged the old gasoline engine with an electric engine of the same power. We replaced the fuel tank with a pack of lithium polymer batteries. The whole operation took a few hours of work in a mechanical workshop. The result is a car that reaches approximately the same top speed of the original one (around 90 km/h). The electric engine has a much higher torque at low speeds and therefore you don’t need to use the transmission or the clutch pedal. Theoretically, with all this torque available, you could turn the little 500 into a mini-dragster, but the axles wouldn’t survive for long. So, the best way to drive it is gently. If you do that, the car will run for a good 100 km before needing to be recharged. If you consider that the battery pack contains about as much energy as a liter of gasoline, that gives you some idea on how much more efficient an electric engine is in comparison to an internal combustion one. [Ed: 100 km/l = 282 mpg (Imperial), 235 mpg (US)].
Fig 4. The battery pack. These lithium polymer batteries contain as much energy as about one liter of gasoline. Nevertheless, the engine is so efficient that the car can run for 100 km, if driven gently.
Recharging the batteries of the 500 at a domestic outlet takes a few hours for a full recharge but, in normal use, you don’t completely discharge the batteries, so that about one hour and a half is sufficient. At the present prices of electricity in Italy, a complete recharge costs about Eur 1.2. Since we have a range of about 100 km, it follows that the cost per km of running the car is about 1/5 of what was the cost using gasoline. We also have charged it using the energy produced by the PV panels on the roof of Ugo Bardi’s home. In that case the cost of the recharge is strictly zero.
Our idea with building this car was not just to have fun building a prototype (well, that too!), but to explore a solution for a low cost everyday transportation. We think that what we did is already very promising. The cost of the first prototype was relatively high (more than 10,000 euros); about the same cost of a small electric two seater bought new. However, the main cost was that of the batteries, still in their early stage of commercialization. In the future, we see costs going down with those of lithium batteries. We think that a retrofitting kit for a small car could eventually cost as little as around Eur 6000 - 8000; much less than buying a new electric car. A further advantage with a retrofitted car is that you know that spare parts for it will be available for a long time; something that you can’t be sure about in the case of a new car built by a small producer. In short, after this first prototype, we are already planning to make new ones.
The little retrofitted 500 is related to peak oil in more than one way. One of these is in terms of image. If you are involved with the peak oil movement, you are often accused of being a catastrophist interested only in seeing civilization collapse; of wanting people to return to rural times, only travelling by riding donkeys or camels. But the battery powered “500” is not a problem: it is a solution. Not the only, and not even the best solution to the incoming oil crisis but, at least, something that shows a positive attitude. And we seem to have been doing something right. The retrofitted 500 has appeared in Italian newspapers and in the Italian TV. We also exhibited it at motor fairs and public events. When people ask us “why did you do that?” we mention peak oil and we are bringing people’s attention the concept much more effectively than if we were going around showing bell shaped curves. That won’t change the world, but it is at least something.
Technical data
Vehicle: FIAT 500 F, built in 1970Engine: Separate excitation DC motor, 96 Volts. Nominal power 10 kW.
Batteries: Li-Polymer: 26 elements. Total energy stored 9.6 kWh (the same as approx 1 liter of gasoline).
Weight: ca. 65 kg
DC/DC converter 96/12 volts.
A little FAQ
“Can I do it with my old car?” In principle, you can retrofit any vehicle but the best is to do it with light, compact models.“How much does it cost?” The answer is “it depends”. The main cost at present is in the lithium batteries, but if prices keep going down as they have been doing during the past few years, we estimate that soon a complete retrofitting kit would cost around Eur 6000 - 8000.
“Can I drive it on public roads?” Again, it depends. We know that in Germany, Switzerland and in the USA it is easy to get a retrofitted car approved for road use. In other countries, such as Italy, it is nearly impossible because of the bureaucracy involved (ours runs on public roads because it is a prototype with a special permit). In other countries, you have to check with the local authorities.
“How about insurance?” We found no problems in insuring the electric 500 for a reasonable price.
“Does it need special facilities for recharging?” No, you can recharge it with any domestic power outlet. In some countries you can also use public recharging facilities along the road.
“Is it safe?” The retrofitted 500 doesn’t have all the tricks that the last generation of cars have: airbags, reinforced body, etcetera. It wouldn’t be safe to drive it on highways or at high speeds on any road. But this not a car that is designed to go fast. It is designed for urban or suburban transportation and, if you go slow, then it is safe.
“How does it feel to drive it?” Like an ordinary car, but the only noise you hear is a soft humming and the engine has a higher torque at low speeds. You still have the clutch pedal and the shift lever, but you don’t need to use them, except for backing up.
“How about maintenance?” Almost zero. No oil to change, nothing to lubricate, no tune up needed. Lithium polymer batteries should last thousands of recharging cycles, that is for more than 100.000 km. An electric engine is normally supposed to run for the equivalent of a million kilometers. The rest of the car will last as long as you’ll take care that it doesn’t rust.
Fig 5. The electric 500 at the creativity fair in Firenze in October 2007. Pietro Cambi is the one at the back, discussing with the guy with the orange sweater.
Acknowledgment
The electric 500 was built with the help and the dedication of a group of people who contributed for free with their time, money, and expertise. Among the people who contributed: Pietro Cambi (commander in chief and owner of the old 500), Ugo Bardi (peak oil theorist and bard of the enterprise), Debora Billi (pasionaria and media manager), Riccardo Falci (electric racer and vehicle assembler), Massimo de Carlo (our battery man), Francesco Meneguzzo (our man in Rome), Corrado Petri (engineer extraordinary), and Ringo Reemberg (tester and international ladies’ man). We also thank Chantal (we don’t know her last name), professional model who agreed to pose with the retrofitted 500 at the Ecoauto fair in Torino in September 2007.Where to learn more
See the site of the non-profit association called “Eurozev” www.eurozev.org
See the little 500 running at:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjIOb5m-DDU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee4v7nlUM9M
Previously on The Oil Drum
Saving 20 million barrels a day. The 100mpg hybrid car should be here, now!The electric wheel - a breakthrough in car efficiency
Ugo fascinating article, could you answer some questions:
Lithium batteries: can we mine lithium in sufficient quantities to power hundreds of millions of cars?
Electric cars have been more expensive than traditional cars with Daimler or Diesel engines since Porsche's hybrid in 1901. There was a lot of research on electric cars also during the 1970s again without successfully lowering costs. Is is engine complexity, expensive raw materials or something else?
Looking at figure 4 it seems as though the cargo space is mostly gone. Or was the fuel tank at the front in the Cinquecento?
It seems that the Cinquecento became lighter, is that the case? What's the weight difference?
I also have a question about the AC, how does it work in the Winter? You just close the hardtop?
100 Km per litre at 1.2€. What else can we ask for? Hearing Ugo singing perhaps.
Luis, good question about lithium availability. I should have added a note about this point in the FAQ. Anyway, lithium is not so common in extractable form and there are claims that it would not be enough to make enough batteries to replace the present fleet of cars. See for instance:
http://flashlightnews.org/story582.shtml
This claim is basically correct within the assumptions that the author makes. There is not enough lithium in the world for the automotive industry to keep growing as it has been doing so far: building more cars and bigger ones. For that matter, there is not enough copper for the wiring, not enough platinum for the catalytic converters, not enough fuel (of course!) and probably not enough of several other materials.
But when we speak of a "post peak car" we are thinking of a different paradigm: smaller numbers of cars and lighter ones. Taking into account that lithium batteries can be recycled, I think that there is enough lithium for what we have in mind, that is for maintaining a basic form of transportation based on road vehicles. As we say in the paper, though, cars will never be again the inexpensive commodity we grew used to.
About winter heating, using the batteries for heating the car is possible, but it is a disaster for the vehicle range. Some electric vehicles have independent, gasoline powered, heaters. Fortunately winter in Italy is not very cold, so we don't really need that. Anyway, as I said, it is a different paradigm, it is more like driving a motorcycle or a scooter. In that case you don't expect to have a heating system!
And, well, I could sing if you really want!
Ugo
Ugo Bardi
www.aspoitalia.net
I have an EV Heating system that would both warm the passengers and EXTEND the range of the vehicle.. add Pedals!
I am serious.
I do accept, however, that this would probably not work in many Retrofit EV cars, it would have to be designed for this purpose. (Another Poster suggested I look at http://www.twike.com/english_informations.html when I mentioned this the other day..) I would seriously like to see what kind of range you could develop with the ability of all passengers to 'Help Push their own Cart', since we know we are strong enough to move our own weight at some 20mph.. then add a couple PV panels to the roof for a few hundred watts of regeneration while you're at it.
Thanks for the article!
Bob
Well, let's see. A person in good physical shape can provide a power of around 50 W for extended periods of time. The 500's engine has 10 kW power, but that's an overkill; normally you need just a few kW to push the car on. So, let's assume that two people are pushing; they could provide about 5% of the power needed. It is not much, but surely they would keep warm!
About PV panels on the roof, Pietro is working on the idea. But, of course, it is not enough to keep the car running. It does something, however.
I keep thinking of those times when I've had to push a car and try to steer it at the same time.. this would help then, too!
I guess the comparison that has to be kept in mind is not just the amount of PROPULSION that is getting replaced by whatever pedals and pull-handles that passenger can offset, but in this case, the amount of HEATING energy that would have been needed as well.
Of course, in a thorough analysis, you would include the health benefits, too.. although this argument will still get little more than a cursory nod in the American 'Enriched Flour Health-Muffin' Culture no matter how many lives could be improved and saved with the addition of a modest amount of exercise.. It would be considered 'Icing on the cake', to put it in that current frame of mind, and not one of the bare essentials of keeping our bodies alive.
I would also want pedals to work in a 'Hybrid' mode, where they could be used to push some Amps into the batteries, too, while the car is stationary. This might be further connected to a simple drive connector to the outside of the car, where creative vehicle owners will come up with their own inputs, like their kids swingsets and merry-go-rounds, the dog's tie-rope, a link to a windmill or waterwheel.. like with Plugin Hybrids, I'm a believer in designing in a range of input/output options. All sorts of creativity can then be facilitated.
Here are some 'Panels on the Roof' that are proving themselves today. Surely, they do not Drive the vehicle entirely by themselves, but they are bringing in offsetting power while Driving, While Parked, at the StopLight, etc.. AND, they're waterproof!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFYpNrbyKCA
Bob Fiske
Actually, a normal person can produce 100 watts for maybe several hours, and even up to 300 for a short burst. Supermen can put out near a kW for seconds. (D.G..Wilson, Bicycling Science, MIT Press). And of course, as you say, pedaling is a real good way to provide warmth on cold days, not to mention, keeping fit!
Now, all this concept needs is my super-duper automatic transmission that allows a constant high speed light motor to match torque demand at any road speed, and we have a winner.
Thanks, Ugo, for a fascinating and very well-written offering. I am enthused!
If by "normal" you mean fit young male, then yes. For the rest of us, sustaining 100W for several hours is an unattainable goal ;)
Fit young European, actually, "Fit" young Americans- seems the right number is maybe 70 watts.
Another observation- when I was a kid slaving away on my father's farm, a sack of feed was 100lbs. I could carry one of them, and some guys carried two at once. Nowadays, a sack of feed is about 40lbs, and people gripe about too heavy.
I figure the evolutionary destiny for homosapiens is a speck of an eyeball glued to a PV powered TV set orbiting the sun. The TV is showing Tarzan reruns.
A sack of cement used to be about 100 pounds (50 kg) when I was a kid. Today they are about 50 pounds (25 kg). Guess if people complain about the weight?
People are getting weaker, fatter and dumber by the minute here in Sweden too. I guess the same is true for the rest of Europe. Sweden might be the most "americanized" country in the EU though.
Has anyone considered using the lead composite batteries made by Firefly Energy? What would be the tradeoffs?
"What would be the tradeoffs?"
Umm...their non-existence?
I can't find the link just now but I believe Firefly recently did a press release saying that Firefly lead acid batteries will be available in 2008 in group 31 truck battery format.
As Alan Drake would say, and I really can't resist this one:
Best hopes for 2008
Carbon - Coventry UK
On lithium production, at interesting start is the table below by USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) giving historical production in metric tons:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/lithium.pdf
Part of the problem with lithium is not raw supply per se, but the fact that it is always found in a compound, never as free lithium. It is the 23rd most abundant material on Earth, but must be released from whatever compound it is attached to (there are huge quantities, even in seawater), usually by electricity. I do not know the cost of this.
Ecomomics of course would be a huge factor. To this point the market for lithium has been very unstable, so the price and production has veered based on the need for the substance. Also, the lithium battery makers have made it a stated goal to reduce the volume used as much as possible in the battery, without reducing electric storage capacity, i.e., reduce waste of the material. This is of course beneficial to them, as it reduces the weight and cost of the batteries.
I am waiting with baited breath to see what the A123 batteries can do, as they seem to be at the cutting edge on battery technology, and due to their sales in the rechargable power tool market, are already working at a scale that few other advanced battery makers are (no others that I am aware of.
As far as climate control, that is interesting. Peak Oilers seem to base all scenarios not on a "less fossil fuel scenario" but on a "NO fossil fuel scenario".
This has been a rather recent prostitution of the Peak Oil theory that is extremely disturbing, as it creates scenarios that are frankly just plain wacky, and mathamatical modeling that goes off into what I can only call "black hole" physics modeling, and reduces the validity and the acceptance of the whole peak idea. Remember we used to beg people to recall that "peak" does NOT mean we are out of oil. But those reminders are now ignored even by insiders in the peak movment.
What does all this have to do with car climate control? Well, several years ago, I recall that a Toyota was seen at the companies test grounds that was designated as an "electric car" but it has a tiny exhaust pipe. and an electric plug in port.
This led to hopes that they were working on the vaunted "plug hybrid". Toyota said no, it was an electric car, but it has a small fossil engine for climate control and to drive certain accessories. This is interesting, in that the "fossil engine" could have been natural gas, propane, butane, Diesel, or for that matter, even recaptured methane from waste, some type of biofuel, or gasoline. The volume of fuel consumed would be so small that all current fossil fuel/flammable fuel would be open for discussion, completely altering the economics of the energy market.
I think a small hybrid using the fossil engine for climate control, recharge for range as needed, and to drive some accessories is still a very workable idea, and would create efficiency gains unheard of, even undreamed of, in the history of transportation.
But to accept that idea, one must accept the idea that some, at least some, fossil fuel will still be available in the future.
That is an idea that seems to be no longer acceptable to many in the peak community, astoundingly.
RC
That ultra eco TWIKE electric cycle thing that was mentioned on drumbeat a few days ago has an option for a WEBASTO Airtop 2000 diesel heater.
http://www.twike.co.uk/documents/TWIKE_UK_Prices_2006.pdf
Although, as you point out if you're gonna have a diesel engine in an electric car, it'd be more useful as a generator.
'Course being a small diesel, it could be run of biodiesel to avoid FF.
Which is more efficient - direct fuel burning for heat, or reverse-cycle aircon, which might give you say ideally 2.5 times more heat than the electric used, but you've got all those losses converting to electric...
---
I think your reminder about slow depletion is well made.
I was thinking about that myself just yesterday, and my planning - I think maybe it's got something to do with the news around the economy and artic GW etc, and a feeling of 'might as well plan for the worst now'.
Really not sure - but I think you're quite right on this one - and it's one of the aspects that really annoyed me over at PeakOil.com before I left...
Yet, the people who remind us that there will always be some oil seem to fail to acknowledge the physics of a sphere in space:
FINITE LAND
FINITE FRESH WATER
FINITE CARRYING CAPACITY.
What is truly annoying is this belief that we all be living pretty much as we are except our cars will be small with electric engines. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!
Those people who wish to squander cheap energy in order to perpetuate the techno-fantasy world are essentially sociopaths. They do not care about the holistic effect of continued technology use. They only care about feeding the infantile, grasping technophile's desire for cool stuff.
They would kill off the human species and a hell of a lot of other species just to be able to drive a little blue car with electricity.
INSANE!!!!
Cherenkov,
While I usually would not take the time to even reply to someone who refers to those who differ from his worldview as "sociopaths", what the heck, it's a long holiday weekend, so I will waste some time....
First, I notice you did not enter the discussion of whether peak oil means "no oil", and instead veered into other realms, other problems, essentially restructuring the issue. So be it.
You said "What is truly annoying is this belief that we all be living pretty much as we are except our cars will be small with electric engines. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!"
Perhaps, but we may want to avoid "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good."
At this time, we have people driving large cars with large gasoline engines. While small cars with electric engines" may not be perfect, at this moment, even getting folks to move away from large cars with large engines is a tough enough hill to climb. "The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step" say the Budhist thinkers.....gee, they may be right.
"Those people who wish to squander cheap energy in order to perpetuate the techno-fantasy world are essentially sociopaths."
Leaving aside the name calling, the issue is transportation. This is not normally viewed as a sociopathic human desire but goes back to the roots of human history. That is why most early cities were built near rivers or the ocean. It explains the existance of canoes, sailing canoes, Chinese junks (exquisite engineering there!). It explains the sailing ships, the clipper ship, and finally, the change over to steam, the railroad, the steamships, and finally autonomous vehicles such as autos and trucks. Imagine that, 10,000 years of sociopathic desire for transport!
Now the time may come when people will give up the "sociopathic" need for autonomous transportation. They may have to. If communal transport is truly efficient, safe and comfortable, they may even want to. But that may be awhile away. In the meantime, the attempt at seeking at least a less wasteful path does not seem "sociopathic".
The other three issues you hurled out were,
FINITE LAND
FINITE FRESH WATER
FINITE CARRYING CAPACITY
First, on carrying capacity. I do not know what the carrying capacity of the Earth is. I suspect you do not either, but if you do, I applaud your wisdom.
Population in the developed world, minus immigration, is flat or dropping.
One assumes that if access to birth control and cultural barriers were reduced in the rest of the world, this would be the case there to. Either way, it's connection to using electric cars seems to be only this: If we can use small electric engines instead of giant gasoline engines, the carrying capacity of the Earth may be enhanced.
On fresh water, I am not certain that automobiles are the prime user of fresh water in the world. If I am wrong, correct me.
Much fresh water is wasted, indeed. Simple measures such as low water use toilets, efficient showerheads, and grey water systems can save a great deal of water. Less wasteful water use in agriculture, water recycling in industry, and better catch and use of rainwater all could have huge effects. Would it not make more sense to encourage those than going on wild attacks against mobility? Just a thought.
Finite land. Again, I am certain that highways are not the prime consumer of land. However, it is true that enhanced use of transport makes "urban sprawl" a greater possibility, as we see in sub-urbanization. However, it would be very hard to push the total population back into city centers, as some seem to hope for. The overcrowding was what helped many folks want to leave the city centers to begin with. With a larger population, it would make the Warsaw ghetto seem almost humane by comparison to the city centers we would have if we attempted to force the population back into them. Honestly, many would fight to the death to avoid such a fate.
Verticalization and somewhat greater density in many areas would reduce land use, and of course, more efficient farming practices could create food on hopefully as few acres as is needed for the job. Again, we seem to be veering greatly away from the idea of greater efficiency automobles.
"They do not care about the holistic effect of continued technology use."
?????????????
I can only assume that you must mean that what is needed is a ceasing of "continued technology use". This of course is the "primitivist" and "anarcho-green-primitivist" dream. I will leave it to you to attempt to persuade the rest of the world they must abandon all technology, which for many would mean instant or near instant death. Many will fight you to the death, because to accept your agenda would mean death. They would have nothing to lose.
But, it is your right to attempt to gain converts to your cause. I will not wish you luck on this venture, however, as I am one for whom it would mean a very short lifespan.
You would think I have gone long enough, but I must address one absolutely fascinating thing. The absolute fascinating raw hatred of individual transporation. What causes exactly that to draw out such passionate hatred?
I was talking to a woman the other day, and mentioned that I had used the air conditioning in my home only about 4 days last summer, when I had guests, a summer that was quite hot. She very quickly said that hers was on ALL summer. Even though she was out of the house most of the time, she said, she had cats, and they could not survive a closed house in those hot summer months. Likewise, the house must be kept comfortably warm for the cats in the winter, meaning she does not turn down the thermostat. Think of that, heating and cooling a 3000 plus square foot home for a couple of cats!!
I began to think about the "sacred cows" of humans that escape the raw passionate hate that is reserved only for the automobile:
Pets. How much do they consume in heat, air conditioning, food, medical attention?
Lawns: Speaking of your freshwater, pesticides, herbicides, land. Millions of acres of carefully cultivated land that produces grass clippings!
Appearance: Jewelry, accessories, clothing, leather goods, cosmetics. How much consumed in mining for metals, pearls, silver and gold, gems, animals for leather goods, handbags, billfolds, chemicals for cosmetics?
Exotic foods and wines. So varied I cannot even hope to explain.
Excess packaging on all of the above.
Vacations. How many years would it take for the "little blue techno toy" to match what an airliner would use going to Europe from the U.S. one time?
Do you see what I mean? It is the automobile alone that is the target of an almost psychopathic (opps, I'm getting into your turf :-), hatred.
Is it really the energy use that is the issue? Or is it the idea of personal mobility, the freedom to leave one place and go to another, to seek employment and education at some distance? Does the idea of people, regular people having some freedom to move about strike something deep in the elitist psyche? What exactly....it's an interesing line of thought, indeed...
Oh well, enough fun for tonight! :-)
Great comments Roger. While I understand Cherenkov's frustration with our unsustainable living arrangement, I can only see changes coming in a multitude of small steps, such as the ones to which you refer. The value of this electric car is not as single point solution, but as a foundation for further changes, and as one of many ways to live more sustainably. I think it is more important to laud those things that move us in a positive direction than to criticize them for not meeting ideals. Good job ugo, keep it up.
budr
Thanks, Budr. Very interesting comment, Roger
If there was hatred of personal mobility, then maybe 150 years ago there were elitists who hated horses and all that they represented?
Seriously, this is the second time you mention elitist hatred for ordinary man having a car and thus, personal freedom (first time you referred to Kunstler). You made me think because since I've learned about PO and related energy issues, I started to feel more and more disgusted about cars and car culture in general. Before that, I was thinking of buying a large, new car. Did I become an elitist?
Then it occurred to me that the problem is not in the base premise but in what it degraded to-instead of personal freedom and mobility, you get freedom of crawling through crowded streets in attempt to get to work. If you live in the city where there are never enough parking lots or garages, you have freedom to wander the streets looking for place to park. And as list of "freedoms" goes on, you start to wonder: Is it really worth it?
One other thing that bothers me is inequality and injustice. What about personal freedom and mobility for citizens of poor countries? Is it possible that all 6,5 billion people have a car and "leave one place and go another"? Aren't we all hypocrites and elitists when we believe it is our natural right to have a car that runs on cheap fuel and costs us no more than 10% of our budget?
I would change my mind about all this if I see that it's possible for all the people to have such freedom and that freedom doesn't cost us our environment and the planet. It is nice to believe that maybe if we all drove nice little Fiat with electric engine, everything would be OK. Let's hope..
The issue is do we want as soft a landing as possible, or a hard landing. Anything we can implement today to lesson the effects of the crash will be far less scocipathic than wanting a severe crash.
Irrelevant. World population is increasing, and that is pouring over into developed countries through immigration, that then opens the door for more population growth in developing countries that are now over populated. Allowing for immigration is actually making our over population problem worse.
Richard Wakefield
It's an old Internet truism that you can spot the crazies by their use of capitals and excessive exclamations.
Try that for INSANE Bob.
Rather than look at the nature of personal vehicles and the environment they engender you lot will take the world to the cliff and drive it over in cute little Disneyesque blue vehicles. (plus a FF engine for 'climate control', code I guess for air conditioning?)
A few pen strokes could change zoning and 'city' planing and relatively quickly eliminate the need for those personal energy and material draining devices, but that is not being even considered, much better to build little blue tech band-aids and decry those like Cherenekov who get apoplectic when suffering the idiotic.
I think the copper could be better used in Alan Drakes Trams and trains , what do you think?
I am not under the delusion that what I think will make any difference whatsoever. Nor will the recommendations of a few concerned activists stop the masses wanting personal mobility. It is truly idiotic to think that engineers have any real influence on how people behave.
Technology is a red herring, the elephant in the room is overpopulation. The "technology" to solve that (i.e. birth control) is already in place.
Ask Cherenkov what he is doing about population growth. You will find he has more children than I have.
You have children? I have child:)
Still one more than me ;)
Bob,
I also have no children. So far the combined output of myself and my siblings (4 of us in total) has been 3 children.
The other day I counted and the combined output of all my cousins is less by a fair number than the total of the cousins! We're shrinking! :-)
(I recently saw an interview where it was stated that Matthew Simmons had 4 daughters....I said, no wonder he's worried! :-)
Now, how about pets? :-)
(I have none)
RC
I had 23 uncles and aunts and a dozen cousins, my son has one uncle and no cousins. Terrible time to be born into...alone at the end of the world.
Bob Cousins,
Regarding capitalization. Gosh, I hope you are not saying that punctuation and capitalization are more important than arguing my points, because that would make you the crazy one.
On population growth. Yes, I have two children.
Given your take on technology, I must presume you also lead me in indirect deaths through technological mayhem. That is the irony of such bad thinking. Overpopulation is indeed the elephant in the room. However, you use it as a cudgel to beat those who do not agree with you.
I am actually an advocate for several measures to counter population growth. Fortunately, my humanistic take of life means I will be unwilling to accept the technophile solution of "just keep going out on the limb and hope it don't break." But, break it will. Whereas my solution is the spread of free birth control, anti-growth education, and the immediate reduction of fossil fuel use ala Heinberg's protocol, your solution seems to be, "Hyuck, hyuck, hyuck. Us engimageers cain't possibly have no influgance on no people. That would be just dumb. Let's keep a usin' stuff up and see what happens."
Euphemism Check..
What's wrong with Band Aids? You use that term with a sneer, but if we're suffering this death of a thousand cuts, don't you think a few BandAids might be a useful part of the solution? Yes, we need to think about the Big Picture, too.. but in the meantime, will you be riding in no more vehicles at all? Will you ride in a vehicle that continues to Bleed Petroleum out of our future supply, or will you use some Band Aids where you can?
When you call them 'Cute' (and even your use of 'Little'), you are clearly suggesting that they are useless, irrelevant. The people they carry are Not belittled versions of the millions who have to travel to be part of their daily lives. There are surely those who are heading straight at the cliff. But the People developing these vehicles ('You Lot') are clearly trying to turn away from that fall.
Lots of Copper - Should certainly be used for Alan's plans.. but ALL of it? None of these solutions solves the WHOLE problem, does it? So taking ALL the materials from these vehicles and putting it ALL into the plan you endorse is part of this mentality that still wants to find that mystical ONE thing that will solve it all.. an Understandable, but Unreachable Fantasy. Just like the question high on this Topic that asks if there is enough Lithium to make Hundreds of Millions of vehicles, with the clear implication that 'Your Plan Fails, because it will not replace ALL vehicles'.. An unhelpful direction to take these discussions, resting only on Hyperbole and Extremes.
Bob
Cherenkov does get Apoplectic AND Idiotic AND Infantile when he rants against things he sees as Idiotic and Infantile. I know the challenge of trying to exercise patience with someone who is being IMpatient.., trying to be Mature in the face of a childish conflict.. it's not easy and I hope Cherenkov notices it when he's drawn into this kind of 'Mirror Behavior', as I hope I can keep from being Drawn In myself. Sometimes I manage it..
Thanks, Jokuhl.
I don't need anyone to apologize for my rants.
I am truly tired of the calm talk. The valium talk. The blah, blah, blah, until we all go to sleep while the "adults" accomplish plenty of talk, but no action, or worse, the wrong action.
Infantile is an entire society based on growth, a gimme, gimme, gimme society of little baby hands all opening and closing for what they feel is justly theirs.
Infantile is a country that allows its corporations to put dangerous cancer causing chemicals into its products while Europe bans such products.
Infantile is a bunch of people who feel that they are so important that the rest of the species on the planet can just go bugger off.
Infantile is a user mentality that uses up the planet, uses up different cultures, uses up people. An infant is a user which we tolerate for a time. Why do we tolerate all the "adult" users who keep whining and crying for their toys no matter how quickly it kills the planet, no matter how many future generations suffer horrible lives and deaths.
All of this because we cannot make a plan to stop growth, to stop the cancer, to stop our planet-killing juggernaut. All this because we need a little blue car to haul our fat butts around.
I do not get either idiotic or infantile. Apoplectic, yes. The others no. My points are irrefutable. Physics is on my side. That I choose to mock, to be sarcastic, to be willing to actually call things as they really are, is a calculated ploy. If I return to the somnolent murmurings of the sleepy-headed sheep who keep trying to figure out how to keep the techno-dream going, then I BECOME ONE OF YOU!!!!!
A DAMNED ENABLER!!
Then I would become just like you, one of the "good" Germans who looked the other way while the NAZIs plucked people off the street and beat dissenters to death.
The time to be LOUD is NOW!!!
NOW, while we still have time. Not when the plane is traveling 600 miles per hour towards the ground with only sixty feet left.
NOW!!!!!
Sorry, if my caps made any of the feebleminded here lose track of my points. Perhaps if you weaned yourself from the MSM for a few weeks, you could blow out the pipes and think straight for once.
Cherenkov;
Now is the time. Absolutely. But is it the time to shriek at the people who post on TOD that they are 'The Good Germans'? Actually, we could do worse than trying to be as good as the Germans today.. but I know the ones you meant. Who do you think is posting here? What do you think these people are like in their real lives, and not in the caricatures that these silly names become in our imaginations?
I do hope that if you are so tired of this ongoing Talk-talk, that part of your solution is not just to scream instead. You probably have at least a glimmer of a suspicion in your boiling head that while the short-term effect of yelling is that it turns some heads your way, that the next response if the hollering keeps up, is to move away or at the very least, to STOP listening. So do you have any actions that you feel are worth working towards? Planting food, Teaching Neighbors, Reducing your own consumption.. or are you so concerned that you, like us 'Might be taking an errant step in the wrong direction by trying ANYTHING..' that you've concluded it's better not to do anything except rail against any internet post you object to?
You are not screaming at the mainstream here.. don't believe it. Priviledged, largely Westerners with computers, I'll grant that.. but this is not a crowd that is lulled into a drowsy complacency..
"The blah, blah, blah, until we all go to sleep while the "adults" accomplish plenty of talk, but no action, or worse, the wrong action." - I've heard examples of a great many of the posters here taking real actions, whether it's on their own consumption, on policies and projects, on outreach (which is talk, to be sure.. but you won't hear it if you're expecting anything effective to be broadcast with the Knob turned up to Eleven)
I'm not nuts about insisting that you are infantile.. I actually think infants are very smart and aware, and have largely not yet learned or been forced to shut down or get buried in restimulated ranting and addictions as many older members of our society have had to, what with all the brutality and dishonesty that we grow up within. Infants cry and bawl because they need to get it out.. (probably a lot more when birthed with Western 'Medical Emergency' techniques) so it's actually very appropriate and healthy for them to do so.
"...you could blow out the pipes and think straight for once." You've been blowing out your pipes all along, as far as I can see, and yet Straight is not a word I would use to describe your thinking. You do see what's going on, and I hardly disagree with your points about how broken our basic system is.. but you use it like the hammer seeing everything as a nail to bash. Where will this get you?
Bob
Reading your post again..
'Feebleminded' -
There it is.. it's like people who overuse the MF'er because it seems to sound strong. Do you think that using a lot of Caps and Exclamation marks is an indication that you are NOT being feebleminded?
It's just the opposite.. you continue to weaken your argument and your reputation when you have to synthetically bolster your words that way.. and it seems to be obvious to everyone but you yourself.
Bob
No, we get your point perfectly. You are saying "I am a raving lunatic and I need medical help".
Back in the old days, mentally deranged people would stand in the street yelling at passers by, now they do it on the internet. Plus ca change.
Johkul,
Bandaids are okay used in the right places but if we use them to cover our asses that merely implies an obvious result:)
Those little cars will merely distract and not solve anything and while Drakes solution is better, I doubt that it will in itself solve anything but at least it is headed in the right direction. We are at a point where lifeboat drill is the order of the day but the captain and his crew are drunk and disorderly and the passengers talking of the days amusements. This time it's a festival about tootling about in little blue autos.
Cherenkov might look idiotic and infantile waving and shouting that a big Fossile Fuel behemoth is bearing down on us but less idiotic than those who just send up a lot of piss and wind . Also I like Cherenekov's humour and sense of the ludicrous. I remember a bit of childhood doggerel, to wit:
Gene gene made a machine,
Joe Joe made it go,
Art art blew a fart and
blew the whole machine apart.
We need the art of Cherenekov and his like or Gene's machine will bury us.
"This time it's a festival about tootling about in little blue autos."
No. It's about getting to work without burning oil.. the existence of motorized vehicles is not the problem, it's the misuse/overuse of an otherwise useful tool, running on a dirty and limited fuel source.
We've gotten spoiled by cheap energy into the assumption that we can live with a MUCH greater reach in our daily travels than can be supported. That doesn't mean that cars are intrinsically evil, any more than money would be. It also doesn't mean that everybody will own a car, or even want one as the costs start becoming more realistic.. but it might be that an extended family would own a car, a scooter and a small pickup amongst a dozen or more people, if that's what the economics allowed. Electric vehicles might be carrying Actual Band-Aids, and getting people to hospitals, tho' they'd of course have to settle for 'Toodling' to the hospital, as driving would apparently no longer be possible.
I did like the Fart poem. Thanks for that.
My problem with Cherenkov is that I think his online Persona is wasting a lot of energy, and not having a very useful effect (lousy traction, excessive friction).. while I know that he does have 'some' fans.. it's poor EROEI.. it bugs me, especially since it detracts from other posters' energy as well. He seems to paint this as being the 'rebel truthteller'.. the points themselves are valid, but the volume pushes people away, and I think, devalues the argument in doing so. It's like an abuse of power, where the net result is you're just making your work harder and harder.
Bob
"Theres a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
Hes always at home with his back to the wall.
And hes proud of his scars and the battles hes lost,
And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man."
- Billy Joel
If anyone is pissing into the wind, it's Cherenkov.
Sorry, but is also about the infrastructure that makes the automobile lifestyle possible. That cement don't come cheap in FF use nor does all the asphalt and assorted traffic toys as well as the restrictions to sensible modes of travel from walking to rail all screwed by the dependence on personal (NOT PUBLIC) FF transportation devices.
Well let me know when the second coming happens but until then I don't see that there is any poster or group of posters here who can be all things to all men, each of us can have a part to play and I think Cherenkov plays one and does it well, if loudly. Maybe wakes up the dozing, maybe attracts new blood maybe makes you look at what it is that disturbs you by his action. I don't think the problem is fossil fuel or energy and how it is used or even Cherenkov as you seem to think:), I think the problem is US.
For one thing we tend to think our opinions are us and doing that makes them immutable and that makes change very difficult. I think that holds for myself as well as most, if not all, posters here.
Hey Cherenekov, sorry about using your body for a battle ground but needs must as the devil drives :)
I have no problem with opposing the burden we've set up for ourselves, the way our roads and highways are constructed, and the sheer mass of them, at this point.. but as with Population, these will crumble and fade down to a lower level as our energy drops..
that is still not to say, and it would be silly to suggest that we will stop using wheels and motors to move ourselves and our supplies from place to place, and that we will have paths, streets and roads to do it with. As our Legacy load of monster trucks and old I-beams find their way to the smelters, there will be a supply of metals that will be going into rail, into cars of some sort or another- certainly not your daddy's oldsmobile.
A buildout of intercity and intervillage rail is essential, and it's probably inevitable.. just long overdue. But there will be lots of things to move around where there aren't tracks available. I'll bet that a whole LOT of them will be little electric vehicles.. and some of them will be blue.
The article in Drumbeat about Chicago making their alleyways out of Porous Concrete and Asphalt was interesting. Our roads will be fewer and a lot of lanes narrower, and will probably start to get made from other things, including back to dirt and gravel in many many places. But there will still be roads. Do you doubt that?
Bob
You may very well be right, but personally I am hoping for quiet paths in the forest for my sons child, when he has one, and Ayahuasa in his medicine pouch to keep him on that path.
In between as you seem to say just NOISE!!! AND STUFF!!! and likely a lot of blue things, I think mostly people though:)
BTW here is something my wife just noticed about the UN talking about Iceland being the best place to live. Hmmm wonder how many little blue cars in Iceland?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071127/lf_nm_life/un_development_index_dc
If not many now, probably many in the near future. With high-temperature geothermal resources to provide electricity, Iceland could be the first FF-free country in the developed world if/when it switchs to all electric transportation. That should add to it's no. 1 ranking for quality of life.
The Blue one is on the second row...
"BR Car Rental has been in operation for over 20 years and has for that period always provided good services and high quality cars.
"There are many thing unique about driving in Iceland. Many rural roads in Iceland are gravel roads not suited to fast driving. Please drive carefully and show other road-users consideration at all times.
http://www.randburg.com/is/cars/
"BR-Car rental is located only 5 minutes from the Keflavik International Airport."
re: Noise!!! .. remember, with an electric car, it's only Noise!
Best, Bob
(My wife just told me I look really sexy when I'm doing the dishes for her. I asked her if she would tell me that I look really sexy when I'm on 'The Oil Drum'.. just try it on for size? But she wasn't buyin'..)
This would be a must in winter climates. You can't drive if you can't clear the frost from the inside of the window caused by you and your passenger's breathing. My suggestion would be some kind of alcohol based heater. Then you can not only recharge the vehicle with your own PV panels you can also make the fuel to heat the vehicle from your waste foods.
Richard Wakefield
If I recall correctly, the Tesla is using an onboard heat pump for climate control. 1 joule of power in, 4-6 joules of heat out. But it should be problematic if it gets really cold outside. But still, for those days you use the electric engine heater anyway.
Evidently you are not familiar with the heating system of the VW van. Under your criteria I would never drive in winter.
About windscreens, possibly a bit of Old Tech would get us there? How about how they once made wind screens? Out of wire mesh window screen. No problem with frost then and to keep warm a goose down quilt and some of the alcohol from that heater of yours should do nicely.
In fact now that I think about it why not petition the government to make winter driving with glass wind shields illegal, that would reduce consumption of petroleum, of course it would also increase the drinking of the ethanol. Seems like some days you just can't win:(
BTW just what do you imply with the term 'waste foods' is that like in the Freak Bros comic book? where Phineas installs a bio digester/toilet in the car to fuel it? And the cop figures that is where they have their stash? Hmm might be fun:)
Currently it's quite expensive to do such conversions.
Google ForkenSwift and you'll find an EV done on a beer budget (I had a Sprint/Swift and loved it) - but it's not streetable.
I'm just waiting for this book:
Zero-carbon car : building the car the auto industry can't get right Kemp, William H.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/ZeroCarbonCar/
Now the company that did the conversion gave me a ballpark quote of $20k just to do an EV conversion with lead acid batteries. It apparently works in the winter; but up here heating in a car at least 5 months/year; if you want to see out the windows and I can't believe that they can make an EV which has enough battery power to defrost the windows. I really don't expect it to have enough energy in the batteries to heat the cabin!
So for about $30k I'm assuming that this car gets heat from it's biodiesel engine. I'm assuming that it's a series hybrid as I've been talking about - around 5hp IC engine to put out the average power needed and provide heat for the cabin.
Still I don't see it as sustainable or really an option for the future. We'll have to do with less energy and that doesn't just mean smaller cars.
Cut the population of the "first world" in half for starters and our energy use by 1/5 and we're starting to deal with climate change and reduced energy availability.
A one child policy here in North America would be a good start; that and stopping massive immigration and the assumption that constant population growth is necessary and good. We need to get our own act in order; not keep on doing what got us into this mess.
It is interesting to notice as the BAU-thinking can emerge also in a “educated enviroment" as is TOD: For istance there is already who is saying that the electric autos are not viable in central-USA as it snows and is so bitterly cold 5 months / year ....
My investment in heating amounts to 65 Euros for the “cinquino” (camping hair dryer 12 volts plugged in an all-new electric lighter plug; it also serves for the Tom-Tom Gps(the odometer is broken and in every case it is important to know how many km left till arrive).
In these days it is not so cold but it seems that this solution is enough to defreeze the windshield at least in the cinquino, already heated by its thermal uman machine (that under conditions of moderate activity produces around 200 thermal W) and is everything needed to cope with the issue.
It is clear that in USA with so much longer and frigid winters, one should think about a real Heater plant, electric or not.
It is also true that one could obtain much better results insulating ceilings and lateral panels of the car.
Reasonably it should not be necessary more that 1 kW of thermal power to heat an average car of average dimensions. After all, with a 1 kW electric oil-radiator You can heat an average room quite well.
If you chose an electric heater it will also decrease the autonomy of the car but not that much: in a typical electric auto, more or less 10% and probably less.
If you still think this is an issue and want a “final” solution there are commercial heaters that use normal Diesel fuel to run, more common being Webasto and Eberspacker (been born for the boats) They are truly powerful and succeed in warming a 40 feet boat in about twenty minutes...
consuming around 0,05 Gall / hour of oil. They have more or less a bike-terminal-exaust sized so can be fitted in a lot of different places inside the car.
Probably in this case, you could be warm and dry with no more than 10 gallons/year.
Pietro Cambi*
*English definitely not mother tongue
Or you could use those 65 € to buy winter clothing. I've ridden my bicycle in negative temperatures, there's no heating, no hardtop or wind shield, and still I survived.
Definitely, in a post peak world this wont be a major concern...
"Or you could use those 65 € to buy winter clothing."
Clothing does not clean a frosty winshield :)
Hi Ugo and Pietro
I first saw your car on www.evconvert.com where I hang out discussing the finer points of electric vehilcle design with other enthusiasts.
I also have a converted EV: http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/752 . I was motivated to buy it when I found out about Peak Oil around 2 1/2 years ago.
It would be a very difficult thing to retrofit all of the existing vehicle fleet and I am not sure if that would be desirable as opposed to electric mass transport. However, like you, I don't want to sit around doing nothing. Tonight I fitted a battery equalising device and will produce a write up about it on the web soon.
One of the most useful things about an electric vehicle is the opening it gives you in a conversation to start talking about energy constraints and sustainability. People take you a more seriously and listen for longer if you have proof you are trying to change your own lifestyle.
Carbon - Coventry UK
Carbon waste life form ( LOL nice nick too)
You perfectly got the point !
Driving the cute lil cinquino I am magically transformed in a cool Guy from the former Cassandreous black future looking Bud.
That is it.
We gotta be the smartest, coolest Guy in the village.
Uh, well, at least trying to look like 8o))) )
Folks will follow, given the situation in the (next) future.
Queques at the gas station?
Uhhh, I dont really care: i recharge at home with my now-not-so-expensive-looking solar panels eehhhh
Yes, uh i am planning to change the car one of this day.
Uh just the car, an used one, for a couplle of bucks or so: i don't actually need motor and the other messy oilly sticky things.
I have already something better to put in.
I am electric for the foreseable future You know.
"Only" problem is to be stolen/ sacked ahem if things get really messy ahemmm.
Pietro*
*no, english is NOT my mother language!!
Pietro, though not your mother tongue, you have a good command of colloquial English. Your posts are easily understood and most readable. I only wish that I was equally
fluent in the Italian language.
In your last paragraph you raise a point that I have been thinking about for some time, namely that if in the future most ordinary people cannot afford to run cars, those that still can by having converted their vehicles to electric or bio-diesel propulsion (like Roger with his elderly Mercedes), will likely be the focus of much malicious attention.
The general attitude is likely to be "if I can't run a car why should they", and a large chunk of concrete coming through the windscreen/shield when driving under bridges is a very real possibility. Also the vehicle could not be left unguarded, as it would be stolen or set on fire.
Another probability is that the vehicle would be requisitioned by the civil authorities "for the public good"
(but of course!).
In the UK during WW11 all binoculars had to be handed to the government for use by the armed forces, as there were only a few small companies (Ross, Wray, come to mind) that actually made binoculars in this Country.
At the end of hostilities some people actually had their binoculars returned to them, usually very much the worse for wear.
Would it be possible to add resistive strips to the windshield (as we frequently use on rear windows) to provide a defrost capability, and if so, how much current would it draw? This would slightly impair the visibility of the driver, so this type of modification might not be legal.
Ford sells the Mondeo model with electric heated windscreen. Legal in most countries AFAIK.
You don't really need heat to keep the windows clear, a fan blowing air from the engine compartment over the windows would keep the windshield free of condensation. There are actually advantages to using no heat even in a conventional car with an ICE, with no heat on the inside the outside of the windshield doesn't get hot enough to melt the snow, and it doesn't get iced down. In some cases you absolutely need to turn off the heat, like in bad weather in winter when the government doesn't allow people to cross mountains on their own.
I quote a translation of an information pamphlet from norwegian road authorities:
"Regulate the ventilation system to supply cool air to your front windscreen."
I don't suppose many would contemplate crossing mountains in blizzard conditions using an EV unless it had a substantial range, so if I was the designer of an EV I would do my utmost to channel what little waste heat there was into the cabin. A more powerful engine than 10 kW would perhaps require watercooling? If so it would be easy to use the existing heatercore in the dashboard in addition to a seperate radiator in the engine compartment for those rare days in summer when you don't need to heat the cabin or defog the windows :)
Uh.
This car is not intended to be produced in the hundreds of millions. Anyone of us perfectly knows the "hundreds-millions-cars" era is definitely over.
In the future, there will be a forced mix of trasportations: some public service (some-it will be very expensive to mantain), bycyles, horses, some self-produced ethanol cars (see Cuba for details). The retrofitted car is just another option, think of it as the "area car": some families, producing some energy, using it when needed.
An electric engine lasts almost forever; batteries, used sparingly, have a long life; car bodies... well, there'll be plenty for free.
We just need to think outside the BAU...
I live atop a mountain about 2100 feet high. I may make a 50 mile round trip a couple of times a week traveling to a town about 20 miles away and about 1200 feet lower in elevation. So I have pretty mountainous terrain to cover. Further, our winters are long, cold, and with lots (several feet) of snow. Can an EV be used in this kind of climate and terrain?
m005E (LOL nice nick) You can do it but it depends on the car and how much want to spend in those batteries...As for me i live more or less 1000 feet above Florence and the lil cinquino has enough stamina to do 3 times up and down ( 3000 feet and about 55 kms or slightly less than 35 miles).
In a flat countryside i can do at least 60% more.
So i guess in an heavier car ( say a VW rabbit or equivalent) with heater on you could need about 20 kWh to do the daily duty y need.
Now, if you use, as you should, LI-Po batteries it's gonna hurt...
But it is viable!!!
Pietro
You're definitely on the right track. The ideal post-petroleum vehicle we envision would be engineered from the ground up: http://letthesunwork.com/joy/idealvehicle.htm
Somebody out there please go start building it so you can get rich!
A correction. The Hirsch report did not indicate that "we don’t have enough time and we don’t have enough money for building the infrastructure that would be needed to liquefy coal or gas." And his second report is an analysis of what he views as viable alternatives to replace oil. My report refutes Hirsch and shows that we cannot make the transition to alternatives no matter how much time we have before oil production peaks: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
Clifford, it seems to me that what Hirsch says can be interpreted in terms of not having enough resources (money and time) to step up production of synfuels to compensate for the decline of crude oil. Then, it is also true that not only we can't make it, no matter what, it wouldn't be a good idea anyway!
Hirsch says that there are alternatives to mitigate Peak Oil impacts if we have 10 years or more. My report says that no matter how much time, alternative won't do it. See pages 16 to 40 of this report: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html.
For starters, U.S coal production has peaked and necessary water resources are insufficient. These things can't be fixed no matter the amount of time.
In his second report, he spends an enormous amount of effort studying all kinds of alternatives, but does not look at the real limits of producing them. For example, oil sands will yield not many more barrels per day, and shale oil are dead in the water.
HI CJ,
These seem like important points. I wonder if there is a good way to bring them up to Robert Hirsch himself?
Or, could you possibly write these points up w. references and present separately? (Than as part of your longer article?)
My guess is he is aware of the limitations - perhaps he is leaving it to others to do exactly what you've done (or, say you've done - as I haven't had time to check out your article.)
It seems to me we need to continue with our careful analysis, much as you have done (i.e, say you've done - see caveat above). (Also, perhaps mention Hirsch's co-authors, as well, for the sake of completeness and accuracy.)
I'd like to see this presented for TOD or perhaps as an article for www.energybulletin.net.
Hi Aniya, Thanks for the ideas. If Hirsch and coauthors were aware of the limitations but did not write about them, they would be dishonest and acting against the public interest. Energybulletin published an earlier version of my report, but they won't link to my site. TOD won't publish my report because it is linked to my website, which offers free information but charges for other services, and they won't link my site either. But Simmons site is linked to TOD. Seems like discrimination to me. As a political scientist, I know that good research is not always heard, rather connections and big names get top billing. In this case the public loses. There are no alternatives to oil and it is time for serious risk management now. That message continues to be muted. Cliff Wirth