http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=1000357061&fid=1725

Agassi presents Congress with US electric car figures



Agassi noted that the operating cost of an electric car, including the depreciation of the battery, is cuurently about six cents per mile, while the average American - getting 25 miles per gallon and paying $4 per gallon - is paying 16 cents per mile. He explained that a car getting less than 25 miles per gallon will cost even more - drivers in Europe pay two to three times that amount. He added, "Based on this infrastructure alone, of the average 2.6 cars per US household today, there is no reason that one of them can’t be all electric for use on every trip of 120 miles or less."

What it doesn't say is that Mark Duvall, from the Electric Power Research Institute then criticized that figure and said the industry as a whole has been moving away from his idea of using battery swapping stations.

What it doesn't say is that Mark Duvall, from the Electric Power Research Institute then criticized that figure and said the industry as a whole has been moving away from his idea of using battery swapping stations.


Can you explain to us how the "industry" is moving away from his idea of battery swapping? I'm a huge fan of quick-charge BEVs but they are a few years (at best) away. The battery swap idea would be the only usable BEV until we have those quick-charge batteries in mass production at a reasonable price.

If you are referring to the plug-in hybrid well that is a short-term solution to the BEV or zero fossil fuel burning vehicle. So I disagree with you that the "industry" is moving away from his idea. In fact it seems like the "industry" is not moving at all or at a snails pace.

Maybe you are talking about hydrogen cars? Still science projects that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The EV1 was cheap compared to the new Honda hydrogen car.

The of knowledge and understanding at the higher levels of government, corporate governance and in the media never ceases to amaze and frustrate me. How can a non-existant industry move away from a barely explored and virtually untried concept unless you are referring to the lead acid forklift market and extrapolating that to personnal transportation vehicles. Now, this makes oodles of sense.

Can you explain to us how the "industry" is moving away from his idea of battery swapping? I'm a huge fan of quick-charge BEVs but they are a few years (at best) away. The battery swap idea would be the only usable BEV until we have those quick-charge batteries in mass production at a reasonable price.

If you are referring to the plug-in hybrid well that is a short-term solution to the BEV or zero fossil fuel burning vehicle. So I disagree with you that the "industry" is moving away from his idea. In fact it seems like the "industry" is not moving at all or at a snails pace.

Maybe you are talking about hydrogen cars? Still science projects that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The EV1 was cheap compared to the new Honda hydrogen car.

I originally became aware of the battery-swapping station business model in a report compiled in 1989 by the State of California to evaluate three different recharging infrastructure proposals. I agree that with you that hydrogen vehicle are farther up the cost curve and that fast-chargers are going to require a quantifiable market penetration to be profitable, though further research should be performed to determine acceptable market penetration rates to achieve ROI objectives.

I think are ultimate goal is still the electrification of the grid, although some like General Motors think Hydrogen is the end point. I think we are going to disagree about PHEVs being a necessary transition step, but I think ultimately consumers will move to electric vehicles afterwards.

From talking with some of the institutes that are working in conjunction with the major automakers (transplants included) and utilities it seems to point to at-home recharging and public charging locations. Once we move to EVs fast-chargers begin to take over.

His idea can work on a limited scale, in cities such as San Francisco, New York, or other high density metropolitian areas. I believe he will be competing though with EVs from Tesla, Mitsubishi, Phoenix, and PHEVs from GM, Toyota, and other manufacturers. In the U.S. market Nissan is the only OEM engineering a vehicle to handle battery-swapping (BS) capabilities. It is still uncertain whether he can convince other OEMs to engineer vehicles to handle BS, though the probability is likely in the 10-25% range of him convincing them.

If he can obtain 100 billion in funding, if that figure is correct and he can come in at a lower price point then 550/month then he could corner a significant portion of the future EV market as a first-mover. The likelihood of approving that level of funding is low and congress would probably reduce the proposal into the millions or low billions. Private Equity and or Venture Capital does not have the funds to finance that type of operation.

In order to achieve an acceptable ROI on his investment he will need to sign-up early adapters and pragmatists, which require a significant membership sign-up. Further research needs to be performed to determine the acceptable number of users signed up in order to meet financial commitments and contractual obligations to Nissan-Renault. These are just some of the uncertainties with his proposal.

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=1000357061&fid=1725

Agassi presents Congress with US electric car figures


Since EV owners in Florida pay about 2 cents/mile for electricity, "6 cents/mile sounded way too high, but the 6 cents includes depreciation on the batteries (presumably about 4 cents/mile), which is necessary if comparing to gasoline power. 2 cents in spite of the fact that Florida has relatively high electricity prices. In fact Florida generates about half its electricity from petroleum and natural gas while nationwide petroleum accounts for only 3% of electric energy.

So here is a very revealing question: "If Florida is generating half its electricity with fuels that compete with home heating oil (all over $3/gallon equivalent) how can EV owners still only spend 2 cents/mile, which is ONE EIGHTH as much as gasoline cars?" Are Florida's utilities big philanthropic organizations (not a chance)? Instead of ruin the fun, I'll see what conclusions others come to.

Since EV owners in Florida pay about 2 cents/mile for electricity, "6 cents/mile sounded way too high, but the 6 cents includes depreciation on the batteries (presumably about 4 cents/mile), which is necessary if comparing to gasoline power. 2 cents in spite of the fact that Florida has relatively high electricity prices. In fact Florida generates about half its electricity from petroleum and natural gas while nationwide petroleum accounts for only 3% of electric energy.

So here is a very revealing question: "If Florida is generating half its electricity with fuels that compete with home heating oil (all over $3/gallon equivalent) how can EV owners still only spend 2 cents/mile, which is ONE EIGHTH as much as gasoline cars?" Are Florida's utilities big philanthropic organizations (not a chance)? Instead of ruin the fun, I'll see what conclusions others come to.


Dr. Mark, Please check your electricity generation data for Florida. I have it listed as 503 thousand MWh out of 17,239 thousand MWh are produced from oil. That is only 3%. In Florida oil is used mostly for transportation.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=FL

You might want to change your state example from Florida to Hawaii. Oil is used to generate around 90% of Hawaii's energy needs. Now that is a huge problem. Hawaii may be in for major population adjustments as people move to the mainland. They have yet to come to grips with this and are doing nothing more than talking about it. The hammer of pain has yet to fall. However, in just the last month the price of gasoline has gone up from around $3.85 per gallon to around $4.40 per gallon. One month! Tourism is dropping (around 17 percent from last year) and the cost of food imports are rising. Ouch. The military is also considering reducing the size of their presence in Hawaii because of the high cost of fuel. It's a major strategic port but it's anyone's guess as to what the military presence will be in the next 10 years.

Florida will be a major energy exporter after the transition. They have vast amounts of solar resources. Some of the electricity generated by those solar resources will be stored in EV batteries. If you think about it, Florida is in a great position. They have an economy that relies on huge amounts of tourism based transportation and they have vast amounts of solar to fill all of the required batteries. No drilling required! ;)

Dr. Mark, Please check your electricity generation data for Florida. I have it listed as 503 thousand MWh out of 17,239 thousand MWh are produced from oil. That is only 3%. In Florida oil is used mostly for transportation.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=FL

You might want to change your state example from Florida to Hawaii. Oil is used to generate around 90% of Hawaii's energy needs. Now that is a huge problem. Hawaii may be in for major population adjustments as people move to the mainland. They have yet to come to grips with this and are doing nothing more than talking about it. The hammer of pain has yet to fall. However, in just the last month the price of gasoline has gone up from around $3.85 per gallon to around $4.40 per gallon. One month! Tourism is dropping (around 17 percent from last year) and the cost of food imports are rising. Ouch. The military is also considering reducing the size of their presence in Hawaii because of the high cost of fuel. It's a major strategic port but it's anyone's guess as to what the military presence will be in the next 10 years.

Florida will be a major energy exporter after the transition. They have vast amounts of solar resources. Some of the electricity generated by those solar resources will be stored in EV batteries. If you think about it, Florida is in a great position. They have an economy that relies on huge amounts of tourism based transportation and they have vast amounts of solar to fill all of the required batteries. No drilling required! ;)

I often work in Florida and am interested in their future energy generation plans, but haven't done much research on it. Could you share some of the research you have conducted on their usage of intermittents such as solar, since you seem to have done research in the past on this issue.

I often work in Florida and am interested in their future energy generation plans, but haven't done much research on it. Could you share some of the research you have conducted on their usage of intermittents such as solar, since you seem to have done research in the past on this issue.

Yes, just click on the link I provided. That should get you going. You can also go to www.Google.com and type: Florida, Energy, renewables, solar, wind, etc. in different combinations and you will get more information than you can handle. Enjoy!

Dr. Mark, Please check your electricity generation data for Florida. I have it listed as 503 thousand MWh out of 17,239 thousand MWh are produced from oil. That is only 3%. In Florida oil is used mostly for transportation.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=FL

You might want to change your state example from Florida to Hawaii. Oil is used to generate around 90% of Hawaii's energy needs. Now that is a huge problem. Hawaii may be in for major population adjustments as people move to the mainland. They have yet to come to grips with this and are doing nothing more than talking about it. The hammer of pain has yet to fall. However, in just the last month the price of gasoline has gone up from around $3.85 per gallon to around $4.40 per gallon. One month! Tourism is dropping (around 17 percent from last year) and the cost of food imports are rising. Ouch. The military is also considering reducing the size of their presence in Hawaii because of the high cost of fuel. It's a major strategic port but it's anyone's guess as to what the military presence will be in the next 10 years.

Florida will be a major energy exporter after the transition. They have vast amounts of solar resources. Some of the electricity generated by those solar resources will be stored in EV batteries. If you think about it, Florida is in a great position. They have an economy that relies on huge amounts of tourism based transportation and they have vast amounts of solar to fill all of the required batteries. No drilling required! ;)


The 22% petroleum figure from 2005 has apparently increased to 31%, see http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/energy_summary.cfm/state=FL. The pie chart is 1/2 page down on the right. But another source shows 12-21% petroleum (an all-year and a summer chart respectively) http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profiles/florida.pdf.

The disparity in these percentages must arise from "definitions". "Petroleum" includes things like pet-coke which is an asphalt-like substance scrapped out of petroleum cracking towers and I know Jacksonville's power utility ("JP&L" I think) generates with pet-coke.

Bottom line though, Florida doesn't have hydro and most population growth happened after nuclear power was shut down by environmentalists so most remaining options are fossil fuels; Funny that nuclear is now recognized as one of the cleanest ways to make multi-GigaWatt plants and we still haven't started building like crazy!

And, where you ask is the solar power in the "Sunshine State"; not even visible in the % generation statistics. The government has to make this more attractive because it just doesn't compare economically to coal, so how can power companies embrace it when they have customer rates and stockholder earnings to worry about? There are many great reasons to subsidize PV arrays on people's homes (terrorist proofing the grid, for one), and PV arrays at employer plants to provide plug-in recharging in the parking lot should be the #2 Energy Policy agenda, #1 being a $10,000 tax-credit on a PHEV-40 plug-in hybrid to get plug-ins into customer hands fast. A $1 billion program would put 100,000 Volts on the road, at the cost of 36 hours in Iraq; now that's sobering - for the cost of 36 hours of a war we could eliminate the original need for that war, and future wars like it!

Not all of Florida's energy news is grim though, Orlando Utilities Commission recently opened a DOE funded ($430million grant) Clean Coal plant. "Clean coal" is actually several evolving technolgies and I'm sure the Orlando plant doesn't have CO2 sequestering, but it is a liquification (prior to burning) process and is impressively clean from a soot and noxious odor standpoint. As long as they can make a profit on ME driving my electric car for $.02/mile, how much fuel could they actually be burning?!?

The 22% petroleum figure from 2005 has apparently increased to 31%, see http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/energy_summary.cfm/state=FL. The pie chart is 1/2 page down on the right. But another source shows 12-21% petroleum (an all-year and a summer chart respectively) http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profiles/florida.pdf.

The disparity in these percentages must arise from "definitions". "Petroleum" includes things like pet-coke which is an asphalt-like substance scrapped out of petroleum cracking towers and I know Jacksonville's power utility ("JP&L" I think) generates with pet-coke.

Bottom line though, Florida doesn't have hydro and most population growth happened after nuclear power was shut down by environmentalists so most remaining options are fossil fuels; Funny that nuclear is now recognized as one of the cleanest ways to make multi-GigaWatt plants and we still haven't started building like crazy!

And, where you ask is the solar power in the "Sunshine State"; not even visible in the % generation statistics. The government has to make this more attractive because it just doesn't compare economically to coal, so how can power companies embrace it when they have customer rates and stockholder earnings to worry about? There are many great reasons to subsidize PV arrays on people's homes (terrorist proofing the grid, for one), and PV arrays at employer plants to provide plug-in recharging in the parking lot should be the #2 Energy Policy agenda, #1 being a $10,000 tax-credit on a PHEV-40 plug-in hybrid to get plug-ins into customer hands fast. A $1 billion program would put 100,000 Volts on the road, at the cost of 36 hours in Iraq; now that's sobering - for the cost of 36 hours of a war we could eliminate the original need for that war, and future wars like it!

Not all of Florida's energy news is grim though, Orlando Utilities Commission recently opened a DOE funded ($430million grant) Clean Coal plant. "Clean coal" is actually several evolving technolgies and I'm sure the Orlando plant doesn't have CO2 sequestering, but it is a liquification (prior to burning) process and is impressively clean from a soot and noxious odor standpoint. As long as they can make a profit on ME driving my electric car for $.02/mile, how much fuel could they actually be burning?!?

If by "petroleum" you count natural gas, then the 30% makes sense.