🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2ibc1c$3mu@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>,
Wael El-Sharif <waele@seas.gwu.edu> wrote:
>EVs cuurently require 0.35 kwh/mi
>That is CLEANER.  As for having to build new power plants, the answer is not
>necessarily - at least not on a large scale.  Because of Demand Side 
>Management (DSM), electric utilities in the U.S. have differed the need to
>build about 54 medium size power plants. DSM aims at reducing peak demand
>by offering incentives to customers to use more efficient electric equipment.


	However, there comes a time when this just doesn't work anymore.
	There is a steadily growing _minimum_ power demand that flourescents
	and heat pumps are just not going to fix.

	Lest we be forgetful, we have the perfect example of the power 
	utilities inability to meet demand when it occurs:  the recent 
	bout of cold and snow on the East coast left people in many areas
	under the threat of rolling blackouts because they power companies
	could not meet demand.  No amount of demand side management is 
	going to reduce these peak demands--ever.  The ideal time to
	charge EVs is at night because demand is less--but will it still be 
	less once EVs are popular?  No.  Will people restrict their 
	charging to nighttime?  No--if EVs ever really take off, people
	will be charging them at work, at school, during their commute.
	This is necessary because of the tiny battery capacity of even the
	best EVs.


>Should the need to build more plants arise, it will still be cleaner as
>can be seen from the above figures.  At the power plants emissions are
>controllable and are away from our homes.


	I'll grant both of these.


>As for "battery technology" look at the improvements over the past few month.


	I must have missed them.  Please eamil me.  Do not include references
	to energy-efficiency improvements (e.g., with laptop computers) 
	because these are not applicable to EVs.  Unless someone has come up
	with a way to push more storage into a lead acid (or lithium, or
	aerobic batteries, or whatever) battery, and lower the weight,
	and shrink the size, EVs are still not economically viable.  Unless 
	someone has come up with a way to make flywheels safe in the 
	face of a critical failure, those are out, too.


>The government, auto manufacturers and electric utilities are spending 
>significant amounts of money to speed up battery R&D.

	
	Ah, the AIDS approach to research: throw more dollars at it, 
	and you're bound to solve the problem.  This is also the approach
	used with cancer research (progress: none, mostly, death rates have
	been pretty much constant since 1960).  


> These funds were not
>available before and hence there was not much innovation.


	I read a quote once, but I can't remember who said it:
	"Money doesn't change physics, Mr. President."  


> Know things are
>different. Electric vehicles will come to be whether we like it or not. The 
>price will drop - simple economics, mass production.


	It will be a long time, if ever, before EVs become cost competitive
	(as well as competitive in the areas of safety and performance, 
	which includes maximum round trip) with gasoline automobiles.  Mass
	production wont happen until after that point.

	Of course, the government could mandate EV production.  I'm sure
	that would serve the public good.

	Anyone remember all the hype that the hydrogen-driven vehicles 
	got 6 or 7 years ago?  Didn't work out.  How about the super-hyped
	"Lean Machine" that even Disney got behind?  Didn't go anywhere.
	Somehow, I think EVs will be the "atomic powered car" of the 90's.
	(Or, if you want a more recent comparison, the "hovercraft" 
	of the 90s.)


-- 
New .signature under development.  Start your development now!  Beat the crowd!