|
San Fran phasing out gasoline? Electric fueling station info
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ Shibby |
http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/21/better-places-1-billion-electric-vehicle-grid-endorsed-by-bay/
| quote: |
Better Place's $1 billion electric vehicle grid headed to Bay Area
by Thomas Ricker
Nov 21st 2008
Need another reason to live in America's other bastion of social liberalism and homelessness? How about a $1 billion electric vehicle re-charging infrastructure in the Bay Area? Palo Alto's Better Place is finally bringing its ambitious, city-wide electrical grid and battery exchange service home after staking plans to do the same in Israel, Denmark, and Australia. The plan just endorsed by the San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco Mayors (without coughing up any money), is expected to result in 250,000 charging ports (for topping off charges), 200 battery-swap stations (for trips over 100 miles), and a driver service center by 2012 -- network planing and permitting will begin in 2009 with infrastructure deployment set to kickoff in 2010. Here's how it works, customers will receive a discounted price on electric vehicles when they subscribe to drive a certain number of miles -- Better Place will own the batteries. Besides clearing the way of government bureaucracy, the mayors have agreed to offer incentives for companies that install the plug-in stations. Now get this, Better Place expects to lure electric vehicles from the usual suspects like Toyota, Renault-Nissan, and GM in addition to, get this, Tesla Motors. Oh yes. Almost makes us want to hug an Upper Haight, teenage, poser hippie. Almost.
Update: Coincidentally, Tesla is considering a small, swappable battery for its Model S sport sedan that, according to Elon Musk, could be changed "faster than you can fill a car with gasoline." Ah, synergy.
|
Electric refueling stations to be placed in San Fran, with vehicles to follow.
This will open up the path for it to eventually merge everywhere, and will signal the end of the hydrocarbon age. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Thank heavens. Are electric cars finally coming back to California? |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
The next four years will be a breath of fresh air for you then, hopefully. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Ford Scion Looks Beyond Bailout to Green Agenda
By BILL VLASIC
DEARBORN, Mich. — As the Detroit auto companies contend with their worst financial crisis in decades, the most famous American auto executive has stayed largely out of sight.
But William C. Ford Jr., the executive chairman and scion of the founding family of the Ford Motor Company, has been preparing for a bigger role in the industry’s plan for survival.
While General Motors and Chrysler plead to Congress for a bailout, Mr. Ford has reached out to President-elect Barack Obama in hopes that his company can benefit from the administration’s longer-term strategies for the auto industry.
Mr. Ford has been working behind the scenes, meeting one-on-one with Mr. Obama in August, conferring with his senior economic advisers, and teaming up with Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan to push a vision of a leaner, greener auto industry.
With Detroit on the brink of disaster, the great-grandson of Henry Ford could play a critical role in how the Obama administration decides to assist the companies financially and shape broader energy policies.
“One of the things that I feel very encouraged about is the president-elect and where he’d like to take this country in terms of energy, and I completely buy into his vision,” Mr. Ford said in an interview, his first since the Big Three approached Washington lawmakers about a rescue plan.
He can afford to take a longer view because Ford, unlike G.M. and Chrysler, does not need an immediate infusion of government aid to stay in business.
While Ford’s chief executive, Alan R. Mulally, joined his counterparts from G.M. and Chrysler in testifying before Congress last week, Ford is not asking for an immediate bailout from Washington for now.
The company has enough cash on hand — $18.9 billion, as well as a $10.7 billion line of credit with private lenders — that will keep it running through 2009 without cutting development of its next generation of more fuel-efficient cars.
While Ford cannot continue to burn cash indefinitely, it is also not on the verge of bankruptcy like G.M. and Chrysler. And the health of the company presents a unique opportunity for Mr. Ford, 51, who has been chairman of the company since 1999 and served five years as its chief executive.
“We have a plan that is high-tech, product-driven, which is a fuel economy plan,” he said. “And we have kept that plan in place under these tough conditions.”
In August, Mr. Ford shared those plans with Mr. Obama, then candidate for president, when he was in Lansing, Mich., for a speech on energy policy.
“We talked about the electrification of our industry and other fuel-economy issues,” Mr. Ford said. “He’s a great listener and he asked all the right questions.”
Mr. Ford said they focused on a few specific, industrywide issues. One was government help to put more electric cars on the road.
“One of the things we need to sort out as a country is batteries,” Mr. Ford said. “We really don’t want to trade one foreign dependency, oil, for another foreign dependency, batteries.” The main producers of batteries are Asian manufacturers.
He does not profess to have Mr. Obama’s ear yet on the how to save Detroit. But Mr. Ford is keeping close contact through Governor Granholm, a member of the president-elect’s economic advisory team.
“I think he is a key player,” she said of Mr. Ford. “He has tremendous credibility with respect to the serious issues related to renewable energy and energy security for this nation.”
Mr. Ford has been Detroit’s most vocal environmentalist since becoming the first family member to run Ford since his uncle, Henry Ford II.
Even when Ford was living off profits from its big sport utility vehicles, he was pushing to take the company in a greener direction. Ford was the first automaker to bring to market a hybrid version of an S.U.V., the Ford Escape, and it is introducing a new line of Ecoboost engines next year that will cut fuel consumption by up to 20 percent.
The Ford family controls the automaker by virtue of its 70.85 million shares of Class B stock, which carry 40 percent voting rights for the entire company.
But the family’s wealth has taken a drastic hit as losses have mounted at Ford and its stock price has plunged.
The family’s Class B shares were worth $101 million at Friday’s closing price of $1.43 a share, down 81 percent from a year ago when the shares had a value of $532 million.
Mr. Ford also owns 5.2 million shares individually, which have dropped in value to $7.4 million from $39 million.
“The family clearly has taken an enormous financial beating,” Mr. Ford said. “But the family still is here and standing behind the company.”
The company is in better shape than G.M. and Chrysler, but just barely. Ford has lost $24 billion since 2006, and it reduced its cash cushion by $7.9 billion in the third quarter this year.
Two years ago, Ford was seen as the riskiest bet in the industry to survive when it mortgaged nearly all its assets, even its blue Ford oval trademark, to secure a huge line of credit.
Now, with the collapse of the credit market, G.M. and Chrysler cannot borrow money on their assets and could face insolvency by the end of the year without federal assistance.
Mr. Ford said his company was interested in being able to access government loans only if the economy continues to deteriorate. “We’re trying very hard not to need it,” he said. “Our plan is to have our own liquidity and get through without it.”
Ford has already undergone an extensive revamping at the direction of Mr. Mulally, who succeeded Mr. Ford as the automaker’s chief executive in 2006.
Since then, the company has cut 40,000 jobs, sold off three of its brands and begun an effort to transform its truck-heavy vehicle fleet with an influx of smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
Mr. Ford remained in Detroit last week as Mr. Mulally endured two days of harsh criticism by lawmakers over Detroit’s financial plight, along with G.M.’s chairman, Rick Wagoner, and Chrysler’s chairman, Robert L. Nardelli.
In the interview, Mr. Ford said that some of the skepticism from Congress about the industry’s future was justified. “I completely understand the frustration that Americans feel and it came out loud and clear this week,” he said. “I don’t think we told our story terribly well.”
After 15 years of relying on pickup trucks and S.U.V.’s for profit, Ford is putting the bulk of its capital investment into smaller cars.
Much of the debate in Washington has centered on the best source of government money for an emergency loan program for Detroit.
One is a $25 billion low-interest loan program already passed by Congress that provides money specifically for improvements in fuel efficiency.
Ford has applied for $7 billion of those loans, which are administered by the Department of Energy. Mr. Ford expects that any aid from the Obama administration in the future will be tied to improvements in fuel economy.
“We just submitted our application to the D.O.E. and what’s interesting is in the next two years, 75 percent of our vehicles will qualify for their definition of advanced vehicle technology,” he said.
Mr. Ford said he was committed to helping Mr. Obama end America’s dependence on foreign oil whether Detroit gets a bailout before the end of the year or not.
“It’s all about fuel economy and energy independence,” he said. “I passionately believe that Ford can and should be part of that solution.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/business/24ford.html |
Praise the terrible recession! A global catastrophe was the only way changes like this would even be considered by the big 3. There is real opportunity here. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
Praise the terrible recession! A global catastrophe was the only way changes like this would even be considered by the big 3. There is real opportunity here. |
Yeah.
Too bad we can't just put all this money from the bailout into willing upstarts who won't it up as readily as "the big 3". |
|
|
| ali92 |
Am I the only one here that thinks this is a bit of a goofy idea as opposed to spending the money on a real mass-transit system that moves people instead of cars? What happens when you drive outside the area & no stations are deployed? You're stuck on the side of the road!
I'm not saying electric cars can't work but there would need to be an aggressive push to as standard design that works for charging all makes & models of cars. It would also have to happen all at once & at least continent-wide (think: every fuel station would need to be fitted with one of these charging terminals & charge times will be quite long unless people keep the batteries topped off always), requiring a crazy amount of funding that would be better spent on a good modern passenger rail system both nationally & regionally throughout the US. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
Am I the only one here that thinks this is a bit of a goofy idea as opposed to spending the money on a real mass-transit system that moves people instead of cars? What happens when you drive outside the area & no stations are deployed? You're stuck on the side of the road!
I'm not saying electric cars can't work but there would need to be an aggressive push to as standard design that works for charging all makes & models of cars. It would also have to happen all at once & at least continent-wide (think: every fuel station would need to be fitted with one of these charging terminals & charge times will be quite long unless people keep the batteries topped off always), requiring a crazy amount of funding that would be better spent on a good modern passenger rail system both nationally & regionally throughout the US. |
That's the point:
You start in San Fran, and it will spread everywhere.
You can have refueling stations in your garage, by the way. :) They just want to find ways to make cash like they do so with gasoline.
By the way, Cali is also improving on the transit systems you suggest, with the most recent one being passage of a shinkansen (bullet train) between San Fran and LA.
The fact remains however that the US is a massive space with rural, suburban, and urban environments spread far and wide; cars are optimal travel for now, but not in their current form, and there is a lot of money to be made to those who develop a new system. Having local governments help fund the push is going to be the trigger, since you can bet your ass the gas and car companies won't. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
I find it is funny in sunny california due to californias past energy shortfalls and brown outs... to run their auto system on electricity...
|
Fact check: San Francisco is NOT sunny. We live in a cloud. Sometimes I wonder if its marijuana smoke. :stongue: |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
Am I the only one here that thinks this is a bit of a goofy idea as opposed to spending the money on a real mass-transit system that moves people instead of cars? What happens when you drive outside the area & no stations are deployed? You're stuck on the side of the road!
I'm not saying electric cars can't work but there would need to be an aggressive push to as standard design that works for charging all makes & models of cars. It would also have to happen all at once & at least continent-wide (think: every fuel station would need to be fitted with one of these charging terminals & charge times will be quite long unless people keep the batteries topped off always), requiring a crazy amount of funding that would be better spent on a good modern passenger rail system both nationally & regionally throughout the US. |
As long as the electric cars have a hook up for 120v, 60Hz power, like what comes out of the wall, they won't be stranded in North America. It will actually be easier to build the infrastructure then the oil infrastructure was originally.
Yes charge times will be longer, but that just means that people will have to be more aware of the status of thier power supply. CAA (or AAA for those in the south) will get a boost (quite litterally) from this new tech.
I recently read that electric cars, after transmision line losses are accounted for, still get millage about 5 times as far as gas cars. That means that for the same amount of energy used the cars will go much further. IMO this is the key measure of viability because I think it means that (would like to see better proof) even a shift to buring all the oil in a central location, converting it to electricity and using it for cars would be better than current cars. |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by atbell
As long as the electric cars have a hook up for 120v, 60Hz power, like what comes out of the wall, they won't be stranded in North America. It will actually be easier to build the infrastructure then the oil infrastructure was originally.
Yes charge times will be longer, but that just means that people will have to be more aware of the status of thier power supply. CAA (or AAA for those in the south) will get a boost (quite litterally) from this new tech.
I recently read that electric cars, after transmision line losses are accounted for, still get millage about 5 times as far as gas cars. That means that for the same amount of energy used the cars will go much further. IMO this is the key measure of viability because I think it means that (would like to see better proof) even a shift to buring all the oil in a central location, converting it to electricity and using it for cars would be better than current cars. |
All true, and add to that there needs to be an agreement this time on a true standard world-wide system to be used for the new vehicles before we end up with a mish-mash of stations that charges only brands A to G, others charging E, M, Q, S, K, Z, etc.
North America needs to stop being an island in their technology standards compared to (most of) the rest of the world. For mobile phones it is similar with the majority of nations choosing a couple frequency bands on each generation of a single system, GSM/UMTS, & North America having multiple systems (in the 2G world it was CDMA, GSM, & iDen, then in 3G it's EV-DO, UMTS, & likely WiMax soon) all with their own frequency bands etc., resulting in a lack of great devices as well as true competition in this market. It seems the best phrase that applies to North America is 'the nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from'. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
All true, and add to that there needs to be an agreement this time on a true standard world-wide system to be used for the new vehicles before we end up with a mish-mash of stations that charges only brands A to G, others charging E, M, Q, S, K, Z, etc.
North America needs to stop being an island in their technology standards compared to (most of) the rest of the world. For mobile phones it is similar with the majority of nations choosing a couple frequency bands on each generation of a single system, GSM/UMTS, & North America having multiple systems (in the 2G world it was CDMA, GSM, & iDen, then in 3G it's EV-DO, UMTS, & likely WiMax soon) all with their own frequency bands etc., resulting in a lack of great devices as well as true competition in this market. It seems the best phrase that applies to North America is 'the nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from'. |
We definitely do need a standard.
How about AC/DC? :) |
|
|
|
|
