In the Falls Church News-Press, editor and retired CIA analyst Tom Whipple continues with part four of The Future of Our Cars. Unlike the suitably skeptical Victor Juarez G., Whipple finds the plethora of speculative EV announcements nothing but encouraging: "… there is no practical alternative for personal mobility with the speed, flexibility and comfort that we have become accustomed to except the electric car." Assuming battery technology keeps pace, he writes, massive solar, wind, ocean and biomass power will provide enough juice to keep us happily motoring in all shapes and sizes of EVs, plugin hybrids and serial hybrids (which he calls "extended range" vehicles) like the oft-delayed Tesla and Volt. Whipple doesn't mention "Cleantech" by name, but warns that if we can't build a green infrastructure, or reliable batteries, we face an era of austerity and conservation. Perish the thought.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Like most EV aficionados, Tom takes pains to avoid use of the N word. After paving the entire U.S. Southwest with solar collectors and even assuming a certain corpulent senator allows wind farms off Cape Cod, the only reasonable way to make up the energy deficit in Whipple’s dream world has to be Nuclear power plants.
Speaking of oft-delayed, your illustration shows a vehicle that was developed, road and safety tested, and then abandoned by Ford. The Think City – developed to the tune of more money that Mulally likes to think about now, I guess.
They developed it together with Think of Norway in response to the CA demand that carmakers offer an EV or alternative drive-train vehicle in their stable. When that requirement disappeared, so did Ford’s interest. This was back in 2000-2001. Which means that they could have had a vehicle on the roads – and in the private communities and suburbia – years ago.
I’ve actually tried it – even has air conditioning, and people are driving these in mid-winter in Norway, commuting to work. Range varies, according to the age of the battery, which was always a weak spot – but think in excess of 100miles at legal speeds.
Why aren’t we building nuclear plants like crazy? okay, that was rhetorical and I know the answer: no one wants one anywhere near their backyard. I keep hoping though that some brave person will become the nuclear champion.
RF provided the pic. Even though I actually have Think in my bookmarks, I had forgotten about it.
http://en.think.no/
As far as nukes, I’d like to see private industry put up the front money.
Maybe he doesn’t like nuclear? Seems he likes EVs, though, and I guess that’s what his article is about?
The French and others seem capable of running nuclear plants well, and most analysts agree that this is how to cover the shortfall between available energy and demand. Though – if the Soviets hadn’t sent a couple of thousand guys to their certain death, covering up the Chernobyl hole, sections of Europe might be an interesting place now. But there’s always an upside – the area around the plant, which was and remains evacuated, is one of the most amazing wildlife reserves of Europe now. The animals have the place completely to themselves, saw a documentary from it, unbelievable concentrations of wildlife. (Not so healthy, of course, because of background radiation, but the animals don’t carry Geiger counters.)
@ Stein
Re Chernobyl: It’s a reverse Angor Wat or Macchu Picchu; there is a fascinating website I discovered years back that may hold some real interest for TTAC readers.
Check out http://www.kidofspeed.com Elena, a biker chick whose father was a nuke physicist has an amazing photolog on the state of decay. Thanks for reminding me.
Excuse me car experts could I have at least one American engineer name here who would have done some work on Th!nk car whether blueprint or any other damn physical tangible participation. Go ford fans, bring them on those surnames, please! Thanx!
I love the idea of what electric vehicles could be. Smarts don’t particularly interest me but a less expensive Tesla sure does. I’d also like to see plug-in hybrid versions of some small SUVs and I’d really enjoy (even if its not currently viable)a fully electric truck.
@ several writers:
The reason we aren’t building new nuclear plants is mainly because of the start-up costs. Its approximately $4 Billion for a new (two reactor) generation station. That and the start-up paperwork and regulations force a rather large initial investment without any guaranteed pay-off.
Also, the U.S. doesn’t currently allow the reprocessing of spent fuel (Most of Europe does).
As a side note, the Nuclear Industry has one of the best safety records in the history of the world (I know, I’m a engineer at one). And new applications for about 30 plants have been submitted.
If new plants get built we would, as a country, be able to handle the additional demand placed on our grid that a large scale shift to electric vehicles would cause. Electric cars have a huge potential and I’d definitely get in line for one if the mainstream manufacturers start designing more utilitarian (larger and more all weather capable) and performance-oriented vehicles.
optic.
We have a lot of NIMBY’s in Texas, but not as many as a lot of other states. We are getting a couple more reactors and a LOT of wind turbines.
No, you don’t need a ton more nuclear to run EVs. Sigh. EVs help even out power demand and make the existing infrastructure a lot more efficient, actually – a lot of that wind power blows at night, and the nuke runs at the same capacity all day (some plants just waste the night energy; others do things like storing energy via water pumping and the like).
I feel like a broken record, but
1. Texas will soon have the energy equivalent of 23 full sized nuke plants in WIND. That’s the equivalent of nearly 1/4 of the US’ total nuclear capacity. Wind is growing about four times as fast as nuclear worldwide. Why? partly because it’s less capital intensive, doesn’t take nearly as long to get the thing running. You couild, theoretically, mass produce them.
2. The notion, conveyed by a poster above, that you’d need to cover the entire southwest in PV panels to get a not so significant quantity of solar is nonsense.
Why do people assume that just because nuclear has a macho name, it’s the only way we can get a signficant quantity of electricity??? And what’s the matter with enacting a carbon tax to discourage fossil fuels, and letting the market decide where to put the bucks for replacement technology? Why do so many people think we have to ram nuclear down everyone’s throat? I’m not saying nuclear’s a non-starter. I’m saying let it compete.
As for that certain corpulent senator blocking Cape Wind, the process has moved beyond where he has the ability to block it anymore. And I voted against him in the last election.
David,
415 wind turbines = 1 reactor
Not saying anything one way or another, just a comparison.
Realistically, the solution is going to be a mixture of several options, varying on location and feasibility.
But why do the lower cost hybrids and eco-cars need to look like alien birth pods (i.e. prius, fortwo)?
And maybe even something that doesn’t force me to give up my utilitarian capabilities (at a reasonable cost)?
Oh I’m the first to say that there are no silver bullets (except efficiency), only some lead bullets and a lot of buckshot. But you could certainly mix wind with farming, so I don’t see it’s need for land as such a great problem. And you can put wind or solar on marginal land, and wind on the water as they do in Denmark and as hopefully they will do in my backyard (Cape Wind).
I think the thing about the Prius is a lot of people who drive hybrids want everybody to know, so the weird styling is a plus. Tht’s probably why the Prius did so much better than, say, the Honda Civic hybrid. I also like that the car is distinctive, unlike most cars today. But I think it’s quibbling to worry about the look of these thigns. We both agree with need more efficient cars, that, at least in my opinion, should still be fun.
@M1EK
You’re right, the grid needs to push electricity even at low-demand times and recharging EVs in the middle of the night would be a very sensible way of using that juice, and it wouldn’t require adding to existing capacity, it would mean utilizing it better.
@jurisb
Not certain I understand your question, not often you find people writing “out of breath!”
If you’re wondering about Ford’s participation in Think, then they bought the plant in the late 90s, when Think only had a fairly gruesome plastic shelled EV on offer.
With that as the starting point, Ford poured money into developing the Think City, and a lot of that development work was performed in the US.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002/01/03/electric-ford.htm
Think is presently under new management, and trying to get off the ground again, though now that everyone is crowding into EV I doubth they’ll make much headway, as they’ll be up against the majors. (They’ve even tried collaborating with Tesla on their battery, good luck with that.)
Ford offloaded Think on Kamkorp, which was really, really dumb.
You may find some info or leads here:
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/think_kamkorp.html
@eh_political
Your kidofspeed link wasn’t very helpful – two d’s works better, but I found Elena’s blog and link page. Frightening and also haunting stuff.
I didn’t know they called the men who cleared the core off the roof biorobots. Sigh.
Here’s the film of that work – most died: http://www.helpmearoundtheworld.com/elenafilatova/video1.wmv
More links – and some truly astonishing photos among them:
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/highres/highres.html
Wish nuclear didn’t have these potentially insane downsides – it’s otherwise the solution to a lot of energy problems. But people seem to forget.
David,
I am with you on the “every molecule” approach. I think a lot of people start talking nuclear because it is the only single solution that would make it. I bring up nuclear because it brings to the front all the folks who want us to go back to reading books by candle light. Or who live in a fantasy world about how much energy is needed for even their life style. If you force those people to be honest, they lose any influence they may have.
I also bring up nuclear because I believe the waste could easily be shot into space. Since the waste is usually the first objection, we can then move it along.
Landcrusher,
Wind is already cheaper than nuclear in a lot of places, and I suspect the same will be true of PVs and ocean tech in 10-15 years. I don’t see why renewables shoudn’t be able to supply the world’s energy, once the low-hanging efficiency fruit is picked. I suspect that 10 years from now I’ll be able to supply my house’s electricity from PVs for a reasonable cost. I know someone in the Boston area who is going to be doing this very shortly, with a 20 year payback (he’s in the business, hence his willingness to go for such a lousy payback).
Blasting the waste into space scares me. Think Challenger.
David,
Sure, build all you want. There will not be enough to power Houston. You will need more. That’s my point. That is why nuclear is NECESSARY even if not desirable. (Wind is desirable so long as you avoid the pitfalls). The problem has been that many groups want to negate the possibility of nuclear. I always want to find out what those people do for a living. I think they realize that the cost benefit of less energy is good for them and are voting their wallets. For instance, if you are an average musician, your employment opportunities improve if people are returned to having to walk to the pub and listen to the music rather than watch tv or surf.
As for the challenger comment, we have to get space shots to be as safe as commercial air travel is today. That is the goal. THEN you put the waste on the rocket. Not before.
Landcrusher,
Taking off is always the most dangerous part of flying, and will probably remain so for rocketry. There are, I think, some far out schemes for elevators into space, that I probably read about in wired, which, now that I thikn about it, might be a safe way of getting the stuff off of the planet if that ever works. And despite my confidence that we could use a hell of a lot less energy without interfering with our American quality of life, if the population is really going to reach 9-10 billion people, solar might not be enough. I don’t know whether we will need nuclear or not, but I don’t think fission should be taken off the table at this point. I simply object to the claim that it has some magical power that renewables don’t have. It doesn’t. They’re all lead bullets IMO. (I suspect you wouldn’t disagree.)
I’m not sure whether you’re using Houston as a metaphor for the space program, or whether you’re saying renewables wno’t power it, or what. But the electric capacity of the US is 500 nukes worth, so Texas’ soon to be 23 nukes of wind is ~4-5%, while Texas is about 7% of the population. So that’s very substantial.